From declanm@netcom.com Tue Aug 8 19:12:38 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id SAA09727; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:56:25 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17897; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:53:18 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:53:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:52:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom.netcom.com (netcom.netcom.com [192.100.81.100]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA02761 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:52:22 -0400 Received: by netcom.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id SAA22371; Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:13:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:13:37 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: Rimm's Conclusions vs. Methods To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu cc: rab@well.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: [From a post on the WELL. --Declan] Topic 1067 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare #234 of 234: Bob Bickford (rab) Tue Aug 8 '95 (17:43) 24 lines I find myself disturbed that so many people, including apparently the writer of that CMU memo above, are trying so hard to separate Rimm's conclusions from his methods. So often I have seen phrases which say, in essence, that Rimm has "raised important issues", or "clarified the extent of the problem", or done "novel research", before they go on to say that his methodology may have had problems. As we've established rather well in these topics, the problems with Rimm's work are by no means limited to his unethical data gathering methods; his logic is flawed, his numerical calculations are filled with errors and omissions, as far as I can tell *none* of his conclusions are actually supported by the data he presents (however obtained); in short, the entire study is a joke. If all we manage to get out of this is a slap-on-the-wrist "don't gather data that way anymore, and by-the-way your novel research raised important issues" type of statement from CMU, then virtually everyone outside of a few academics will feel perfectly justified in continuing to quote "The Rimm CMU Study", with possibly a footnote that "Rimm had to snoop on these pornographers to find out what they were really up to" as a clever distortion of the minor slap-on-the-wrist that makes it sound like he dug into the "real" data with his "study". If that happens, we will have lost the war, and wasted our time. Rimm's work *must* be exposed as the farce that it is! Feel free to quote me.