Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sunday 30-Jul-95, p.E3
 Letter to the Editor
 
                   ISSUE ONE: The CYBERPORN CYBERFLAP
 
                        Nothing Taken or Gained
 
 The July 25 Post-Gazette reports that two Canadian researchers,
 Michael Mehta and Dwaine Plaza, "claim that ideas and conclusions" in
 a study of computer pornography of which I was principal investigator,
 were taken from them ("CMU Looks at Plagiarism Claim in Study").  Our
 study took nothing from their work.
 
 The study conducted at Carnegie Mellon University, "Marketing
 Pornography on the Information Superhighway," was accepted for
 publication by The Georgetown Law Journal in substantially complete
 form in November 1994, a month before I read the paper by Mehta and
 Plaza.  Moreover, their sample size is so small as to be virtually
 insignificant.
 
 I got no ideas from my conversation with Mr. Mehta.  Every concept in
 our study that you report he claims as his own was already in our
 study prior to any contact with him or his work, or was rejected
 independent of that contact.  If anything, it was I who offered him
 technical and other assistance.
 
 Given that Mehta and PLaza's work was irrelevant to our focus, I
 decided not to write the harsh criticism of it that would have been
 required if I had cited it at all.  This decision was supported by the
 Journal of Sex Research's withdrawal of its offer to publish their
 paper, and Mr. Mehta's indication that he was in a vulnerable
 employment situation.  So, in footnote 31, I politely dismissed their
 approach without citing their paper directly.  Not referencing work
 that is essentially irrelevant and also without merit is a decision
 scholars are entitled to make.
 
 The charge of plagiarism you report is part of a witchhunt of
 fabricated charges against our study designed to cover up its
 scientific findings on the reality of the use of pornography on
 computer networks.
 
 Marty Rimm
 Carnegie Mellon University
 Oakland