Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:17:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: D B McCullagh Subject: Re: Marty Rimm in Bed With Anti-Porn Groups Tell me somehing, Declan, given that it turned out that your plagiarism story was patently false, what else do you think is false? What do you think I am really guilty of, vs. what do you think is pure witchhunt? Marty --- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:26:00 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Marty Rimm in Bed With Anti-Porn Groups Marty, Rather than list all my opinions on this, permit me to say that I believe Mike's posts to be true and correct. I am interested in what you consider to be a witchhunt. I'm also interested in how you've been treated by our mutual friends in the provost and student affairs offices. Yours very truly, Declan Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #214 of 842: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Wed Oct 18 '95 (21:40) 21 lines Hey, Marty did respond to my solicitation for corrections, after all. Here's what he said: From Martin Rimm Oct 18, 95 11:33:53 pm -0400 Return-Path: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 23:33:53 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections Excerpts from mail: 18-Oct-95 Last chance for corrections by Mike Godwin@well.com > I'm getting lots of interest on the most recent piece, Marty. If there I suppose in your book, "lots of interest" is three people, one for Declan, and two if you count yourself, fatty. Marty Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #215 of 842: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Wed Oct 18 '95 (21:43) 32 lines This was my response: To Martin Rimm Oct 18, 95 09:36:18 pm -0700 Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Cc: declan (Declan McCullagh) Is this the only correction you can think of? It's not as if I don't give you opportunities to correct the record. This note does warm my heart, however. It seems to be the first instance I can think of in which you express genuine feeling. You're neither trying to pump me for information nor trying to get me to do anything else for you. I'm flattered, really. It's so rare that you treat another person as a human being, rather than as a tool to be used. I should mention, by the way, that I'm not finished with you yet. I wish I were, but there's still so much more to tell. Cheers. --Mike ------- Message 7/10 From Martin Rimm Oct 19, 95 11:28:26 am -0400 Return-Path: mr6e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections Cc: Martin Rimm Excerpts from mail: 18-Oct-95 Last chance for corrections by Mike Godwin@well.com > I'm getting lots of interest on the most recent piece, Marty. If there > are any factual corrections you'd like to make, you need to let me know in > the next day or two. Seriously, Mike, I don't see how you are being fair here. You toot your horn as a journalist, you say you want to give me a chance to respond, but you already posted your "Rimm/anti-porn links" piece on EFFector online _before_ you gave me a chance to make corrections. What gives here, Mike? Marty Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #225 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Fri Oct 20 '95 (22:47) 39 lines To Martin Rimm Oct 20, 95 10:37:41 pm -0700 Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections To: mr6e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Martin Rimm) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin) I did ask you for an interview, Marty, if you'll recall. I saved the e-mail in which you turned me down. But if you have corrections, I'll incorporate them in the permanent electronic version and in the print version, provided you get them to me soonest. --Mike > Excerpts from mail: 18-Oct-95 Last chance for corrections by Mike > Godwin@well.com > > I'm getting lots of interest on the most recent piece, Marty. If there > > are any factual corrections you'd like to make, you need to let me know in > > the next day or two. > > Seriously, Mike, I don't see how you are being fair here. You toot your > horn as a journalist, you say you want to give me a chance to respond, > but you already posted your "Rimm/anti-porn links" piece on EFFector > online _before_ you gave me a chance to make corrections. > > What gives here, Mike? > > Marty > Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #229 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:38) 39 lines Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: mnemonic@well.com Subject: Your articles Cc: Marvin Sirbu , Martin Rimm , Don Hale Status: RO Dear Mike, This is to notify you that your articles and e-mail about my GLJ piece are riddled with factual errors and are often defamatory. A few examples of your false facts concerning my article -- I can't spend my life correcting your fabrications; these are by no means the only ones -- include: - I never had any contact with anyone who is affiliated with the "Religious Right." - I had no assistance from Bruce Taylor. - Deen Kaplan did not write my legal footnotes. He had no say in the selection of the manuscript for publication. - No member of Congress or staffer ever saw the study until after it was published. John McMickle is the only staffer I ever had any contact with, with the exception of one brief call from a House staffer. - I did not know until 48 hours before press time that our study would be featured in a TIME cover. - I never heard of Len Musil. Labelling my work "fraudulent" and "academic fraud" is libel. Stop circulating lies about me and my work. Your vendetta is as baseless as it is obsessional. This letter is not for your further publication, quotation, or comment. Sincerely, Marty Rimm Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #230 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:42) 100 lines From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199510210800.BAA02980@well.com> Subject: Re: Your articles To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin), brock (Brock N. Meeks), declan (Declan McCullagh) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Rimm" at Oct 19, 95 02:39:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2570 Status: RO Marty, this is *wonderful*. It is also, to use your word, "riddled" with misrepresentations. > Dear Mike, > > This is to notify you that your articles and e-mail about my GLJ piece > are riddled with factual errors and are often defamatory. Nice word, that "riddled." > A few examples > of your false facts concerning my article -- I can't spend my life > correcting your fabrications; these are by no means the only ones -- Well, I will note for the record that I gave you an opportunity to correct any and all factual errors, and that you refused to do so. > include: > - I never had any contact with anyone who is affiliated with the > "Religious Right." Did you ever have contact with anyone from the National Law Center for Children and Families, or the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families? Are you denying contact with Deen Kaplan? > - I had no assistance from Bruce Taylor. When you say you had no "assistance," are you simply saying that Taylor didn't write any part of your article? > - Deen Kaplan did not write my legal footnotes. He had no say in the > selection of the manuscript for publication. Who did write the legal footnotes, Marty? David Banks and other sources say you didn't. > - No member of Congress or staffer ever saw the study until after it > was published. Oh, I never said they did, Marty. > John McMickle is the only staffer I ever had any contact > with, with the exception of one brief call from a House staffer. And when, precisely, did you have contact with McMickle? And who was the House staffer? > - I did not know until 48 hours before press time that our study > would be featured in a TIME cover. So, how do you explain your March note to Seth? And are you now claiming that you didn't know that Time was developing a cover around your study? > - I never heard of Len Musil. Did I say you had heard of Len Musil? > Labelling my work "fraudulent" and "academic fraud" is libel. I'm afraid not, Marty. Truth is a defense at libel law. But I would love it if you sued me. I ache to get you on the stand and under oath. > Stop > circulating lies about me and my work. Which lies are you referring to? > Your vendetta is as baseless as > it is obsessional. Vendetta? Hey, it's not as if I haven't been trying for months to get you to talk to me and tell me the truth. > This letter is not for your further publication, quotation, or comment. Why not? You certainly can't bind me to such an agreement unilaterally. > Sincerely, > > Marty Rimm Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #231 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:43) 826 lines Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #232 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:44) 83 lines From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199510210829.BAA24491@well.com> Subject: Re: Your articles To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic@well.com, sirbu+@andrew.cmu.edu, mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu, dh0c+@andrew.cmu.edu, declan (Declan McCullagh), brock (Brock N. Meeks) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Rimm" at Oct 19, 95 02:39:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2239 Status: RO To follow up with some more questions: > - I had no assistance from Bruce Taylor. Are you saying that you had no contact whatsoever with Bruce Taylor? Whom do you say you were referring to when you said your article was being refereed by a lawyer who'd argued obscenity cases before the Supreme Court? Who do you say were the four lawyers you said at one time were assisting you with the study? > - Deen Kaplan did not write my legal footnotes. Who are you saying did write them? > He had no say in the > selection of the manuscript for publication. Indeed he didn't. That was done by Meredith Kolsky and three other senior staff members of the GLJ. It will be noted that I did not say in my recent articles that Kaplan played that particular role at the GLJ. > - No member of Congress or staffer ever saw the study until after it > was published. This is a standard move, Marty. You frequently say that certain people never "saw the study" in order to cloud the fact that you or others had told them about it. It will be noted that my article does not claim that particular members of Congress or staffers "saw the study." > John McMickle is the only staffer I ever had any contact > with, with the exception of one brief call from a House staffer. What are the dates you say you were in contact with McMickle? Who are you saying was the House staffer? How many times were you in contact with McMickle? How many times were you in contact with Deen Kaplan? > - I did not know until 48 hours before press time that our study > would be featured in a TIME cover. Are you now claiming not to know that Time was planning to use your study for a cover? Are you now claiming not to have known this in March? Are you now denying that you made a study of Philip Elmer-DeWitt's writings in order to position your paper as something that would interest him? > - I never heard of Len Musil. Has anyone ever claimed you know Len Musil? > Labelling my work "fraudulent" and "academic fraud" is libel. Actually, it is not. These terms are both factually and legally accurate. > Stop > circulating lies about me and my work. Please identify, with quotations, the "lies" you think I have told. --Mike From Martin Rimm Oct 24, 95 03:56:28 pm -0400 Return-Path: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:56:28 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin I specifically asked you not to redistribute my note to you, but you did so publicly. While what you did may not be illegal (I don't know), I am curious to hear how and why you think releasing my private e-mail is entirely ethical. Couldn't I accuse you of being unethical for doing so? ~~ Marty From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic@well.com Marty, remember when I told you long ago that I'm more of a chess player than a poker player? That means I prefer to make all my moves out in the open. From a chessplayer's perspective, your motives were transparent: 1) If I'd kept your response secret, you could have said that you'd sent me corrections, but add that I did not acknowledge them. You'd have played up this argument with Sirbu and Hale, whom you cc'd with that message. You'd also have turned me into a collaborator with you on the issue of keeping some of your words secret. 2) If I'd revealed what you'd said, allowing public review of both your comments and my responses, you'd have the advantage that I'd circulate your (deceptive) words, plus the extra added benefit of being able to claim that I'd violated some (hazy and unarticulated) rule of ethics. It was a nice gambit, all told, but you can surely see why I opted for (2) -- your reliance on others to keep your secrets is too basic a tactic in your arsenal, and I could not allow myself to play along with it. The best choice, as always, was simply to let you speak and then analyze what you'd said. --Mike From Martin Rimm Oct 24, 95 05:18:08 pm -0400 Return-Path: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:18:08 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin So what would you do if you were me? I have 120 pages of e-mail from my professors that demonstrate their close involvement. Would you publicly release this e-mail if you were me? Could they complain releasing their e-mail was not ethical? Marty Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin) Marty, I think the thing you should do is tell the whole truth. This continues to be my advice. > So what would you do if you were me? I have 120 pages of e-mail from my > professors that demonstrate their close involvement. Would you publicly > release this e-mail if you were me? Could they complain releasing their > e-mail was not ethical? > > Marty > Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #278 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Wed Oct 25 '95 (10:39) 15 lines The only issue, really, is one of copyright, and that's mostly covered by the fair use provisions. An imperfect analogy may be drawn with paper mail, where the content belongs to the author even though the paper belongs to the recipient. But that's not dispositive, since e-mail is sent through the making of copies, whereas paper mail is not. A better analogy, in my view, is that the recipient of e-mail has a limited license to copy which is normally granted by the sender. Marty may attempt not to grant this license, but the fair-use provisions of the Copyright Act trump him. Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #291 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (14:29) 88 lines [I asked Marty about his 300 MB of project volume space on Andrew.] Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 05:59:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: Why do you want to know? Marty ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:52:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: Excerpts from mail: 26-Oct-95 Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes by Martin Rimm > Why do you want to know? I asked you why they were deleted and what's in the remaining one. Why? I may replicate part of your study, possibly through the SURG program (applications due this week) or perhaps just through the URI. How difficult was it for you to get the 300 MB of proj vol space? Who did you have to ask? Why did they get rid of 250 MB of space? Often researchers make their software tools available to researchers who want to replicate their study. If you still have your PERL scripts, that would make my life easier. In fact, your study may be impossible to replicate properly without them, since you don't go into exhaustive detail regarding categories... The way I see it, if you feel your study's conclusions are valid, you should welcome those who could validate your results. Thanks in advance, Declan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 10:48:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: If I still have my what scripts? Marty ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 15:02:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: Excerpts from mail: 26-Oct-95 Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes by Martin Rimm > If I still have my what scripts? PERL/awk/sed/csh/sh, etc. scripts. That you used to parse image descriptions. Any other tips, cyberporn researcher to cyberporn researcher? :) -Declan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:12:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: If you want an answer you'll have to first tell me how you know about the Perl scripts. Marty Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #292 of 842: Paul Bissex (biscuit) Thu Oct 26 '95 (14:35) 1 line More!! Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #293 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (14:52) 21 lines Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:51:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: >If you want an answer you'll have to first tell me how you know about >the Perl scripts. I think this is unreasonable. Are you interested in helping me replicate, and possibly validate, your research? If you are, you should be *happy* to send me a copy of the programs you used to parse the image descriptions. -Declan PS: You wrote to Seth: "I am working on a PERL program which classifies the images. For instance, every time the word 'dog' but not 'doggie' occurs in a description, perl writes it to the bestiality category." Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #294 of 842: EFF-Austin (jonl) Thu Oct 26 '95 (15:08) 1 line ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #295 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (15:08) 12 lines Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:07:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: You'll have to show yourself as an honorable person before you can just ask me for anything. Marty Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #299 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (15:28) 25 lines Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:27:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: >You'll have to show yourself as an honorable person before you can just >ask me for anything. Marty, I assume you're implying I'm not an honorable person. But I'm more interested in the restrictions you establish before deciding to help someone replicate your research. Wouldn't it make sense to ask me about my educational background and perhaps talk with my advisor -- in other words, investigate not my *ethical* credentials, but my *academic* ones? So are you going to help me replicate -- and perhaps validate -- your study or not? I'm just asking for some rudimentary help here. -Declan Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #301 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (17:32) 11 lines Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:13:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: According to Jessie, you should have your proposal in this week. I suspect you may be pulling my leg. Marty Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #302 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (17:33) 26 lines Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:24:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes Cc: >According to Jessie, you should have your proposal in this week. I >suspect you may be pulling my leg. I called Jessie last Thursday or Friday afternoon and spoke to her for about ten minutes. I asked her if I could have an advisor from outside my department sponsor my research (answer's yes), and she told me whom I should speak with about human subjects approval. (Evelyn Brnilovich, I think.) Actually, the SURG proposal should have been in on Wednesday, and I haven't written or submitted it yet. I'm not sure if I need funding, and if possible I'd rather not deal with Warner Hall paperwork. You used to like talking about your study. Why don't you want to answer my rather basic questions now? (I only want to replicate the Internet/Usenet portion, BTW.) -Declan Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #304 of 842: Declan McCullagh (declan) Thu Oct 26 '95 (18:41) 51 lines Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 18:58:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Adult BBS Project Volumes (Again!) Cc: >You'll have to show yourself as an honorable person before you can just >ask me for anything. BTW, you never did answer my question about project volumes. -Declan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:14:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: "Declan B. McCullagh" Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes (Again!) Cc: You'll have to get someone else to help you. Marty ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 20:31:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Martin Rimm Subject: Re: Adult BBS Project Volumes (Again!) Cc: >You'll have to get someone else to help you. You know, you're being anything but helpful. You know that I may joke occasionally -- like when I forwarded that Cyberporn Magazine info to you -- but I'm serious about this. I've taken the requisite research methods courses (for instance, Research Methods in Cognitive Psychology and Research Methods in Social Psychology), and I've ran experiments in the past. If I can work this into a research project for my final semester at CMU, so much the better. Perhaps we're speaking at cross purposes. If you want to talk "live", I'm logged on to unix19.andrew.cmu.edu right now. Just telnet to a unix server and type "zstart". -Declan Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 09:10:05 -0500 (EST) From: Martin Rimm To: mnemonic@eff.org Subject: CMU Porn Study Cc: Martin Rimm Status: RO As you may recall, I corresponded with you a number of times regarding a study entitled, "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway," of which I am the principal investigator. The study, while not distributed or read by anyone outside of the research team, has occasionally (and incorrectly) been invoked as a reason for the ban of the .sex hierarchy. Given that you will be on campus tomorrow, there are two things I would like to discuss with you. First, I would appreciate an independent check of our legal footnotes, which to some extent are based on your postings and articles. Second, our preliminary data indicate that there are no significant differences among individuals in communities across the country in what kinds of erotic materials, including pornography (visual and verbal) and obscenity, they find of interest. In our experiment we began by assuming that there were indeed community standards which differed across communities - that is, that some communities of individuals had no tolerance for or interest in say, pictures of heterosexual anal intercouse. We then began collecting data to allow the evaluation of the ~null hypothesis~ - that is, that there are no differences. Our conclusions are very clear: there are no differences when communities are defined by telephone area codes. This there are no ~community standards~on which communities differ. We would like to refine our findings by continued data collection and analysis. We have examined only one kind of erotic material - pictures about anal intercourse - and would like to look at other interests such as pedophilia, more kinds of paraphilias, and so on. We have examined only areas of the country (by telephone area codes) and want to consider other ways of structuring the data to compare major sections of the country, states, major metropolitan areas, etc. Please let me know if and when we can meet. Martin [Although I responded to Rimm's request, he did not contact me further to arrange that meeting prior to my trip to CMU. --MG] Topic 1029 [media]: The Newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek, USN&WR), continued #358 of 895: Donna L. Hoffman (prof) Thu Jun 29 '95 (10:52) 44 lines A few more emails with Marvin Sirbu where I give him some friendly advice, and then this comes in from Marty Rimm. I offer two comments here - he doesn't take responsiblity for the Web page (nor suggest who might be), and he doesn't explain how accusing me of being part of a conspirancy happened "accidentally." (It's possible the word "defamation" was in one of my emails to Sirbu...) In any event, he *does* apologize. Herewith: From mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Thu Jun 29 12:36:58 1995 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:32:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: hoffman@colette.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu (Donna Hoffman) Subject: Re: Ph.D. programs, Internet-BBS study, various Cc: Marvin Sirbu Content-Length: 927 Let me first apologize for the Web page. The person who put that up had done so accidentally. I instructed him to remove it and all references to you immediately. It was only up for an hour or so, and once again, I apologize. Second, I corresponded with you last year because I noticed you had begun to do some pioneering research on the World Wide Web. I respected your work then and I still respect you and your efforts. Third, analysis and criticism of research are part of the time-honored academic tradition. I am sure your comments about the Carnegie Mellon study will be constructive and useful in informing the debate in an open and honest way. I welcome your views on the Carnegie Mellon study, not because I think the study is a perfect piece of research (as few published works are), but because it reports some interesting findings which have never been formally documented before. Cordially, Marty Rimm Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 10:50:31 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: The CMU study Cc: Excerpts from mail: 29-Jun-95 Re: The CMU study by Mike Godwin@eff.org > Marvin Sirbu writes: > > > > Or that inventories of the types of materials posted to Usenet newsgroups > > > are an indicator of *consumption* rather than of *uploading* patterns? > > > > The term "consumption" is used in the article to refer to counts of the > > number of downloads of a file. For the BBS systems we had actual counts > > of the number of times specific files had been downloaded. We do not > > use the term consumption in discussing Usenet, but only the term > > "access" to a Usenet group. > > Aren't you embarrassed to be caught in a lie? > > From footnote 30 (from part II, discussing your Usenet analysis): > > "While there is no evidence to suggest that Usenet and Internet users who > block the monitoring of their accounts access pornography more frequently > than those who do not, one also cannot assume that a notable difference > does not exist. This is especially true in the context of pedophilia and > child pornography _consumption_.... If you had quoted the rest of the context, it would be clear that the use of the word consumption is not used here to refer to the measurements Marty made on Usenet accesses, but to the act of downloading. The point being made is that those who "consume" --e.g. download -- pedophilia have strong interest in evading discovery as this will likely lead to incarceration, a point made by Lanning who is being cited here. > > "The research team has also mounted a continuous and persistent effort to > obtain similar data from other universities. In most instances, the > universities contacted indicated that they did not compile such data, > while others were uncooperative. Still, there is no reason to believe > _consumption_ at the university studied differs from that of other > universities from which pornographic Usenet newsgroups can be accessed." Again, if one replaces the term consumption by "downloads" this is a perfectly reasonable sentence, which does not imply that the measurements reported in the text are measurements of downloads. > > [p. 1849] [Emphasis mine.] > > And of course Marty Rimm asserted outright during the conference > call with ABC that access was an indicator of consumption. > > > > --Mike > > Don't you feel embarassed quoting out of context and then calling someone a liar? Marvin Topic 1029 [media]: The Newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek, USN&WR), continued #364 of 895: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Thu Jun 29 '95 (11:47) 34 lines Excerpted from my response to Sirbu: ---------------- > Don't you feel embarassed quoting out of context and then calling > someone a liar? Well, let's look again at a sentence you sent me: 'We do not use the term consumption in discussing Usenet, but only the term "access" to a Usenet group.' Now, once I found you using the term "consumption" in discussing Usenet, you tell me that a differently worded sentence would be reasonable. Leaving aside the questionable decision to equate "consumption" and "downloads," how do you defend the author's decision not to word that sentence more "reasonably"? I concede, of course, that it's possible you're not a liar -- that you're not willful in any false statement you have made to me or any false conclusion that you endorse in the Rimm study. But, you know, the alternative theories to explain your role in this whole debacle are not very flattering either. --Mike Topic 1029 [media]: The Newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek, USN&WR), continued #646 of 895: Brock N. Meeks (brock) Mon Jul 3 '95 (09:45) 18 lines This just in: Dr. Professor Ph.D. Reed never even read the fucking study. There must be two studies, I concluded, the one I wrote and the one Ralphy boy cited. Cheers, Marty =-=-=-=-= This from a message I wrote to Rimm as to how Reed apparently got ahold of his study before the Nightline segment. Rimm apparently didn't think Reed accurately protrayed his work.