Re: "Cu-SeeMe Addiction Survey"

Daniel W. Erskine (
Sat, 30 Mar 1996 02:33:37 -0600

After careful consideration of Mr. Grape's appeal for survey participation,
I have made some *valuable* notes that I believe *should* be reviewed
by you, Mr. Grape, as well as the rest of the CU-SeeMe Consortium! I apologize
for the length, and I will take any critiques OFF LINE to conserve B/W:
Gunnar R Grape wrote:
> Hello again!
> One more posting regarding this subject. I hope it will be the last ...
> I just received copy nr 4 of the "survey", this time with a bribe :-)
> attached to it (link to public and private reflector lists),
> which I will not take, needless to say ...
> The actual matter at hand may seem trifling, but the principles involved
> are important, and I think, deserving of careful consideration.

IMHO, I have NO earthly knowledge of what deems this survey as "important"
to your research?!? IMHO, I do not except "bribes", but I DO except some
EQUAL form a compensation. Better yet, some EQUAL form of GOOD FAITH!
> Daniel Erskine pointed to the survey as an example of young people using
> this medium for thesis- or term paper work. Fine! I'm all for scientific
> research. In this case though, as far as I have understood, the survey is
> more in the nature of a private enterprise, the end results of which are
> so far shrouded in obscurity. I don't think this is the correct forum.

First, considering the nature of your argument, I would ask that you consult
with me FIRST and verify my *position*, before using MY NAME as "ammunition"
for your quest!
Yes, I have said that, " example of young people using this medium for
thesis- or term paper work." This is an example of an *honest reason* for
requesting information possibly of a personal nature! BUT... You have NOT
supplied us with any "reasoning", nor have you supplied us with any of YOUR
personal information (a.k.a. - CREDENTIALS) as a guesture of good faith!
> My main objection to this survey is the fact that the author wants people
> to supply detailed information, identifying themselves, and at the same
> time expects them to reveal potentially intimate details about their
> personal life. The value of a survey of this nature would certainly be
> much higher if those responding to it could be guaranteed anonymity.
> I would not have objected to this survey, had the question of personal
> integrity not arisen here. The following might alleviate the situation:

Again, you're not giving us ANY reassurance! Please, read on...
> 1. Take away all items that could identify a person. I don't see that
> this kind of information could have any value in this survey, other
> than to enable the author or someone else to make private use of it.
> 2. Guarantee that the "From:" address of the returned survey will be
> discarded immediately on arrival, permanently, and that no record
> whatsoever will be kept, linking survey responses to actual persons.

This is all fine and good, but YOUR still safe and secure from OUR *reach*!
WE are putting OUR vulernabilities on the line for YOUR benefit. Where
can you justify and (truly) secure our privacy???
> These prerequisites are necessary for any seriously intended survey of
> this nature. The question of personal integrity is becoming one of the
> most important issues in connection with the Internet. Your privacy and
> personal integrity are valuable assets indeed! They should not be risked
> lightly. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person has
> "something to hide" or not! Your private life is your private life, and
> nobody should snoop around in it, under whatever pretext ...

I agree... Boy? Now THAT'S a first!!!
> As for the "survey" in question, who knows what it will be used for,
> or who will be using it, or who may eventually get their hands on it ..?
> There are no guarantees. As long as the data exists, it may eventually
> (get into the wrong hands and) be misused. So, think twice, before
> supplying information of a personal nature to anyone that you don't know
> and can trust, or where you don't know where it will finally end up!

*** WAIT A MINUTE!!! NOW you REALLY set off my ALARMS ***
First, you try to confort us with you "assurances of data security"!
Second, you're saying THIS??? I think you need to recheck your alabi AND
your story, mister!!!
Third... YOU BLEW IT!!! You just LOST my vote!!!
> Make no mistake: I am not attacking the author of the survey - I have no
> idea what kind of a person he is - he may be the nicest and most well
> intentioned guy in the world ... I am objecting to the way this survey
> is set up, and the lack of information as to its use etc, as I would to
> anything else of this kind. I guess I am also not too thrilled at getting
> numerous copies of this thing, at the moment four, and counting ...
> Enough is enough ... eh?

...And you don't even know who/where the Survey's author is??? Your CRAZY!
Your also GULLIBLE if you cannot even QUESTION these "unknown author's"
> Sorry about the length of this posting, folks! I feel strongly in these
> matters, and they are important ...
> See you! Gunnar R Grape

As am I! Considering the number of Emails you DUMPED on this LISTSERVER!
1. Mr. Grape! I believe you're WASTING our time, and your own!
2. I am sorry, but I CANNOT, nor WILL NOT agree with or condone this survey!
3. Your "plea" is littered with inconsistancies and distrust!

I CAN continue to assist you with CU-SeeMe configuration issues, mono-eh-mono,

Good day, sir,
"THERE IS NO SANITY... Just organized CHAOS!!!"

Daniel W. Erskine ""