Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Earl Conroy is an alias

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
First, let me admit that although I have never used an alias, I often
thought of creating one and leaving posts on this list that did not exceed
three or four short sentences.

With this said, allow me to express my opinion as one of the founders of
this list and editor of the supporting SEAINT Online:

I believe that a subscriber's desire for anonymity is valid and should be
respected. Anonymity is not the issue here - ethics is. SEAINT Listservice
is unmoderated and therefore, requires those who use this list to act in a
professional and ethical manner. SEAINT does not have the resources to
review the posts submitted to this board and I believe the subscribers to
this list would not want this type of censorship.

SEAINT can only respond to those who complain about misuse of these
resources. There is very little that we can do other than remove the
subscriber from the list and TRY to prevent him or her from returning. As
you might guess, there is little we can do to prevent anyone from assuming
another alias and returning to this list.

The success of this list requires that we maintain a trust in each other. We
have been able to debate heated topics and have at times gone over the edge
and offended each other - yet we seem, for the most part, to be mature and
professional enough to understand when the line has been crossed and have
taken measures to reconcile.

In this case, the situation does not simply attack competing vendors but
attempts to manipulate the members of this list who make intelligent
decisions about professional issues, software and proprietary products from
the advice of others.

The actions taken by Bruce AND OTHERS WHO have not yet admitted to this
practice, insult the users of this list and take away from the perceived
credibility that SEAINT has strive to achieve in the last six years.

I have known Bruce for some ten or twelve years - professionally and
personally - and although I am disappointed in his lack of judgement I have
an unshaken faith as to his remorse. I'm sure that this will not make Boris
or others who were at the receiving end of his post feel much better but I
think that there is an important lesson we all can learn here.

When Errol Conroy attacked Avansee software, I was one of those who tried to
defend the software (not the business practices). I did so because I had
some additional information that even Errol Conroy did not have. I had first
hand information that convinced me that there was more to the Avansee issue
than the angry users knew about.

Although Boris needs to take responsibility for the business he created, he
was not entirely in control of the user list and, I believe, may not have
been able to contact the registered users directly. However, Boris never
tried to shift blame in his responses to Errol Conroy and others. He simply
tried to resolve the problem by offering his software free to the list
members and past users.

The fact that I discovered this information years after the problems
occurred caused me to try and address the merits of the software, the
efforts of Avansee to resolve an "unresolved" issue by offering the software
free to list members and past users and the ability of Avansee to promptly
upgrade the program based upon the responses of those who started to
evaluate it once again.

The problems from five years ago are not really the issue any longer. The
issue is that Boris did not back away from the posts of angry users (fired
up by comments of Errol Conroy). The reality is that Errol Conroy, who
attacked the business practices of Avanssee did not have all of the
information needed to fairly draw a conclusion.  And, Boris tried to resolve
the issue the best way he knew how. The only thing that matters to me at
this point in time is the quality of the software, the ability for Boris to
have learned from past problems and to provide better assurances to his

Still, this issues needs to be set as an example of the tactics which are to
be condemned by SEAINT and by the members of this list. I can only hope that
those who use an alias for other than personal anonymity will stop. I also
hope that each of you will look upon the bigger picture and see how the
dissemination of inaccurate or biased information can jeopardize the
credibility of this list as a source for professional information. This
truly attacks the foundation of a virtual information source which we have
worked so hard to build.

Dennis S. Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: BRBATES(--nospam--at) [mailto:BRBATES(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 1999 7:30 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Earl Conroy is an alias

I know I said originally I wasn't going to have any more comments on this
alias issue, but as I've reviewed all of "Earl's" posts I've realized there
are a few I do need to address specifically.

First, using the Earl Conroy alias, I criticized Joe Deppe for advertising
the list. This of course was the height of hypocrisy, Joe at least was using
his own name. I certainly owe Joe an apology for that, and I hope he will
accept it.

Also, while any judgements or technical assessments I made of the Staad
program were in fact based on my own experiences, "Earl" made reference to
"switching from Staad to RISA-3D". Since "Earl" is ficticious, this
could not have happened. My apologies to the folks at Research Engineers for
that one.

Finally, on the Avansee issue, even though my posts using the Earl Conroy
alias were factually correct, they were delivered in a mean spirited
and I regret that.

As I've reflected on this the last couple days, I of course greatly regret
ever using the Earl Conroy alias. It was wrong and I actually feel
sick when I think about it. My personal and professional reputation are
suffering damage because it, damage that far outweighs any minimal benefit I
gained from the alias, damage I deserve and accept.

Bruce Bates