CAROL’S LETTER

COMPUTER DISKS IRREPLACEABLE

You know who you are.

Sometime within the last two weeks, you “acquired” two black plastic boxes of three-and-a-half-inch computer disks.

As far as I have been able to determine, you are either a computer lab employee or someone who spends a great deal of time at the lab. If you are not an employee of the lab, then you probably took them from the lost-and-found box there.

Did you bother to look at the contents? Did you notice that those 14 or so disks contained five or six million bytes of text material? If so, are you aware (and you must be, since your pressing computer needs require so much memory space) exactly how many pages of printed text this amounts to?

IF not, let me enlighten you: 64 documents of one to nine pages; 14 documents of 10 to 19 pages; three documents of 20 to 29 pages; and 11 documents of more than 30 pages. In the latter category, by the way, most of the documents were more than 50 pages long. This tabulation includes only the documents I consider especially important. It does not include class syllabi and notes, letters, memos, outlines, etc.

If you did examine these disks before consigning the contents to oblivion, surely you must have been aware that the value of the disks themselves was nothing in comparison to the value the contents would have for the owner.

Certainly you must have known that the owner gladly would reward you if you returned them intact. If you are so naive about computer disks that you were unaware of this, then I seriously doubt you will need nine million bytes of computer disk space in the rest of your natural lifetime.

Frankly, I would rather you had taken something more tangible, something insured that could have been easily replaced.

I do have hard printed copies of most of the material contained on the disks. To be able to have this material available for revision, however, I will have to re-type all of it.

When you recall that most typing services charge their customers a dollar a page or more, you will begin to understand the value of the labor involved. My husband can type more than 80 words a minute. Even with him helping me it will probably take a year or two to replace the most important items.

It is easy to take computer disks for granted – to carry them around casually and forget how valuable they are.

Afterwards, one can regret one’s negligence – but regrets do not help. Watch your disks carefully. And if you misplace them, hope that the one who finds them will be more courteous than you were to me.

– Carol Slider, graduate student in English

REPLY OF THE LAB EMPLOYEES

DISKS NOT STOLEN BY EMPLOYEE

Carol Slider has illogically determined that her diskettes were taken by a “lab employee or someone who spends a great deal of time at the lab.” She is making an unsubstantial allegation which has no sound foundation as to where or what happened to her data disks.

With the great amount of data and time involved compiling the contents of her lost diskettes, basic computer knowledge tells that irreplaceable data should be backed up in the event of computer failure or any other disaster such as loss or theft.

– Edward Glynn, finance; Preston Barrett, philosophy

DARREN’S REBUTTAL (AS PUBLISHED)

EMPLOYEES NEED TO LEARN FACTS

Neither I nor my wife know you gentlemen, and we wish to make no ill assumptions about the motive you had in writing your letter about my wife’s lost computer disks.

But you betray your ignorance of the situation with every word you write.

You maintain that my wife’s conclusion that her disks were taken by a lab employee or a frequent lab user is “illogically determined” and an “unsubstantiated allegation which has no sound foundation.”

Through what defensible reasoning, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion with such certainty as your words imply? I contend that my wife’s statement was reached by the following reasonable argument.

My wife lost her data disks in a classroom in Faner Hall. A custodian found the disks and admits to having done so. The custodian claims she turned them in to the consultants’ desk at Faner Lab.

The custodian has no motive for lying. If the custodian had stolen the disks, the custodian could have claimed never to have seen them.

Thus it is quite probable that the disks were turned in to the consultants’ desk. So, most likely, the disks were stolen by a lab consultant on duty at the time, or were placed in the lost-and-found box.

If the disks were placed in the box, they were either stolen from behind the desk by a lab consultant or were stolen by a lab user. If they were stolen by a lab user, it is entirely probable that the individual in question is a frequent lab user.

It is hardly conceivable that an infrequent computer user would require some nine million bytes of disk space.

We must conclude that the most likely identity of the thief is that of a lab employee or a frequent lab user. Although there are, as always, other possibilities.

Incidentally, in maintaining the possibility that the thief is a lab consultant, we are only asserting that this is possible, given the set of circumstances.

Neither of us can claim that any particular individual who works at the lab is the most likely suspect, as the custodian does not recall and can hardly be expected to recall the identity of the lab worker.

The thief might not have been a lab worker at all.

Furthermore, in your implication that my wife did not back up her data, you have failed to consider the possibility that half of the disks stolen were backup copies.

Since we do not own a computer, we must at some time bring our backup copies with us to the lab in order to update them.

Gentlemen, before you declare someone’s conclusion unsound, make certain that you are aware of how the individual in question arrived at that conclusion.

In this instance, it is manifestly clear that you do not know whereof you speak.

– Darren L. Slider, graduate student, mathematics

DARREN’S REBUTTAL (AS WRITTEN)

In response to Edward Glynn and Preston Barrett:

Neither I nor my wife know you gentlemen, and we wish to make no ill assumptions about the motive you had in writing your letter about my wife’s lost computer disks: but you betray your ignorance of the situation with every word you write.

You maintain that my wife’s conclusion that her disks were taken by a lab employee or a frequent lab user is “illogically determined” and an “unsubstantiated allegation which has no sound foundation.” Through what defensible reasoning, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion with such certainty as your words imply? I contend that my wife’s statement was reached by the following reasonable argument:

My wife lost her data disks in a classroom in Faner Hall. On the night of the day on which they were lost, the custodian responsible for cleaning that particular classroom found the disks (and admits to having done so). The custodian claims that she turned them in to the consultants’ desk at Faner Lab. The custodian has no motive for lying in this regard: if the custodian had stolen the disks, the custodian need only have claimed never to have seen them (and might have gotten away with it quite readily by maintaining that any passerby who spotted the disks might have been the thief).

Thus it is quite probable that the disks were turned in to the consultants’ desk. So, most likely, the disks were stolen by a lab consultant on duty at the time, or were placed in the lost-and-found box. If, as is entirely possible, the disks were placed in the box, they were either stolen from behind the desk by a lab consultant or were stolen by a lab user who asked to see the contents of the box. If they were stolen by a lab user, it is entirely probable that the individual in question is a frequent lab user (as it is hardly conceivable that an infrequent computer user would require some nine million bytes of disk space). So we must conclude that the most likely identity of the thief is that of a lab employee or a frequent lab user (although there are, as always, other possibilities). If my logic (and that of my wife) has been sound, then this is a reasonable conclusion.

Incidentally: in maintaining the possibility that the thief is a lab consultant, we are only asserting that this is possible, given this set of circumstances. Neither of us can claim that any particular individual who works at the lab is the most likely suspect, as the custodian does not recall (and can hardly be expected to recall) the identity of the lab worker to whom the custodian turned in the disks. The thief might not have been a lab worker at all.

Furthermore, in your implication that my wife did not back up her data, you have failed to consider the possibility that half of the disks stolen were backup copies. Since we do not own a computer, we must at some time bring our backup copies with us to the lab in order to update them.

Gentlemen, before you declare someone’s conclusion unsound, make certain that you are aware of how the individual in question arrived at that conclusion. In this instance, it is manifestly clear that you do not know whereof you speak.

Darren L. Slider
graduate student, mathematics

Author’s Note: In the autumn of 1990, Carol and I were graduate students at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. One fateful day, Carol inadvertently left her box of computer diskettes in a classroom. A custodian found the box and turned it in to the computer lab, whence it disappeared. Indignant, Carol wrote a splendid letter to the editor of the student newspaper addressed to the thief, whom she supposed to be a computer lab employee or frequent lab user. Two computer lab employees took exception to this inference and wrote a brief reply accusing her of making an “unsubstantiated allegation” and of acting imprudently in failing to back up her data (the backup diskettes were, alas, in the stolen box). I took offense at their blithe dismissal and snide insinuation and wrote a scathing response. Though severely edited (nay, butchered) by the newspaper editor, my reply was followed, coincidentally or otherwise, by an anonymous return of the disks. Many of the files and their contents were in considerable disarray, but primitive scanning technology helped to restore some of these.