After reading the full story I read all the comments here on HN. I didn't see mentioned several thoughts I had while reading the story, so I thought I'd share t

After reading the full story I read all the comments here on HN. I didn't see mentioned several thoughts I had while reading the story, so I thought I'd share them here. 1) Transparency. I thought it was really interesting how candid and transparent the author was with his story. And this was in 1995. In many ways this was an experiment of its time, as he was willing to let all parties involved know about what he was thinking and what others were thinking as well (by republishing the public's opinion letters). You don't see this much of a "black box" in people's activities these days, even with all the social networking status updates. People simply leave out a lot of detail in fear of what others will think, or how it might affect them in some way (personally, professionally, etc...) 2) Big corporations often forget how to relate to their customers. This story exemplifies how nasty and out of touch big corporations often are, even when a loyal customer (10 years is a long time for anything) attempts to negotiate a reasonable outcome. Big companies simply "feel" bigger and stronger than individuals; and they generally are. Millions of people feel insignificant when they're treated so systematically unappreciated. These problems are likely worse today. 3) Insider details revealed. It is interesting to note that he revealed a lot of details that only someone in his position (or work for a bank, news agency, or television studio) would know. That really makes the story interesting because you feel like you're learning about how things work behind the scenes. In particular, it was interesting to follow the route of the check and hear about the clearinghouse bank, as well as how quickly the check landed in the hands of the Fed. Additionally, it was really valuable to see how the media works, specifically for how stories have to be pitched/approved/edited all across a large organization such as the WSJ before it's printed. Also notable was how the radio seemed to take a back seat to television, and would only really come in after national press already covered the story. You walk away from this story thinking you have a better idea of how these systems work. 4) Social engineering / social influence. His approach to getting information, or changing a person's attitude is evident in his anecdotes. He was social engineering in several instances, whether he realized it in those terms or not. It was interesting how he was able to change a person's negative attitude by simply sticking to his guns, but then phrasing things in a way that comforted the other person. There is likely a lot of value in his approaches for all of life's situations (business, friends, etc). It's hard to imagine that I missed this story when it was originally happening. I certainly remember the OJ trial, and I was very active on BBSes and the Internet in the 80s/90s. Quite awesome that a 15 year old story resurfaced and I got a chance to feel it out now.