Posted by Jane D on August 30, 2001, at 0:53:24
In reply to Please help inform publishers, commanders, posted by Pennie Lane on August 29, 2001, at 20:20:02
Pennie Lane, Cam, & St James -
I'm a little concerned that this subject has gotten so muddied. It seems as though suddenly, having been angered by one issue, we are all throwing in everything else that has every angered us about Sal, this board and the internet in general. All of these may be worthy of separate consideration. Combining them means they all get discredited. I'll list of few of my concerns by responding to Pennie Lane's post.
PL:
> Unfortunately, this situation highlights the lack of a hierarchy of credibility in the Internet environment. Though some assert that an open group will post correct information in response to misinformation, the situation demonstrates that anyone with persistence, access to a computer and basic knowledge of search technology can gain recognition as an expert. Some readers might be skeptical, but others tend to unwittingly accept misinformation. As in most media, repetition on the Internet can weigh more heavily than does accuracy or integrity for establishing credibility among a general audience.JD:
This isn't exactly unique to the internet. This is a problem with traditional media from television to scientific journals. It does become more interesting now that the internet is so popular. It would be worth discussing on either Social or Tele Babble. You and I might actually end up agreeing on some things. But, if you decide that the risk of misinformation outweighs the good done here, you are condemning not only Sal but most of the rest of us as well. So I think this argument should be kept out of the current series of complaints about Sal.PL:
> Now that Jason's militant ("Army", "enemy") campaign of information warfare has escalated to direct promotion of his sect with the systematic reproduction of copyrighted information from scientific journals, perhaps some here would like to help notify the publishers of these journals about the situation.JD:
This is a bit of an overstatement. Lack of consideration for other posters with different beliefs, yes. Information warfare - come on. I think this confuses two issues. Advocacy of a specific religion and reproduction of copyrighted materials. You don't like either one. They are both done by one person. That does not mean that the articles are reproduced in order to promote the Salvation Army. Complaining to the Salvation Army because Sal misuses articles, or complaining to publishers because you don't like his religious position, is unfair. Nor is it fair to attempt to use religion to inflame people into supporting your views on copyright. This is not an appropriate place for coalition building.
PL:
> Notices to Jason's Southern California "Army" commanders, and to national and international leaders of the Salvation Army might also be helpful.JD:
Helpful in what? If you are a Salvation Army believer that thinks your religion has been misrepresented it might be a good idea. Are you?PL:
> In correspondence with Jason T.’s commanders, one might include links to posts where Jason has attempted to illegally exchange prescription medicationsJD:
This is a mistake that others have made here as well. Everyone was get corrected. So far there have been no reoccurances so presumably this was an isolated incident. Why raise it here.Jane
poster:Jane D
thread:1838
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1849.html