Posted by Pennie Lane on August 30, 2001, at 19:46:34
In reply to Re: Please reconsider, posted by Jane D on August 30, 2001, at 0:53:24
JD: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.
PL: The "we" stance here seems innaccurate. This is not about anger. It is, for my part, a cool-headed discussion. JasonT's performance is considered here in the context of the administration of a medical self-help board and in the context of Internet technology.
>PL:
> Unfortunately, this situation highlights the lack of a hierarchy of credibility in the Internet environment.
> JD:
> This isn't exactly unique to the internet.PL: But this has been discussed as a unique problem with the Internet because so many people suddenly have access to publishing technology. Recognition of the eroding hierarchies of credibility in Internet publishing is not my original insight, but rather is a paraphrase of a widespread concern about the Internet held by scholars from many academies around the world. It is not a condemnation of the Internet, but rather a comparison with previous publishing technologies.
JD: 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: If you read carefully, I did not reach any conclusions about whether risks outweigh benefits, but rather described a risk unique to the Internet environment. That risk has been discussed by other posters with concerns about the quality of information on this site, and by the site administrator in published articles about this site.
> 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.PL: Information warfare can be described as attacks against information systems and as manipulation of information for propaganda purposes. If I tagged posts containing medical information with religious messages supporting Islamic Holy War would you consider that information warfare? Is the description of a Christian effort as that of an Army merely rhetoric, while the naming of an Islamic effort as a holy war makes that effort literally militant? The distribution of medical services (including information) as a vehicle for political/religious propaganda is a well established tactic of information warfare. If information warfare accurately describes the U.S. government's behavior in the mountains of Laos, and the Sandanista's tactics in Nicaraqua (hence making medical clinics fair targets for U.S. funded Contra attacks) it is also an apt description here.
JD: Advocacy of a specific religion and reproduction of copyrighted materials. You don't like either one.
PL: I did not say that. I don't like unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material. I have no concerns about advocacy of a religion, as long as it is done in a fair, open and non-invasive manner. I don't like it when a person uses the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material in an effort to curry favor for their organization, when they or the organization does not have a right to the material and did not participate in production of the material.
JD: They are both done by one person. That does not mean that the articles are reproduced in order to promote the Salvation Army.
PL: I can't seem to locate the post by JasonT in which he explained why he does what he does. I recall it appeared a few weeks ago, when the level of religious content in his posts began to increase. He explained he did it to support his religion. My first-hand familiarity with Christian doctrine over a long period of time is also informative. Christian doctrine often teaches that believers should do good works so others will recognize the merits of their faith. That is fine by me, but when the works are just not good enough to reflect positively on the faith, some might feel it necessary to further emphasize their doctrine to those receiving charity. At that point, it is fair to point out that the quality of the material offered is substandard. These are not isolated arguments. If JasonT is not primarily motivated by an interest in education, the quality of his educational publication might be compromised by his effort to distribute quasi-educational material that will attract sympathy for his primary interest - the Salvation Army, or Christ, or whatever.
To point out ulterior motives when a source is open about their motives is a fair way to respond to the deteriorating hierarchy of information on the Internet, and is especially relevant to the administration of self-help publications on line.
JD: Complaining to the Salvation Army because Sal misuses articles, or complaining to publishers because you don't like his religious position, is unfair.
PL: Notifying an organization (SA) of the activities of people who engage in certain behavior in the name of the organization is perfectly fair. It is especially helpful to the organization itself, which is likely being misrepresented by actions that were not authorized by their chain of command. Notifying publishers when their copyrighted material is being used for unauthorized purposes is fair. It is not, as alleged by one psychiatrist, an effort to get JasonT in trouble, but rather is an effort to help JasonT work with his community to define standards of acceptable behavior.
JD: Nor is it fair to attempt to use religion to inflame people into supporting your views on copyright.
PL: I thought you discouraged attribution of motive, JaneD. I am not attempting to inflame anyone. I am offering information intended to accomplish a specific objective. The Salvation Army is not distributing this copyrighted material. JasonT is, and he is doing it in the name of the Salvation Army. It is fair to ask the Salvation Army to control members who attempt to undermine copyright standards in the name of the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army itself has proprietary interests in its own name and in the representation of itself as an organization. It is fair to advise them when those interests are being violated.
JD: This is not an appropriate place for coalition building.
PL: OH?
> 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: Helpful in the mission of the Salvation Army, helpful in the defense of copyright protections and helpful in supporting the integrity of this site and of on-line medical self-help groups in general. Am I a supporter of the SalArmy? Yes, I have rung their bell for long hours on cold wintry days, I have benefited from their charity and I have contributed to them by patronizing their retail stores. A Christian? No. A soldier? Maybe.
> PL:
> > In correspondence with Jason T.’s commanders, one might include links to posts where Jason has attempted to illegally exchange prescription medications
>
> JD:
> 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.PL: It reflects a pattern of behavior on his part that has in at least two instances clearly violated federal law (regarding medications and regarding distribution of passwords to subscription sites.) I am befuddled by why the management here continues to invite as a contributor a person who advocates law breaking, while treating with prolonged disdain another who reacted adversely to the unqualified suggestion that they are weak and unhealthy.
________________________________________________
As a footnote to Dr. Hsuing's statement that "this board is for support and education" I assert that the header on this page reads: "This is a message board for discussion of the administration of the Psycho-Babble message boards, Psycho-Babble, Psycho-Social-Babble, and Tele-Psycho-Babble. Possible topics might be problems with the site, ideas for improvements, dealing with particular posters."Even with a FAQ that now attempts to better define civility in Dr. Hsuing's terms, I wonder why he continues to introduce new rules and presume motives. The object of contacting publishers is not to get anyone in trouble, but rather to protect the integrity of copyright laws. The effort also was to support JasonT in his mission ("a loose cannon is a liability to its unit") and to educate him about the duties of a soldier ("Effective soldiering requires discipline") so he might better accomplish his chosen mission.
poster:Pennie Lane
thread:1838
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010718/msgs/1874.html