 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Serious Ethical Question
|
|
|
Subject: Serious Ethical Question From: Micca Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:20 PM I am very disturbed by an ethical question that a fellow catter has raised this week with me, put simply, it is that a cattter has been "copying and pasting" and circulating extracts from the threads to people outside of the cat, probably with the best of intentions , but without the permission of the posters, My difficulties with this are: 1 I feel that to copy and republish material in this way, without permission, is at best discourteous and at worst unethical. 2 I do not write to the threads for "circulation" to third parties off cat, I write to my friends, I would not like to have to consider my posts in case they might be read by "others" 3 This is not about individuals or whether it is ok to "blue clicky" to the 'Cat or to share contents of/or consult about threads on music or technique with interested parties, which I think, most would agree is OK It is about whether it is OK for ANYONE to copy from those Non -Musical threads, which often contain real pain and personal details and feelings, and, for what ever reason, circulate them to others outside of the 'Cat without the knowledge or agreement of the original poster, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: mousethief Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:24 PM It certainly seems at the very least discourteous. Of course any of these threads are in the public eye, inasmuch as someone could seek out the site and look them up; in this sense they are not strictly speaking "private." Still, to use a person's words without even a notice to the author is not right, and it is preferrable to ask permission. Courtesy, what we need here is common courtesy. What do they teach them in these schools?
for what my opinion's worth (US$0.00), |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Morticia Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:30 PM For myself, it had never occured to me that anyone would use anything I'd written here and print it elsewhere without asking me...I have occasionally printed off something someone has sent me, but only after asking them first, even if it's only for my own personal use. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Rick Fielding Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:33 PM You've probably got a damn good point there Micca. I don't know the details of what you're referring to, but strictly from a personal point of view, I'd HATE to have any of my two and half years of Mudcat ramblings sent ANYWHERE. For at least a year and a half, I wrote (like in a diary) the way I TALK...which is just chock full of dry humour. Jeez, even in context, the funny intent was often not picked up on. Out of context.....well, I can just imagine how far from the original intent, a lot of things might seem. Sounds like a dangerous game to me. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: MK Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:38 PM I think it's unethical BUT the thing you have to keep in mind is that ANYTHING that is posted to this forum, and accessible via traces, searches, etc. IS public domain, and becomes a permanent public record as long as Max chooses to make the all the contents of this forum visible on the Internet. Anyone, anywhere in the world with net access, can copy and paste anything from any website anywhere, with or without permission. This why now, whenever I post anything here in the Forum, I stop and really read the text, before I hit the SUBMIT button, because once it's out there, it's out there permanently and for however long this place shall exist. I only wish I truly appreciated this, months ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: MMario Date: 16 Nov 00 - 12:55 PM whether we like it or not, this is a public and public access forum. That impliies that anything we say, do, etc here is for public consumption. On the other hand, according to current US law, the moment you post something you hold copyright. Which means it shouldn't be reproduced without permission. 'tis a puzzlement |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:11 PM Jimmy Durante's law, 'Say it with roses, say it with mink, but never, ever, say it with ink'. also attributed to Oscar Wilde still, folks should be nice enough to ASK before they rip off my ascerbic wit for the....(it IS my wit being stolen, isn't it?? *silly, open grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Greyeyes Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:28 PM It is a public forum, and nothing is confidential. It is certainly unethical to circulate mudcat stuff without permission but we have to be realistic and accept that it is probably going to happen. I have avoided posting to the "ever had one of those years" thread as I didn't want to comment publicly, but I have PMd 2 people about it. On another ocassion I PMd Naemanson to check if I could use some words he'd posted and he was quite happy about it. It really is just basic good manners, but we all need to be aware of the dangers, and accept that many people don't have good manners or care much about ethics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Russ Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:43 PM Tough question. I have shared "factual" information gleaned from the forums in which I participate, e.g., concert dates. I have shared "technical" opinions, e.g., Tom Paley prefers XXX violin strings. I have shared practical advice, e.g., how to deal with a stuck wooden tuning peg. I have shared a lot of "humor." In none of these cases did it occur to me to request permission from the author. I simply and perhaps mistakenly assumed that since it appeared in a more or less public placed it was intended to be more or less sharable. At the moment, I do not feel guilty about sharing these sorts of things. However, as for "real pain and personal details and feelings," I have never shared that kind of stuff, but I am not sure how I feel about the ethics of sharing it without permission. After all, Mudcat is free and open to the public. Why wouldn't Mudcat's accessibility be the only relevant factor? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Kim C Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:48 PM And what about the stuff people post that is ripped off from other people to begin with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jeri Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:49 PM The only difference between this forum and hard copies of the messages from the forum is that one must have use of a computer to get into the forum. My take - it's not unethical nor immoral. When a person posts to the forum, no matter how sensitive their words are, they pretty much have posted it for the world to see. I wonder how many people read what's written here? A person doesn't have to be a member to read it, and doesn't have to comment. There are probably loads of folks who just drop in and look around. MMario's got a point with the copyright, but isn't anyone who accesses the forum "reproducing" messages? Does the copyright extend to electronic reproduction? Is reproducing them on paper different than reproducing them on a monitor? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Little Neophyte Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:01 PM If personal sensitive issues I have shared here were passed onto others without my permission and I found out about it, I would be really pissed off. I have no control over this happening, but I would feel the person who did this used poor judgement. I would not do that to someone else. It is not appropriate in my books. Little Neo
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Micca Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:17 PM Jeri, and MMario, to aid your deliberations, this is what is on the front page of the Mudcat, in the small print at the bottom of the page.. All original material is copyright © 1999 by The Mudcat Café. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owner. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:18 PM So how would you feel if someone specifically asked for prayers on a matter, and that request went to one's personal prayer chain? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Roger in Sheffield Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:20 PM Ooops....was that Me? I did mention printing off some directions to a pub...but I removed all other detail from the print out other than the actual directions I was more concerned a few months back when very old threads with very personal content were dragged back to the top of the forum by a guest for no apparent purpose than devilment Roger |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Margo Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:24 PM I'm afraid I agree with Jeri - You have to realize that this is a public forum and there is really no privacy here. If you don't want something repeated, don't say it in a public forum. Personal messages would be more private. Margo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: kendall Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:31 PM I'm reminded of Carl Sandburgs poem.. Proud Words
Look out how you use proud words,
and...The moving finger writes, and, having writ moves on Those are from memory, so, hope they are accurate. |
|
Subject: It's not so serious... From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:12 PM US law only applies to the US... the internet is SOO much bigger than that... it's a global forum... and it's open and free to the public... Or it certainly SHOULD be... If you don't want it to come back and bite you in the ass you probably shouldn't post it on the internet... treat the internet as if you were conversing in, say, a crowded mall food court... Copying posts? Well, there are gossip miongers everywhere... some people have nothing better to do with thier lives than, "He said, and then she said, and then they said..." I tend to tell them to shut the hell up alot! Tough break micca, but I'm afraid you might be on really weak footing with this one... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:24 PM No one questions the fact that this is a public forum and anyone can access anything at anytime. It does strike me that this place is a lot like "Mayberry." Many of us look at it as a village with lots of different folks living here. We've had plenty of good times, plenty of bad, people we've loved and people we've shunned and we have spent a lot of time discussing how and why this place works the way it does. Most of those discussions border on elements of trust which includes both a sense of courtesy and ethics. In the final analysis, we are all different and I cannot impose my will here anymore than anyone else can. However, what does bind us IS that trust. Yeah, I know......if I write it, anyone can read it. It goes a little deeper though. Awhile back I posted something that was meant to provide a little humor to Micca in the hospital. BlueJay read it and wanted to use it in his 3-D world. Now I know there was nothing to stop him, but he had the ethical sense and courtesy to ask me if I would agree. I was pleased that he liked it well enough to use it, but I was even MORE pleased that he used good judgement in asking me first. BJ grew 10 sizes in my eyes on the spot. It is that type of thing that cements relationships while not doing so can lead to harsh feelings. There have been occasions in the past when I have used less than good judgement and I have apologized profusely for screwing up.....sometimes I didn't even realize what I had done til someone else pointed it out to me. My life is an open book around here, but even so, its important that we also grant each other the ethical courtesy such as BJ did. When that doesn't happen we are asking for trouble. Legally, I think the copyright laws may come into effect, but above and beyond that, the general goodwill and trust of this place is in jeopardy. If YOU decide to use things posted here, I doubt that any legal case will result, but YOU will probably pay the price in trust. I value the great friendships I have made in this wonderful place.......do YOU? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Bagpuss Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:25 PM I never write anything interesting enough for someone to copy and circulate. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jeri Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:26 PM I'm wondering what the difference is between a person saying "ya gotta read this" and sitting someone down at a computer or sending them a link, versus handing them a piece of paper... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: MMario Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM in one case I read - those who provided only links were ruled innocent of copyright infringement - those who copied the files either to additional drives, servers, web pages, or hardcopy were ruled in violation. This doesn't particularly make sense as in order to read the original your computer DOES download the file... just my $.02 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Rick Fielding Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:43 PM Whoops, I forgot my belief in the Quentin Crisp theory of "How to be Happy". "If someone sticks a camera over the top of the "loo" door...don't react as if your privacy has been violated...learn to urinate with STYLE! Actually if someone passed along "instrument tips" I'd be pleased. If it was prayers, they'd probably have the wrong guy! If it was Jokes, apparently Bill D's the victim (so he says..ha ha) But of course, asking first would still be nice. Bottom line is that the FBI and CIA probably know more about Mudcatters than they do about Militias! Gotta go teach Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Liz the Squeak Date: 16 Nov 00 - 03:57 PM I think it's more the printing it out and sending it round places where it wouldn't normally be sent - to take Praise's example, if my church asked me to pray for Fred Bloggs who had his adenoids out, I wouldn't immediately go and post his details up on the net for any one to see. There has to be a little decorum and courtesy. If Fred wanted the world to pray for him, Fred would tell the world. If he just tells his own intimates, then that is where it should stay, with those intimates. And if Fred just happens to be a Christian, I most certainly would NOT get my Pagan friends to pray for him without his consent. LTS LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Greyeyes Date: 16 Nov 00 - 04:01 PM Bagpuss, do you mind if I copy and circulate that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Little Neophyte Date: 16 Nov 00 - 04:27 PM Praise, if I asked for prayers on the Mudcat and a Mudcatter wanted to send my request off into a personal prayer chain of their own, I would appreciate them asking me first. Maybe I am a snob when it comes to who prays for me. Mudcatters yes, anybody, no. Catspaw posted some excellent thoughts on this thread. Especially the one about level of trust around here. So Rick, if I am going to piss in public, I guess I should piss in style, huh. If someone were to pass on my personal issues in a chain prayer without consulting me first, maybe I should get pissed off in style too. Little Neo
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: annamill Date: 16 Nov 00 - 04:31 PM Ah Oh! Remember the looong list of banjo jokes.. I copied them and sent them to my banjo playing brother-in-law. Is that considered an infringement? If it is, I'm sorry. I thought they were cute. Love, annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amergin Date: 16 Nov 00 - 05:14 PM I've posted jokes and important virus information from here onto other places (though on the latter I asked first), plus I've posted news clippings from here and onto other places or printed them out and showed others....Is that bad? Amergin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Naemanson Date: 16 Nov 00 - 05:20 PM I guess I'd have to agree with Jeri and Russ. What is posted here is little different from posting on a bulletin board. I am one of those guiilty of copy and past without asking permission. When Greyeyes asked me for permission to use what I had posted I was pleased to think my daughters words would spread out beyond the frame on my mantle. The material I've used here was only the factual information on particular songs and the answers to technical questions I've asked. I would never even think to use personal stuff posted here. However, I will, in the future, ask before I do such a thing again. I appreciated Greyeyes' request at first only for what he would do with the post. Now I appreciate it even more for the obvious respect he paid me as one human to another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Morticia Date: 16 Nov 00 - 05:27 PM I guess I feel that this is an ethical question, getting caught up in the legality of it is almost irrelevant.It may be that what I'm posting is read by lots of people who don't give a flying toss who I am and what I think, and if they wish to use my words for their own purpose, hey, big deal, really.But the idea that a fellow mudcatter,somone I've come to know and trust would do that without consultation....well, call me naive but I find it shocking. There is an interesting link up here with the "Do Healing Threads Work" thread.....most people seem to feel that their efficacy lies in the fact that people they know and care about, know and care about them.The power of prayer/healing energy/smoke from a sacrificial goat isn't the point, the point is people you KNOW care enough to post. And to answer your point Praise, without wishing to be too blunt about it, prayers from your prayer circle would mean very little to me and even if you have a different opinion, which you are entitled to, I would expect you to, and am sure you would, ask me before you passed my details on.Does that answer your question? To sum up, I don't care if some stranger rips off my stuff ( although I can't imagine why they'd want to) but a friend from here doing it would sadden me greatly. |
|
Subject: Why get bent out of shape... From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 16 Nov 00 - 05:54 PM It is.. after all.. JUST the internet... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 16 Nov 00 - 05:56 PM I can think of worse things that could happen to me than someone forwarding messages that I've written to a public worldwide form. However, I'm trying to stop having those thoughts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Catrin Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:12 PM I think that Spaw has spoken the most sense here. The issue is not about legality or copyright, or whether anyone could be sued. Its about trust and behaviour we can expect from our friends. When I post to the internet, I take the risk that some strange person might do strange things with my words. When I post, specifically to the internet, I still take that risk, but I would not expect any of my friends to be guilty of it. Yes, I have unwittingly hurt people in the past (like Spaw said) and I know none of us are perfect. But when I have discovered the pain I caused, I would be the first one to apologise and try to rectify the situation (If it were possible). Even if I thought they were being oversensitive. In this case, It is not completely rectifiable, in the sense that you can't 'unpost' something. I think the next best might be some kind of reassurance (off anyone I called 'friend') That it would not happen again. Just my tuppence worth, Catrin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Catrin Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:14 PM Typo there - I meant to say, 'when I post, specifically, to the MUDCAT' (not internet) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jeri Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:35 PM The point is, not just friends come here, but strangers as well. Sure, they may become friends, but nothing that is written here is hidden from anyone. If people feel like their posts here are confidential - they're not. Like I said before, anyone with a computer at home, work, school, prison or wherever, can read what you write. I wouldn't send any extremely personal information to anyone else, mainly because it would be like gossiping about people they didn't know. Also, it really sounds like some folks don't realise the forum is open to the world already, and might be embarrassed. Flattop, don't think about this, but I've sent personal e-mails to a newsgroup before. We've also had people post personal messages that others have sent to them, and that IS a breach of confidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:43 PM Nope Spaw, we're not even bound by trust. Anyone can join, none of us signed up to anything, and none of us should assume anything,because we haven't a clue who's joining tomorrow. In any case you don't to join to get in here and piss us around. That's exactly the way Max likes it - the internet the way it's supposed to be, complete with no rules - and it suits me fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:53 PM Make it difficult for me Jerri. Micca or someone was hurt by whatever happened. I'm confused on the whole issue. However, I'm not sure it's an ethical issue as much as an issue of the dynamics of communicating on-line. I think it's a related issue to the phantom mudClique. A person could feel that they are comfortably part of different on-line groups, feel that people in the groups are friends, and not notice boundries. When we meet physically we feel boundries but on-line we touch different people very easily with our little mouse. The distances between people on-line are short. The cliquey feeling on line seems to be that we follow social and conversational dynamics but they don't always work. We have trouble with local meaning and customs and language, etc. etc. Got to go now. I trust no one is offended.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jim Dixon Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:12 PM If people are putting personal stuff on Mudcat on the assumption that no one will look at it except a small circle of close friends who can be trusted not to repeat anything - then I'd say that's a pretty foolish and na‹ve assumption in the first place, and a misuse of Mudcat in the second place. (I know people will disagree with me here.) I have no objection to someone saying, "I've been feeling depressed lately. What can you tell me about Prozac?" I've even contributed to threads like that. But I think people ought to be a little circumspect about how much they reveal about themselves through Mudcat. You've got to keep in mind that Mudcat threads last forever, and they can always be searched. Of course there are some people who don't care if the whole world know they have hemorrhoids, and I envy them a bit (of their chutzpah, not their hemorrhoids), but I still wish they wouldn't SHOW me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Little Neophyte Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:23 PM Jim, how did you find out I have hemorrhoids? Who told you!!!!!! Which Mucatter? I'll kill em. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jim Dixon Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:30 PM Mudcat is more like a talk show on local cable access TV than like a party in someone's living room. It may be that nobody's watching, but you never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Morticia Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:37 PM What, watching Bonnie's Rockfords?( Rockford Files=Piles). Can't imagine there's much entertainment in that, mind you, can't imagine there's much entertainment in reading and/or copying our posts either. I love this bunch of lunatics dearly but unless you have come to know them, rejoice, grieve and laugh with them, what possible significance could these threads have to anyone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: alison Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:43 PM I think it would be common courtesy to ask someone first, if it is intended to paste their stuff somewhere else..... Praise, you asked about asking you for prayer, that is fine if YOU were asked personally....... but if someone asks for help / prayer/ healing in a thread... expecting their mudcat friends to support them.... I think they should know if you intend to pass the details on to a prayer circle of people they don't know.... I'm sure the intentions are good .......... but here not everyone believes the same thing....... would the "Christians" want to have their problems sent to a "pagan" prayer/healing circle?.... slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: NightWing Date: 16 Nov 00 - 07:53 PM Ethical questions can only be answered one person at a time and only for oneself. My answers to ethical questions will not necessarily be the same as yours. Nonetheless, as a society, we tend to share a lot of common ground on such answers; this "central agreement" is part of what makes up a society. But even two people with very similar beliefs will have disagreements about "edge issues". Probably the single most common cause of these "edge issues" is the advance of technology. Look at the development of the printing press, the advance of industrialization, and the invention of the automobile for examples. Presumably everyone can see where I'm going with this. The ethical issues that surround interaction on the Internet are the biggest "edge issue" of our time: possibly the biggest ever. In other words, there is little agreement about the ethics of Internet interaction. Those of us who involve ourselves in a community like the 'Cat (FYI: this is the sixth such community that I've been involved with in the ten years I've been on the 'Net) will tend to have a little more "common ground" than the average 'Net user. But there remain large differences of opinion on the ethical issues that surround our community. I said above that the "central agreements" were part of what makes a community. Perhaps it is the process of forging these "central agreements" that brings community into being. That is, discussions like this. So, first off, practical considerations. Anything posted on the 'Cat is being posted for all the world to read. Never doubt this, and never forget it. Everything posted here is public property (regardless of copyright issues). Don't post anything that you are not willing for the entire world to know. The other side of that practical consideration is that, for the most part, the world simply isn't interested. The mere fact that you are shouting your news from the highest mountain doesn't mean that anyone is listening or that anyone cares. In general, it's only those of us here who listen or care. Legal issues: Everything we post here becomes copyrighted material belonging to the Mudcat Cafe. I don't know specifically *who* that means, but it's not me. It's legally the same as a letter to the editor in a newspaper: the content now belongs to the paper, not the writer of the letter. The ethics: IMO (and as I said above, that must be the starting point of any ethical stance), there is a level of trust among us, as Spaw described. I wouldn't copy stuff from here without asking permission. I would hope for (but not expect) the same consideration from y'all. I (a pagan) will pray (and yes, we do) for Praise (a Christian) if he asks for it, but I will not pass the word to my coven without his permission. Again, I would hope for (but not expect) the same consideration in return. Other people must make their own decisions on questions like this, and in doing so, perhaps we build community. A body can hope, right? *S*
BB, P.S. Praise? You are male, aren't you? Deepest apologies if my assumption was incorrect *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: dwditty Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:48 PM I stopped reading about half way through this thread. I guess it boils down to this. Enough mudcatters feel that it is in good style, taste, manners, what have you, to ask first. Seems to be a simple enough request to me. So why not remove any doubt and make it a practice to ask first, whether you think you need to or not. It's called being nice. dw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:09 PM Yeah dw my friend.....that's about what I tried to say badly! No Fionn, bound may not be the right word, but trust does exist and I post whatever knowing full well it can be taken anywhere by anyone....and that doesn't bother me. But I do find it so much more pleasant and friendly when people ask first. On prayer and the like, I would definitely like to know first. Considering what I believe in that respect, outside sources don't have much meaning to me and taking it outside is not what I'd expect without asking first. I'm with dw, ask first 'cause its nice. You don't want to play, so be it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Joerg Date: 16 Nov 00 - 10:08 PM I apologize for only having read Micca's initial message, and please mind that nothing of what I want to say relates to any of the answers. I don't know them as I write this. Micca - this is a PUBLIC forum, something like TV. EVERYBODY can read what you are saying (just look at me). You needn't tell your name or show your face, but whatever you say can be heard by everybody who is only interested. There is no privacy here. (And if QE2 reads this message nothing can keep her from doing so and still nothing can keep her from flaming me here in public for having called her QE2 without any possibility for me to find out who she really is.) That means that if you want to post something that should not be freely distributed you should at least be fair enough to tell this by adding a copyright notice AND you must rely on the fairness of EVERYBODY ELSE to also copy the copyright notice when freely distributing what you published. So to me it is much more an ethical question what I post here than what I do with things posted here. OF COURSE I copy things and I print them and I give them to people I think to be able to appreciate them. Don't complain - it's all 'public domain' unless otherwise stated. On the other hand I am VERY careful when posting information referring to people I know (including myself). They might be identified by themselves or - still worse - by people who know them. And then I'll be in trouble. Publishing (and this is done here) personal information of any kind is something to be thoroughly considered - for ethical reasons. If one wants to discuss things that really matter they can never completely avoid talking about personal things (is that "one...they" correct in english?). So - as you can't use the 'DO NOT', try to apply the 'THINK ABOUT' as well as ever possible. Joerg (PS: There might be people who are concerned about me still posting as a guest, but I know what I'm doing - it's also related to questions like this one.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 00 - 10:14 PM Hey...I am not sure I get it. Was someone asking for prayers, and someone else rounded up a few more of 'em in response? If that wasn't invited, what was the point in asking? This looks like a no harm, no foul situation, in my humble opinion... or do we need to discuss the relative weight and value of different folks' prayers? Or are there multiple definitions thgat can be used in different ways using the same word? That can really mess up a conversation. If what was wanted was prayers, I am not sure what offense was actually committed, although I am happy to subscribe to the ethical principle of asking before sharing. But let's not be unduly proud here, hey guys? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: WyoWoman Date: 16 Nov 00 - 10:28 PM It makes me itch to think of people I don't know praying for me behind my back without my permission or knowledge. Not that I mind having all the help I can get, but praying for someone is pretty intimate -- one of the reasons I hardly ever go into the "healing/prayer" circles. It sort of strikes me the way it did when I discovered that one faith tradition was for a while (and maybe still) baptizing people behind their backs, or baptizing the deceased. It feels like an invasion, regardless of how well it's meant. I guess I want to know a little more about the motives of the people who are praying for me. It would be nice to believe that everyone who prays for others prays out of open hearts only interested in healing. but, having known lots and lots of folks in various denominations, I know that there are a few self-righteous folks out there who pray to make themselves look good, or to feel more "right" than the people they're praying for, or who pray to a God whom they think despises people I actually hold dear (like, homosexuals, fer instance) or worship in a church with policies I can't embrace (banning women from leadership, fer instance). And, frankly, I'd rather be sick than have people lifting me up to an intolerant little ol' deity like that. Not that ALL or even most people who pray for others are like that -- (believe it or not, some of us who never or hardly ever talk about our faith in this forum actually do pray (!) and do have relatively active spiritual lives) but, I'd rather not have my pain or my personal problems exploited in that particular way ... Again, I think it boils down to the question of intimacy -- and respect. Just me. ww |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Nov 00 - 11:24 PM First, the prayer chain I mentioned includes the many Christian Mudcatters who have contacted me at one point or another about issues of faith, and who have been praying for each others' confidential requests for several weeks. Three non-Christians who are powerful praying Mudcatters I had trusted (two remain) also receive it. It also includes one Christian jam group member, several close family members who have been to Mudcat a time or two, and two close friends I have known and prayed with for several years-- all people whose discretion and dedication to simple prayer are above reproach. (And Max. Remember him? I dunno what category he's in, but he got copies too.) It is not a "published" list and it is very new and still creating itself via input received from participants. It was, in part, a response to a longstanding attitude that these "sorts of things" (specifically named, often, as Christian things) be taken off the Mudcat for discussion to some unspecified elsewhere. It was an attempt to embrace sense and allow for prayerful regard of prayer requests in an environment free of flames and rancor. It included the idea that perhaps a prayer forum would result to make this manageable. I have been testing such a forum (NOT by posting prayers, just structural testing) which is NOT open to non-members and which would NOT have been opened to non-members without the unanimous agreement of the members. It is NOT true that I have copied and pasted people's personal sharings, although I have from time to time been alerted by OTHER Mudcatters of threads that they wanted me to look at, or wanted to tell me about, and I know others of you have had this experience also. I have been respectful of confidences shared with me. And after a number of years of dealing with sensitive issues, I believe I will stand on my record and reputation in that regard. There are many reading this thread who know what I am referring to. They have experienced my care with confidences, and we remain in good, close, open communication. The ONE ITEM I excerpted included this language: "Pat says all "good thoughts, etc." are appreciated and welcome. This is a very serious condition and I know we can really help out. Please join me, in your own way, in sending good thoughts, etc. to Karen and Pat for her swift and complete recovery. Thank you." ~kat" Please look again, slowly. Again, it said: ALL GOOD THOUGHTS. APPRECIATED AND WELCOME. VERY SERIOUS CONDITION. REALLY HELP OUT. PLEASE JOIN ME. IN YOUR OWN WAY. IN YOUR OWN WAY. IN YOUR OWN WAY.... Those are the facts. There are also, in addition to facts, a lot of FEELINGS. I am sure I have responded to these imperfectly. I am sure mine have been responded to imperfectly. I have been telling you I am human, just like you, but that does not seem to be a feature of some people's perception of me. So be it. I guess we all have to deal from what we think we see. The prayer list has not been issued to the prayer chain since the feelings resulting from the ONE thread excerpt I forwarded were brought to my attention. The way these issues were raised could quite easily have been interpreted as a threat-- Micca provided me the draft copy he had written for this thread, and stated that if I did not respond with something that would cause him to change it, he would post it in 48 hours. That draft included much reference to other issues that have not been included in this thread. I don't know why he did not include them here-- if it was because my response to those issues was helpful to him or what, since he did not choose to tell me. The reason the list has not been issued since then is that I chose to allocate the time it takes to maintain that line of communication in order to respond fully and cooperatively with Micca when he raised these issues. He asked me to tell no one we were discussing this, although he had been discussing it with someone else. I respected that request with the exception of time spent in my own counseling sessions as I attempted to respond as lovingly and clearly as possible. I suggested to Micca that posting this thread at any time would be divisive and unfortunate. I further suggested that posting it now, while the excerpt in question is still a current prayer request-- an ongoing situation-- would also be very unfortunate and potentially hurtful to the people concerned in that siutation. Finally, I suggested that if he really wanted to post this thread, perhaps he and I might write it together. I told him what my schedule would be for the remainder of the 48 hours notice he had first given me for my response, so that if he accepted my suggestion he would know that I would not be free to begin to work together on it until this time this evening. He chose not to wait, and I found it in the brief time I had between commitments earlier today. He did not resond to my request that he define what he meant by "publishing" an excerpt, and I pointed out that he had made a number of unwarranted and unexamined assumptions. I am certainly sorry that feelings have been hurt, but may I point out please that what has actually been harmed here has been people's opportunity to pray about the situation for which prayer was requested, as well as a number of other new concern I have received and been asked to forward--NOT excerpts... personal requests. That is what has actually been impeded by the way this concern has been handled. To harm that in the name of copyright concern, over what WAS A PRAYER REQUEST to begin with-- is... I don't even know the word to use to approximate the misestimation in significance that has been powered up and aimed into this forum. Frankly, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that this would even have been raised when Pat and Karen have their situation to deal with, and I am angry to have been used in an effort to control what people may pray about, or who may pray, and how. I am baffled that my request to hold this matter for another time was ignored. I am mortified that my response to help has now been portrayed as something else, in connection with someone I love and admire and whose wife, by extension, surely must be a wonderful person and someone I wish only the best. I have thought about this quite a lot since I saw what Micca chose to post. I considered leqaving the forum woith no explanation, and I had indicated that posting the thread he first proposed would make that an eminently reasonable action on my part. On balance, and seeing the nature of some of the responses, I decided that to say nothing would be to allow his initial misstatement of the facts to contribute further to a negative atmosphere here among people I care about very much. Without naming the horrible awful bogeyman who had done this bad wrong, some of you (posting or lurking) would have had lingering suspicions. And with naming that bad character, any posts with my name on them now will recall these concerns. So I am clarifying the facts because I can see that the way this thread's opening post has been worded has increased the general level of suspicion here, and I think that is wrong to allow to go unanswered. I am very sad that Micca would have posted this after I asked him to continue communicating with me about it personally. He did not respond to a number of isssues I raised. I offered to give him a copy if what was under discussion; I pointed out that he had not even asked me who was in the prayer chain... But instead he posted this during a time I had told him I would be offline due to other commitments. Micca says the SOMEONE in question probably had good intentions... and I say Micca probably did too. But the result is unfortunate nonetheless, and I am going to do the one thing I can do personally to make sure this misuse of my intentions never occurs again in connection with me. Irony... the first two people to welcome me... one has spread confusion about me based on her own feelings, and the other, her best friend here, has been the unwitting occasion of controversy. I'm sorry for the latter, but to the fomer, I repeat, this was not about you, but you made it be, so have it. Have it. You can't unring a bell. My name here is now subject to suspicion. It's no use to me anymore, that name. And I don't care to have another. I'm making this my last Mudcat post. I will not be lurking, responding to personal messages, or participating in the Mudcat, or HearMe, any more. Since I will not be reading more here, there will thus be no need to respond to me, or defend me, or discuss me, at all. I don't plan on discussing this in e-mail either. I will not pour another iota of my energy into this black hole of negativity. And I urge you not to, either. I have really enjoyed most of my time here and I have made a lot of good friends I hope to keep for the rest of my life. And I hope you all have great lives. If you are ever in the neighborhood and want to play some tunes, you know where to find me. Thanks, Max. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:31 AM Well, I can appreciate that some sensibility got trod on inadvertantly here -- it felt untoward to a few folks, like a bubble of tacit silence had been broken. But a due regard to the intentions of the matter is in order before anyone starts raising issues of "ethics". Ethics is the effort to apply rationality to acheive the greatest good in a given situation, and I see no evidence that asking for others' prayers to help friend, with or without establishing agreeement ahead of the fact, is in any way a reflection on the thics of the decision. Given that a notion of praying as an effective recourse was already on the table, the effort to expand that recourse was purely well-intended and without fault. It seems to me, reviewing the original post that started this flap, that the facts of the matter were not stated completely, and certain implications were left available to the reader to draw which were in fact outside the facts of the case -- for example that multiple instances of the "copy and Paste" of personal feelings from Mudcat threads had been going on raising serious issues of ethics. If there's a lesson in it, it is is to find and weigh facts before you respond to alarums. Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,khandu Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:45 AM I am guilty. I was so delighted with the "How to annoy people" list that I sent is to my nephews via E-mail. I later discovered that they sent it to MANY others. At the time, I did not think about asking permission. I realize that this would have been proper, but I did not think of it. My deep apologies to the one who compiled the list. (I have since forgotten who wrote it...I will look it up.) I will do this no more. I am sorry. khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Micca Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:05 AM Amos, the reason for the "laundering" of the original post that made me think of this thread was for precisely those reasons, there was too much "identifiable individual", clouding what was, I thought a more serious underlying, general question. The question I was concerned about is, NOT whether people passed info around, everyone knows that happens, but whether the more personal things were being copied, without knowledge, to groups that maybe the original poster might not agree with. Read the original post. it qute clearly states that " This is not about individuals or whether it is ok to "blue clicky" to the 'Cat or to share contents of/or consult about threads on music or technique with interested parties, which I think, most would agree is OK" I KNOW this open to anyone but as Spaw and Morty have said, it is that ones friends might abstract and post, without consent that hurts, also on this prayer question , I am with Wyo Woman on that, I prefer "prayers" or whatever to come from people I " know", not from someone who has a list of names to read from, and BTW if Praise had simply published a list of names I would have had no problem with that, it was the abstracting of the entire opening post and copying it to an external group that irritated, and caised me to wonder if it was acceptable practice here, I see it is to some and not to others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:20 AM I am wrestling with this one as I don't think that I would chose to circulate what is obviously personal information, e.g. a healing thread, without the permission of those concerned although I would circulate jokes, music, etc. without hesitation. Ultimately, I think that everone has their own set of ethics and although some of us may choose not to circulate certain types of threads (or perhaps all threads), it would be wrong to accuse anyone who choses to do what I, for example, would not do as being unethical paritcularly as every post made here is (or should be) made in the full knowledge that it can be read by anyone. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oh please... From: Clinton Hammond2 Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:57 AM Holy "tempust in a teapot" Batman.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Gervase Date: 17 Nov 00 - 06:19 AM Praise, I don't know if you'll read this, or if you really have signed off for good - which would be a loss for all of us - but I think Micca was right to post what he did. I know that I've often forgotten the very open nature of the 'Cat, and I'm certainly now much more circumspect in what and when I post. On the other issue, that of trust, I would have misgivings if something concerning me was being circulated elsewhere. Particularly, as Wyowoman said, when it involves issues of faith and belief. We live in a world where sectarianism and many other "isms" have caused untold pain, and anything which may contribute that divisiveness or mistrust should surely be shunned. This is in no way a criticism of you, who I believe to be a generous hearted and decent soul - a true "Christian" if you like ( which is strange coming from me, who could not remotely be described as Christian) - and I do hope that you can somehow continue to give us your own insights on life and music. I certainly didn't see Micca's posting as a personal attack on you or your beliefs, and I know that he had the best of intentions. Today the 'Cat may seem to be a black hole of negativity, but tomorrow is another day. This place, built by Max and others, has been given its particular spirit by the people here, yourself included. Stick with it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock Date: 17 Nov 00 - 06:31 AM Morticia said it well - it's not the prayer bit that counts, but knowing that someone's thinking about you and yours. In fact, I wasn't aware that the whole aim of the aforementioned thread was prayer - I saw it as an opportunity, as many others did, to let Spaw know we wished him and his family well. It's so good to know you have the support of people you interact with and whose writings you enjoy on an almost daily basis, and when one of them could do with it, it's nice to let them know that you care. It's easy to forget sometimes that Mudcat is open to the whole world. I used to drop in a lot and read the threads ages ago when I was too shy to post, but I'll admit that the personal and meaningful ones didn't interest me as I didn't know the people involved. I just liked the jokes. I expect there's an awful lot of people out there just reading, and even if we're aiming our messages at the people we know, they're getting them too. And that's no bad thing, unless we're boring them... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jeri Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:33 AM Praise-who-isn't-reading-this: For me, Micca's question was not about you or one particular incident. It's a good topic for discussion, and I don't think your collaboration or permission should be necessary. Let's face it, editing is not something that happens here. His question could have come off as unpolitic, IF he had referred directly to you, but you're the one who turned the discussion specifically to Praise and the Prayer Chain. (good band name)
Divisive? So when did we ever agree on anything? Micca posted a general question about whether something was right or wrong. Maybe I'm just denser than most people, but I didn't see a link between his question and one individual or set of circumstances. The question may have arisen because of Praise's communication with him, but that's more than it was about. The only the only clear answer to Micca's question about sharing excerpts outside of Mudcat is, each situation is different, and each one of us has different opinions on right and wrong. I'd share jokes and advice both musical and non with friends without remorse. I'd share anecdotes about "there's this guy who wrote this incredibly moving post about his experiences in VietNam" with friends. If I was religious and participated in a prayer group, I might even share requests for prayers with friends. An awful lot of the prayer requests have ASKED for this. These people are asking for help, and I don't think they give much of a damn ('scuse me) where it comes from - the inner Mudcat or the Mudcat extension. This forum spreads farther than we can imagine. I wouldn't send personal information people write to strangers - not an e-mail list of "200 of my closest friends," a newsgroup, or readers of a magazine or newspaper. I can't really explain WHY I wouldn't do it - too many factors, mostly involving implied trust. But I don't believe that trust would be felt by non-members or even some less-connected members. If a person writing a magazine article on chronic depression stumbled accross the depression thread, I don't see much preventing them from using quotes from it. In any case, I think this is a good discussion about trust - some people trust others more or less than others are aware of or expect, and some expect to be trusted more or less than others feel is reasonable. It evens out in the end, I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:53 AM Well, I suppose an archaeologist might be interested in my jokes, oterwise I can't think any of my contributions would be of the slightest interest to anyone and my soubriquet may prevent anyone attributing my various gaffes, misapprehensions, senior moments and misquotations to my "real" self (though my first couple of postings were under my actual name, I hadn't developed my Mudcat persona then). I once did a wider web search on a topic I'd asked about here and the mudcat thread was one of the results retrieved so, like it or not, we are already "out there". ...and of course my employers could read my threads if they really wanted to... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Grab Date: 17 Nov 00 - 09:02 AM Maybe I'm a "short-timer" here, but... Micca, is this specifically an issue with Praise's "prayer chain"? I'm not a Christian and I have no belief in this (as someone above said, it's more to do with knowing that ppl care), so I can't make any judgement on this - in this case, it's up to the individual to decide what they think is right. Praise obviously thought she was OK to do that; maybe you don't (can't tell from context if this is the problem). Could you not PM and discuss it that way? Usenet is enough of an example of what happens when flame wars go on - I'd hope ppl here could discuss stuff in private if it's likely to prove flamebait. On the "taking stuff of the 'cat" front, I should say that I've taken songs that ppl have posted and used them. I've taken particularly good jokes off here, and forwarded them to friends who I thought might appreciate them. Lyr reqs or info reqs posted by ppl about songs I'm interested in, I've used those too. I don't see any harm in this - if you post something like that to the Mudcat, you're doing it to make it public and share your knowledge, not to keep it hidden. I know if I came up with an email joke, I'd be seriously impressed if it ever came back to me via email, or if I wrote a song, I'd be impressed to hear someone else singing it without knowing that I'd written it. It's knowing that something you created is bringing happiness to others, and then it's no longer important that it's you that started it. This is of course rather different to sharing personal information you may have learnt on here. Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Brian Date: 17 Nov 00 - 09:41 AM I'm amazed that anybody brought this subject up on Mudcat. How many people seek permission from authors and composers before publishing their copyright material here? Prior to posting, is any regard given to whether that material was written for commercial gain, or through personal feelings? The truth is, that once material is in the public domain we all tend to treat it as being available to copy and share at will. And Mudcat is public domain. So is this not a case of 'People in glass houses.......' Mudcat is used, in all good faith, as an open access information exchange, and as such is available to both members and guests (such as me). While I am all for people acting in an ethical and responsible manner, and would not dream of copying a personal posting, I fail to see how anybody could treat the forum as being private. If you want a private conversation with your friends, don't stand on the roof and shout. If you want to control who has access to your ramblings, sure as hell don't post them via the internet. Cheers, Brian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: SINSULL Date: 17 Nov 00 - 09:51 AM I am a very private, self contained person. On numerous occasions, I have shocked myself with my own postings. Anyone reading the Mudcat threads knows more about me than most of my closest friends and family.But I have never lost sight of the "public" nature of this forum. The world is free to read what I have written. I am free too to post misinformation, outright lies, exaggerations, whatever. Several people have asked permission to copy and share some of my musings. I have never said "No'. And I have always been surprised that they thought they needed to ask. Micca has a valid point. This is a topic worth discussing. Praise, in my opinion, had Spaw's permission, even request, to pass the posting to a prayer circle. Spaw may disagree. For the record, I firmly believe in the power of prayer and gladly accept any offers of such. If any of my postings ended up in the "wrong" hands or turned up in a New York Times article on internet misfits, I would be chagrined but angry only at myself for sharing them on a public forum. My choice. Praise and Micca are valuable members of this community. Like good upstanding members, they are having a disagreement. I hope everyone stops, takes a deep breath, and finds a way to "make nice". Praise - I love you dearly. But - "a black hole of negativity"? That's downright unfair. And not worthy of you. If you are still here, PM me. I have a lot to say and i will listen to all you have to say. If Praise is really gone, someone please PM me with an email address. The alternative is that I will start an atheist prayer circle for Praise and the Hardyman's return - Lord only knows where that may lead! (pun intended). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Mrrzy Date: 17 Nov 00 - 10:09 AM I am committing the Mudcat sin of posting my answer to the original question without having read every word of everybody's responses so far, but I promise, when I have more time I'll go back and read. My assumption was that nothing posted here was Private. That is why I don't use my real name. I think that I might actually take it as a compliment if someone cut what I said about something out and pasted it somewhere, even if it was to say Look at this idiot. I mean, at least I'd have gotten their attention! But I can see that others might not agree. For instance the Bummed Out And Singing Anyway thread, about my own personal sorrow at not getting sole custody of my twins - people said some really nice things there. Would I have offended had I cut some of those and used them as examples of how to advise the sorrowful? Perhaps. I like to think that I would have eliminated any names in so doing, though, to protect their identity... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Nov 00 - 10:39 AM Well, it's interesting that this question should come up... Way back when there was a long thread about Cuba. It contained so much fascinating material and comment from so many different viewpoints that I printed out the whole thing and kept it, just for my own enjoyment. It seriously occurred to me that I could publish the whole lot word for word as a book and call it something like "The Cuban Question In 2000" or whatever... I would not do so, however, without protecting the anonymity of the posters (by changing their names)...AND NOT WITHOUT SECURING PERMISSION FROM ALL THE POSTERS FIRST! I have no plans at the moment to take the idea any further, but it DID occur to me, that's all. Any comments on this? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: SINSULL Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:01 AM Just one comment, LH - why would anyone pay to read it when they could come here and get it for free? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Elroy Jetson Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:15 AM It's pretty bizarre to see Mudcatters ragging on about privacy and copyrights. Privacy: Mudcat is not a private domain. It is open and available to anyone on the planet with WWW access. That's hundreds of millions of potential readers of anything you say. Copyrights: Mudcat itself seems dedicated to the posting, without any permission, of song lyrics that are supposed to be protected by copyright. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Praise: Bye-Bye. But, the fact is, we need a whole lot less of Jesus and a lot more rock and roll.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:24 AM Look gang, I don't think we have anyone so stupid as to believe this is anything but a public forum and we post at our own risk. We all know that. The difference lies in the nature of the "community" here and the little bits of "ethical courtesy" we have generally come to accept because of the friendships built here. No its not necessary, but it has come along as other things have, as the norm of expected behavior. Way back when we ran that Vietnam thread, it came to me that it was a remarkable thread and the broad spectrum of stories told wihtin it would make a wonderful play.....a tableau sort of thing with spotlights and blackout areas and film in the background...........I can still see it very clearly and it probably needs done. However, even though the information contained is right on the threads and available to anyone, I would not think about doing a play of any type and using all those heartfelt words and painful remembrances without getting the agreement of each and every one of the people involved. Would I have to?....No. Would common courtesy and the value of friendship take precedence?....You bet! Does that answer your question LH? I like the "community" of Mudcat. A simple request is not out of line to ask and it eliminates the hard feelings possibly engendered when we don't. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Brian Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:12 PM It was not my intention to comment on any specific case, or disagreement between individuals. That's not my arguement, so I'll stay out of it. The point I was making was regarding the fact that copyright and published work originating outside this forum is regularly treated as public domain and redistributed here, often without seeking prior permission from it's author. So it strikes me as odd, that people who happily engage in this free exchange of information, should then start to worry when a few of their own public musings get passed in the opposite direction. I'm not suggesting that authors, composers, etc. object, or suggesting that it is unethical. I'm just making the point that it goes on in a spirit in good faith to help people who share in a mutual interest. We all rely on trust and the good judgement of others, both here and in the real world. Personally, keep a measure of control of the deepest thoughts by reserving them for my wife, and very dearest friends. Definitely not publishing them on the global fish tank. And if you want permission to quote me on that, the answers NO!!! Only joking - honest. Cheers Brian
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Gervase Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:16 PM Sinsull, You ask, quite sensibly, "why would anyone pay to read it when they could come here and get it for free? " I don't know, but they do, and an entire industry is predicated on that fact. Something may be "public domain" but there are publics and there are publics. Certainly that's how countless freelance journalists earn their crusts - by finding information that only a few know about and flogging it to the many; whether it's gutting technical publications for stuff that could reach a wider audience, going through the stuff in the local paper for human interest/feature material that can be sold on or even by trawling the internet. Ask any freelance and they'll tell you that the internet has revolutionised the way they work. It's also posed major ethical questions for writers and editors, in that plagiarism is so hard to eradicate (particularly when to copy and paste is a matter of a couple of keystrokes). Remember, something you write here could turn up in a newspaper or magazine half a world away and you might never know. Most hacks (and I was one for 20 years) are lazy, and if someone else can turn an elegant phrase or mint a new insight then they'll turn jackdaw and make it their own. All of which is a million miles from what has been the major bone of contention in this issue, but it bears thinking about. Shit, some poor freelance could almost make a piece about this thread..."Trust in a virtual world....When the Internet's first Arcadian community started to fall apart"..."The Christian, the Pagan and an act of faith..."! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: SINSULL Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:21 PM Gervase? Are you back into the communion wine? At least you have given me an idea - I have wanted to write a book for years. Now I know where to begin. Now where exactly is that thread on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Phantom Lurker Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:26 PM This entire thread is a perfect illustration of the fact that some catters are making some dangerously naive assumptions about life on the Net. Their naivet‚ is dangerous because it can result in real harm to themselves and others. Even if the harm is only psychic, it is still real. Some catters actively encourage such naivet‚. I think it is morally and ethically WRONG to encourage such naivet‚. You are encouraging such naivet‚ when you talk about Mudcat as if it were a real community of people who interact regularly face-to-face. You are encouraging such dangerous naivet‚ when you make warm and fuzzy comparisons between Mudcat and other traditional communities. You are selling a vision of Mudcat which is not simply false but can cause serious problems if fallen for. You don't extol the myriade virtues of a person's favorite Bordeaux if they are currently a member of AA unless you want to cause trouble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:31 PM I'd encourage a spell checker.....or not. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jeri Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:59 PM Well, Mudcat is a real community, although of a different sort than your hometown. And many of us do interract face to face. Not interracting face to face means only you can't see or touch a person, and it's easy for people such as yourself to remain anonymous and still join in, or remain completely hidden and just listen to the conversation. It's naive to think Mudcat can fulfill all your needs for a community, it's also naive to take the other extreme point of view and think that it doesn't fulfill any. Real relationships are formed here, real friends made. Regarding your AA analogy, it's more like talking about how great a bar/pub is with others who are sitting in it. If there's someone there who is an alchoholic, they either haven't decided to stop drinking, or they've learned how to remain in a bar and stay sober. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: SINSULL Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:24 PM How exciting! First Allan C. tells me (among others) that I am beautiful and now the Phantom Lurker says I am dangerous. I have always wantd to be considered dangerous. Life in the Mudcat community is good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Peg Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:36 PM The issue here, to me, does not seem to be so much one of fair use or copyright or internet privacy or propriety... Forgive me, but the issue here seems to be one of religion. I am gonna go out on a limb here and offer some, ahem, devil's advocate type of ways to think about this... I think someone earlier asked, how would a devout Christian mudcatter who, for example (not to pick on you, Praise, but I am just trying to get this straight), belonged to a prayer circle which regularly led prayers to God and Jesus and the Virgin Mary et al, feel if they were the subject (without their knowledge) of a healing circle by a group of witches? I know that, as a witch, who was raised catholic and rejected it and sought another path, I am comfortable with some Christians and not with others. I am specifically not comfortable with Christians who would wish to convert me, who think I am deceived by Satan because I am pagan, or who think I need saving in some way. I am quite comfortable with Christians who respect my choice to worship as I choose, as I respect theirs. (Far as I can tell Praise is pretty respectful of such differences). I surely would want to know if a prayer circle of this sort were praying to Jesus about MY problems if I had not asked them to do so...mainly because I would feel that. somewhere along the line, one of more members of that group would be praying not just for my healing, but for my salvation at the hands of Jesus. Maybe that is presumptuous of me...maybe it isn't. Likewise, I think a Christian who is uncomfortable with a similar situation, i.e., a coven of witches asking for healing on their behalf to THEIR pagan gods, would have every right to be upset if such was done without their consent. This is why witches, as a rule, ALWAYS attempt to obtain permission for such workings, if the recipient of such healing energy is not a pagan; and actually, we ask permission of fellow pagans, too. Magic works. Prayer, I am told, does, too. They are really not so very different. If the adherents of the one can be bothered to ask permission of its recipients before embarking on healing magic, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I have tried to speak generally here, and am not aiming my remarks at trying to hurt or expose anyone. This is purely hypothetical and merely my take on the matter. Ignore it if it is not helpful. blessed be, Peg
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:38 PM I think you're all beautiful. But reviewing the two hingepoints of this thread--Micca's first declarations, and Praise's counterpoint--I submit that well-intended or not, an injustice has been committed by the implicate aspersions raised, compared to the full set of facts. I can't condone injustice without saying something about it if I can (well, I don't always live up to that puffed up principle but I try). So I am saying so here. Offering to extend a request for prayers to others who use and believe in the same principle, in order to help, is not an ethical lapse, no matter how stuffy we want to get about it on other issues. Anyway, I done said my said and will now shut up on it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,emily b Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:43 PM OK - here I am a guest. But I've been around for a few years with postings here and there. As a guest, I can't find out who you are, I can't PM any of you (at least I don't think I can) so how can I ask permission? I've taken many thoughts from Mudcat and shared these with friends, family, etc. I never thought about it in any other way than "You wouldn't believe what I overheard on the bus today." Totally anonymous quoting. Does that make sense? I get the sense that the mudcat community feels like what a small town must feel like when the national media descends for some reason. Everyone continues to act the same but gets upset when they are depicted as themselves on national TV. We are all who we are whether we are with our friends or in front of the world. If you aren't comfortable with that, then you must be very careful how you present yourself here. But remember, to us guests, you are very anonymous. We don't know your gender, your race, where you live, what you believe unless you choose to share all of this. As far as people praying for me, I figure thousands of people include me in their prayers everyday when they pray for the souls of all the heathens that haven't been saved yet. Let them pray. It just might help. Emily |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: mousethief Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:58 PM Peg, I'm a Christian, and one in a pretty conservative Church, too, but if your witch circle wants to pray (or whatever your verb is) for my healing, please feel free! I would be honored. But I understand that some would feel uncomfortable about such a thing, and therefore can understand the vice-versa side of it to (e.g. Pagans not wishing to be prayed for by Christians). And thus asking permission about people one prays for (or whatever the proper verb is in one's own circle) is a Good Thing. PS your "devil's advocate" reference is cute. :)
Now when Christians sit with Pagans
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 00 - 02:01 PM ......what was it Pete Seeger said about 'interpretations' of "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy"?...something like: "...I didn't sing anything about Vietnam...I'm only a shoemaker...I go about the world making shoes. You can try on my shoes if you please, and if the shoe fits...." If anyone has that quote more accurately,........ Praise did a lot of good things here, and contributed a lot or humor & insight on many things....but, her religion was so closely tied to everything she did that sometimes she did the local equivilent of boxings 'leading with your chin'. I know Christians who can interact with the world everyday without making their faith a live 'issue' among their friends...who knows, perhaps I am being prayed for everyday..*shrug*. I will miss Praise, if she stays away, but she may be wiser than any of us realize if BEING here caused her more strain than satisfaction.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 17 Nov 00 - 02:21 PM Although I never read the Vietnam thread, yours sounds like a piss poor excuse for not writing that play, Spaw. I recognize those kinds of excuses because I make them myself. Under copyright, you can take any idea and rework it. Give the mudThreaders a credit in the dedication. They'll be tickled pink. Perhaps some won't but don't lose two winks over it. An issue that only a few folks like WyoWoman hinted at is why we find prayer circles more threatening than other circles of weird people, like circle jacks or song circles. God knows I need to be prayed for. I don't know about you. Those praying are just people who eat, drink, and fart like the rest of us. If I ever feel like I really need to be prayed for, I'm calling WyoWoman. Sounds like she knows how to pray with perfect intentions. How large of a bribe does it take to get a person who prays perfectly to pray for you? One of my brothers told me that a man living about 1500 miles from here is still praying for me. I haven't seen the man in over thirty years. He still prays for me but he can't remember my name. He refers to me as the other brother, what's-his-name. That may be one of the hazards an old man faces when he decides to pray for a large shabby family with too many superfluous loutish kids. I don't take offense with his praying nor with his forgetting my name. Long ago I used to look up his daughter's dress and I can still remember her name. I figure it's a bit of divine justice. According to my brother, his daughter has put on a lot of weight since she and I walked along railroad tracks back in grade eight. Her knees are disappearing and her legs look like big sticks of bologna. I'm not sure my brother described her in those words but that's the image stuck in my mind's eye. eyes that admittedly don't see as clearly as they did in the past. You probably already guessed that I'm going to seed myself and it's not just my eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Nov 00 - 02:39 PM Geez flats, get it right......I was not using anything about this as an excuse. I was making a statement regarding permission and the like. I didn't give my excuse, but if you want that...sure! I'm too sorry and lazy to get on with it and I can always find something else to do like evacuate my bladder or wind my watch. Now don't get confused there either because that's not an excuse either, just a statement of fact. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 17 Nov 00 - 02:46 PM You lucky bastard, Spaw. My windup watch broke. Now you got me worried about my bladder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: mousethief Date: 17 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM Hey flattop -- people with perfect intentions don't take bribes. Those that do aren't the ones you want praying for you! And Spaw does NOT fart like the rest of us, if stories told be true, but I'm not sure if he's in a prayer circle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Bert Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:06 PM Spaw DOES fart like the rest of us. Like the rest of us all together;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:11 PM Hey Spaw -- kin ya do 'em BOFE at the same time?? Huh??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:14 PM Aw damn......Now its confession time....And right here in front of the whole world! Okay, here we go..........Man this is tough. Well.......First, I take lasix and evacuating my bladder is pretty easy although it can be a bit time consuming. I think if you take lasix you should have a catheter......or at least a funnel on a hose leading into toilet. Second........and this one's really tough............A couple of years ago I bought one of those Seiko kinetics so now I don't even have to replace a battery either, and unless I'm COMPLETELY catatonic, the sucker keeps a charge going all the time. Oh the shame of it all.................But listen, while I'm here, can I interest any of you in a Mudcat Little Evangelist Dash Statue? We're taking orders on another thread. Its a catfish with Max's face, jumping out of a banjo and playing a Dobro....AND, it incorporates a nose flute and a kazoo.....PLUS, it glows in the dark!!!! Check in on the "IMPORTANT" thread to place an order ('cause we've about beat this one to death). Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amergin Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:16 PM I don't know....I feel that not wanting some one to pray for you because of some of their or their church's personal beliefs a bit on the pompous side....for it is the healing thoughts that truly matter...to me it is like not going to a liquor store because they sell Canadian cigarettes... Amergin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:18 PM Sorry mouser. I thought that ethical questions were more complex and that they didn't lend themselves to pat answers. What if one had perfect intentions to take bribes? If stories be true, no one would live to tell about Spaw's farts, so we must take them on face value, with the nose to be more precise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: SINSULL Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:19 PM Speak for yourself, Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:23 PM Speaking only for myself, I always give "Pat" answers. Spaw......well, Pat really, but uh........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM Is that why Pat's holding his nose? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:30 PM Amerigin, I think that the matter is more complicated than that. Christians for example are supposed to believe in only one God and there are lots of references in the bible about people turning to other Gods and how wrong it is. Where would one draw the line between someone else praying to another God for you and you turning to another God? One could argue that the minute you become aware that this is happening, and accept those prayers, you are in fact seeking such help from the other God. I don't know how it works out with other religions but I would imagine similar situations could exist. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: mousethief Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:40 PM Jon, the line is that THEY are praying to their god(s) and I am not; I'm praying to MY god. If I were to pray to their god(esse)s, that would be "turning to other gods" but I'm not. The line between what THEY are doing and what I am doing seems a pretty thick and obvious line. Whatever I might think about another's religion, if they are praying for me (or whatever they might call it), they are honoring me in the best way they know how, and I accept that honor in the spirit (no pun intended!) it is offered. One can be respectful of other religions without being syncretistic or polytheistic. Or so it seems to me.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: flattop Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:43 PM Apart from the issue of God, what's the ethical issue that sounds like a slur on Canadian cigarettes? As a non-smoking Canadian, I might not approve of you going to the liquor store at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: MMario Date: 17 Nov 00 - 03:48 PM this is something that has always bothered me. If you believe in one and only one God; how CAN anyone pray to "other" gods? to paraphrase - "God by any other name...." so I cannot see a montheist objecting, whereas a polytheist could validly object. I personally believe that all prayers go to the same "e-mail account in the sky" - so I fiugre any prayer is good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Kim C Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:03 PM Personally, I make it a policy not to say anything here on this forum that I wouldn't tell anyone who asked (except my Mom and she don't have a computer). Y'all know about my tattoos and my thong underwear, that I like to smoke cigars and drink whiskey, that my father died this summer, etc., etc., etc. There's a lot more to me than that, that I ain't posting for all the world to see. So if there's something you don't want folks to tell non-Mudcatters, don't put it here. That's what personal mail is for. Now... of course I would ask someone before spreading around their COPYRIGHTED work. But a lot of the humor & jokes & other stuff that gets shared here comes from other sources to begin with. Also I am not concerned about whether or not conversation is considered a copyrighted work. If you wanna go around saying, Kim said so and so, go ahead. I don't care. If you want to use my song lyrics, put my name on them. I'm flattered you like them well enough to share them. Back to work. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Greyeyes Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:04 PM It does seem to me that Spaw's two main postings say all that needs to be said. This isn't an issue about legality, or copyright. Everybody here understands the concept of a public forum. But it is not extreme to raise the issue of ethics (which are of course relative), and basic good manners. Regardless of who has copied and circulated what in the past, it is just common courtesy to ask, especially if it is something at all personal, regardless of the public nature of the forum. Whatever some may think this IS a community, even if it is "only" a virtual one. Even though I'm only a newbie it is fairly apparent to me that as virtual communities go, this place is exceptional. If it appears to some that expecting the level of good manners and courtesy involved in asking permission to copy stuff is excessive, then consider Mudcatters excessively well mannered and courteous. Naemanson says he appreciated me asking if I could use his post for the obvious respect I paid him, as one human being to another. That is pretty much a definition of good manners and courtesy to me. It takes so little. I'm sorry if Praise has really gone, she was one of the reasons I joined, but I don't think Micca is at fault. Although it is non-music this sort of thread is what forums like this are for, and walking away slamming virtual doors behind you contribute and achieve nothing, and just appear petulant. There's nothing that can't be talked out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,Phantom Lurker Date: 17 Nov 00 - 04:58 PM Jeri, My first post was dashed off in the heat of passion. I am still trying to work this out. Let me try again. My reading of the responses to Micca was that the consensus was a shrug and "should've known better." I agree, but that's not the whole story. My posting was an attempt to flesh out the whole story. The issue is not whether Mudcat is a "real community." I agree that it is. The issue is about the morality of blurring or ignoring or dismissing what I feel are extremely important differences between Mudcat and other "real" communities. I call the issue a moral one because of the potential harm that the blurer or ignorer or dismsser can cause. The issue is not about any particular person's perceptions of Mudcat. It is about the problems that the unthinking voicing of such perceptions can cause. Your response to my analogy was good. Let me try again. Suppose at some key point I had said to someone's daughter, "I don't have a problem with mind altering substances. I tried everything I could get my hands on. Some worked and some didn't. Some I liked and some I didn't. As far as I can tell I've suffered no lasting harm. Go for it kid." Suppose further that what I told her was a true and accurate report of my own personal experiences. Would it be OK for me to unthinkingly say that to her. My gut feeling here is no. Because that's only one small part of the story. Another thing that I learned was that you never can tell. People react to mind altering substances very differently. Truly one person's meat is another person's poison. So, to bring it home, If you are going to be extolling the joys of the Mudcat experience, you should at least be aware of and give real thought to the possible consequence of a listener taking what you say seriously, and the possible results thereof. And you should be willing to assume some degree of responsibility for bad results, as well as some degree of responsibility for good results. IMO, you can't work hard to sell a viewpoint and then disavow all consequences when someone adopts that viewpoint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: mousethief Date: 17 Nov 00 - 05:09 PM Phantom, which viewpoint do you mean? Who was selling it? I'm confused. Is the last sentence part of the metaphor or is it meant literally? What is the dangeer to which you are alluding but never naming?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Greyeyes Date: 17 Nov 00 - 05:23 PM Phantom, I'm not sure that everyone is debating the same point here. A stranger or guest coming in and appropriating stuff from threads is a risk that anyone who posts on the net is aware of. The point here is, if a member of the "community" does it to other members, without asking permission, is it unethical and discourteous? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jon Freeman Date: 17 Nov 00 - 07:34 PM MouseThief, your statement "So it would seem to me" appears to indicate that you recognise that certain interpretations/ view points can and do exist even amongst members of the same religion and that your own viewpoint need not be the only one. I would suggest part of your respect should include those within your own faith that may see matters differently to you and understand why. Jon (who has had more trouble dealing with members of his own Christain faith - even though he gets angry with God - than with members of other religions and who's closest friends are in fact pagans and athiests) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: GUEST,khandu Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:37 PM Okay, dammit, that's enough! EVERYBODY OUTTA DA CAR! khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: CarolC Date: 18 Nov 00 - 01:16 AM Just one more, please. I've come somewhat late to this thread. I admit to finding some of the points of this discussion somewhat confusing. On two occassions, I stated in the forum that I was going to print, or had printed something out and was going to share it with people outside of the forum. The first time, when I had only been a member for a week or two, I told Spaw that I had printed out some Paw and Cletus humor and was annoying my friends with it. The second time, I said that I was going to print out the "snog of the decade" thread I started and give it to my friend, Don, in whose honor I had launched it. I have to admit that it never occured to me to ask first. On the other hand, no one said anything to me about it being not considered appropriate after I had done it either. I do have a problem with people publishing things that are said in the forum without the permission of the poster, however. And when I started a thread to gather information for a research paper, I made it clear that I would only use information that was given freely and with the full knowlege that the information would be used for that purpose. This sounds like an issue with a lot of grey, and not much black and white. I can't speak to the prayer circle part of it. I'm pretty careful about what personal information I post. If I care about how personal information might be used, I don't post it. Carol
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 18 Nov 00 - 02:40 AM The issue raised and being discussed is an alteration of the issue that happened in the first place. If I posted that I had a puppy that needed a good home, please help, and said that all offers of help would be welcome, I would be mad to complain that you found me a taker from outside the Mudcat. What the dialog going on is about is a practice that didn't occur. However, I guess I wouldn't mind getting involved in a long thread based on hypotheticals...IF only those with correctly qualified imaginations were allowed to contribute their hypothetical views...otherwise, well who knows what kind of bad vibes they might be bringing in -- bad imagination! It could discolor the whole conversation! Brrrrrrr. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: CarolC Date: 18 Nov 00 - 02:57 AM Actually, Amos, the part of my post that addresses the subject of people publishing, or wanting to publish my postings without my permission did occur. However, not with any of the people who are hypothetically being referred to in Micca's original post as far as I can tell. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: katlaughing Date: 18 Nov 00 - 10:07 AM It was my desire and MIcca's hope that this would stay out of the personal realm. But, as I have been named and implicated, I've decided to come forward. Praise added me to her prayer circle email without any mention of it to me until I started to receive them. Curiously she did this after telling me her trust in me had been destroyed. In each of those messages she very nicely asked people to let her know if they'd rather not receive them. Also, without ever contacting Spaw or me to ask, she copied and pasted almost my entire initial message on KarenSpaw to what I read to be a Christian-centric list, which also included a definitey Christian prayer asking that her group pray for the Mudcat to "fulfill God's purpose and glorify His name." Here is what I wrote to her, by email: "Susan, Please remove me from your list and, in future, please do NOT quote me in any of your requests. My requests are written for the Mudcat community, only. Thank you, kat" I received back a very nasty reply. I would include it here because I don't think email is considered private like PM's but it really isn't worth it. I was offended that my words and name were going out to people of whom I'd never heard. I was offended that what I read of prayer requests on her list were very and only Christian, and that she apparently was either portraying the Mudcat as a Christian site or trying to turn it into one. I was offended at her reply to me. I contacted Micca because I did not want to get into a personal mudslinging match. Praise has been angry at me since last March when I made remarks on the FUG-A-Thon thread which she took personally and because I refuse to get into a debate with her about it or anything else. Thanks, Micca for sticking you neck out and thanks to the rest of you for the interesting discussion. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jon Freeman Date: 18 Nov 00 - 10:28 AM kat, I too recieved the Prayer Circle email list in error but put that down to her trying to re-organise - just a simple mistake asfar asI am concerned. This email does quote a post made by you in Mudcat and I have checked on its accuracy wich is fine. In this post, you say:
"Please join me, in your own way, in sending good thoughts, etc. to Karen and Pat for her swift and complete recovery. Thank you." Praise was doing no more than what YOU asked for i.e. going about it in her way. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Bill D Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:14 AM think about it folks......what would this look like as a news story on CNN? "Woman has bike accident in Ohio, and dispute over how to send her good wishes for speedy recovery triggers acrimonious debate throughout the world" over stated? Perhaps. It can be debated which act truly 'went over the line' as an appropriate way to deal with it all, but I AM sure that if EVERYONE had limited their public (that is, EVERYTHING but private PMs or email) remarks to personal, non-sectarian, non-'colored' good wishes, this would not be where it is. ain't this about the umpty-eighth time we have gotten into this sort of tussle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:25 AM Carol. Kat: You have both brought up parts of the story I wasn't aware of. Which says something about the thread here -- that it is the tip of an iceberg more implied that explicate. I don't believe this whole flap was handled well from either end. Those of us who have convictions that lie well beyond the Christian model, whether Buddhist, pagan, or Muslim, would be better served by demonstrating the tranquility of our convictions. Nasty emails are equally immature. and I am not trying to fault anyone, especially since the whole tale will never be known. Yeah, about the umpty-eighth time, Bill, if memory serves. An' I thought raisin' teeens was a hassle! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jon Freeman Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:46 AM "Those of us who have convictions that lie well beyond the Christian model, whether Buddhist, pagan, or Muslim, would be better served by demonstrating the tranquility of our convictions." What is that supposed to mean Amos and why single out Christianity? Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Rick Fielding Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:50 AM Just got caught up on this since my (supposed to be) joke post......and...... This has all been about PURLOINED PRAYERS??!! Give me strength! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:01 PM Hi Group......."Eye of the Storm" just checking in here........................ So as not to beat a dead horse (PLEASE BILL...Don't run that picture again, I can't take it(:<))....Read my other two serious posts on this thread. The whole thing started long ago when I was sick and I don't think anyone meant to escalate to a war over messages of support, no matter what the source. I will tell you that I found it hard to express my deep appreciation to everyone back then. No matter what the "religion" I knew that everyone cared and that was enough for me.....more than enough actually......and that's what these things are about....letting people know we care. Karen could not be more appreciative of the wonderful messages she (and I) have received in the past week. I would suggest that we change the "titles" to "Good Thoughts" or "Support" or something along those lines which I think is something the entire community can agree on..........In our own ways, we want to let friends in trouble know that we care and are supporting them. AND, although we all know the net and blah, blah, yada, yada.........It seems obvious to me that most around here are interested in maintaining a common ethical courtesy with one another and the regulars might do well to at least contact and ask permission of the parties involved before going outside. I know that any outsider can do as they please, but I value the friendships and would not want to put anyone in a position of having to say, "Geez, Spaw/Pat, I wish you'd have talked to me before you did that." If that means there is a stricter set of guidelines for regulars/members than anyone else than so be it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Morticia Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:15 PM It seems to me that the point, if I have a grasp on it, is an ethical one and simply stated goes something like..... if someone wants to use your words and your name in a forum outside the Mudcat, for whatever purpose, is it considered polite to ask first?. Not necessary, not legal, just polite. Seems to me Micca was not saying there are right or wrong answers here, just trawling for opinions.....and if I have read the thread properly, people seem divided on whether it's necessary or legal but only a few have addressed whether it's 'good manners'. Courtesy,IMHO, costs nothing,and what is what, by and large, this community is built on..... what can it hurt to ask? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: SINSULL Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:37 PM Mr. Spaw - you have a very short memory. I refer to the thread you inflicted on me knowing I would be mortified. You didn't talk to me before that because you knew I would say "Don't you dare!" It's a good thing I love you. This is one of those times when everyone is right and everyone is hurt. Praise believes she is being criticised for praying for Karen. Others think she should not have taken public information and made it more public even with the best of intentions. Plus there appears to be a real concern about "converting the 'Cat". There also appears, to me at least, to be a sensitive underlying "Christian vs. whatever" theme. Be very careful. You are on dangerous ground. The issue Micca legitimitely brought up was the copying and use of quotes from the threads without express permission from the the author. It was triggered by Praise's use of Kat's quote for a prayer group BUT prayer/religion is not the issue. I am afraid that, in an attempt to defuse the "spat", people's beliefs are unintentionally being trivialized. And if I am wrong, tell me to shut up and go away. I'll leave the thread but not the Cafe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:38 PM Oh, Morticia, yore so incisive. You wrapped it up. Jon, dinna fasch yourself. It was supposed to mean that if you have spiritual convictions and represent yourself as an embodiment of them, then you should act accordingly. And if I may say so you're bristling more than needed; the context regarding Christianity came from Kat's remarks about what happened. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:49 PM Shall we go for two hundred? The beliefs were -- it is clear from Kat's information -- a key element in the scrap; Micca's post left that part out altogether, but it was part of the real iceberg under the surface. As for trivializing beliefs, my apologies if anything I said created the notion that I meant to do so. What I thought I was doing was trivializing immature conduct. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:56 PM Naw Sins.....I was thinking of that myself, but I love you too......and I hope everyone else does.(:<))Say, aren't you supposed to be in Manchester? Morty, you hit it nicely and that is what I was trying to say, but you nailed it far better and more succinctly. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Little Neophyte Date: 18 Nov 00 - 12:58 PM I really like Catspaw's suggestion about the "Good Thoughts" or "Support" thread titles. It feels more universally inviting. Little Neo
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Matt_R Date: 18 Nov 00 - 05:46 PM I think Praise got it right. Mudcat IS become a black hole of negativity. I'd never thought I'd hear myself do it, but I miss MY old days of the Mudcat, where we had music and GOOD B.S. threads. Not it's all politics and garbage. I mean, we've already got THREE threads on the stupid English Reclamation of America thing. And the forum is loaded with threads about "What XXX do you hate?" and threads with everyone heartily agreeing about how stupid something is. Total Mudslide is what I call it. I'm hardly ever hear anymore. Time was, I used to read almost every thread. Now, I'm lucky if I read 2 or 3 a day. I guess I too will drift off into the realm of lurking former members who long for the Golden days. May the Goddess of Mudcrap bless your asses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Morticia Date: 18 Nov 00 - 05:57 PM Haven't seen you start a thread in some while Matt.....if you don't like what's here, add something you do like. And since when has honest debate been negative?Surely a putting forward of views in a reasonably good tempered and respectful manner is positive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 18 Nov 00 - 06:01 PM Wow, Mbo! You sure have cut yourself a new suit! Never thought i'd see the day when you saidf something like that! Well done, man! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Jon Freeman Date: 18 Nov 00 - 06:10 PM Matt, I do believe those who talk about earlier days and that things were different but I have not noticed any significant changes in the time that I have been here. Mudcat seems to me to follow a circular pattern and threads such as this are part of that pattern although I hadn't seen the ethical question brought up. It is a shame that this thread became more personal than it first appeared to be but that is just another part of Mudcat life and it will happen again and I will not stay silent where I feel someone is (indirectly at least) unfairly accused of being unethical - that matter should never have reached the forum or when posts can be interpereted as Christinas vs the rest which is another direction this thread appeared to be heading in. As for thread content, I am not sure whether my own interest in MC varies or whether this is another part of a MC cycle but I go through weeks where I may read 75% of the threads and others where I may read 10% but I don't see that as being a problem and overall, I love Mudcat and I know that with a little give and take on all sides, all quarrels can blow over and be forgotten about. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Matt_R Date: 18 Nov 00 - 06:16 PM Oh yes, I forgot. Mudcat's decline in quality is MY problem. Just like my Philadelphia Phillies. In '93 they were an awesome team. Now they are basement rats. I suppose THAT's my problem as well. And believe me, I've tried to post about what I like here. But others neither like or care about it, so why bother anymore? Enjoy your flatulence limericks and songs about genitalia. I will seek out a friendlier sky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Morticia Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:34 PM So what did you do to the baseball/football team, then Matt? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 18 Nov 00 - 08:09 PM What -- YOU did that? Dang, Matt...you sure have grown some awesome powers since I last saw you!!! It musta been that post about "Phillies RULE" that did it. Sheesh, I am impressed! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: mousethief Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:35 PM Jon: "I would suggest part of your respect should include those within your own faith that may see matters differently to you and understand why." Okay, say I do. What do I do differently, then? Should I tell people from religions different than my own not to pray for me, since there are people in my religion -- whom I disagree with strongly -- who think it's wrong for me to *let* people from another religion pray for me? I don't understand what exactly you want me to DO about this. You asked a question ("where do you draw the line?") and I answered it, and all of a sudden I'm not respectful. Please clarify.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Matt_R Date: 18 Nov 00 - 11:44 PM I should have known I would be met with dumb humor and not seriousness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Amos Date: 19 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM Aw, Matt, it'll be okay. Things are missing compared to nine months ago, but you will recall there were many peoople nine months ago who were whining about the good old days of the Mudcat. It's kinda like a sandbox -- the traffic ebbs and flows and the fun level rises and falls, but they don't necessarily do so in phase. Cheer up, pal. And congratulations on your new hormones! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Serious Ethical Question From: Noreen Date: 19 Nov 00 - 01:50 PM Please continue on BS: Serious Ethical Question, part 2 |