 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 |