--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <peterklutz@> > wrote: > <snip> > > > > I suppose the guy also can be sued :-) > > > > Check out this para: > > > > <QUOTE> > > NASW members may not identify themselves as members of the > > organization in connection with any writing that takes a political > > position, endorses a candidate, supports specific legislation, or is > > related to fundraising activities or the promotion of a product, > > policy, or company or other organization. > > </QUOTE> > > > > <SOURCE> > > http://www.nasw.org/about/ethics.htm > > </SOURCE> > > Skolnick published an article in NASW's own > newsletter about his JAMA piece on TM and the > fallout therefrom, so it's not exactly as if > NASW didn't approve of his activities along > these lines.
Do you know that or are you specualting? It's entirely possible that the guy kept his dick reasonbly zipped up inside his pants when writing an 'objective' piece about this 'experience' and then - as the plot deepened and his zipper came unglued, thye tossed terminated his account. I am sure there plenty of theoretical alternatives around but this is thought that pleases me the most, so that's what I am sticking to. > Apparently there are some exceptions or loopholes > in the ethics requirement you quote. Where?
