--- In [email protected], "peterklutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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?
About the article, or about NASW's approval? Here's the article: http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm I "speculate" that NASW wouldn't have published his article if they thought it transgressed NASW's ethical guidelines. > 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. Well, read it for yourself and see if you think it's an "objective" account of his experience. It was published in 1991. In any case, I don't see any "objective" qualifier in the guideline, do you? It just says *no related writing*. > 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. Gracious, don't ever entertain thoughts that don't please you, no matter how factual they are, no matter how contradictory they are to the ones that do please you! > > Apparently there are some exceptions or loopholes > > in the ethics requirement you quote. > > Where? I don't have a clue. The requirement seems pretty ironclad as I read it. But then again, there was obviously an exception made for Andrew, so whoever applies the requirement must have managed to find one.
