Personally, there is nothing that I post here that I would mind others posting elsewhere. This is not a psychiatrists office, and I am sitting at a computer, not laying on a couch. If somebody is posting something here that they don't want copied, they should state so at the time, in my opinion. I would take your suggestion of the 'sig' and reverse it to being included only if one did not want their words posted. Without knowing the specifics, I am sure no harm was done, no threat created. If this is the case, no harm - no foul imo.
On Jul 25, 10:41 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > You know, I've thought long and hard about this issue. I know Craig is > studying legalities, and there will be some determination, I'm sure, but I > want my personal opinion on the record. > > I have no problem with my posts being reproduced, with attribution. I think > for it to be perfectly clear to all users, posts which are intended for > reproduction should be tagged as such, with a sig indicating where they can > be read. > > Once again, this is my opinion, and does not represent the total opinion of > the admins here. > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:Molly Brogan <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:25:47 -0700 > (PDT)Local:Fri, Jul 24 2009 2:25 pmSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Are you in > control? > > Thanks, Francis! An added bonus. I will say that in terms of the > mind's eye group, I do not include the whole thread, and do not copy > posts that are not relevant to the topic, wandering off topic, > bickering and argumentative, or too obscure to make much sense. It > may seem like editing, but it is actually including the posts that are > relevant to the topic. I always try to make sure that the main ideas > of the conversation are clear and followed through to fruition. > > I will be glad to go back to sending a private email to posters that > might be included, asking permission. Because I do not reproduce > these as a commodity, like a book that I sell, I do not believe they > are considered intellectual property, especially given the google > conditions. But that is my opinion and I am sure the laws are ever > changing and the admin will work it out. Thanks Francis, and everyone > who has voiced their support. > > It is a nice segue into a discussion of "control" of public domain of > the internet and openness and freedom of information and learning that > results from our instantaneous access to information via the net. Do > we really need to be in complete control of everything we write onto > the web from our computers (I am not sure it is possible...) or is it > more of a matter of morals and ethics (should we be writing anything > we wouldn't want everyone in the world to see... > > I have google searches performed daily of my name, company name etc. > Google emails me every day with what they find on the web. The > darndest things show up, and I find myself on myriad blogs and > webpages. I have found very few instances where I asked that my name > or articles be removed from a site. When I do, folks have always > complied although given the current state of the laws, I really have > no recourse to "make" them other than spending a ton of money pressing > the legal issues. I think this is the way it should be. There is a > freedom here, that benefits us in ways we cannot imagine. It connects > us globally, and we discuss issues and think about things in ways that > we might not otherwise. Why try to control it? > > On Jul 24, 1:27 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I've just been looking over Molly's "Converstions ..." blog. > > Personally, I don't have any problem with Molly reproducing my posts > > there. She acknowledges Mind's Eye openly as a source and - given that > > anyone on the web (with, perhaps, exceptions in places like China and > > Iran) can read what we post here - I don't see what the big issue is > > in having it accessible from another source. This is, of course, > > assuming that our contributions aren't edited or changed without our > > assent. In fact, I find it interesting to read some posts on the > > subjects from other sources. I suspect that one result of this > > discussion will be me looking in on Molly's blog a bit more frequently > > in the future :-) > > > Francis > > > On 24 Jul., 15:30, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Molly, > > > > I'm afraid it appears that whoever told you that you did not need > > > permission > > > to reproduce Mind's Eye posts without specific permission from the actual > > > poster(s) has over-stepped their powers. See article 7 here: > > > >http://groups.google.co.uk/intl/en_uk/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.... > > > > The admins are discussing this at the moment, but I'd suggest holding back > > > from re-posting any more content until we're totally clear on the rules > > > and > > > their implications. Craig is a lawyer, so confident we'll get to the > > > bottom > > > of it. > > > > Ian > > > > 2009/7/23 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > This is no secret, Orn, as you well know. When I began participating > > > > in Minds Eye in 2007, I asked members directly for permission to > > > > include these posts in the same discussion on this blog. After some > > > > time of that, the admin told me that I no longer needed to to this as > > > > it is a public forum and permission not necessary. FYI - posts from > > > > several forums on the internet are included on this blog. I do not > > > > make money on it and have not received complaints until now. It does > > > > no harm, is not a secret, and I am told, is interesting and sometimes > > > > helpful. > > > > > But we have been through this before and I am not sure why you keep > > > > bringing it up, especially when it disrupts a thread and has no > > > > relation to it. As I said, if you (or anyone) care enough to email > > > > me, I will be glad to discuss it with you further. For now, I break > > > > no rules and am indeed following instruction from 2007. > > > > > On Jul 22, 8:05 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chris, in most instances of Molly starting a topic and ending with > > > > > "What do you think?" here at Mind's Eye, it is directly associated > > > > > with and copied from her personal webpage/blog: > > > > > >http://cblegacy.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > You can check the history here. This has been the case for years. > > > > > Those of us who reply at Minds Eye have our responses echoed on her > > > > > website with, as far as I can tell, no attribution to Mind's Eye at > > > > > all. I have mentioned this in the past and so far am merely stating a > > > > > personal opinion that I see it as deception. Others may not agree. > > > > > > On Jul 22, 12:48 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Your words aren't clear to me, Orn, in response to Molly's post. > > > > > > Will > > > > you > > > > > > clarify them for me? > > > > > > > I see her post covering a topic, discussing several authors who have > > > > written > > > > > > about the topic, and linking to a Wikipedia (public web page) about > > > > > > one > > > > of > > > > > > the authors. From what I can tell, your response seems to have zero > > > > > > relevance to her post. > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > Molly, I have mentioned this before. My words are clear. You > > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > them or you don't. > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 10:28 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > please explain. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 1:09 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think that posting to a Google group (Mind's Eye) and then > > > > linking > > > > > > > > > the discussion to a personal website, giving the impression > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > the > > > > > > > > > locus of attention, is a deceptive practice. > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 7:29 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Are we in control of ourselves, our lives, our families, our > > > > worlds? > > > > > > > > > > Or are we just aware and knowing what one can do if > > > > > > > > > > something > > > > > > > > > > unpredictable happens? > > > > > > > > > > There are many explanations for why we do what we do. For > > > > example, > > > > > > > > > > Thomas Metzinger's new Book, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > Mind > > > > > > > > > > and the Myth of the Self, seriously questions whether there > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > even > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > "I", let alone a "we." And Douglas Hofstadter's book, I Am a > > > > Strange > > > > > > > > > > Loop, contends that the "self" is a recursively > > > > self-referencing > > > > > > > > > > memory loop. > > > > > > > > > > > Hundreds of experiments by Benjamin Libet and others tend to > > > > > > > > > > conclusively confirm that our brain prepares to execute our > > > > decisions > > > > > > > > > > before we are even aware that anything is being decided. It > > > > alerts us > > > > > > > > > > to our decisions only in time (a split second) for us to > > > > > > > > > > veto > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet, as well as > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > > > Libet's book, Mind Time, and Walter J. Freeman's book, How > > > > Brains > > > > > > > Make > > > > > > > > > > Up Their Minds. > > > > > > > > > > > It is quite likely that we have no so-called "free will" > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > veto power over our specific actions. Our free will may > > > > > > > > > > consist > > > > > > > > > > instead of 1) being mindful about any ill-serving subliminal > > > > > > > > > > intentions and tendencies that inform our actions so that we > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > accordingly prepared to veto any action that they > > > > correspondingly > > > > > > > > > > inform, and of 2) programming (or reprogramming) our > > > > > > > > > > subliminal > > > > > > > > > > intentions to be more productive of the experiencing that we > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > desire. > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have the power to create our realities? Are we in > > > > control? > > > > > > > > > > What do YOU think?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
