I appreciate you weighing in here, Chris. I have actually been winding down on the blogs and groups for the last several months, focusing more on my books and family changes. I post about one a month now, down from four or five a month, and have some trouble keeping up with that. I am not likely to change my process at this point and risk opening myself up to more changes that others may demand. Funny, how people so often feel the need to tell others what they should be doing, and I'm sure it speaks to some level of control. What I will probably end up doing is continuing to post in the way that I have with the permission of the individual members of the group here, and not include those that do not wish to be included. Most of the core group of posters have already expressed their support and consent. Studying the legalities is always good for the learning, and I am confident that given the current internet environment, and my original Minds Eye instructions, I have acted in honest and fair ways. Unless each of you has submitted for copyright under your fictitious name, google is not claiming any copyright or ownership of content other than its company logos, guidelines, etc. The key to this fabricated problem is that no one has lost money and no one has gained money, so the content is public and the copyright issue is moot. I was amused at Justin's defense of my reputation from Orn's insinuations, but at this point, doubt the insinuations amount to more than sour grapes.
Do the Minds Eye admin have control over the design of my blog? The answer is no. But I will be glad to stop using any posts from folks who do not wish to participate. Chances are, I have not used many, if any, of your posts to date anyway. 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 - > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
