I agree. That is a good solution, in this instance.

I don't think it was a matter of Cherie "TRYING to take credit" . . . but more of a situation where Cherie just didn't percieve the same value (as you), in tracking "whom" to credit with writing/providing this information.

Continuing to accuse Cherie of purposely trying to mislead people is probably just adding fueling the fire though (even if it is true). The goal is to get resolution, in my mind, not assign blame.

I doubt very much that Paul didn't do the same thing; copy from other sites, to some extent. We all do that . . . as absolutely everything "factual" about this disease is taken from "somewhere". Otherwise, it is just our opinion . . . and even opinions are formed from information we have gleaned from reading something.

Creative opinions are often theoretically afforded copyright protection too, so I don't really see how we can be held accountible for defining where we heard everything we write. That would mean something as simple as recommending a certain off-label drug, or providing a list of side-effects about that drug, would "officially" be stealing proprietory information. That's a lot of drama, jsut to share information for the benefit of others.

I feel this is a WASTE, not "unfair".

My notes include details derived from many different sources of information - and is written it into into a more "comprehensive" resource. This includes much of my own wording (and opinion), but in effect, I guess that information should not be posted on a board (if we are to follow copyright to the letter) . . . ?

With the advent of the internet, prosecution for not following copywrite law is almost unheard of (even considered petty by many courts).

I agree, in principle, particularly if the entire source of information is copied verbatim. That requires some discipline/effort (if drawing from old notes), but where practical, it is most definitely the "fair" thing to do. Hence, I have made it a habit of attaching a link, where possible.

Cherie