I would be happy to do this but cannot see a way to do so. Delete is not an option in our edit menu or User CP menu. I am sorry that my attempt to help, educate and enlighten has produced such controversy.

I PM'd wannabe to try and deal with the comments behind the scenes but apparently a Private Message does not mean "Private" here since much of what I said got placed here on the forum. I am not here as an "expert" on MS but as a person living with the illness for nearly 30 years. During that time, I've collected a lot of information. Initially some of that came from brochures and pamphlets. That information, by the guidelines stated in this thread, could not be posted here as there is not an individual author name to credit.

I think the greater evil here is not giving accurate information without giving detailed specifics of who compiled the information. The greater evil is the breaking of a confidence in private messaging and taking private information a person was given in confidence and dumping it on a public forum for all to see. Then having others jump in without knowing the facts or background behind the information that had been privately obtained and turn the whole thing into something that was never meant to be. I feel I have been treated wrongly. I will never trust wannabe again with anything personal.

Now... if anyone knows how to delete this thread so we can start over, I'm listening.

There hasn't been a way to delete an entire thread on BrainTalk without asking a moderator. In this situation at BrainTalk2, that would mean contacting the board administrator.

I have just contacted Paul Jones to ask permission to quote the page of his Website. I have assured him that he would be given credit for the material and if he wants, there would be a link to his Website as well.

There was an e-mail address for him on his Website. If I get no reply after a day or two, may I suggest that somebody post the material in a new thread, using the QUOTE tags at the top of the message window and give the URL and name of his Website.

Permission might be forthcoming at a later date, and if it is, whoever posts the thread can update it with a note that it is being quoted with permission.

I'll be happy to do this on Cherie's behalf, and I'll give Cherie full credit for the idea, which is due her as she is the one who saved the material and had the idea of posting it here.

Many people with MS are starting up their own Webpages and/or message boards. I do feel strongly that our words, which some of us find difficult to think up and type, should be recognized as ours.

Good idea Agate.

Or alternatively, Cherie could just attach the link, since links seem to be permitted here. Paul has an awesome site, with a lot of good information, so I think it is worthwhile to do that anyway.

Cherie, I understand where you are coming from with this. I too have been collecting research information for 15+ yrs. Most of what I have (except the links to BT1), are in notes that I wrote for myself. I have no idea where the information came from, or how much is "mine", but it seems a waste to not share it with others.

If you try a few of your sentences, from whatever you want to post, you can see if it will come up when you google. If it is verbatim, you will usually get a hit. The problem with my info is that it is often NOT verbatim, so although much of it is copied from somewhere, it's been somewhat re-worded to suit my particular purposes. (It's very likely that the info Paul posted is a combination of info he picked up from "somewhere"). That makes it hard to acknowledge an author sometimes.

The other issue is when we just remember a fact. I have no idea where I heard some of the points that I recall, but I'm not sure that it is against any copywrite law to "quote" a single fact anyway. Still, it lends credibility when we can do so.

I really like the idea of having this kind of thread though, and I hope we can find a way to start fresh.

Cherie

lady express (just to distinguish you from nurse Cherie):

I don't know all copyright rules either and they seem like they're changing all the time with the advent of the internet.

Just a link to Paul's website would have been sufficient anyway to share all his good information here. This didn't even have to become an issue unless someone is TRYING to take credit for work they didn't write.

I think that's the thing. We all have information we've collected. And if it's for personal use we can keep it in any form we like. But the internet is a big ol audience and that audience deserves to know who wrote the material. Even the exception of copying "for educational purposes", that only allows you to COPY it to a certain extent, it does not except anyone from the requirement to give the source. And I don't think the internet is included in the "educational" exception anyway since publications that people pay to receive want to ensure that the information isn't available publically for free by someone that has put it on the internet. Otherwise no one could publish material and charge for it if someone else has shared it publically "for educational purposes" for free. They still need to prevent that so that can earn a living. And the author definitely should get credit for writing it to begin with.

I understand that it sometimes seems unfair not to be able to share information if we can't provide the source. But if you look at the bigger picture, it also seems unfair to be able to share it and claim authorship when someone else put in the work. To me that is the bigger harm. After all, with the internet and good search engines, it's usually quite easy to find a source of material even if we don't have it in our personal materials.

I just think the authors and publishers deserve the recognition and that is the overriding concern here.

Wannabe...
PRIVATE Messaging is PRIVATE. You erred in a way greater than I by publishing publically , information I'd given you in private. I posted public domain information on this forum and talked to you PRIVATELY. You broke confidence. Thank you Joan and Cherie for helping to resolve this. Like both of you, I have a great deal to share that would benefit the community.

***sigh...

I didn't publish publically. I said you gave me your background. I didn't say WHAT your background was. You did. But even so, I never agreed to receive your message in private. Just because you chose to send it means that I have obligations because of it? Give me a break.

Where does it say that a. private messaging is an opportunity for people to privately attack others in a way that they don't want the public to know about and b. that private messaging is a system where we can't even ACKNOWLEDGE receiving a private message (which is essentially what I did. I didn't copy your PM publically nor did I disclose the specifics of it). I have read many many times people say: "you have a PM" or "I wrote you a PM" or "I sent you the information in a PM". I'm sure I could find instances where you have said just such statements or similar.

How is that different than what I have done here? Wait, don't answer. I just don't want to defend myself anymore against these silly allegations. You have said alot more about the private messages than I have here.

This is going off on a tangent anyway. The issue is sourcing. I don't need to be attacked publically OR privately by you because of asking you to give your source. I hope you will appreciate one day that this issue of sourcing was brought to your attention by me (and others) and you were given an opportunity to correct your misstatements and lack of proper sourcing instead of it ending with being publically chastised by the true author of the work, or fined heavily or sued.

Comment deleted

Cherie. Please. Let's give this a rest. It's not good for my health to be personally insulted and this is an MS forum where the information should be about MS. A discussion about giving sources IS an appropriate topic if people are going to copy material. Let's not make this a mudslinging fest or about anything else but sourcing okay?

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

lady express -

This is the phrase that I have objected to. Someone knows if they wrote something or not. This statement is in fact absolutely not true and I think misleading people into believing you wrote it when you didn't is a VERY big issue.

I agree before this statement that this was probably an innocent error of not offering a source. And I treated it as such. But this line leads me to believe that there was intention. I know what I write and what I haven't. It sticks in your mind if you spent time and energy writing something. The language itself will give me clues if I've truly forgotten. For example, I would know that I didn't write this Paul Jones article because I never say the word: "crikey".

I would have thought that if someone was innocently making mistakes and this was brought to their attention, they would be contrite and really be eager to correct the misperceptions and errors in not giving credit. And would appreciate that someone had pointed this out to them before they got into big trouble or was fined or sued. I haven't seen that and that is unfortunate.

I respect that you see this differently though. Hopefully we can all learn together to make sure that people DO get credit for their work.