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.

Hi everyone, we are in this fight against MS TOGETHER to support each other; together we stand divided we fall. Let us support each other!!!! MS is enough of a battle to deal with. Love you ALL!!!!!!

Yes, and, also people whom are new to trying to understanding their testing procedures and the terms and how to cope if dx is made are also reading and wanting to know more.

Can't this thread just be let go? It started on a high note and now... if I found myself faced at the point I was a couple of years ago: I'd be leaving here as fast as possible. No one wants to be ensnared in a firestorm while trying to find info. and support.

Who wrote what? I dunno. But the info that was initially shared was helpful in understanding. I'm sorry that it's gone, when no one has still offered info. about whom actually authored it. Maybe, as I mentioned, it is Public Domain, which actually means that attribution is not mandated.

If I were "new" to being sent for testing, I wouldn't have a part of what's going on here and likely find myself feeling alone.

Can everyone please move on?

Whooooooooooooo lives in a pineapple under the sea.....
oh, HI Bobbi. Pay no atttention to me. I never discuss MS.....SpongeBob SquarePants!!!

Kinda hard not to pay attention to you, or anyone whom makes time and takes the effort to post . For me, posting is an all out effort. So I just imagine it may be for others too.

Bobbi, that was my point exactly when I wrote (in this thread, above):

I haven't had a reply from the Paul Jones Website yet but I did have one from the NMSS Website developer, who says that when quoting material on the NMSS Website, it is sufficient to give credit to the NMSS Website and give the page URL.