In a message dated 8/24/2009 12:29:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
> The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the blots aren't
> harmful. After all, if the blots really are harmful, and posting them
> really is unethical, then complaining about that should be legitimate.
>
> Besides, in this case, the lack of objection from any professionals was
> used
> as an argument for keeping the blots (although with moving goalposts).
> Well,
> if the charges stick, you might not be able to do that any more...>>
The blots aren't harmful and that was never the argument anyway. It is not
necessary the images themselves, but rather the answer sheet that is the
problem. If I know that calling image 1 a "cockroach" means I likely to be
paranoid, than I won't say that. I'll say um.. it's a ... uh.. butterfly a
cute fuzzy baby butterfly who wants to give me a big kiss.
No one has stated that the lack of object from any professionals was an
argument to keep them. Any wikiPoodle knows that you never have universal
consent on anything. Rather the argument was, that relatively few have
objected, and it seems we see that here as well. He posts the images and *two*
psychologists complain? Two? In all of Saskatchewan?
And at any rate, they've already been mirrored to three dozen sites by now,
so the entire thing is moot.
Will Johnson