Hi,

This posting is my answer particularly to a posting on the new
forum, which includes a misrepresentation about
http://www.idaprolf.org 's projects by Michael Vilain, who is also
the official co-owner of the group, and as such has already shown
his strong will to censor me. Without freedom of speech, I do not
feel comfortable posting my answer there. In this posting, you will
understand why Michael Vilain should not be considered qualified to
make comments about my projects at idaprolf.org, and also why he is
wrong. Michael Vilain and the clique of the IASI are now at an
advantage on the forum. It takes extra energy for me to make such
acrobatic maneuvers to answer their dishonest spin outside of their
censorship.

These moments may be rare as a result. Enjoy.

* * * * * * * * * *
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Structural_Integration/message/3
00

> The whole difference between Reda's listing
> of SI "practitioners" and the IASI is that
> Reda's list allows anyone who says they do
>Structural Integration to put their name on
> the list. There's no verification or
> certification. He was even talking about using a
> program to go trawling the entire internet
> for pages that list Structural Integration,
> examine them, and harvest any practitioner
> information from them for his list.

Of Course Michael is not telling the full story. As you will see.
Michael is misrepresenting, confusing, and mischaracterizing
idaprolf.org's projects.

The crawler is not for practitioners and I depreciated it. To crawl
the web for web pages there are already good tools.
What is important in priority is the practitioner tool. The crawler
for web pages can come later.

Why is Michael suggesting that the project would not educate anyone
about the origin of the data, as in making a distinction between
data from open login accounts and listings from known sources,
specifying as much as is known about such sources?
Why is he suggesting that there is no merit in allowing anyone to at
least have the ability to say they are practitioners (say someone
from the Rolf Institute who doesn't pay his membership), and let
everyone know that this entry is openly created?
Why is he not talking about the competitive fear the IASI has about
such a tool, which would place at peer level listings from the IASI
with those of other paying associations who provide training, when
the ambition of the IASI seems to be above the other listings, and
to gain an established national importance inaccessible to competing
schools?
Why is he saying so little when he had an opportunity to become very
educated about idaprolf.org's projects?
Why does Michael Vilain feel free to criticize and misinform the
community about idaprolf.org's projects? Could it be because he no
longer feels I can reply adequately, now that he is the owner of the
group?



* * * * * * *

These are troubled times for our open public community, and for
consumers of Structural Integration Information. As the group of
Structural Integration discussion has moved under a dictatorship of
a kind, a significant freedom of speech has been lost, and most
important, the ability to address important issues openly. In
effect, paying membership associations are now calling the shots,
while censoring constructive input with which they do not agree.

Yet it is thanks to consumer concerns of reference Internet
resources – ODP at http://www.dmoz.org – and thanks to Internet
consumer activism – Structural Integration Consumer Information and
Resource center at http://www.idaprolf.org (myself) - that the open
forum has effectively been able to move into public exposure. As a
result of this fierce last battle against forces vainly resisting
the open nature of this forum, and with the help of volunteers,
archives of open Structural Integration public discussions are now
centralized, clean of robotized sex spam, and getting richer
everyday with professional experience, questions and answers,
related links, and discussions about the professional community and
beyond. It appears that Structural Integration information consumers
including Structural Integrators themselves have won significant
benefits from this evolution.

Yet new dangers are lurking. The new management team of the open
forum at Yahoo, which prior to the move of members, had agreed to
remain confined in a technical roles of anti sex-spam operators,
have in effect quickly shown their real dark aspirations. The very
first move they made was to change the ownership of the group, after
having promised they would not, and while keeping pretending that
the old owner is still the owner. Then they institutionalized
censorship and even blunt practices of banning fellow Structural
Integrators, after having guarantied they would only censor sex and
other spamming robot. Although they promised to not change anything
else besides spam control, they unilaterally made changes to the
mission statements, without public consultation and discussion, yet
refused to even discuss seriously changes that would address
Internet consumer concerns, as well as education issues related to
privacy of information on a public platform. These promises were
obviously made dishonestly. The new owners of the group are
determined to silence dissent and criticism, be it constructive. Old
machiavellic tactics and manipulations are used, such as plain
deception about consumer projects of idaprolf.org, or even ignoring
the voice of dissent, the very voice of activism which has helped
them gained power, with the clear goal of rendering such critiques
at best an annoying disturbance for proper functioning of the
discussion space, and therefore justifying censorship and banning,
stripping dissent and criticism from its fertile ground: Freedom of
Speech which was guarantied prior to the move to the new platform.
While pretending to care for the appearance of the forum for
Structural Integrators' sake, but also for the sake of consumers,
they actually refuse categorically to even consider the real needs
of Information consumers, which include Structural Integrators
themselves.

In the meantime one paying membership association particularly – the
IASI http://theaisi.org – has gained a foothold in the very
ownership of the group (Michael Vilain, and active member of the
IASI, and co-owner of the open discussion group at Yahoo) , allowing
the agenda of such an association to be promoted, while silencing
the voice of http://www.idaprolf.org , which has been in the past
fairly critical of the priorities of the IASI. Now that the owner of
idaprolf.org is silenced, mischaracterizations can be disseminated
about its goals. Of course, for either project, the AISI and
idaprolf.org, financing is important. As long as idaprolf.org is not
financed, its realizations will remain modest and therefore easily
criticable, especially with its spokesperson silenced.
Interestingly, from idaprolf.org's perspective, both projects are
complementary, but for the IASI, idaprolf.org is obviously
considered dangerous competition.

Idaprolf.org's project regarding practitioners, is an Internet based
indexing and registration tool envisioned to gather as much
information about existing known graduates (from known existing
schools and associations). It is true that the project includes a
section for practitioners who are not listed in any other known
listing, possibly because they may not have had proper training (as
the IASI has based one main public critique of idaprolf.org), or
simply because they have a legitimate degree, but refuse to pay an
often prohibitive membership in order to be listed (IASI or other).
In the absence of an organization certifying schools (a task not in
the agenda of the IASI), appreciating which school qualifies will
remain delicate for idaprolf.org. What the IASI doesn't tell is that
once the tool would be in place, then the need of an organization
certifying schools would be more pressing. Also, his posting
suggests that the project doesn't involve informing visitors about
the source of the data, and distinguishing between the known
listings and the individually created login accounts.

The criticism of idaprolf.org's owner and spokesperson (myself)
about the IASI is quite simple. The listing of practitioners on the
IASI's list will always remain just one other listing of
practitioners, disconnected from the much larger actual number of
available options to consumers. With all these paying memberships,
even the sum of all existing listings doesn't come close to the sum
of legitimately trained graduates, which too often only exists in
the schools drawers. Too often schools only list publicly a limited
number of graduates who pay a membership. The IASI is just one more
association, providing a membership listing and trainings. If the
IASI's ambition ever got close to becoming the one place where most
legitimate practitioners are listed, it realized quickly that such
is not something they can dream about. On the other hand, members of
the IASI could well be listed on idaprolf.org's project of indexed
practitioners from known existing sources. With its ambition to
become the dominant listing of practitioners though, the IASI could
not stand to see its practitioners listed at peer level with other
members of other associations on idaprolf.org practitioners project.

Interestingly, I have contacted privately the one web and
computer `expert' of the IASI Michael Vilain, who is also now co-
owner of the Yahoo public group Structural Integration. Michael
Vilain is one person responsible of censorship and banning on this
group. I contacted him to see if he could help with idaprolf.org's
practitioners database project. Michael did not spend much time
exploring the concept, yet he is publically making
mischaracterizations about the project, and he is making such claims
on a forum where he has the technical ability to censor
idaprolf.org's spokesperson. Not only does he seem to think that the
project involves not educating anyone about the source of the data
presented to users, he also demonstrated a technical inability to
understand that such an indexing tool could very well be compatible
with Internet Ethics. Considering that he one who participated in
changing the moral contract between the forum users and its new
management, Michael has demonstrated to me his disqualification in
Ethics altogether, and especially Internet ethics. Funny, for
someone who has been known to have an e-mail address @spamcop.org
(or so). Michael Vilain has yet a lot to learn about ethics; I guess
he finds the uniform attractive. Now that he is both judge and
executioner on the Structural Integration discussion forum at Yahoo,
Michael Vilain and IASI officials must be having an ongoing group
ecstasy of some weird kind.


Perspectives for idaprolf.org

This latest major battle which has resulted in the move to the new
Yahoo discussion group is enough of a victory for Internet
consumers. It is also a victory for idaprolf.org. Not merely against
personified enemies of some kind. It is my personal victory with
myself. I accurately determined years ago how this forum should
evolve, into a manged platform. I advocated for long months an years
about such a move, or the restoration of technical authority to the
owner Jim Pascucci who had lost it, so that the group could be
managed. Yet consensus towards a move could not be obtained through
persuasion. Perhaps as someone said recently to me, it is not easy
to herd cats (about Structural Integrators). I even experimented
with a group of my own at idaprolf.org. But it was a failure. This
failure has determined me to move from an advocacy mode to a battle
plan with this group. Too bad if sensitivities were scratched in the
process. It had really started with my sensitivity, to have to
realize that there was little interest and compassion in the
community about the problems I was raising as a consumer and
Structural Integrator. I do not care much about who's sensitivity
got scratched from a just return on their own insensitivity. This
battle is now won. The plan worked. Sure, it did not work fully. The
mission statements have not been changed to make it so that everyone
knows that the group is open. A periodic reminder is not
implemented. Oh well. I did not anticipate that the new management
was as dishonest as it gets. But hey, if Structural Integrators want
a dishonest group management, I'll gladly let them have it.

For those who may be anticipating anxiously my potential presence
and consumer activism on the forum, and have even geared-up in fear
of this possibility, with censorship and banning rules (which are
morally invalid, since we were guarantied that they would not happen
prior to the move). Boo! How about a deep breath, all the way down
your pelvis.

There are also those who respect, and even actually miss my
presence, my straight forwardness, my sharp analyses, my straight
posture against the misled and uninspired yet relatively powerful
forces of our community. Sorry if I disappoint you, but it was
exhausting, My presence on the forum will be likely minimal. If you
think activism is needed, go for it, please do. It can be fun to
shine the mirror at people's faces, especially those with
pretentious titles, and especially if the goal is really worth it.

The next big battle for idaprolf.org is not on the forum. It will
happen on other battle-fields. Once again, the enemy is within, and
not merely personified individuals. My next flirts with the destiny
of the Structural Integration community are within.

* I will revisit and expand my Biomechanics sites to encompass
practitioners and clinics who actually use Biomechanics. And I will
produce my own data as well. While the schools have miserably
reacted to the point I made, and while Jeff Linn still insists in
blocking progress since the mid 1990's, hope is actually on its way
from the base of practitioners; modestly, but it is real.
Check out in a few months: http://www.biomechanics-structural-
integration.org

* I will also clean-up idaprolf.org, to try and make access to
practitioners a little clearer.
See: http://www.idaprolf.org
The practitioner database and indexing project will have to wait
until I can fund them. The real future of idaprolf.org is there. No
matter what cops-judges-&-executioners wannabe kids like Michael
Vilain might publicly say against it, without having looked into the
concept. When consumers can find as many options as possible, then
access to practitioners will be optimized. If there are problems,
they will be healthy problems, and they will be solved in time. For
example, if it is hard in the beginning to determine which school
qualifies, an organization certifying schools will help
tremendously. I foresee that idaprolf.org's practitioners project,
once in place, might even precipitate the emergence of such an
organization, if it does not exist before.

* I am just now actively re-launching my private practice. This will
be good for my Body-mind.
See: http://www.abcsi.net
Advanced Bodywork Convergence and Structural Integration
A concept which allows me to finally grow outside of the limits of
basic Structural Integration, while embracing it even deeper. My
first few years of practice after graduation were focused
essentially on classical Structural Integration. I wanted to get a
hang of it seriously. But I felt somewhat limited, considering my
eclectic background, and my research interest in developing
converging technical bridges between Yoga and Structural Integration
for instance.


Sincerely,

Reda el Andaloussi
http://www.idaprolf.org
Information and Resource center for Consumers
Structural Integration – Rolfing – and more