Adendum - Errata:

> 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.

More importantly:

> 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).

I strongly suspect that allowing Structural Integrators to freely
enlist themselves in a major practitioner search tool is seen as a
loss of potential paying members to the IASI. This to me also
explains the strong opposition by IASI member Michael Vilain, to the
point of mischaracterizing idaprolf.org's project.

Reda el Andaloussi
http://www.idaprolf.org






--- In Structure_Integrator@yahoogroups.com, "redaelandaloussi"
<redaelandaloussi@y...> wrote:
>
> 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