John Tuttle says:

> My personal feeling is that using someone else's work verbatim
> for purely educational and/or entertainment purposes is one of
> the highest forms of flattery, especially if the author and the
> publication are given full credit for the work.
>
> To date, I have received replies from two of the seven people
> I contacted.

I am in full support of John's position, particularly as no revenue is
generated for anybody.  Perhaps the flaw is the "positive response"
process.  I've always favoured the "negative response" process as being
much more effective.

Instead of requesting a positive response from contributors, simply
advise them that you wish to include their responses as part of a
larger, more widespread sharing of the benefits of the thinking and
experiences of the many, and they need not respond if they agree.
A lack of response will be perceived to be concurrence.

This is not an unreasonable approach, but simply dealing with reality.
Those concerned who do not wish their work included are invited to tell
you accordingly.

I've used this approach frequently in my government days over some 30+
years and never had negative feedback on the concept.  And it surely
did facilitate progress.

If added protection is perceived, most mail utilities provide for an
automatic "read confirmed" response.

My thoughts ...

Regards,

Terry Smythe
Winnipeg, MB, Canada