Critique of WHO term list

[Guest guest]

All,

 

Several weeks ago, there has been some discussion here about the WHO

term list.

 

As I specialise in Chinese medical terminology, I decided to take a

careful look at the list and began to make some notes. It grew into

a paper that I have now submitted to the Paradigm blog site.

 

The full paper is on: http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/blog

<http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/blog>

 

I have copied the abstract and conclusion below.

 

Herman Oving

 

 

Terminology in : A Critique of the WHO term list

 

 

 

Abstract

This paper shows severe flaws in the terminology as proposed by the

document WHO International Standard Terminologies on Traditional

Medicine in the Western Pacific Region. After an overview of general

principles applied in terminology, the methodology behind the WHO

list is discussed, illustrated by an analysis of several terms and

definitions.

 

[ body of paper is on: http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/blog

<http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/blog> ]

 

 

 

Conclusion

A terminology of a certain subject-field is used for educational

purposes, to design scientific studies, to translate documents, and

as a tool in clinical practice. It can only serve as a reliable tool

if conceptual relations between the concepts are reflected in the

terms and definitions. Several examples have shown that the WHO term

list is nothing more than a list of terms; it is impossible to say

it is a terminology. Many terms are not well-motivated, many

definitions are unclear and cause confusion, and the relations

between concepts are not indicated.

 

The WHO list offends internationally accepted terminological

principles on several levels. As such, it will fail to serve as a

reliable instrument for translators and educators. Although the list

can be seen as reflecting an important step that has been taken,

namely that of acknowledging that the terminology of Chinese

medicine should be described and standardized, an (albeit

superficial) analysis of the terms and definitions, and the way they

are connected, leaves little option but to conclude that it needs to

be thoroughly revised (if not completely re-done) if it aspires to

become a tool for further development of knowledge in the English

speaking and reading world. Moreover, since many term choices and

definitions appear to be primarily guided by the trend toward

biomedicalization of Chinese medicine, the questions: To whom is

this list addressed? and What is its purpose? are utterly

legitimate.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Several weeks ago, there has been some discussion here about the WHO

> term list.

 

Thanks for taking such an in-depth look at the terminology, it is a

big document to tackle. As Z'ev has pointed out from the beginning of

the discussion, the WHO term list reflects the Pacific Rim politics

and the varied interests of the integrative CM/WM community vs. that

of the traditional CM community. I likewise agree with both you and

Z'ev that the term list has a significant number of problematic terms,

and suffers drawbacks in consistency by being a mix of two approaches

to translation.

 

The most significant thing the WHO document offers is not the term

choices themselves, but rather the potential to have an international

standard, a beginning to a discussion. One of the things that our

profession has not yet fully achieved is the academic maturity of

other major disciplines. In Asia, Chinese medicine is accessible at a

large university level, with research institutions, specialty

hospitals, mainstream integration, and a scope of subfields similar to

that seen in Western medicine. As the field matures in the West, more

advanced discourse will be necessary, and this document is a sign that

the process is happening.

 

I think that some standard is necessary, particularly for the

examinations. The current lack of standards on the licensing exams

isn't really acceptable if the profession is trying to establish

higher academic credibility, and the examinations drive the market.

The market drives the publication of new material, and the

comparatively limited English market coupled with the lack of a

financially neutral standard limits the amount of knowledge available

in English.

 

I agree with Z'ev and Herman that Nigel Wiseman's term system is more

consistent than the WHO system, and I think it would make a better

base standard than the WHO document on pure merit, particularly if

biomedical interface terms were used for those in the integrative

community. Since Nigel's terminology system is the only term list

large enough for comprehensive use beyond the new WHO document, it is

somewhat of a standard already. However, we see resistance to its use

as a standard, both in this forum and at the AAOM meeting in Phoenix

last year. To me, Nigel's term list is nowhere near as cumbersome as

the terminology of Western medicine, so I think its adoption should be

no big deal. But our profession by and large is not nearly as

literate as the Western medical community, and there is no doubt that

we put up a big stink at the thought of using big words.

 

Since we already have an acceptable standard but we are too divided as

a community to implement Nigel's list, perhaps the WHO list could be

useful. Most of the term choices are not egregiously wrong, and

perhaps we could use a forum like the AAAOM's Portland meeting to

offer terminology suggestions for term improvements or variances. I

think that the only thing that is of major importance is that the exam

groups establish some sort of standard, I think the actual terms

chosen are secondary to the fact that a basic standard exists. Even

though Wiseman's actual term list is in many ways superior to the WHO

list, I think that adopting Wiseman's terms as a standard on the exams

would be problematic because it would disrupt the strong political and

financial interests of the major books that monopolize the test market.

 

Back in the day when there was little English literature available, a

few main English books established themselves as the primary

authorities, and the information in those books is treated like

gospel. just posted a link to John Chen's Xiao Chai Hu

Tang monograph, from his upcoming formula book. Dr. Chen completed a

great materia medica as well, but his formula book, like his materia

medica, stands little chance of being a basic pillar of knowledge that

shapes the profession as long as Bensky' formula book has a virtual

monopoly position on the subject. I teach a few formula classes at

PCOM and the Bensky book is generally pretty good, but it was written

20 years ago and is desperately in need of a revision. For example,

there is a gross mistranslation in the tao he cheng qi tang monograph

that says the pattern presents with urinary incontinence, while in

fact the opposite is true, it presents with normal urination because

the bladder's qi transformation function is unaffected in tao he cheng

qi tang's pattern. The students all want to know whether they should

memorize the answer that is correct in real life but wrong on the

exams, or vice versa. If Chen's book is published and it has the

correct indications for tao he cheng qi tang, it would still be

incorrect on the exam, which is a sad state of affairs.

 

The world of literature is different now that it was 10-20 years ago,

we have many more choices and many more accurate texts than we had

when those exam lists were created. What makes John Chen's materia

medica unacceptable for the boards? Why is Deadman's Manual of

Acupuncture still unacceptable for exams, where the atrocious Chinese

Acupuncture and Moxibustion remains the standard? The literature is

expanding, but the California acupuncture board and the NCCAOM are

stuck in the literature of the late 1980s, and it is precisely the

closed terminology (non-terminology?) systems used by these monopoly

texts that hinders more investment in the literature of our field. If

the exams had an open source terminology that everyone could relate

their books to, it would dramatically encourage a flowering of new

books. It would also break up this notion that some books are treated

like gospel by the students; their authors are generally smart people

at the forefront of the profession, but even the best Western authors

are far from the top scholars in the field if we look beyond the

gringos.

 

If the NCCAOM isn't willing to break up the power and monetary

interests that currently dominate the exam market, perhaps they could

use the neutral WHO list as a common ground so that terminology is

consistent on their exams. Perhaps the dialogue stimulated by the

AAAOM discussions could allow us to look at terminology as a

community, and make recommendations. For example, the NCCAOM could

use a term list that was based on the neutral WHO list, with

problematic terms like triple energizer replaced or supplemented with

more common words like triple burner. It would be easy to offer

alternatives to the problematic terms. The important thing is that we

start discussing the issue. In my experiences with the people at the

top of the NCCAOM, they are very fair people with a sincere interest

in improving the profession, I think they'd be responsive to improving

the terminology issue.

 

I'm in the final stages of assembling a compiled list that compares

all of the major published term sets in use, including WHO,

Wiseman/Feng, Xie Zhu-Fan, Eastland Press, and Maciocia (very small

term list but important for licensing exams). I'd love to include

Unschuld's term choices, but unfortunately to my knowledge he's never

written them all out in a glossary. The comparative list, once

finalized, will be posted on the Paradigm website, the Blue Poppy

website, and the CHA files section.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

Unschuld has a gloss in Volume two of " Learn to Read Chinese. "

 

Also, as far as I know, Bensky (et al) is revising the Formulas and

Strategies as we speak.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:43 PM

 

Re: Critique of WHO term list

 

 

 

I teach a few formula classes at

PCOM and the Bensky book is generally pretty good, but it was written

20 years ago and is desperately in need of a revision. For example,

there is a gross mistranslation in the tao he cheng qi tang monograph

that says the pattern presents with urinary incontinence, while in

fact the opposite is true, it presents with normal urination because

the bladder's qi transformation function is unaffected in tao he cheng

qi tang's pattern. The students all want to know whether they should

memorize the answer that is correct in real life but wrong on the

exams, or vice versa. If Chen's book is published and it has the

correct indications for tao he cheng qi tang, it would still be

incorrect on the exam, which is a sad state of affairs.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Unschuld has a gloss in Volume two of " Learn to Read Chinese. "

 

Thanks for letting me know, I'll make sure to add his terms into the

list. I've also heard that his Neijing work is coming out very soon.

It is unfortunate that he never maintained a large database of terms,

because he's done a lot of research on the original word meanings.

 

> Also, as far as I know, Bensky (et al) is revising the Formulas and

> Strategies as we speak.

 

I know, I'm sure it'll be a great new book to have on the shelf. It

would be a stellar achievement if the new formula book had as much new

material as their recently revised materia medica. The difference

between the third and second editions is very dramatic.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

The Su Wen dictionary will be huge, and greatly expand the lexicon of

Chinese medical terms. . .

 

As far as Formulas and Strategies, Andy Ellis has been working on the

updated version. Should be out next year. . .

 

 

On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:19 PM, Eric Brand wrote:

 

> > Unschuld has a gloss in Volume two of " Learn to Read Chinese. "

>

> Thanks for letting me know, I'll make sure to add his terms into the

> list. I've also heard that his Neijing work is coming out very soon.

> It is unfortunate that he never maintained a large database of terms,

> because he's done a lot of research on the original word meanings.

 

 

>

> > Also, as far as I know, Bensky (et al) is revising the Formulas and

> > Strategies as we speak.

>

> I know, I'm sure it'll be a great new book to have on the shelf. It

> would be a stellar achievement if the new formula book had as much new

> material as their recently revised materia medica. The difference

> between the third and second editions is very dramatic.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

Thanks for your interesting mail. I can follow your train of

thought but I am not a politician, nor am I an American citizen. I

say this, because much of what you say is related to power,

monopolies, economics, politics, and institutions in the US of A.

(What can we say when examination boards require students to

memorize erroneous answers to get higher grades? Makes your hair

stand on end, doesn't it?) I hope that the people on this list who

know all about such issues will be forgiving if I say stupid

things. However, some things you've mentioned are typical for the

Western world as a whole of course (many exams here in Europe are

not flawless either).

 

It is interesting to see the various socio- economic groups vying

for power - from the exam boards in the States to the WHO with its

new director... (as mentioned on another list where our conversation

is published as well).

While I recognize that there are greater problems than lack of

academic rigour obstructing the creation of a viable terminology for

CM, it is hard for me to see the list as ''a beginning of the

discussion.''

 

You've argued that the WHO list is ''neutral'' and might therefore

serve as a kind of compromise. Regardless of the fact that I doubt

the neutrality of the list (and in the beginning of your mail, you

also mention that it reflects Pacific Rim politics etc.), I find

that a poor argument. Aren't we trying to raise the level of

education in our field? Is it really an option to have a term list

that clearly does not adhere to terminological principles serve as

basis for further development?

 

What the WHO has done is create something which they offer as a

garment for us (who?) to wear. But the colours clash terribly, the

stitchwork is lousy --if not absent--, and they didn't bother taking

their clients measurements beforehand. The only sensible thing to

do, in my opinion, is go back to the tailor.

 

As said, I am not into politics. My opinion is mostly informed by

my studies in sinology, Chinese medicine, and terminology, so I

would rather suggest two things:

 

1. Let the WHO form a terminology team with qualified people and

redo the work. I am sure terminologists and specialists are

available from the participating countries.

If the current list is used in the decade to come, it will only lead

to more endless debate over term choices. You are right to argue

that ''the actual terms chosen are secondary to the fact that a

basic standard exists.'' But how does a basic standard come about?

As I've argued in my paper, this can only be accomplished by having

a sound system of definitions for the concepts all these terms have

to denote. I've tried to illustrate that a discussion about

terminology is much more than a discussion about term choices. If

our field (or the WHO for that matter) continues to neglect that, no

progress can be made at all.

 

2. Invest in education: basic courses in language and history of

Chinese medicine for all beginning students. I sincerely think it

is one of the major prerequisites for enhancing the level of our

field. If ''our profession by and large is not nearly as literate

as the Western medical community'' does that mean that that should

remain so?

(I received the journal Asian Medicine - Tradition and Modernity

this week; volume 2 - no 2, 2006 contains an interesting

conversation about how to implement such courses).

 

Is it really problematic if ''strong political and financial

interests'' are disrupted when this happens because of academic

improvement? Should we accept the fact that the average

practitioner in the West does not read (that much) as a status quo

for the next decades?

 

Just my two eurocents for now.

 

Best,

 

Herman

 

p.s. Thanks, Eric, for your work on the comparative list.

Unschuld's books contain indexes. It is quite possible to find his

term choices.

 

 

 

 

Eric wrote

 

Thanks for taking such an in-depth look at the

terminology, it is a big document to tackle. As Z'ev

has pointed out from the beginning of the discussion,

the WHO term list reflects the Pacific Rim politics

and the varied interests of the integrative CM/WM

community vs. that of the traditional CM community. I

likewise agree with both you and Z'ev that the term

list has a significant number of problematic terms,

and suffers drawbacks in consistency by being a mix of

two approaches to translation.

 

The most significant thing the WHO document offers is

not the term choices themselves, but rather the

potential to have an international standard, a

beginning to a discussion. One of the things that our

profession has not yet fully achieved is the academic

maturity of other major disciplines. In Asia, Chinese

medicine is accessible at a large university level,

with research institutions, specialty hospitals,

mainstream integration, and a scope of subfields

similar to that seen in Western medicine. As the

field matures in the West, more advanced discourse

will be necessary, and this document is a sign that

the process is happening.

 

I think that some standard is necessary, particularly

for the examinations. The current lack of standards

on the licensing exams isn't really acceptable if the

profession is trying to establish higher academic

credibility, and the examinations drive the market.

The market drives the publication of new material, and

the comparatively limited English market coupled with

the lack of a financially neutral standard limits the

amount of knowledge available in English.

 

I agree with Z'ev and Herman that Nigel Wiseman's term

system is more consistent than the WHO system, and I

think it would make a better base standard than the

WHO document on pure merit, particularly if biomedical

interface terms were used for those in the integrative

community. Since Nigel's terminology system is the

only term list large enough for comprehensive use

beyond the new WHO document, it is somewhat of a

standard already. However, we see resistance to its

use as a standard, both in this forum and at the AAOM

meeting in Phoenix last year. To me, Nigel's term

list is nowhere near as cumbersome as the terminology

of Western medicine, so I think its adoption should be

no big deal. But our profession by and large is not

nearly as literate as the Western medical community,

and there is no doubt that we put up a big stink at

the thought of using big words.

 

Since we already have an acceptable standard but we

are too divided as a community to implement Nigel's

list, perhaps the WHO list could be useful. Most of

the term choices are not egregiously wrong, and

perhaps we could use a forum like the AAAOM's Portland

meeting to offer terminology suggestions for term

improvements or variances. I think that the only

thing that is of major importance is that the exam

groups establish some sort of standard, I think the

actual terms chosen are secondary to the fact that a

basic standard exists. Even though Wiseman's actual

term list is in many ways superior to the WHO list, I

think that adopting Wiseman's terms as a standard on

the exams would be problematic because it would

disrupt the strong political and financial interests

of the major books that monopolize the test market.

 

Back in the day when there was little English

literature available, a few main English books

established themselves as the primary authorities, and

the information in those books is treated like gospel.

just posted a link to John Chen's Xiao

Chai Hu Tang monograph, from his upcoming formula

book. Dr. Chen completed a great materia medica as

well, but his formula book, like his materia medica,

stands little chance of being a basic pillar of

knowledge that shapes the profession as long as

Bensky' formula book has a virtual monopoly position

on the subject. I teach a few formula classes at PCOM

and the Bensky book is generally pretty good, but it

was written 20 years ago and is desperately in need of

a revision. For example, there is a gross

mistranslation in the tao he cheng qi tang monograph

that says the pattern presents with urinary

incontinence, while in fact the opposite is true, it

presents with normal urination because the bladder's

qi transformation function is unaffected in tao he

cheng qi tang's pattern. The students all want to

know whether they should memorize the answer that is

correct in real life but wrong on the exams, or vice

versa. If Chen's book is published and it has the

correct indications for tao he cheng qi tang, it would

still be incorrect on the exam, which is a sad state

of affairs.

 

The world of literature is different now that it was

10-20 years ago, we have many more choices and many

more accurate texts than we had when those exam lists

were created. What makes John Chen's materia medica

unacceptable for the boards? Why is Deadman's Manual

of Acupuncture still unacceptable for exams, where the

atrocious Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion remains

the standard? The literature is expanding, but the

California acupuncture board and the NCCAOM are stuck

in the literature of the late 1980s, and it is

precisely the closed terminology (non-terminology?)

systems used by these monopoly texts that hinders more

investment in the literature of our field. If the

exams had an open source terminology that everyone

could relate their books to, it would dramatically

encourage a flowering of new books. It would also

break up this notion that some books are treated like

gospel by the students; their authors are generally

smart people at the forefront of the profession, but

even the best Western authors are far from the top

scholars in the field if we look beyond the gringos.

 

If the NCCAOM isn't willing to break up the power and

monetary interests that currently dominate the exam

market, perhaps they could use the neutral WHO list as

a common ground so that terminology is consistent on

their exams. Perhaps the dialogue stimulated by the

AAAOM discussions could allow us to look at

terminology as a community, and make recommendations.

For example, the NCCAOM could use a term list that was

based on the neutral WHO list, with problematic terms

like triple energizer replaced or supplemented with

more common words like triple burner. It would be

easy to offer alternatives to the problematic terms.

The important thing is that we start discussing the

issue. In my experiences with the people at the top

of the NCCAOM, they are very fair people with a

sincere interest in improving the profession, I think

they'd be responsive to improving the terminology

issue.

 

I'm in the final stages of assembling a compiled list

that compares all of the major published term sets in

use, including WHO, Wiseman/Feng, Xie Zhu-Fan,

Eastland Press, and Maciocia (very small term list but

important for licensing exams). I'd love to include

Unschuld's term choices, but unfortunately to my

knowledge he's never written them all out in a

glossary. The comparative list, once finalized, will

be posted on the Paradigm website, the Blue Poppy

website, and the CHA files section.

[Guest guest]

He probably has around 3000 entries in his gloss for " Learn to Read Chinese

(II) " .

 

He also has extensive glosses in his other books. Such as, " Introductory

Readings in Classical CM "

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:19 PM

 

Re: Critique of WHO term list

 

 

It is unfortunate that he never maintained a large database of terms,

because he's done a lot of research on the original word meanings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Herman Oving "

<aowenherman wrote:

> (What can we say when examination boards require students to

> memorize erroneous answers to get higher grades? Makes your hair

> stand on end, doesn't it?)

 

Actually, I don't think that the fine details make a big difference in

terms of exam performance- the main thing that determines a person's

ability to pass the exams is the ability to consistently identify

patterns and match them to appropriate treatments, especially in the

era of case-based exams. There are a few questions here and there

where fine details emerge, but they are overshadowed by the big

picture. However, most students don't understand this, they look

specifically to the exam texts as though they contain sacred phrasing

or special information, when in reality most of the core information

of CM is fairly standard across many sources. Despite the fact that I

feel that many of the examination texts are less reliable and less

consistent with Chinese sources than some of the other texts on the

market, true errors are not so common that it is a major issue.

 

Occasionally there are idiosyncratic exceptions. For example, nearly

everyone I know who has taken one of the state exams in the US has

encountered a particularly notorious question about the dosage of hong

hua when used to harmonize the blood. While no doubt this dose range

was mentioned in a historical Chinese source at some point in time,

none of the major Chinese language curriculum texts mention anything

about it. It happens to appear in the Bensky text but it could hardly

be considered to be representative of standard TCM basic herbal

knowledge, since it is lacking in all of the major Chinese source

texts that modern TCM exams are based on in China. It's a great thing

that the Bensky text surveys the literature broadly enough to include

extra information like this, but this one single English text should

not have such authority that it overrides the standard curriculum of

Chinese medicine. Random exceptions found in individual texts is not

what standard competency exams should be based on, exams should be

based on a consensus of multiple sources, not the elevation of single

sources as the sole authority. That said, I think strong general TCM

knowledge is sufficient to pass the exams, it has much more to do with

problem solving and pattern identification than it has with memorizing

particular exam texts.

 

> While I recognize that there are greater problems than lack of

> academic rigour obstructing the creation of a viable terminology for

> CM, it is hard for me to see the list as ''a beginning of the

> discussion.''

 

If we were to base our terminology on academic rigor alone, clearly

Wiseman's terminology would be the winner. Nigel Wiseman has

demonstrated greater scholarship than any single individual on the

planet in this regard. He created an entire approach that allows for

consistent translation of both modern and ancient works. His system

of translation is exemplified in many modern and classical works, with

hundreds of articles and books using the same linked terminology

system. His dictionary and term system has improved concept

acquisition for generations of recent students, and we see the effects

of good concept formation vs. poor concept formation based on the

terminology students use everyday in the clinic.

 

Having a terminology standard would probably have little effect on the

actual books that are produced. Most translators will continue to use

the same terminology that they already use. Wiseman and Feng's

Practical Dictionary and language learning texts are the major

foundational texts that most new translators build off of, and a lot

of the best books in the field use that same common term system.

Consequently, a lot of writers (myself included) tend to base their

work of the Practical Dictionary terminology so that it fits into this

larger family of accurate literature. If anything, it is excessive

attention to detail and accuracy that has always been Nigel's Achilles

heel- Nigel is not willing to sacrifice terms that are more

technically correct and accurate for terms that are more popular.

Nigel bases his decisions on academic research, not popularity with

the masses, which is good for the medicine but bad for the market.

 

> You've argued that the WHO list is ''neutral'' and might therefore

> serve as a kind of compromise.

 

The WHO list is the product of compromise. It contains many of the

conceptual distinctions and terms that Wiseman preserves, but it

substitutes a number of popular terms like excess and deficiency,

tonification and arthritis. It represents a compromise between

traditional medicine and integrative medicine. It represents a

compromise between China, Japan, and Korea. Anything with so much

compromise will have many imperfections from a variety of angles. It

has to be a compromise so that it doesn't adversely affect the various

vested financial interests, and it can't affect the financial

interests without getting derailed. But even a list fraught with

compromise is a step ahead of the days when people advocated a free

for all with no standards whatsoever.

 

> What the WHO has done is create something which they offer as a

> garment for us (who?) to wear. But the colours clash terribly, the

> stitchwork is lousy --if not absent--, and they didn't bother taking

> their clients measurements beforehand. The only sensible thing to

> do, in my opinion, is go back to the tailor.

 

It would be nice to have the tailor take another look at it, but it is

already so rare to have a unified discussion between Chinese,

Japanese, and Korean experts that starting over from scratch isn't

really feasible. It would be better to offer feedback on individual

terms that should be changed or given alternate renderings than it

would be to try to start the process all over.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

The WHO and the WFCMS has already stated that they expect to make adjustments

by consensus every 5 years, which is not far off in the scope of things. We

hope that you will connect with the WFCMS with any changes you think are

indicated so we can start putting together documents for the continued effort.

 

David Molony

WFCMS Vice Chair

Participant in WFCMS Approval Conference WFCMS Standard Chinese-English TCM

Nomenclature Process.

 

 

In a message dated 9/20/07 4:12:43 PM, smilinglotus writes:

 

 

> It would be nice to have the tailor take another look at it, but it is

> already so rare to have a unified discussion between Chinese,

> Japanese, and Korean experts that starting over from scratch isn't

> really feasible. It would be better to offer feedback on individual

> terms that should be changed or given alternate renderings than it

> would be to try to start the process all over.

>

> Eric

>

 

 

 

 

 

" If in a competitive society you are sincere and honest, in some

circumstances people may take advantage of you. If you let someone do so, he or

she will

be engaging in an unsuitable action and accumulating bad karma that will harm

the person in the future. Thus it is permissable, with an altruistic

motivation, to take counteraction in order to prevent the other person from

having to

undergo the effects of this wrong action. "

Dalai Lama

 

David Molony

101 Bridge Street

Catasauqua, PA 18032

Phone (610)264-2755

Fax (610) 264-7292

 

**********Confidentiality Notice    **********

This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other

writings are confidential and are for the sole use of the intended

recipient(s) identified above.  This message may contain information

that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure

under applicable law, including the FTC Safeguard Rule and U.S.-EU Safe

Harbor Principles.  If you are the intended recipient, you are

responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards to maintain data

integrity and security.  If the receiver of this information is not the intended

recipient, or the employee, or agent responsible for

delivering the information to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any use, reading, dissemination, distribution, copying or

storage of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this information in error, please notify the sender by return

email and delete the electronic transmission, including all attachments from

your system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

**************************************

See what's new at http://www.aol.com