massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

I had the experience this morning of having one of my comments deleted on a discussion, and then the person who had started that discussion sent me an email about making personal attacks and keeping it friendly.

I would like to state for the record that I did not call anyone or any organization by name, but I did voice my opinion that I was sick and tired of people who act as if therapists who provide Swedish or relaxation massage are not valuable.

I went on to say that plenty of people need stress relief, and many people cannot take a deep tissue massage. I made a few other comments that the person running the discussion apparently found offensive, including my statement that you could call yourself the Pope and there will be 1% of people who still think massage is about sex.

My own clinic is mainly focused on medical massage, but we also have plenty of people who want nurturing, pampering, or whatever you want to call it, and none of the medical massage therapists who work there will refuse to give a relaxation massage if that's what the client wants.

My main blog, The Massage Pundit, which originates on the Massage Magazine website, is usually about the politics of massage. It is also on RSS feed on hundreds of other sites. I am known for being opinionated, and not mincing any words. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I print the comments I receive from every respondent, whether they agree with me or not. I would not dream of censoring yours or anyone's comments because they disagree with my opinion, or because of the way they state it.

If you'd really like for someone to kick your butt, go over to Bodhi Haraldsson's website on evidence-based massage, and let the scientists over there have at you. There are some real arguments going on there--and no censorship. I'd rather get ripped to shreds by one of them for my opinion than to be prevented from expressing it. They may think by my opinion that I'm a moron, but they still respect my right to express it.

I will go on further and say that the leadership at ABMP, which started this website, personally asked me to blog on here and assured me that I would not be censored. I will not hold them responsible for the fact that one individual deleted a comment, but I will say that censorship, in any form, is not what they had in mind when they started this forum. And that's my sermon for today.

Views: 551

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have been to other forums that are completely unmoderated and the important is often lost to the innane and bickering. So while noone enjoys being censored in any forum and we may not agree or understand the other person's logic, I appreciate that there are two passionate concerned people trying to make this space work well for all.
Kim, then why the Pledge?

Kim Goral said:
Differing opinions make the world go 'round. Can you imagine how boring it would be if everyone always agreed on everything?? Hearing different points of view or opinions that contradict your own thoughts or beliefs should not be taken as insults or offensive, but rather open your mind up to an idea that maybe you have not considered before. It's a way to reflect and evaluate your beliefs, and sometimes change them in light of new information or evidence. How else can you learn new things but to be presented with new information, even if it goes against your initial way of thinking? So, no I don't think there should be all censoring. We're all adults here, I think we can handle some disagreements- and if you don't like it, you don't have to read or agree with it :)

Also, Mike, where have you seen censorship on the science-based site? I read it every day and have not noticed it, though it's quite possible I missed it. Just curious.
I would just post your reply in your own blog or post and refer to the main post and this post too...

Julie
Mike, if "the pledge" that you are referring to is the one posted on the science based massage ning group, I'm wondering how you are interpreting it?
I've printed it and read it---I don't see the conflict?

Kim stated "Differing opinions make the world go 'round. Can you imagine how boring it would be if everyone always agreed on everything?? Hearing different points of view or opinions that contradict your own thoughts or beliefs should not be taken as insults or offensive, but rather open your mind up to an idea that maybe you have not considered before. It's a way to reflect and evaluate your beliefs, and sometimes change them in light of new information or evidence. How else can you learn new things but to be presented with new information, even if it goes against your initial way of thinking? So, no I don't think there should be all censoring. We're all adults here, I think we can handle some disagreements- and if you don't like it, you don't have to read or agree with it"

Again, in reading this, I'm unclear as to the intent of your question "why the pledge?"

I may be missing something----please clarify.
MIke, as far as I know, and I am not speaking for Dr. Lawton here, "the pledge" is something of Dr. Lawton's that he has shared on the science-based site. I'm missing your point- if someone agrees with it, they can sign it, if the do not agree with it, they don't have to; it's not like anyone is being forced to. He is not deleting anyone's comments nor telling anyone they can't say or believe something. So, how is that censorship? And what does that have to do with this site, anyways?
Angela, Dr. Lawton's call on the EB site was for "Unity". Kim's, opening remarks lended to "differing opinions making the world go 'round". The pledge, in my opinion, makes both arguments mute.

Angela Palmier said:
Mike, if "the pledge" that you are referring to is the one posted on the science based massage ning group, I'm wondering how you are interpreting it?
I've printed it and read it---I don't see the conflict?

Kim stated "Differing opinions make the world go 'round. Can you imagine how boring it would be if everyone always agreed on everything?? Hearing different points of view or opinions that contradict your own thoughts or beliefs should not be taken as insults or offensive, but rather open your mind up to an idea that maybe you have not considered before. It's a way to reflect and evaluate your beliefs, and sometimes change them in light of new information or evidence. How else can you learn new things but to be presented with new information, even if it goes against your initial way of thinking? So, no I don't think there should be all censoring. We're all adults here, I think we can handle some disagreements- and if you don't like it, you don't have to read or agree with it"

Again, in reading this, I'm unclear as to the intent of your question "why the pledge?"

I may be missing something----please clarify.
who exactly ARE the moderators here? at least on every other message board i'm on it's clear who the moderators are and therefore posts like these could better be addressed directly to that person/persons.

with that said there is NO message board i've ever been on that hasn't had some form of moderation. was this discussion in the open forum? if so it is by nature moderatable. i would suggest to those that want more control over their words (not directed at anyone but just a generalization) to post it up in their blogs. if i'm mistaken, a moderator should inform us so, but i believe blogs are not able to be moderated.
Sorry to hear Laura, I don't believe in censorship either; unless it's to edit something I wrote and later thought better of. I have greatly appreciated your contributions to discussions and respect your opinion and experience in the field.

Relaxation massage doesn't get the respect it deserves, I agree, and yet Swedish is the basis to most techniques employed today; go figure.

Mike, I also appreciate your comments over in EVP. I am a researcher and a LMT and don't necessarily agree with everyone on that site; but I love the discussions.
The pledge is a form of censorship. Laura had cited Bodhi's site and I had just seen it at that site. That site isn't just proving evidence. It is separating therapists. It divides. That is my opinion. And as Laura said, "Censorship... ". I think it relates.

Kim Goral said:
MIke, as far as I know, and I am not speaking for Dr. Lawton here, "the pledge" is something of Dr. Lawton's that he has shared on the science-based site. I'm missing your point- if someone agrees with it, they can sign it, if the do not agree with it, they don't have to; it's not like anyone is being forced to. He is not deleting anyone's comments nor telling anyone they can't say or believe something. So, how is that censorship? And what does that have to do with this site, anyways?
Thank you. I agree with EVP as well, but not at the exclusion of any modality, until actual research is done, otherwise a small group will decide. And that is wrong. If a person is licensed to do so, then so be it. My effort is to keep the industry together... all of it. Thanks for your kind words.

Robin Byler Thomas said:
Sorry to hear Laura, I don't believe in censorship either; unless it's to edit something I wrote and later thought better of. I have greatly appreciated your contributions to discussions and respect your opinion and experience in the field.

Relaxation massage doesn't get the respect it deserves, I agree, and yet Swedish is the basis to most techniques employed today; go figure.

Mike, I also appreciate your comments over in EVP. I am a researcher and a LMT and don't necessarily agree with everyone on that site; but I love the discussions.
Mike conflates a topic with censorship. Over at another massage blog, where the emphasis is on science, one of the topics concerns a pledge that one can sign to indicate that they are in favor of evidence based practice. You can download it and sign it if you like. Presumably, you could hang it in your practice to let patients know you're not a quack.

But the participants on that other blog, one of whom is me, don't much care whether your do this or not. We'll talk with you either way. No one is being silenced for not signing it. Hell, we don't even know who has or hasn't signed it.

So far there is no censorship at the site Laura mentioned. Scientists don't go much for censorship.
No, it's not a form of censorship. The definition of the word censor is
"Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Date: 1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable " from the Merrium Webster dictionary.

Laura's comment was deleted; THAT is censorship.

I cannot speak of the "mission" of the science-based site, as I am not the creator of it. However, comments will not be deleted or suppressed no matter what the opinion is. Not everyone agrees on there with everything- again, that's what makes for good debate. Even if it did divide some therapists- that is STILL not censorship; there are no stipulations of what can or cannot be discussed there.

As Chris said, no one knows who or who does not sign "the pledge", and further, the said pledge is posted by a user of the site, not by the site itself. No one HAS to agree with it to be a member; in fact I'm sure there are many members who do not agree with all of it. There is a difference between holding conflicting opinions and censorship.

As for EBP, if you are so concerned about there not being enough research on energy work, why not put together a research team, apply for a grant, and conduct a study yourself? I don't mean that in the snippy way it might come out. I was dis-satisfied with the amount of research on MT and further the lack of massage therapists involved in MT research and decided to get involved myself, which is why I am back in school learning how.

Mike Hinkle said:
The pledge is a form of censorship. Laura had cited Bodhi's site and I had just seen it at that site. That site isn't just proving evidence. It is separating therapists. It divides. That is my opinion. And as Laura said, "Censorship... ". I think it relates.

Kim Goral said:
MIke, as far as I know, and I am not speaking for Dr. Lawton here, "the pledge" is something of Dr. Lawton's that he has shared on the science-based site. I'm missing your point- if someone agrees with it, they can sign it, if the do not agree with it, they don't have to; it's not like anyone is being forced to. He is not deleting anyone's comments nor telling anyone they can't say or believe something. So, how is that censorship? And what does that have to do with this site, anyways?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service