Censorship in Any Form is Still Censorship

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 13, 2009 at 10:31pm

Not true Christopher. Emma deleted her message because she felt it was wrong to even be having that discussion in that group. After hers was deleted, I reviewed what I had added that would contribute to the off message that you were trying to get across and that was wrong. After many asked me to quit the discussion, I did delete my messages relating to the off topic only. That is my choice as the site allows this. I did not delete the discussion. Again Christopher you distort the facts.That could have been done only by the one starting the conversation and the administration. I got one comment from Erica about it and that was all.

I agreed with the majority and I'm glad whoever lost that thread did. But not to worry. You have started it again.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

I'm not sure which specific comment you are referring to, but if this refers to the extensive discussion that I participated in a while back on this site, you won't find it. You know why? Because Mike - the one opposed to censorship - deleted it!

Meanwhile, he now cites this pledge as a form of censorship, which of course it isn't, and makes demands of people (e.g., to provide lists, etc.) to deflect attention from the fact that he is off-topic.

-CM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 13, 2009 at 10:39pm

I would agree except this scientist is also a researcher and works with the Massage Research Foundation and has decided and made these statements and stands by them.

I have heard NCB stand up to all challenges and yet now they what are they saying?

Angela Palmier said:

In reading # 6 of the pledge---I read it that they ask those who chose to sign the pledge to not support the groups.....but I don't see any definition of what massage pseudoscience or sham means here. I would interpret that as making the decision for myself...what I believed to be pseudoscience or sham. They would have to state what the "sham" was and I would have to agree, based on the evidence to sign The Pledge.

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

Since these individuals are part of "the industry" their perspectives need to be heard as well---and I've forwarded the pledge, along with the thread so that it can be seen.....remember I'm not judging right or wrong, good or bad, I'm simply forwarding the information.

These are not the scientists that get to decide what is pseudoscience and what is not either----they do have a right to their opinion, and maybe this is where the disconnect is-----again, I need to go back and look, but it really shocks me that a claim specifically directed to a modality that was not supported by any type of research just surprises me. It's a tough position for them to be in.....scientists--especially researchers usually don't have the luxury of expressing opinions, they just do the work, report the findings and come up with a conclusion based on those findings---nothing says they are right or wrong---it's just there until someone provides an alternative conclusion.

I would like to see the "list" as well.....it would be interesting to see what they come up with and the rationale.

To be clear----I do support and believe in evidence-based practice. I see this thread of comments as being a separate issue altogether. I applaud you stepping up and having your voice heard. It's important and it's critical to the growth of the profession. It's unfortuate that there are so many lurkers and so few contributors to blogs such as this one. It would be a great thing if all MT's engaged the process. Now I know what to ask Santa to bring us for Christmas! ;)

Mike Hinkle said:

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 13, 2009 at 10:47pm

okay---one last post---then I must unplug.

Considering the fact that this thread started on a Sunday evening and that I am not NCB, I'm not really sure how to appropriately respond to your statement "I have heard NCB stand up to all challenges and yet now what are they saying." While I must admit their responses, service and attention to the industry has been amazing-----this would be asking a bit too much, don't you think?

Goodnight all

Mike Hinkle said:

I would agree except this scientist is also a researcher and works with the Massage Research Foundation and has decided and made these statements and stands by them.

I have heard NCB stand up to all challenges and yet now they what are they saying?

Angela Palmier said:

In reading # 6 of the pledge---I read it that they ask those who chose to sign the pledge to not support the groups.....but I don't see any definition of what massage pseudoscience or sham means here. I would interpret that as making the decision for myself...what I believed to be pseudoscience or sham. They would have to state what the "sham" was and I would have to agree, based on the evidence to sign The Pledge.

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

Since these individuals are part of "the industry" their perspectives need to be heard as well---and I've forwarded the pledge, along with the thread so that it can be seen.....remember I'm not judging right or wrong, good or bad, I'm simply forwarding the information.

These are not the scientists that get to decide what is pseudoscience and what is not either----they do have a right to their opinion, and maybe this is where the disconnect is-----again, I need to go back and look, but it really shocks me that a claim specifically directed to a modality that was not supported by any type of research just surprises me. It's a tough position for them to be in.....scientists--especially researchers usually don't have the luxury of expressing opinions, they just do the work, report the findings and come up with a conclusion based on those findings---nothing says they are right or wrong---it's just there until someone provides an alternative conclusion.

I would like to see the "list" as well.....it would be interesting to see what they come up with and the rationale.

To be clear----I do support and believe in evidence-based practice. I see this thread of comments as being a separate issue altogether. I applaud you stepping up and having your voice heard. It's important and it's critical to the growth of the profession. It's unfortuate that there are so many lurkers and so few contributors to blogs such as this one. It would be a great thing if all MT's engaged the process. Now I know what to ask Santa to bring us for Christmas! ;)

Mike Hinkle said:

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 13, 2009 at 10:56pm

For a Sunday night, okay, but Monday's coming,

Angela Palmier said:

okay---one last post---then I must unplug.

Considering the fact that this thread started on a Sunday evening and that I am not NCB, I'm not really sure how to appropriately respond to your statement "I have heard NCB stand up to all challenges and yet now what are they saying." While I must admit their responses, service and attention to the industry has been amazing-----this would be asking a bit too much, don't you think?

Goodnight all

Mike Hinkle said:

I would agree except this scientist is also a researcher and works with the Massage Research Foundation and has decided and made these statements and stands by them.

I have heard NCB stand up to all challenges and yet now they what are they saying?

Angela Palmier said:

In reading # 6 of the pledge---I read it that they ask those who chose to sign the pledge to not support the groups.....but I don't see any definition of what massage pseudoscience or sham means here. I would interpret that as making the decision for myself...what I believed to be pseudoscience or sham. They would have to state what the "sham" was and I would have to agree, based on the evidence to sign The Pledge.

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

Since these individuals are part of "the industry" their perspectives need to be heard as well---and I've forwarded the pledge, along with the thread so that it can be seen.....remember I'm not judging right or wrong, good or bad, I'm simply forwarding the information.

These are not the scientists that get to decide what is pseudoscience and what is not either----they do have a right to their opinion, and maybe this is where the disconnect is-----again, I need to go back and look, but it really shocks me that a claim specifically directed to a modality that was not supported by any type of research just surprises me. It's a tough position for them to be in.....scientists--especially researchers usually don't have the luxury of expressing opinions, they just do the work, report the findings and come up with a conclusion based on those findings---nothing says they are right or wrong---it's just there until someone provides an alternative conclusion.

I would like to see the "list" as well.....it would be interesting to see what they come up with and the rationale.

To be clear----I do support and believe in evidence-based practice. I see this thread of comments as being a separate issue altogether. I applaud you stepping up and having your voice heard. It's important and it's critical to the growth of the profession. It's unfortuate that there are so many lurkers and so few contributors to blogs such as this one. It would be a great thing if all MT's engaged the process. Now I know what to ask Santa to bring us for Christmas! ;)

Mike Hinkle said:

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on December 14, 2009 at 1:17am

Hi Laura,
I do enjoy your post's because you have the fortitude to step out with your qualified opinion.

Regarding censorship, I would like to comment on "Self Censorship".

For example, this is a great discussion with one missing element.... specific identification of the discussion where your comments were deleted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 14, 2009 at 6:07am

I refrained from stating that, since that would make me guilty of calling someone by name. At this point, though, I believe most have figured out that It was the blog on "Giving Massage a New Name and Reputation."

Bert Davich said:

Hi Laura,
I do enjoy your post's because you have the fortitude to step out with your qualified opinion.

Regarding censorship, I would like to comment on "Self Censorship".

For example, this is a great discussion with one missing element.... specific identification of the discussion where your comments were deleted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 14, 2009 at 6:21am

Angela,

You will want to check in on the discussion on "Top Ten Quack Practices in Massage" on that site. Although the pledge does not mention the specifics or call the NCB by name, much of the discussion there has to do with energy work being "sham", and there are plenty of NCB classes offered by approved providers in those modalities.

One thing people are overlooking, and that is that the NCB approves "providers," rather than individual classes per se. They do ask people to turn in their classes, one assumes so they can tell you have the intelligence to put together a list of learning objectives and then a class that meets those objectives. So there are numerous classes that are taught by NCBTMB Approved Providers that fall under what the scientists refer to as "sham." Reiki is just one of them, as are most other energy modalities that have been mentioned, reflexology, toe reading, anything to do with the chakras, etc. I believe that is what Mike is referring to, the fact that in order to sign that pledge, you are admitting that many of the classes that are approved by our foremost certification body, and in fact tested for on the exam (NCTMB) are sham.

Angela Palmier said:

In reading # 6 of the pledge---I read it that they ask those who chose to sign the pledge to not support the groups.....but I don't see any definition of what massage pseudoscience or sham means here. I would interpret that as making the decision for myself...what I believed to be pseudoscience or sham. They would have to state what the "sham" was and I would have to agree, based on the evidence to sign The Pledge.

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

Since these individuals are part of "the industry" their perspectives need to be heard as well---and I've forwarded the pledge, along with the thread so that it can be seen.....remember I'm not judging right or wrong, good or bad, I'm simply forwarding the information.

These are not the scientists that get to decide what is pseudoscience and what is not either----they do have a right to their opinion, and maybe this is where the disconnect is-----again, I need to go back and look, but it really shocks me that a claim specifically directed to a modality that was not supported by any type of research just surprises me. It's a tough position for them to be in.....scientists--especially researchers usually don't have the luxury of expressing opinions, they just do the work, report the findings and come up with a conclusion based on those findings---nothing says they are right or wrong---it's just there until someone provides an alternative conclusion.

I would like to see the "list" as well.....it would be interesting to see what they come up with and the rationale.

To be clear----I do support and believe in evidence-based practice. I see this thread of comments as being a separate issue altogether. I applaud you stepping up and having your voice heard. It's important and it's critical to the growth of the profession. It's unfortuate that there are so many lurkers and so few contributors to blogs such as this one. It would be a great thing if all MT's engaged the process. Now I know what to ask Santa to bring us for Christmas! ;)

Mike Hinkle said:

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ruth Werner on December 14, 2009 at 6:59am

I rarely weigh in on these sites, although I follow them a little. Censorship aside (that seems to have been covered pretty thoroughly), I'll back up Gloria's point that it is difficult to touch someone invitation and with good intent and and not have positive effect. Whether it's by way of the parasympathetic nervous system or the benefit of a good client-therapist relationship or some other group of variables that haven't been identified, massage therapists have a wonderful impact on the world.

As for the so-called division between energy workers and scientists, let us please remember a few things: the people studying how massage affects the body are doing it so that the people practicing it can really maximize the benefits. And just because it's difficult to measure a phenomenon, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We're working on it. And the ultimate benficiaries of this work aren't the scientists OR the practitioners: it's the public.

My two cents.

Thanks for the opportunity, Laura

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 14, 2009 at 7:59am

Thanks Laura for pointing me to the discussion. I will review it. I'm going to be out most of the day, but I will do this when I get back.

Angie

Laura Allen said:

Angela,

You will want to check in on the discussion on "Top Ten Quack Practices in Massage" on that site. Although the pledge does not mention the specifics or call the NCB by name, much of the discussion there has to do with energy work being "sham", and there are plenty of NCB classes offered by approved providers in those modalities.

One thing people are overlooking, and that is that the NCB approves "providers," rather than individual classes per se. They do ask people to turn in their classes, one assumes so they can tell you have the intelligence to put together a list of learning objectives and then a class that meets those objectives. So there are numerous classes that are taught by NCBTMB Approved Providers that fall under what the scientists refer to as "sham." Reiki is just one of them, as are most other energy modalities that have been mentioned, reflexology, toe reading, anything to do with the chakras, etc. I believe that is what Mike is referring to, the fact that in order to sign that pledge, you are admitting that many of the classes that are approved by our foremost certification body, and in fact tested for on the exam (NCTMB) are sham.

Angela Palmier said:

In reading # 6 of the pledge---I read it that they ask those who chose to sign the pledge to not support the groups.....but I don't see any definition of what massage pseudoscience or sham means here. I would interpret that as making the decision for myself...what I believed to be pseudoscience or sham. They would have to state what the "sham" was and I would have to agree, based on the evidence to sign The Pledge.

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

Since these individuals are part of "the industry" their perspectives need to be heard as well---and I've forwarded the pledge, along with the thread so that it can be seen.....remember I'm not judging right or wrong, good or bad, I'm simply forwarding the information.

These are not the scientists that get to decide what is pseudoscience and what is not either----they do have a right to their opinion, and maybe this is where the disconnect is-----again, I need to go back and look, but it really shocks me that a claim specifically directed to a modality that was not supported by any type of research just surprises me. It's a tough position for them to be in.....scientists--especially researchers usually don't have the luxury of expressing opinions, they just do the work, report the findings and come up with a conclusion based on those findings---nothing says they are right or wrong---it's just there until someone provides an alternative conclusion.

I would like to see the "list" as well.....it would be interesting to see what they come up with and the rationale.

To be clear----I do support and believe in evidence-based practice. I see this thread of comments as being a separate issue altogether. I applaud you stepping up and having your voice heard. It's important and it's critical to the growth of the profession. It's unfortuate that there are so many lurkers and so few contributors to blogs such as this one. It would be a great thing if all MT's engaged the process. Now I know what to ask Santa to bring us for Christmas! ;)

Mike Hinkle said:

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 14, 2009 at 9:01am

Not true Christopher. Emma deleted her message because she felt it was wrong to even be having that discussion in that group.

My mistake then. I apologize for getting the facts wrong.

It's funny to me that people could think that discussion somehow didn't belong in that group. The poster was getting her questions answered. The fact that she and some of the lurkers didn't like the answers was the issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 14, 2009 at 9:15am

I sent Ms. Moerland, the therapist who censored me, an email telling her she should check in on this discussion, since she was the one who inspired me to start it.

Here is her reply to me:

Thank you for your invitations to the censorship discussion, but I am not here to debate censorship, so I shall continue to pass. I appreciate your enthusiasm for your work and am glad that I could inspire your new discussion, but I have only one thing to say about the subject and it was already said: You are welcome to comment on my blog, but I will not tolerate personal attacks. No one else was asked to resubmit and there are others who posted disagreement with my personal opinions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzanne H Eller on December 14, 2009 at 10:24am

Before I became a massage therapist, I was an English and Journalism teacher. I learned a lot about censorship from teaching yearbook and newspaper and working within an organization that can legally censor speech that is considered disruptive of the school day. I fought for the students' rights to express the truth and/or their opinions as opinion. People with power often don't like criticism, but I believe the students have the same rights as other news sources. Soemtimes I won; sometimes I did not.

Comments should be deleted when they are libelous as that entails a legal matter. Ethically, we should keep our comments on-topic and free of personal attack out of courtesy for our collegues and simple good manners. That said, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion are guaranteed. I oppose censorship completely.

If your opinions ruffle my feathers, I am free to respond or click the mouse and leave your site/blog. We say we want to educate our clients, but eduction can only result when all sides of issues are discussed and understood. We don't give ourselves enough credit for being about to separate the chaff from the wheat, and if we don't give ourselves credit, why should our clients believe anything we say? I am open to all opinions. I have a good mind. I can take what I trust and leave the rest.

Keep telling us what you think, Laura. It's one reason I come here.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page