massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
The Massage Therapy Alliance of America - A New Alliance For Therapists!
We are so excited for Massage Therapists!!! But, instead of re-explaining it here, go to the source at http://www.mtaamassage.org
Some of the debate that will take place on this topic will be heated. If opposing sides discussing issues is not your cup of tea, just visit the website. FYI!
Views: 521
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
Thank you, Bodhi! So it isn't 2200 hours to be a massage therapist as they are called in America. It's only 700-1,000 and y'all call it Spa Therapists. Then why was it changed to massage therapists here? Was that to create this situation here? So it seems instead of "ALL" our Massage Therapists having to reach any further level, all we need to do is to create a name for this PT trained MT, set a standard, put hours to it and name it.
That will solve this problem, without creating a war!
Yeah, Bodhi, I am ignorant of the way we have been teaching for years. It has worked to get us to this point and we are fine. You and a small amount of therapists want every therapist here to change to meet your expectations of what a massage "therapist" is and that's why the "therapist" was inserted into the title.
Do we reach "your" super duper whatever therapist level you have? Who cares. We will be fine and this foolishness will
be rebuffed. Our students do not need to reach the level of PT to do entry level work in this industry. We do not want your system Bodhi and the more you push, the more therapists will understand why. We are sticking with hours in America and your spill to try and rack up more hours for school in the US will meet a force.
Bodhi Haraldsson said:Mike, I am not sure how to take your comments. Either you are you know nothing about education and setting standards or you are intentionally ignoring how EVERY profession sets their standards.
Mike do every one a favor and investigate how professional standards are created.
With out competencies how do you know what to teach and if the therapist has absorbed the materials. Or are you advocating that a student only needs to warm a seat for 500 hours. The example you gave above is not only wrong but incredibly ignorant.
Student failure rate on exams is to weed out those that don't know the material needed to be a safe and competent therapist.
Mike, again the province (not state) here pays for some (not all) RMT work, Workers insurance pays for RMT rehab work, car insurance pays for some of our work, private insurance pays for most of or work. As you can see its not a "socialist" (god forbid) system here. There are many players and many avenues for payments.
Insurances in general (usa and Canada) don't want to pay for none medically necessary work, such as wellness and preventions.
Here is you don't want to be competent therapist (health professional) you go and take a SPA therapist program (700-1000 hours).
-
-
Sorry, Erica. I am not a pro at this either. I am doing the best I can to get this going. I am sorry it is not as organized as. You would like. Me either, but I'll keep doing it and we will have the election in July. Waiting another year will not happen.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make. When I answer a question you say I say I. When I think it should be their decision to answer and say so, you say I'm vague. I think you just like to argue and it doesn't really matter what I say.
There is enough information for hundreds to join without hesitation, but you wouldn't no matter what the words say. I have told you, it is a framework to create an Alliance of therapists to improve the profession. It is more information than many stakeholders started their programs with. Job descriptions will be posted and people will run for office. What they decide to concentrate on and do will be determined by them in meetings that have not taken place yet.
It's going to be available for those that do wish to join. They will organize it. Could this have rolled out with lots of fanfare and attention? Sure. It wasn't. I want to keep costs down now, so that the future boards do as well. I want this to cost therapist the least and give them, the most, just like Festival.
Everything I do is to improve massage and you can knock me for having different entities all you want. People that do things make people mad. I do a lot! So I understand those that don't and cry conflict of interest. This event will take place at Festival. It is the larger gathering, I know of to have the vote. Laura has told you that this is the way it is done and you still argue that because I am doing Festival, there is a conflict of interest?
You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
Erica Olson said:As a point of clarification, no, I didn't ask to have it set back. I simply made the observation that further time for development might be a good idea.
As it is, the idea of MTAA is coming off as pretty half-assed and without a lot of thought put into it, especially considering the plethora of unanswered questions. Although I'm sure you'll just pooh-pooh that commentary as just my opinion, that I'm welcome to it, that I don't have to join, and/or that I should start my own group.
E.
Mike Hinkle said:This means, you asked to set this back until 2012.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on
-
The NCBTMB is not now nor have they ever claimed to be a "voice" for massage therapists. They are a certification board.
Lisa said:
Another question I have is what is the difference between this new association and the NCBTMB? Isn't that suppose to be "our voice"?
Lisa said:
"The startup phase is being guided by a Leadership Team of veteran therapists."
is it possible to get a list of names of the Leadership Team? before I sign up I'd like to know who the people are that are guiding this and what their credentials are.
-
Permalink Reply by Erica Olson on
-
You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
*laughs* This is exactly what I mean by dismissive and antagonistic. And, last I checked, telepathy was not listed among general human abilities.
For the record, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the future of the MTAA, if it can ever figure out what it's going to be when it grows up. I do care about the public's perceptions of cronyism, selective favoritism, and insider information regarding my profession.
I've asked whether or not your insistence that votes be cast in person at the WMF might not be considered a conflict of interest. Considering that I am not the only one who has indicated that they see this connection, the answer appears to be YES. When I've suggested alternate means of ballot-casting (mail, online, as other organizations have done) in order to mitigate the possibility of this conflict of interest, I get told "this is the way it's done." That answer does not address the conflict of interest concern. (And, as you yourself have stated, "There are many ways to accomplish things.")
Such reasonable concerns cast a shadow on our entire profession. For us to act in the highest possible ethical standard, we need to be able to justify our actions without the slightest hint of corruption.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make.
Some of the details requested are information that only you can give, but they still haven't been answered:
- Who is on the Leadership Team and what are their credentials? Do any of them have any experience with creating non-profits?
- If one wants to run for an office of the BOD, do they have to be at the festival in order to be voted for?
- If someone joins MTAA but cannot make it to the WMF to vote, how is their voice being represented?Is it being represented?
You can knock me for having different entities all you want.
*shakes head* I think you're thinking of Lisa. My problem with you is that when people bring up legitimate concerns, you start personally attacking them and refuse to acknowledge any of their points as valid. Even when you ask for feedback, the response seems to be "your way or the highway."
E.
Mike Hinkle said:
Sorry, Erica. I am not a pro at this either. I am doing the best I can to get this going. I am sorry it is not as organized as. You would like. Me either, but I'll keep doing it and we will have the election in July. Waiting another year will not happen.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make. When I answer a question you say I say I. When I think it should be their decision to answer and say so, you say I'm vague. I think you just like to argue and it doesn't really matter what I say.
There is enough information for hundreds to join without hesitation, but you wouldn't no matter what the words say. I have told you, it is a framework to create an Alliance of therapists to improve the profession. It is more information than many stakeholders started their programs with. Job descriptions will be posted and people will run for office. What they decide to concentrate on and do will be determined by them in meetings that have not taken place yet.
It's going to be available for those that do wish to join. They will organize it. Could this have rolled out with lots of fanfare and attention? Sure. It wasn't. I want to keep costs down now, so that the future boards do as well. I want this to cost therapist the least and give them, the most, just like Festival.
Everything I do is to improve massage and you can knock me for having different entities all you want. People that do things make people mad. I do a lot! So I understand those that don't and cry conflict of interest. This event will take place at Festival. It is the larger gathering, I know of to have the vote. Laura has told you that this is the way it is done and you still argue that because I am doing Festival, there is a conflict of interest?
You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
Erica Olson said:
As a point of clarification, no, I didn't ask to have it set back. I simply made the observation that further time for development might be a good idea.
As it is, the idea of MTAA is coming off as pretty half-assed and without a lot of thought put into it, especially considering the plethora of unanswered questions. Although I'm sure you'll just pooh-pooh that commentary as just my opinion, that I'm welcome to it, that I don't have to join, and/or that I should start my own group.
E.
Mike Hinkle said:This means, you asked to set this back until 2012.
-
-
Answers to your questions one more time 1. The leadership team is a group of veteran therapists. Everyone of them have more experience than the two of us combined. I will not subject them to outside influence while they are working on the by-laws. This won't change the fact that they are the best that I could find to do the job. And yes it is I at this point. I am the incorporator. I do not need your direction. I will do this how I think is needs done based on variables, you have no knowledge of.
2. I have already answered this, no they do not have to be there if they run for office. But they don't get to vote either. And their being there may influence some if they understand why they want the office. You must be present to vote.
3. How are any of the 50,287 AMTA members that did not vote in their election represented? Are they represented? People makes choices to vote. Elections have rules. This election is caused by my decision to create this Alliance. Will it be perfect for everyone that may join or have an interest? It will be as good as I can make it under the existing conditions. The election for the first BOD of the Massage Therapy Alliance of America will be at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, NC. You have months like everyone else tomakearrangements and be there or not. Luckily, it is not just a meeting to vote, but affords people the opportunity to write off this expense as an education week. I don't think that is a conflict. I am not running for office. I am giving them a location and it will be saving them money, right off the bat. Ihope there are many therapists that will give back to the Alliance. Many are already offering.
Thanks!
Erica Olson said:You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
*laughs* This is exactly what I mean by dismissive and antagonistic. And, last I checked, telepathy was not listed among general human abilities.
For the record, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the future of the MTAA, if it can ever figure out what it's going to be when it grows up. I do care about the public's perceptions of cronyism, selective favoritism, and insider information regarding my profession.
I've asked whether or not your insistence that votes be cast in person at the WMF might not be considered a conflict of interest. Considering that I am not the only one who has indicated that they see this connection, the answer appears to be YES. When I've suggested alternate means of ballot-casting (mail, online, as other organizations have done) in order to mitigate the possibility of this conflict of interest, I get told "this is the way it's done." That answer does not address the conflict of interest concern. (And, as you yourself have stated, "There are many ways to accomplish things.")
Such reasonable concerns cast a shadow on our entire profession. For us to act in the highest possible ethical standard, we need to be able to justify our actions without the slightest hint of corruption.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make.
Some of the details requested are information that only you can give, but they still haven't been answered:
- Who is on the Leadership Team and what are their credentials? Do any of them have any experience with creating non-profits?
- If one wants to run for an office of the BOD, do they have to be at the festival in order to be voted for?
- If someone joins MTAA but cannot make it to the WMF to vote, how is their voice being represented?Is it being represented?
You can knock me for having different entities all you want.
*shakes head* I think you're thinking of Lisa. My problem with you is that when people bring up legitimate concerns, you start personally attacking them and refuse to acknowledge any of their points as valid. Even when you ask for feedback, the response seems to be "your way or the highway."
E.
Mike Hinkle said:
Sorry, Erica. I am not a pro at this either. I am doing the best I can to get this going. I am sorry it is not as organized as. You would like. Me either, but I'll keep doing it and we will have the election in July. Waiting another year will not happen.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make. When I answer a question you say I say I. When I think it should be their decision to answer and say so, you say I'm vague. I think you just like to argue and it doesn't really matter what I say.
There is enough information for hundreds to join without hesitation, but you wouldn't no matter what the words say. I have told you, it is a framework to create an Alliance of therapists to improve the profession. It is more information than many stakeholders started their programs with. Job descriptions will be posted and people will run for office. What they decide to concentrate on and do will be determined by them in meetings that have not taken place yet.
It's going to be available for those that do wish to join. They will organize it. Could this have rolled out with lots of fanfare and attention? Sure. It wasn't. I want to keep costs down now, so that the future boards do as well. I want this to cost therapist the least and give them, the most, just like Festival.
Everything I do is to improve massage and you can knock me for having different entities all you want. People that do things make people mad. I do a lot! So I understand those that don't and cry conflict of interest. This event will take place at Festival. It is the larger gathering, I know of to have the vote. Laura has told you that this is the way it is done and you still argue that because I am doing Festival, there is a conflict of interest?
You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
Erica Olson said:
As a point of clarification, no, I didn't ask to have it set back. I simply made the observation that further time for development might be a good idea.
As it is, the idea of MTAA is coming off as pretty half-assed and without a lot of thought put into it, especially considering the plethora of unanswered questions. Although I'm sure you'll just pooh-pooh that commentary as just my opinion, that I'm welcome to it, that I don't have to join, and/or that I should start my own group.
E.
Mike Hinkle said:This means, you asked to set this back until 2012.
-
-
Okay. Let me see if I have this straight:
When I and others ask about the Leadership Team, you tell us that you picked them, that you won't reveal their identity and qualifications other than being "veteran therapists" (what is your definition of veteran?), or how/why you chose them. And, in short, sit down and STFU.
When asked about running for an office of the BOD and whether or not that individual needs to be present, you incorrectly state that you've already answered the question. (If you can point to me where you did, you have my sincere apologies and backpedaling; I know this question has been asked at least twice, but I couldn't find any record of an answer until now.)
When asked (again, not by me, but by another party whose question was summarily ignored) that if someone cannot be physically present at WMF to vote, how/if their voice is represented, your answer seems to be NO without being willing to come out and say it. Other than, again, "If you can't make it, sit down and STFU."
When the question of a perceived conflict of interest arises, you deny any possibility of such an appearance--despite the multiple observations to the contrary--and offer up ad hominem arguments. It doesn't matter whether or not people can write off the visit as a business expense or whether or not you are running for office. It matters that the only place people can vote is at an event that is hosted by you. Your complete refusal to acknowledge this potential problem--indeed, again, offering "sit down and STFU" or "go start your own organization" as solutions--only compounds the potential abuse. You offer no other recourse, no other possible avenue of expression, and live in denial of the fact that other people might see this as a problem. You won't even honor that opinion by acknowledging it as a reality!
People who choose not to vote do just that: CHOOSE. The fact of the matter is that no, you are not making this election as equitable as it could be.
When I pointed out the possible security precautions revolving around an unsecured database, you blew me off. The volume of people who went ahead and signed up does not indicate relevant value, only complacency. I know of at least one signee, when alerted to the possible complications and intricacies, who asked to be removed from the MTAA list.
Your response to both of these issues seems to be the same as most of your responses to the above questions: Sit down and STFU, or go start your own organization.
Great way to be represented, I gotta say.
E.
Mike Hinkle said:
Answers to your questions one more time 1. The leadership team is a group of veteran therapists. Everyone of them have more experience than the two of us combined. I will not subject them to outside influence while they are working on the by-laws. This won't change the fact that they are the best that I could find to do the job. And yes it is I at this point. I am the incorporator. I do not need your direction. I will do this how I think is needs done based on variables, you have no knowledge of.
2. I have already answered this, no they do not have to be there if they run for office. But they don't get to vote either. And their being there may influence some if they understand why they want the office. You must be present to vote.
3. How are any of the 50,287 AMTA members that did not vote in their election represented? Are they represented? People makes choices to vote. Elections have rules. This election is caused by my decision to create this Alliance. Will it be perfect for everyone that may join or have an interest? It will be as good as I can make it under the existing conditions. The election for the first BOD of the Massage Therapy Alliance of America will be at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, NC. You have months like everyone else tomakearrangements and be there or not. Luckily, it is not just a meeting to vote, but affords people the opportunity to write off this expense as an education week. I don't think that is a conflict. I am not running for office. I am giving them a location and it will be saving them money, right off the bat. Ihope there are many therapists that will give back to the Alliance. Many are already offering.
Thanks!
Erica Olson said:
You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
*laughs* This is exactly what I mean by dismissive and antagonistic. And, last I checked, telepathy was not listed among general human abilities.
For the record, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the future of the MTAA, if it can ever figure out what it's going to be when it grows up. I do care about the public's perceptions of cronyism, selective favoritism, and insider information regarding my profession.
I've asked whether or not your insistence that votes be cast in person at the WMF might not be considered a conflict of interest. Considering that I am not the only one who has indicated that they see this connection, the answer appears to be YES. When I've suggested alternate means of ballot-casting (mail, online, as other organizations have done) in order to mitigate the possibility of this conflict of interest, I get told "this is the way it's done." That answer does not address the conflict of interest concern. (And, as you yourself have stated, "There are many ways to accomplish things.")
Such reasonable concerns cast a shadow on our entire profession. For us to act in the highest possible ethical standard, we need to be able to justify our actions without the slightest hint of corruption.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make.
Some of the details requested are information that only you can give, but they still haven't been answered:
- Who is on the Leadership Team and what are their credentials? Do any of them have any experience with creating non-profits?
- If one wants to run for an office of the BOD, do they have to be at the festival in order to be voted for?
- If someone joins MTAA but cannot make it to the WMF to vote, how is their voice being represented?Is it being represented?
You can knock me for having different entities all you want.
*shakes head* I think you're thinking of Lisa. My problem with you is that when people bring up legitimate concerns, you start personally attacking them and refuse to acknowledge any of their points as valid. Even when you ask for feedback, the response seems to be "your way or the highway."
E.
<deletia>
-
-
I gave you your answers, Erica. You may not feel that those that have signed up have value because they haven't challenged as you have. That's your right.I feel different and those folks will make difference.
I am being dismissive because you want everything your way and you are not the one doing the work, footing the bill or doing the work to make this happen. Reread and you will find my answer amongst the conversations. almost every office has someone already interested in running. That tells me that few have your concerns. And yes, one, person has withdrawn their name from hundreds. If you say it was for those reasons, so be it. You consider that smug. I consider life. I will not get everyone no matter what I do. That is irrelevant. I need 7 members and we are starting. This is not a yes/ no vote! We already exist, we are just waiting to see who will lead! I do not have time to worry about therapists that can not grasp what hundreds can. All I can do is keep on and don't slow down for those that are confused and do not understand. Afterwards, maybe they will!
Erica Olson said:Okay. Let me see if I have this straight:
When I and others ask about the Leadership Team, you tell us that you picked them, that you won't reveal their identity and qualifications other than being "veteran therapists" (what is your definition of veteran?), or how/why you chose them. And, in short, sit down and STFU.
When asked about running for an office of the BOD and whether or not that individual needs to be present, you incorrectly state that you've already answered the question. (If you can point to me where you did, you have my sincere apologies and backpedaling; I know this question has been asked at least twice, but I couldn't find any record of an answer until now.)
When asked (again, not by me, but by another party whose question was summarily ignored) that if someone cannot be physically present at WMF to vote, how/if their voice is represented, your answer seems to be NO without being willing to come out and say it. Other than, again, "If you can't make it, sit down and STFU."
When the question of a perceived conflict of interest arises, you deny any possibility of such an appearance--despite the multiple observations to the contrary--and offer up ad hominem arguments. It doesn't matter whether or not people can write off the visit as a business expense or whether or not you are running for office. It matters that the only place people can vote is at an event that is hosted by you. Your complete refusal to acknowledge this potential problem--indeed, again, offering "sit down and STFU" or "go start your own organization" as solutions--only compounds the potential abuse. You offer no other recourse, no other possible avenue of expression, and live in denial of the fact that other people might see this as a problem. You won't even honor that opinion by acknowledging it as a reality!
People who choose not to vote do just that: CHOOSE. The fact of the matter is that no, you are not making this election as equitable as it could be.
When I pointed out the possible security precautions revolving around an unsecured database, you blew me off. The volume of people who went ahead and signed up does not indicate relevant value, only complacency. I know of at least one signee, when alerted to the possible complications and intricacies, who asked to be removed from the MTAA list.
Your response to both of these issues seems to be the same as most of your responses to the above questions: Sit down and STFU, or go start your own organization.
Great way to be represented, I gotta say.
E.
Mike Hinkle said:
Answers to your questions one more time 1. The leadership team is a group of veteran therapists. Everyone of them have more experience than the two of us combined. I will not subject them to outside influence while they are working on the by-laws. This won't change the fact that they are the best that I could find to do the job. And yes it is I at this point. I am the incorporator. I do not need your direction. I will do this how I think is needs done based on variables, you have no knowledge of.
2. I have already answered this, no they do not have to be there if they run for office. But they don't get to vote either. And their being there may influence some if they understand why they want the office. You must be present to vote.
3. How are any of the 50,287 AMTA members that did not vote in their election represented? Are they represented? People makes choices to vote. Elections have rules. This election is caused by my decision to create this Alliance. Will it be perfect for everyone that may join or have an interest? It will be as good as I can make it under the existing conditions. The election for the first BOD of the Massage Therapy Alliance of America will be at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, NC. You have months like everyone else tomakearrangements and be there or not. Luckily, it is not just a meeting to vote, but affords people the opportunity to write off this expense as an education week. I don't think that is a conflict. I am not running for office. I am giving them a location and it will be saving them money, right off the bat. Ihope there are many therapists that will give back to the Alliance. Many are already offering.
Thanks!
Erica Olson said:
You are not interested in understanding MTAA, you are looking for a way to stop it. You are attacking the messenger and it's becoming more obvious.
*laughs* This is exactly what I mean by dismissive and antagonistic. And, last I checked, telepathy was not listed among general human abilities.
For the record, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the future of the MTAA, if it can ever figure out what it's going to be when it grows up. I do care about the public's perceptions of cronyism, selective favoritism, and insider information regarding my profession.
I've asked whether or not your insistence that votes be cast in person at the WMF might not be considered a conflict of interest. Considering that I am not the only one who has indicated that they see this connection, the answer appears to be YES. When I've suggested alternate means of ballot-casting (mail, online, as other organizations have done) in order to mitigate the possibility of this conflict of interest, I get told "this is the way it's done." That answer does not address the conflict of interest concern. (And, as you yourself have stated, "There are many ways to accomplish things.")
Such reasonable concerns cast a shadow on our entire profession. For us to act in the highest possible ethical standard, we need to be able to justify our actions without the slightest hint of corruption.
I refuse to speak to the details you want because those are decisions the board will make.
Some of the details requested are information that only you can give, but they still haven't been answered:
- Who is on the Leadership Team and what are their credentials? Do any of them have any experience with creating non-profits?
- If one wants to run for an office of the BOD, do they have to be at the festival in order to be voted for?
- If someone joins MTAA but cannot make it to the WMF to vote, how is their voice being represented?Is it being represented?
You can knock me for having different entities all you want.
*shakes head* I think you're thinking of Lisa. My problem with you is that when people bring up legitimate concerns, you start personally attacking them and refuse to acknowledge any of their points as valid. Even when you ask for feedback, the response seems to be "your way or the highway."
E.
<deletia>
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
What's the big deal here? Mike wants to start an organization. He has perceived a need and is trying to fill it. Maybe he doesn't have all the answers yet, maybe he is still figuring things out.. and so what? He didn't force anyone to join the organization. Why are people so annoyed by this? If you don't like it, don't join, it's simple. Why is everyone beating on this man?
-
Permalink Reply by Alexei Levine on
-
Exactly what I was thinking Emmanuel. What are people afraid of? Is a little diversity in the representation of Massage Therapists really that scary? Whenever someone steps up and tries to accomplish something it scares stakeholders in the status quo. I think you're onto something Mike, Good Luck!
-
-
Ah, yes! The Zen version of "sit down and STFU!"
The only thing I want "my way" is to have some questions answered, whether those questions belong to me or other people. The fact that only a few have voiced them does not diminish their legitimacy.
E.
Mike Hinkle said:
I gave you your answers, Erica. You may not feel that those that have signed up have value because they haven't challenged as you have. That's your right.I feel different and those folks will make difference.
I am being dismissive because you want everything your way and you are not the one doing the work, footing the bill or doing the work to make this happen. Reread and you will find my answer amongst the conversations. almost every office has someone already interested in running. That tells me that few have your concerns. And yes, one, person has withdrawn their name from hundreds. If you say it was for those reasons, so be it. You consider that smug. I consider life. I will not get everyone no matter what I do. That is irrelevant. I need 7 members and we are starting. This is not a yes/ no vote! We already exist, we are just waiting to see who will lead! I do not have time to worry about therapists that can not grasp what hundreds can. All I can do is keep on and don't slow down for those that are confused and do not understand. Afterwards, maybe they will!
Erica Olson said:
Okay. Let me see if I have this straight:
When I and others ask about the Leadership Team, you tell us that you picked them, that you won't reveal their identity and qualifications other than being "veteran therapists" (what is your definition of veteran?), or how/why you chose them. And, in short, sit down and STFU.
When asked about running for an office of the BOD and whether or not that individual needs to be present, you incorrectly state that you've already answered the question. (If you can point to me where you did, you have my sincere apologies and backpedaling; I know this question has been asked at least twice, but I couldn't find any record of an answer until now.)
When asked (again, not by me, but by another party whose question was summarily ignored) that if someone cannot be physically present at WMF to vote, how/if their voice is represented, your answer seems to be NO without being willing to come out and say it. Other than, again, "If you can't make it, sit down and STFU."
When the question of a perceived conflict of interest arises, you deny any possibility of such an appearance--despite the multiple observations to the contrary--and offer up ad hominem arguments. It doesn't matter whether or not people can write off the visit as a business expense or whether or not you are running for office. It matters that the only place people can vote is at an event that is hosted by you. Your complete refusal to acknowledge this potential problem--indeed, again, offering "sit down and STFU" or "go start your own organization" as solutions--only compounds the potential abuse. You offer no other recourse, no other possible avenue of expression, and live in denial of the fact that other people might see this as a problem. You won't even honor that opinion by acknowledging it as a reality!
People who choose not to vote do just that: CHOOSE. The fact of the matter is that no, you are not making this election as equitable as it could be.
When I pointed out the possible security precautions revolving around an unsecured database, you blew me off. The volume of people who went ahead and signed up does not indicate relevant value, only complacency. I know of at least one signee, when alerted to the possible complications and intricacies, who asked to be removed from the MTAA list.
Your response to both of these issues seems to be the same as most of your responses to the above questions: Sit down and STFU, or go start your own organization.
Great way to be represented, I gotta say.
E.
<deletia>
-
-
He asked for feedback. It was given, often in the form of questions. There's a lot behind starting up a non-profit; plenty of those questions, had he stopped to really consider them, might have provided him with valuable direction.
However, when that feedback was anything other than boot-lickingly positive, he got aggressive, hostile, and dismissive, including stooping to personal attacks (see Lisa's feedback about the image used on the site and his later categorization of her as having "trust issues" for example).
Mike has a history of casting aspersions upon research funding, but is completely unwilling to acknowledge that requiring attendance at a festival of his making in order to cast a vote for a representing body that he has spearheaded might be seen as a conflict of interest. I'm not stating that it is, simply that it might be perceived as such. When I ask what his plan is to countermand that perception, I get the infamous "you don't have to play in our sandbox, so STFU."
In short: it's not the accomplishment itself I have problems with; it's the way he's going about it.
E.
Emmanuel Bistas said:
What's the big deal here? Mike wants to start an organization. He has perceived a need and is trying to fill it. Maybe he doesn't have all the answers yet, maybe he is still figuring things out.. and so what? He didn't force anyone to join the organization. Why are people so annoyed by this? If you don't like it, don't join, it's simple. Why is everyone beating on this man?
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
What are people afraid of?
They might be afraid that they are going to be inadvertently represented by someone who claims to speak for the entire profession, but who does not represent the entire profession.
And, they might be afraid that this is motivated more by an opportunity to increase attendance at an specific event promoted by a specific individual than it is by a genuine need to initiate changes in the profession.
And, they might be afraid of the fact that all the current plans of the proposed alliance are being kept under wraps.
And, they might be afraid of the fact that existing organizations, such as ABMP and AMTA, which are well-positioned to influence the profession and address key issues, are being overlooked at a cost to the profession.
Most of all, they might be afraid of the fact that all of this is being led by someone who expresses interest in surveying opinion and in listening, but then proceeds by only actually listening to folks who agree with his position, and by being condescending and avoidant with anyone who does not agree with his position.
Finally, if there seems to be a dearth of persons writing to say that they are concerned about this development, that may be because they have learned, from experience, that offering a question or a challenge to this individual - who is so ubiquitous on this site that many of the folks who visit it think, erroneously, that this site is his - is an exercise in futility. There are plenty of interesting and dynamic people connected to the massage therapy profession who have abandoned this site as a result.
Back to lurking.
-CM
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
