In a message dated 4/23/2006 6:05:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bodywork_politics@yahoogroups.com writes:


> There is more than one purpose for licensing. We need to be clear about
> which rationale we are addressing in order for an organized discussion to
> take
> place. I apologize for blurring that distinction in my initial posting.
>

Hey Jack,

Many of those purposes/reasons are listed and rebutted in the GA point
counter point flyer I mailed to you and you acknowledged receiving or you can
find
in the archives. Amta never took the time to seriously address the opposing
arguments or consider the option of no licensing.

If my math is correct there are only 14 more states to go before realizing
your/the Amta's long standing dream of licensing for all states. It is the
mission of your organization. It would be nice if you or Amta would present a
good
rationale for requiring state licensing of folk providing touch.

(2) btw...It is ten years ago this month I stormed out of Amta and started
The Rub. I had found out about the cowardly Amta-BOD's sleazy move of
eliminating the Massage Entrance Exam without going to the membership because of
knowing how volatile an issue it would be.

The Rub did not survive but because of it I connected with some incredible
folk I would not have had the opportunity or reason to connect with.

It's good to see the amount of resistance to the Amta juggernaut here in CA.
May we continue to hold them at bay by defeating SB412, the Amta foot in the
door bill.

Robert Flammia,
Whatever

Don't believe everything you think!

Blogs: http://iscaaty.blogspot.com/ or http://theflammiatouch.blogspot.com/












[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]