If you don’t adhere to the principle, I’d still love to have you as a friend. But you’re not eligible to water down my principle.- Reggie Gold
If you don’t adhere to the principle, I’d still love to have you as a friend. But you’re not eligible to water down my principle.- Reggie Gold
Love it
Very few “are there” right from the get go, most are on the path there. I would say allow the non-straights (those on the path) to join, BUT, they should NOT be permitted to be on the board where they will be in position to pass rules which can/will weaken the principle.
What about for an OSC office? Very few new practice members “get it” on day one, but we must be willing to “train” and educate them along the way.
Is there ever a time to tell them they are in the wrong office and send them to a non OSC office?
Good point Chris. Practice is altogether a different matter. But practice members do not get to dictate the direction of the office….at least they shouldn’t. Sadly they often do. For me the answer to your second question is, when I am sure they intellectually understand what I am doing and state that is not how they want to utilize chiropractic (they want to use it as a condition/tratment relief only). At that point I kindly and gently inform them that they may find what they want in another chiropractic office. That is not what we offer here. But I must be convinced they have understood what we do and don’t do. IOWs that I have clearly explained the big idea. I don’t refer to a non OSC office because that chiropractor will in all liklihood reinforce their misconception of chiropractic, anf may even belittle my approach. If Joe D was closer to me, I would refer them to him:) Now that would be fun!
From bitter experience, not all are as you say, on the path there. In fact a not insubstantial number join for the purpose of correcting the underlieing principles ofthe organization and feeding their selfish agenda and ego. The evedence of their”success” becomes the demise of the organization.
Thank you Joe for clarifying my first sentence. Your last statement perfectly illustrates what happens when my last sentence comes to pass. Outside of Reggie, I’ve never met 2 men more dedicated to this principle and its survival than you and Joe S. Thank you to you both!
How True…..there is always the urge to justify their position and philosophical paradigm. I’m right you are wrong…….
“If you don’t adhere to the principle, I’d still love to have you as a friend. But you’re not eligible to water down my principle.”- Reggie Gold
I think this quote from Reggie is speaking of “Standing Strong” in the Principle and not letting someone else change your stance.
I do not believe Reggie is stating that a person that is not as strong in his/her stance with the principle are unwelcome in a group/club/organization, etc. But will not be allowed to change it’s policies/procedures/beliefs…ie. PRINCIPLES.
If one does not welcome someone into their group because at that time they do not have the SAME PRINCIPLES and STANCE then essentially the PRINCIPLES die – do they not. Part of being STRONG in the PRINCIPLES is TEACHING! Passing the torch!
Also a crucial part of standing strong in the principles and passing them on is in WRITING – Documented proof of your stance. This is what BJ, and many of the PRINCIPLED have done.
That is my take on the quote –
Actually, Dr. Ralls, Reggie was talking about “giving them the vote”. In the context of his quote, he suggested that they have some sort of “associate membership” in which they could learn and grow but not determine the direction of the organization. As you can see by his comment about being a friend, he was a very welcoming person but also saw from experience, organizations (like the ICA) change from within. Principles do not die but the expression and application of them can and do either by the people advocating those principles dying off or the principles being watered down. Reggie was addressing the latter. By the way, welcome to the blog and thanks for giving me a chance to expound upon the quote. It’s not often I get to clarify something Reggie said:)!
Thanks Joe for putting the quote into context – Glad to be a part of the blog. I think you did a much better job of stating what I was trying to.
agree with tom, besides reggie, no one has done more than joe d. and joe s. thank you guys.
Ayn Rand makes a statement (I tried to find a direct quote) that relates to the impossibility of an equitable compromise between the principled and the unprincipled. In compromising, the principled must always give up something. Yet the unprincipled, being unprincipled are always moved ahead.
If anyone knows the location of this statement please respond here.
Steve:
It is part of Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged.
“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who shoves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.
THANX Stamatis
I recognize three types of DC’s: 1) The LIBERAL MIXER who uses many methods to address medical conditions. They evaluates the entire body & treat a limited number of medical conditions 2) The OST who uses only spinal adjustments as their method for the objective of addressing VS for the purpose of allowing the body a better circumstance to strive. We evaluates limited anatomy, the spine, (like the dentist for the teeth, the optometrist for the eyes, etc) yet NOT limited to the medical condition. AND NOW THE PROBLEM GROUP 3) The CONSERVATIVE MIXER who uses only spinal adjustments as their method (fooling us into thinking they are OSC) yet their objective is the resolution of the medical condition. It is the 3rd group that creates the concern, especially when they do NOT recognize the difference. It is the 3rd group that will say: “Chiropractic gets sick people well.” “Chiropractors get to the cause of your problem.” “Chiropractors treat the cause not the symptom.” The difference of people who come to your office to have their spines checked, and only adjusted if a vertebral subluxation is located as opposed to people come to your office to get adjusted. The 3rd group will RATIONALIZE the IRRATIONAL when they differentiate their BUSINESS HAND from their CHIROPRACTIC HAND. The difference of being ‘SUBLUXATION CENTERED’ as opposed to ‘SUBLUXATION BASED.’ The latter allows them to rationalize anything else they do along with performing a method called “spinal adjustment.” Yes, group 1 and 2: “…can be my friend but you’re not eligible to water down my principle.- Reggie Gold”
MY TYPO CORRECTED VERSION:
I recognize three types of DC’s: 1) The LIBERAL MIXER who uses many methods to address medical conditions. They evaluates the entire body & treat a limited number of medical conditions 2) The OSC who uses only spinal adjustments as their method for the objective of addressing VS for the purpose of allowing the body a better circumstance to strive. We evaluate limited anatomy, the spine, (just like the dentist for the teeth, the optometrist for the eyes, etc) yet NOT limited to the medical condition. AND NOW THE PROBLEM GROUP 3) The CONSERVATIVE MIXER who uses only spinal adjustments as their method (fooling us into thinking they are OSC) yet their objective is the resolution of the medical condition. It is the 3rd group that creates the concern, especially when they do NOT recognize the difference. It is the 3rd group that will say: “Chiropractic gets sick people well.” “Chiropractors get to the cause of your problem.” “Chiropractors treat the cause not the symptom.” The difference of: people coming to your office to have their spines checked, and only adjusted if a vertebral subluxation is located as opposed to people come to your office to get adjusted. The 3rd group will RATIONALIZE the IRRATIONAL when they differentiate their BUSINESS HAND from their CHIROPRACTIC HAND. The difference of being ‘SUBLUXATION CENTERED’ as opposed to ‘SUBLUXATION BASED.’ The latter allows them to rationalize anything else they do as long as they performing a method called “spinal adjustment.” Yes, group 1 and 3 “… can be my friend but you’re not eligible to water down my principle.- Reggie Gold”
(Hopefully I caught all the corrections; BB)
There is no problem group. “We have met the the enemy…and he is us”. There is no problem group unless you define the group as all of humanity. The human drive to individuate is as central to human nature as it is to be bipedal. Faction after faction will splinter off any “original” idea. 30,000 denominations of Christianity. 30 brands of anarchism. Splinter and re-splinter. No cure.
The best thing any member of any group can do is strive to perfect the virtue and value of what their group espouses, and attract by merit. The problem lies in the failure to do this – not the fact that there may be those who do things differently.
I respectfully disagree with your last comments. Upon its creation, Christianity was perfect. It’s merits were divine. It ontinues to get watered down with the availability of becoming a no-merit minister via the internet, and defining your own church, but still falling under the catagory of Christianity. No merit but still using the same name, Christian.
Also, if Hiltler is used as an example of how a small group can take over a much larger group without force simply by imposing their ideals upon an apathetic people, the chiropractic profession needs become aware of its environment. We chiropractors who practice by objective are in a “world war”.
Perfection of virtue and value creating merit is noble when everyone plays be the same rules, but sometimes fighting for what is right is necessary for survival.
Dave,
In the fight of “good vs evil” who could deny that you are right! However when it comes to the kind of ego driven hair splitting that human beings are overly prone to ALIENATE each other over…I would stand by my statement.
Incidentally, I believe Jesus did not create the New Convent by invalidating the old one or by confessing the problems with other forms of spirituality that existed during His time among us. He merely drew people to Himself by the glory of his message and asked that we do the same.