"Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MsadneWIp9kCnSzfRVn-iA@comcast.com
> stuart wrote:
>> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> <---snip--->
>>> Always? You like "Acceptance" from the Big Book?
>>> Back to the issue at hand, who do you know is wasting a lot of
>>> one's capacity on a past problem? Are you old enough to
>>> remember the Civil Rights movement of the 60s? Were these angry
>>> people who kept repeatedly taking to the streets wasting a lot
>>> of capacity? And if not, why not? Which wrongs is it okay to
>>> use your anger to address and which ones aren't okay?
>>
>>
>> Granted there are exeptions. But in the case of AA, most are there
>> voluntarily, except the VERY few (in Canada) who are coerced by
>> the court. The civil rights movement dealt with civil wrongs or
>> torts. This would be an acceptable exception. You argue that the
>> dismantling of AA is in the same category?
>>
>
> Stuart,
>
> There are an estimated between one and two million people coerced
> into the Step group by various levels of government in the U.S. The
> collusion between the governments and the Step groups needs to
> be dismantled. I never said anything about dismantling AA. Of
> course, if people knew what AA was and millions weren't forced to
> go to meetings, "internalize spiritual principles" and etc, it
> would certainly shrink a great deal in size.
>
>>>
>>>> Firstly, it hurts. Secondly, it seriously
>>>> detracts from one's ability to function in the present moment,
>>
>> denigrating
>>
>>>> one's earning power, one's enjoyment of life, and one's
>>>> usefulness to oneself and one's friends and family. The pain of
>>>> the past is being constantly re-introduced to the present
>>>> moment. Is that healthy? It's
>>
>> like
>>
>>>> continuing to pick at a scab...
>>>
>>> Actually, it doesn't necessarily hurt to be angry. It certainly
>>> hurts when one is very angry and struggling to repress it. Do
>>> you know what repression is? Do you know what the old term
>>> "passive aggressive" refers to?
>>
>> Yes Ken. Psych 101 1972
>>
>>
>>>> I don't know a single person who has not been seriously fucked
>>>> over once
>>
>> or
>>
>>>> twice. Healthy people deal with it as best as they can, people
>>>> who are
>>
>> not
>>
>>>> emotionally healthy can't or won't.
>>>
>>> And just how is "the best they can"?
>>
>>
>> A healthy person physically gets over a cold, or even surgery. A
>> healthy individual emotionally learnes to repair the damage of an
>> emotional harm. Now in both instances they may need help. A
>> person who has been harmed emotionally and has healed from the
>> damage just doesn't stand out like those who don't. if you
>> arguing that those who don't need a forum, fine. But denigrating
>> members of a lay support group is like hitting children to
>> express anger. You can take excpetion to the 12 steps, however,
>> that's perfectly
>> fine with me also.
>>
>
> Are Jewish people still wounded by what happened in the Holocaust
> not "healthy individuals"? People I've met in years past did
> stand out because of tatoos on their arms, but even before, they
> stood out because of their expressions and body language. I'm
> sorry, but there is nothing unhealthy at having a normal, natural
> human response to life situations. It doesn't matter what any
> doctrine might insist.
> When I hear Steppers talk about "serenity" and such, I can't help
> but think of a drug high, where one is absolutely untroubled by
> the real world, whatever may be going on in it.
>
>>
>>
>>>> Sorry to tell you that we are not all equally healthy either
>>>> physically
>>
>> or
>>
>>>> mentally.
>>>
>>> So is this mentally not healthy referring to brain disease? Is
>>> that it? If someone kicks you in the teeth you are short on the
>>> mental health end until you make amends or something?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Reliance upon God is a source of strength for some, but not for
>>>> others.
>>
>> No
>>
>>>> one has the right to tell another what will work, or not work
>>>> for their mental well-being. Your position is predicated on all
>>>> sorts of beliefs, which you can neither prove nor disprove,
>>>> just like my own beliefs.
>>>
>>> There is one major difference. I don't support and proseletyze
>>> for an organization that forces their view on millions of
>>> others. Moreover, I don't decide just which of my thoughts are
>>> from God or "spiritual" and which ones aren't.
>>
>>
>> Neither do I, but you on the other hand seem to ridicule those
>> with spiritual beliefs.
>
> No. I ridicule those with overt religious beliefs who have been
> socialized into saying "spiritual, not religious" as they have been
> taught. That is ridiculous.
>


It's almost fun watching "Doctor" Stu sucking the selective
"researcher" Ken into demonstrating the Ragge alternative to AA's
step 10:- And when we were wrong, simply changed the subject!

Bob:-)