"Ken" <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:C8mdnYs1Bq_UEgneRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
>>"Ken" <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>news
9SdnXpYjZiuJg7enZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.co m...
>>
>>>Robert McGregor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ken" <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:zfOdneiYrPTjHxPenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@comcast. com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Telling people to go out and "try moderating" as the Big Book
>>>>>suggests without suggesting that they deal with the problems
>>>>>that
>>>>>are causing them to behave self-destructively is what is killing
>>>>>people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Ken, admittedly you have been fearless from the very start, but
>>>>your
>>>>thoroughness is conspicuous only by it's absence. The delightful
>>>>irony is that half measures have availed you nothing.
>>>>
>>>>The Big Book "suggestion" is explicit. First, establish
>>>>sufficient
>>>>knowledge to *commence* dealing with the problems causing self
>>>>destructive behaviour. Then, if necessary, go out and *try
>>>>abstinence*
>>>>
>>>>Bob;-)
>>>>
>>>>http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_31.htm
>>>>"We do not like to pronounce any individual as alcoholic, but you
>>>>can
>>>>quickly diagnose yourself. Step over to the nearest barroom and
>>>>try
>>>>some controlled drinking. Try it more than once. It will not take
>>>>long for you to decide, if you are honest with yourself about it.
>>>>It
>>>>may be worth a bad case of jitters if you get a full knowledge of
>>>>your condition."
>>>>
>>>>http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_34.htm "As we look back, we feel we
>>>>had
>>>>gone on drinking many years beyond the point where we could quit
>>>>on
>>>>our will power. If anyone questions whether he has entered this
>>>>dangerous area, let him try leaving liquor alone for one year. If
>>>>he
>>>>is a real alcoholic and very far advanced, there is scant chance
>>>>of
>>>>success. In the early days of our drinking we occasionally
>>>>remained
>>>>sober for a year or more, becoming serious drinkers again later.
>>>>Though you may be able to stop for a considerable period, you may
>>>>yet
>>>>be a potential alcoholic. We think few, to whom this book will
>>>>appeal, can stay dry anything like a year. Some will be drunk the
>>>>day
>>>>after making their resolutions; most of them within a few weeks.
>>>>For those who are unable to drink moderately the question is how
>>>>to
>>>>stop altogether."
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>With monotonous regularity, Ken's claims, such as his claim
>>rebutted
>>above, reveal his dependence on false premise.
>>
>>
> Robert,
>
> How was my claim rebutted above? Where does it suggest someone
> work on problems underlying excessive drinking before he attempts
> moderation rather than simply to take the test, so to speak, to see
> if he has the disease that is best cured by finding God through AA
> (rather, of course, than through their own church)?
>
>>>Don't be silly. The Big Book was written as a piece of Oxford
>>>Group literature.
>>>
>>
>>However, when someone bothers to prove him wrong, Ken merely
>>exacerbates falsehood with more lies, just as he has lied here,
>>once
>>again.
>>
> And how is this a lie? Was Bill Wilson or was Bill Wilson not an
> Oxford Grouper at the time the Big Book was written? Was Dr. Bob or
> was Dr. Bob not an Oxford Grouper at the time the Big Book was
> written? Were all the Ohio AAs clearly identified as Oxford
> Groupers at the time the Big Book was written? Was not the meeting
> all the New York AAs attended merely criticized by some (maybe just
> one Oxford Grouper) for not being a "maximum" Oxford Group meeting?
> Do you have evidence that Sam Shoemaker _wasn't_ asked by Bill
> Wilson to write the Steps and that Shoemaker didn't tell Wilson
> that he would do a better job at codifying Oxford Group "spiritual
> principles" himself because Oxford Group believed in "like working
> with like" ("one alcoholic working with another")?
>
> Where is your evidence (as if reading the Big Book and other Oxford
> Group literature of the time isn't enough) that the Big Book was
> not written as just one more piece of a mountain of Oxford Group
> literature written by members in their efforts to convert others?
> Saying it isn't Oxford Group literature a million times and calling
> people liars doesn't make it true.
>
Of course just calling people liars doesn't make it true, Ken. Having
already *demonstrated* what a liar you are, I'm not bothered to waste
time documenting further proof of your bullshit in this thread.
The core values of the Oxford Group remained the Four Absolutes.
Wilson is documented as breaking with the Oxford Group in 1937, and
his book, which negated those core values, was published in 1939
However, had Bill's book actually been Oxford Group literature, it
would not have stopped me, once an absolutely hopeless drunk, from
sorting enough shit from the clay therein to remain sober today.
PS, I posted this next door by mistake, but doubt it will annoy them
over much;-)
Bob