Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:6sCdnSN1rMgaKS3fRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> stuart wrote:
>
> > "Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:XdidnfOkHNvQMy3fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> >
> >>The Glass Prison wrote:
> >>
> >>>I may take you up on that Ken. I briefly looked at "morerevealed" and
> >>>perhaps I may tell my stories. They involve my life nearly taken twice
> >>>at both Betty Ford and Hazelden after being drug-free for over two
> >>>weeks each time. These things shouldn't happen at what they call "a
> >>>safe place". It makes me shudder and cry when I think about it. I still
> >>>have my written diaries and witnesses and it makes a good story. I'll
> >>>try if I can (always wanted to), but sometimes it's better to put the
> >>>past behind you.
> >>>
> >>>Of course, I am angry at myself and not because I made poor decisions
> >>>that got me to treatment. What happened to me there was not my fault.
> >>>It's like someone being admitted to a hospital for a drug overdose and
> >>>the next day, they slip on a mopped wet floor and break their leg. Who
> >>>is to blame for this? The fine upstanding hospital or the low-life
> >>>junkie just for being there? I know who society and certainly the
> >>>state, judge, jury, and insurance companies would choose.
> >>>
> >>>I still have ongoing issues and who better to let my anger out at than
> >>>the individuals who nearly took my life twice, and then tried to "blow
> >>>it off" with a fairy tale (the 12-step program). They were the people
> >>>(and places) that I trusted in, wanted to love and believe in. But
> >>>tragedy struck, twice, and I saw everything was disguised.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for your understanding response.
> >>>
> >>>PS> I am a raised Roman Catholic, driven by fear and guilt. Need I say
> >>>more?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Being angry can be a tremendous resource to do the things you need to
do.
> >
> >
> > Sure, and a whole pile of other shit he don't need to do...
> >
> >
> > Good luck with it.
> >
> > 25 to life...
>
> Stuart,
>
> I don't think people normally come up with the idea that anger can
> _only_ be used for destructive purposes until after the Step groups.
> However, what a wonderful, productive suggestion you have.

Being motivated by love is always better than anger, Ken.

> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

stuart wrote:

> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:QPKdnTzeFP96Mi3fRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"The Glass Prison" <glassprison51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1118856383.594986.47950@f14g2000cwb.google groups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I may take you up on that Ken. I briefly looked at "morerevealed" and
>>>>perhaps I may tell my stories. They involve my life nearly taken twice
>>>>at both Betty Ford and Hazelden after being drug-free for over two
>>>>weeks each time. These things shouldn't happen at what they call "a
>>>>safe place". It makes me shudder and cry when I think about it. I still
>>>>have my written diaries and witnesses and it makes a good story. I'll
>>>>try if I can (always wanted to), but sometimes it's better to put the
>>>>past behind you.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, I am angry at myself and not because I made poor decisions
>>>>that got me to treatment. What happened to me there was not my fault.
>>>>It's like someone being admitted to a hospital for a drug overdose and
>>>>the next day, they slip on a mopped wet floor and break their leg. Who
>>>>is to blame for this? The fine upstanding hospital or the low-life
>>>>junkie just for being there? I know who society and certainly the
>>>>state, judge, jury, and insurance companies would choose.
>>>>
>>>>I still have ongoing issues and who better to let my anger out at than
>>>>the individuals who nearly took my life twice, and then tried to "blow
>>>>it off" with a fairy tale (the 12-step program). They were the people
>>>>(and places) that I trusted in, wanted to love and believe in. But
>>>>tragedy struck, twice, and I saw everything was disguised.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your understanding response.
>>>>
>>>>PS> I am a raised Roman Catholic, driven by fear and guilt. Need I say
>>>>more?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, sounds like you are still living with a painful past, ie still
>
> unwell.
>
>>>Best of luck in your future...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What does "unwell" mean? Do you think there is something wrong with
>>being angry when you've been seriously fucked over? Do you think Rosa
>>Parks had it all wrong and should have just "turned it over" and sat at
>>the back of the bus?
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>
>
> Unwell means "not healthy" Ken
>
> Well Ken, now you are gonna get my professional opinion on what you have
> described as a mental health issue.

Stuart,

"Not healthy" and "a mental health issue"? Interesting and expected.

> No, there's absolutely nothing "wrong"
> with being angry when you've been seriously fucked over.

No, there isn't.

> There is indeed
> something terribly unhealthy with constantly wasting a lot of one's 'mental
> capacity' on a past problem.

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?


> 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?

> 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"?

> 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.

Modern day Step groups ideas on anger originate with the Oxford Group.
Lois Wilson, Bill Wilson's wife tells in her book about being furious
with Bill. She knew it was wrong and couldn't understand the response
because her mother taught her about anger by locking her in a closet
when she was angry.

Now, you can boast of the wonders of their methods as passed down in the
12 Step literature and by word of mouth all you wish. However, I see
problems with a "spiritual program" that originates with a man who
announced "Thank Heaven for Adolph Hitler" and I think it was Goebbels
that he boasted about being a great guy.

When a group is patently religious and denies it, it is one clue that
they can not be accepted at face value.

> Your long history of AA-bashing is either extremely unhealthy, or is
> motivated by profit or some other pathological need IMO.
> I would never spend the kind of energy you spend on such a controversial and
> unimportant issue.

Did you find out what is important and what is not through your Step
work? Did that come from the promised "conciuos contact" with God?

Ken Ragge

>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>

stuart wrote:

> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:6sCdnSN1rMgaKS3fRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:XdidnfOkHNvQMy3fRVn-pg@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Glass Prison wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I may take you up on that Ken. I briefly looked at "morerevealed" and
>>>>>perhaps I may tell my stories. They involve my life nearly taken twice
>>>>>at both Betty Ford and Hazelden after being drug-free for over two
>>>>>weeks each time. These things shouldn't happen at what they call "a
>>>>>safe place". It makes me shudder and cry when I think about it. I still
>>>>>have my written diaries and witnesses and it makes a good story. I'll
>>>>>try if I can (always wanted to), but sometimes it's better to put the
>>>>>past behind you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course, I am angry at myself and not because I made poor decisions
>>>>>that got me to treatment. What happened to me there was not my fault.
>>>>>It's like someone being admitted to a hospital for a drug overdose and
>>>>>the next day, they slip on a mopped wet floor and break their leg. Who
>>>>>is to blame for this? The fine upstanding hospital or the low-life
>>>>>junkie just for being there? I know who society and certainly the
>>>>>state, judge, jury, and insurance companies would choose.
>>>>>
>>>>>I still have ongoing issues and who better to let my anger out at than
>>>>>the individuals who nearly took my life twice, and then tried to "blow
>>>>>it off" with a fairy tale (the 12-step program). They were the people
>>>>>(and places) that I trusted in, wanted to love and believe in. But
>>>>>tragedy struck, twice, and I saw everything was disguised.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for your understanding response.
>>>>>
>>>>>PS> I am a raised Roman Catholic, driven by fear and guilt. Need I say
>>>>>more?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Being angry can be a tremendous resource to do the things you need to
>
> do.
>
>>>
>>>Sure, and a whole pile of other shit he don't need to do...
>>>
>>>
>>> Good luck with it.
>>>
>>>25 to life...
>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>I don't think people normally come up with the idea that anger can
>>_only_ be used for destructive purposes until after the Step groups.
>>However, what a wonderful, productive suggestion you have.
>
>
> Being motivated by love is always better than anger, Ken.
>

Stuart,

This is profound. I am amazed by its profundity.

I met the brother of a dear friend about a year ago. He speaks of
people with great love who surrounded him in the hospital while
undergoing a heart transplant. Although his family is Jewish, he now
describes himself as a "Messianic Jew" and couldn't avoid turning my
friends funeral, rather than talking about her and what she meant to
him, into an opportunity to wins souls for Jesus.

I suppose that kind of love can be turned on like a switch. I've seen
love-bombing.

So to you love has nothing to do with your emotional life, it is a
matter of thought and obedience?

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>

Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:JISdnVo556T3Qi3fRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> stuart wrote:
>
> > Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:QPKdnTzeFP96Mi3fRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> >
> >>stuart wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"The Glass Prison" <glassprison51@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1118856383.594986.47950@f14g2000cwb.google groups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I may take you up on that Ken. I briefly looked at "morerevealed" and
> >>>>perhaps I may tell my stories. They involve my life nearly taken twice
> >>>>at both Betty Ford and Hazelden after being drug-free for over two
> >>>>weeks each time. These things shouldn't happen at what they call "a
> >>>>safe place". It makes me shudder and cry when I think about it. I
still
> >>>>have my written diaries and witnesses and it makes a good story. I'll
> >>>>try if I can (always wanted to), but sometimes it's better to put the
> >>>>past behind you.
> >>>>
> >>>>Of course, I am angry at myself and not because I made poor decisions
> >>>>that got me to treatment. What happened to me there was not my fault.
> >>>>It's like someone being admitted to a hospital for a drug overdose and
> >>>>the next day, they slip on a mopped wet floor and break their leg. Who
> >>>>is to blame for this? The fine upstanding hospital or the low-life
> >>>>junkie just for being there? I know who society and certainly the
> >>>>state, judge, jury, and insurance companies would choose.
> >>>>
> >>>>I still have ongoing issues and who better to let my anger out at than
> >>>>the individuals who nearly took my life twice, and then tried to "blow
> >>>>it off" with a fairy tale (the 12-step program). They were the people
> >>>>(and places) that I trusted in, wanted to love and believe in. But
> >>>>tragedy struck, twice, and I saw everything was disguised.
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks for your understanding response.
> >>>>
> >>>>PS> I am a raised Roman Catholic, driven by fear and guilt. Need I say
> >>>>more?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sure, sounds like you are still living with a painful past, ie still
> >
> > unwell.
> >
> >>>Best of luck in your future...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>What does "unwell" mean? Do you think there is something wrong with
> >>being angry when you've been seriously fucked over? Do you think Rosa
> >>Parks had it all wrong and should have just "turned it over" and sat at
> >>the back of the bus?
> >>
> >>Ken Ragge
> >
> >
> > Unwell means "not healthy" Ken
> >
> > Well Ken, now you are gonna get my professional opinion on what you have
> > described as a mental health issue.
>
> Stuart,
>
> "Not healthy" and "a mental health issue"? Interesting and expected.
>
> > No, there's absolutely nothing "wrong"
> > with being angry when you've been seriously fucked over.
>
> No, there isn't.
>
> > There is indeed
> > something terribly unhealthy with constantly wasting a lot of one's
'mental
> > capacity' on a past problem.
>
> 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?
>
>
> > 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.


>
> > 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.

>
> Modern day Step groups ideas on anger originate with the Oxford Group.
> Lois Wilson, Bill Wilson's wife tells in her book about being furious
> with Bill. She knew it was wrong and couldn't understand the response
> because her mother taught her about anger by locking her in a closet
> when she was angry.
>
> Now, you can boast of the wonders of their methods as passed down in the
> 12 Step literature and by word of mouth all you wish. However, I see
> problems with a "spiritual program" that originates with a man who
> announced "Thank Heaven for Adolph Hitler" and I think it was Goebbels
> that he boasted about being a great guy.
>
> When a group is patently religious and denies it, it is one clue that
> they can not be accepted at face value.
>
> > Your long history of AA-bashing is either extremely unhealthy, or is
> > motivated by profit or some other pathological need IMO.
> > I would never spend the kind of energy you spend on such a controversial
and
> > unimportant issue.
>
> Did you find out what is important and what is not through your Step
> work? Did that come from the promised "conciuos contact" with God?

Actually, most of my points today were not inspired by AA teachings, I had
Elkhart Tolle in mind, from "The Power of Now"
>
> Ken Ragge
>
> >>http://www.morerevealed.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.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

"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:-)

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.

Are you suggesting that approximately one in every one hundred people I meet
on a USA street has been coerced into AA?
I find that impossible to believe. I also find it difficult to suspect a
relatively unstructured program like AA would have anything to do with the
decision of the courts. Maybe you are directing your efforts in the wrong
place. why not try alt.gove.policy.law
I thought these groups discussed drugs and alcohol.

> >>
> >>>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.

Ken, anyone is personally entitled to as much emotional turmoil as they so
desire. Nobody can stop anyone from being ill at ease mentally. Your comment
about the holocaust victims supports my point. They stood our because of
their tattoos " but even before, they stood out because of their expressions
and body language"- I wll buy that because you probably saw them in an old
film clip as they were in and about the camps, but did they all retain those
experssions of body language, cachexia, and listlesness for the rest of
their lives? No they did not. They began to "get better" and better and
better, some more than others. The physical body heals, as does the mind. We
have conscious minds too Ken, and at some point, ANY traumatized person who
was fundamentally healthy to begin with (prior to capture) will consciously
choose to do whatever it can to get healthy again. We can choose to become
mentally healthy, Ken. You can't see that, measure it, and it is difficult
to define by science.
Maybe you yook BF Skinner's ideas too seriously, maybe you spend too much
time behind the TV, or your computer..



>
> >
> >
> >>>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.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

stuart wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that approximately one in every one hundred people I meet
> on a USA street has been coerced into AA?

Stuart,

Using a population for the US of 300,000,000 (I think I'm 3 or 4 million
over) it would work out to about somewhere between one in every three
hundred to one in every one hundred and fifty. Of course, this includes
all 12-Step "fellowships."

> I find that impossible to believe. I also find it difficult to suspect a
> relatively unstructured program like AA would have anything to do with the
> decision of the courts. Maybe you are directing your efforts in the wrong
> place. why not try alt.gove.policy.law

You are looking at the structure of meetings and extrapolating that to
all of AA. Not only are there parts of AA far removed from the
meetings, there are supposed "outside organizations" that are formed by
AAs other Step-group members to work on "outside issues." Look up NCADD
on the Internet http://www.ncadd.org and check out their history section.

The URL I posted the other day makes clear that, regardless of how
members of a particular meeting feel about coercion, "AA Inc." is not
only in favor of coercion but is encouraging it with "how to" instructions.

> I thought these groups discussed drugs and alcohol.

Do you think drugs and alcohol can be discussed without discussion
of the source of the modern-day "educated view"?

>>>>>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.
>
>
> Ken, anyone is personally entitled to as much emotional turmoil as they so
> desire. Nobody can stop anyone from being ill at ease mentally. Your comment
> about the holocaust victims supports my point.

So the holocaust victims desired emotional turmoil? Do you think
sitting through and watching your family, neighborhood and even culture
destroyed in death camps makes one "ill at ease"? Perhaps your program
of recovery is so strong you could watch your children shot and quickly
get over your feelings of "ill at ease."

> They stood our because of
> their tattoos " but even before, they stood out because of their expressions
> and body language"- I wll buy that because you probably saw them in an old
> film clip as they were in and about the camps, but did they all retain those
> experssions of body language, cachexia, and listlesness for the rest of
> their lives? No they did not. They began to "get better" and better and
> better, some more than others.

No, I did not see them in newsreels. I saw them at Caesars Palace in
Las Vegas thirty years or so after the holocaust. While much "healed,"
to use your term, and they most certainly "got on with their lives."
They were sitting playing cards for a weekend getaway. That does not
mean they were "over it" and there is no reason they should be.

> The physical body heals, as does the mind. We
> have conscious minds too Ken, and at some point, ANY traumatized person who
> was fundamentally healthy to begin with (prior to capture) will consciously
> choose to do whatever it can to get healthy again. We can choose to become
> mentally healthy, Ken. You can't see that, measure it, and it is difficult
> to define by science.

Your healthy is, yes, difficult to define by science, because it doesn't
exist in science. According to what you are writing here, Elie Wiesel
never got healthy. Instead of getting over the pain and anguish of the
holocaust, he used what happened to him (and all that "negative
energy")to make his life's work doing everything he could to see that it
doesn't happen again. And he did great work. But that wasn't healthy, I
suppose. He didn't come from love as an intellectual abstraction.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com



> Maybe you yook BF Skinner's ideas too seriously, maybe you spend too much
> time behind the TV, or your computer..
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>

Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aPGdnYanrYuWKCzfRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> stuart wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Are you suggesting that approximately one in every one hundred people I
meet
> > on a USA street has been coerced into AA?
>
> Stuart,
>
> Using a population for the US of 300,000,000 (I think I'm 3 or 4 million
> over) it would work out to about somewhere between one in every three
> hundred to one in every one hundred and fifty. Of course, this includes
> all 12-Step "fellowships."

Still a pretty high number to be credible.
>
> > I find that impossible to believe. I also find it difficult to suspect a
> > relatively unstructured program like AA would have anything to do with
the
> > decision of the courts. Maybe you are directing your efforts in the
wrong
> > place. why not try alt.gove.policy.law
>
> You are looking at the structure of meetings and extrapolating that to
> all of AA. Not only are there parts of AA far removed from the
> meetings, there are supposed "outside organizations" that are formed by
> AAs other Step-group members to work on "outside issues." Look up NCADD
> on the Internet http://www.ncadd.org and check out their history section.
>
> The URL I posted the other day makes clear that, regardless of how
> members of a particular meeting feel about coercion, "AA Inc." is not
> only in favor of coercion but is encouraging it with "how to"
instructions.
>
> > I thought these groups discussed drugs and alcohol.
>
> Do you think drugs and alcohol can be discussed without discussion
> of the source of the modern-day "educated view"?
>
> >>>>>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.
> >
> >
> > Ken, anyone is personally entitled to as much emotional turmoil as they
so
> > desire. Nobody can stop anyone from being ill at ease mentally. Your
comment
> > about the holocaust victims supports my point.
>
> So the holocaust victims desired emotional turmoil? Do you think
> sitting through and watching your family, neighborhood and even culture
> destroyed in death camps makes one "ill at ease"? Perhaps your program
> of recovery is so strong you could watch your children shot and quickly
> get over your feelings of "ill at ease."

Of course not Ken, but over time, willingness to heal or be healed is
desirable, healthy and good. Those who are dead, are gone, and they cannot
be brought back. Those of us who have a strong faith in God realize that
death is normal and natural, and that those who died, however tragically,
will be fine. Life is for the living, and those who have strong spiritual
knowledge will indeed carry on, asking such questions as "I am here, what
should I be doing with my life?"
Most religions advocate forgiveness. We don't forgive someone for their
sake. We forgive for our own sake. Forgiveness does not imply condoning
their actions either. Forgive the wrong-doer, not the wrong they did.
Holocaust survivors can do nothing to change the past, nor punish the
perpetrators, now. If you believe in a higher power, then you might also
understand that this higher power has control over the situation
What can be done by the "victim" is to create awareness about what happened
in the past to help ensure it doesn't happen again, but that would be
motivated by a love for humanity, not hate for the perpetrators. You don't
seem to be able to grasp that concept.
Maybe you have a lot of brain cells responsible for feelings of anger that
are being fairly consistently stimulated in your head Ken, I don't know. I
did once upon a time, and retrospectively, it shaped my point of view quite
a bit. Then I changed, thanks in part to the 12 step program, and I see
things differently now. I don't entertain anger in my brain on a *routine*
basis, amd most of my decisions are made with "What will be beneficial and
loving, here?"===Not always, but most times...
You may never feel the same way I do, epsecially if you keep exercising your
justifiable resentments towards XA members, spritual folks and 12-step
ideology



> > They stood our because of
> > their tattoos " but even before, they stood out because of their
expressions
> > and body language"- I wll buy that because you probably saw them in an
old
> > film clip as they were in and about the camps, but did they all retain
those
> > experssions of body language, cachexia, and listlesness for the rest of
> > their lives? No they did not. They began to "get better" and better and
> > better, some more than others.
>
> No, I did not see them in newsreels. I saw them at Caesars Palace in
> Las Vegas thirty years or so after the holocaust. While much "healed,"
> to use your term, and they most certainly "got on with their lives."
> They were sitting playing cards for a weekend getaway. That does not
> mean they were "over it" and there is no reason they should be.
>
> > The physical body heals, as does the mind. We
> > have conscious minds too Ken, and at some point, ANY traumatized person
who
> > was fundamentally healthy to begin with (prior to capture) will
consciously
> > choose to do whatever it can to get healthy again. We can choose to
become
> > mentally healthy, Ken. You can't see that, measure it, and it is
difficult
> > to define by science.
>
> Your healthy is, yes, difficult to define by science, because it doesn't
> exist in science. According to what you are writing here, Elie Wiesel
> never got healthy. Instead of getting over the pain and anguish of the
> holocaust, he used what happened to him (and all that "negative
> energy")to make his life's work doing everything he could to see that it
> doesn't happen again. And he did great work. But that wasn't healthy, I
> suppose. He didn't come from love as an intellectual abstraction.
>
> Ken Ragge

Ken good work aside, nobody forces us on what to think and feel. Where I
direct my mind is up to me. You don't seem to understand that fully.
I can choose to live in misery and resentment or not. To quote your American
author Mark Twain "Most folks are about as happy as they make their minds up
to be".
Remember Lil Abner's character Joe Bltspk, the guy with the cloud over his
head? Lots of those people around. You seem to identify with them quite well
Ken...


> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>
> > Maybe you yook BF Skinner's ideas too seriously, maybe you spend too
much
> > time behind the TV, or your computer..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>
> >>Ken Ragge
> >>http://www.morerevealed.com
> >
> >
> >

stuart wrote:
> Ken Ragge <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:aPGdnYanrYuWKCzfRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting that approximately one in every one hundred people I
>
> meet
>
>>>on a USA street has been coerced into AA?
>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>Using a population for the US of 300,000,000 (I think I'm 3 or 4 million
>>over) it would work out to about somewhere between one in every three
>>hundred to one in every one hundred and fifty. Of course, this includes
>>all 12-Step "fellowships."
>
>
> Still a pretty high number to be credible.
>

Stuart,

Maybe, maybe not. If I get the chance, I can dig around and try to find
the source. I believe the estimate was directly based on the number of
people courts are sentencing. Certainly, most of these people are going
to be "invisible" in the public at large. Do you have any sources?

>>>I find that impossible to believe. I also find it difficult to suspect a
>>>relatively unstructured program like AA would have anything to do with
>
> the
>
>>>decision of the courts. Maybe you are directing your efforts in the
>
> wrong
>
>>>place. why not try alt.gove.policy.law
>>
>>You are looking at the structure of meetings and extrapolating that to
>>all of AA. Not only are there parts of AA far removed from the
>>meetings, there are supposed "outside organizations" that are formed by
>>AAs other Step-group members to work on "outside issues." Look up NCADD
>>on the Internet http://www.ncadd.org and check out their history section.
>>
>>The URL I posted the other day makes clear that, regardless of how
>>members of a particular meeting feel about coercion, "AA Inc." is not
>>only in favor of coercion but is encouraging it with "how to"
>
> instructions.
>
>>>I thought these groups discussed drugs and alcohol.
>>
>>Do you think drugs and alcohol can be discussed without discussion
>>of the source of the modern-day "educated view"?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ken, anyone is personally entitled to as much emotional turmoil as they
>
> so
>
>>>desire. Nobody can stop anyone from being ill at ease mentally. Your
>
> comment
>
>>>about the holocaust victims supports my point.
>>
>>So the holocaust victims desired emotional turmoil? Do you think
>>sitting through and watching your family, neighborhood and even culture
>>destroyed in death camps makes one "ill at ease"? Perhaps your program
>>of recovery is so strong you could watch your children shot and quickly
>>get over your feelings of "ill at ease."
>
>
> Of course not Ken, but over time, willingness to heal or be healed is
> desirable, healthy and good. Those who are dead, are gone, and they cannot
> be brought back. Those of us who have a strong faith in God realize that
> death is normal and natural, and that those who died, however tragically,
> wi