Bill Alsobrook <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:WdBte.74777$PR6.23719@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Nutt,
> No need to appoligize to me at all my friend. I would just like to
> point out that if IQ was simply based on ones ability to be verbally adept
> and engageing then possibly Albert Eienstien would still be considered
less
> than average. As it appears that some of the posters on this Group love
to
> research every last minute detail of the establisment or AA. Try and do
> some research on what IQ is. I know that my vocabulary and verbal skills
> are one of my short coming, and that I can live with. But if it makes you
> feel that you are some how more intelligent based on your vocabulary
skills
> or gramitical comprehension so be it. But if you ever want to come down
to
> Houston and sit in my office and discuss the Thixotropic properties of
> fluids, fluids hydraulic flow potential and maybe even delve into the
> Thermodynamic properties of Liquid Gasses and Polymeric Non-Newtonian
fluids
> my door is open. Maybe in that conversation I will be able to communicate
a
> level of intelligence that would suffice for your approval. On second
> thought, don't sweat it, as I am an Alcoholic brainwashed by Bill W. and
Dr.
> Bob It probably wouldn't do much for your opinion of me, and just end up
> wasting yours and my time.
>
> Taken from Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Introduction.
>
> One of the most serious criticisms of using a single number to assess
> intelligence is that people may be stronger in certain areas such as
verbal
> skills, logical aptitude or spatial visualization than in others. Drs.
> Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein would be examples of geniuses who were
> reputed to be extremely strong mathematically while being relatively weak
> verbally. More commonly, though, purely intellectual abilities tend to be
> uniformly high or uniformly low in a given individual, consistent with the
> concept of an underlying "g" or "general intelligence" that powers all the
> specialized intellectual aptitudes. In addition, there are several
> sub-factors such as verbal, spatial, Still, this doesn't happen with
> everyone, and the exceptions, like Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein,
are
> very important. Tests like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)
> consist of a number of subtests that are scored separately and can measure
> the profile for an individual. (Dr. Howard Gardner has defined seven types
> of intelligence, while Dr. Robert Sternberg has identified three.)
> It's also easier to make an IQ score that's lower than your true IQ
than
> it is to make a score that's higher. Taking a test on a bad day, or
spending
> too much time on a few difficult items could artificially lower one's
score.
> The best results are obtained when more than one test is administered.
>
> <NutSoFast@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1Hyte.4230$fV.2829@okepread06...
> >
> >
> > On 19-Jun-2005, "Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ken you seem to be a tad bit more educated than me, after all after I
got
> >> out of engineering school I moved under a bridge and decided to
> >> completely
> >> forget that I had a 155 IQ.
> >
> > I don't mean to embarass you Bill but a 155 IQ? The quality of your
> > writing would indicate an average intelligence at best...

Stupid is as stupid does...
Forrest Gump



> >
> >
> > ___________
> >
> > "That credulity is the mark of a feeble mind will not be disputed."
> > - Sir W. Hamilton -
> > --
> > NutSo (aka CW aka C Dub)
>
>

On 20-Jun-2005, "Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote:

> Nutt,
> No need to apologize to me at all my friend. I would just like to
> point out that if IQ was simply based on ones ability to be verbally adept
> and engageing then possibly Albert Eienstien would still be considered less
> than average.

Does an IQ test measure genius?? Is it even quantifiable?

The folks who make up these tests (professional psychologists)
can't even come to a consensus on how to define intelligence...
I'd think genius would be even more difficult to clarify.

We've bandied the term genius around for so long that it's no longer
clear what it's supposed to mean. Ex: Van Gogh and Mozart are
considered to be geniuses... Do you think either one would have
fared well on an IQ test?

One of my favorite quotes is from Einstein: "Knowledge is
important...but IMAGINATION is everything!" I have no idea
how Al saw himself or his intellect but I like to think he considered
himself to be an artist of sorts...

> As it appears that some of the posters on this Group love to
> research every last minute detail of the establisment or AA. Try and do
> some research on what IQ is.

I have a passable understanding of theories concerning IQ tests...
as well as their uses, abuses, and claims to both accuracy and
relevance. But thank you for encouraging me to broaden my horizons...


In the same spirit I want to suggest the following to you: Pick up a
grammar book. I'd suggest Strunk and White's classic: "The Elements
of Style" Or another one that I especially like, "Woe is I" by Patricia
T. O'Conner.

> I know that my vocabulary and verbal skills
> are one of my short coming, and that I can live with. But if it makes you
> feel that you are some how more intelligent based on your vocabulary skills
> or gramitical comprehension so be it.

Bill... that's exactly what I thought when you paraded your IQ score by us
all! It's really nothing more than dick-measuring, Isn't it? The goal of which
is to intimidate one's opponent, gaining advantage and subsequent social status
for oneself (as if a big dick measures anything of real importance).

Now as for my part, If I did anything that made you feel "less-than" I apologize.
I am truly sorry.

> But if you ever want to come down to
> Houston and sit in my office and discuss the Thixotropic properties of
> fluids, fluids hydraulic flow potential and maybe even delve into the
> Thermodynamic properties of Liquid Gasses and
> my door is open.

Ahhh... you see, you've confused education with native intelligence. I have
a professor who claims to have an IQ of 170... and I doubt he'd
be able to converse with you about Polymeric Non-Newtonian fluids.

I'll ask him though, if you'd rather talk to someone who's more on par with
your IQ score than I am.... LOL


Granted, writing may not be important in your line of work. And I gather
it's not a particular concern of yours. But you're an educated man for
God's sake. Writing clearly is a reflection of thinking clearly; and you
certainly don't need a huge vocabulary to do either. You should be able
to express yourself without having to meet face to face with somebody.

I would think that learning basic grammatical rules is nowhere
near as difficult as learning Calculus or Thermodynamics. But then
again, I have a complete Forrest Gump when it comes to learning foreign
languages...so I have compassion for others who're susceptible to similar
mental blocks.

I realize I've been bustin' your chops pretty good Bill. And for
your part (and to your credit) you've been a pretty good sport.
I hope you don't hold a grudge.

Peace?

--
NutSo

Bill Alsobrook wrote:
>>Here is part of the solution. Stop spreading ideas that make drinking
>>problems worse. Certain cultures (like the English and the Irish) have
>>more severe drinking problems. These are cultures that attribute great
>>power to alcohol ("Devil Drink," "Demon Rum" or "John Barleycorn calling
>>from the mantel piece"). Other cultures where drinking problems are rare
>>(like the Jewish culture) don't believe in "Powerlessness" (especially
>>with a capital "P") but due believe in personal responsibility and the
>>ability to make choices even though they may be difficult.
>
>
> Ken you seem to be a tad bit more educated than me, after all after I got
> out of engineering school I moved under a bridge and decided to completely
> forget that I had a 155 IQ. But where in this little quote do the American
> Indians and a majority of all aboriginal tribes fit into this. Maybe I am
> just a complete dumb ass here, but the American Indians, the group I am
> going to focus on here, never has any concept of Powerlessness and had no
> clue what Alcohol was prior to its introduction by European descendents,
> right? Or in some way did AA get involved here early and promote this idea,
> oh wait that would have been way to early for AA, it most have been the
> Oxford Group.
>
> My name is Bill, and I am an Alcoholic.

Hi Bill, My name is Ken and I am a human being.

As far as IQ goes, a higher IQ is an excellent measure of who will do
well in school. I'm not sure it is any indication whatsoever how one
will do out of school, on one's own with no one telling you what to do.
I suppose autonomy is not at all part of the IQ measure.

I think you are correct. I, too, have absolutely no reason to believe
that the native Americans had the 12-Step concept of Powerlessness.
Native Americans (both north and south) dealt with alcohol differently,
depending on the particular cultural group. Many of them made it a part
of religious ceremonies. Some groups drank reaonably. Some drank like
"drunken Indians." It depended on the particular culture. It has been
years since I've read any of the studies, but an example of "no problem"
would be a tribe like the Navajo or Hopi. They did fine for centuries
after alcohol was introduced and if a problem did arise, it was after
destruction of their culture.

Being a member of a culture very tied to the land and then being driven
off by powerful outsiders I would think would certainly make one feel
hopeless, powerless. Of course, 12-Step "Powerless" is a bit different.
It is generally manufactured and built on a failure to sense, and
being steered from sensing, one's own power.

I don't believe a native American driven off land that his family has
farmed for centuries, maybe his family killed, is in the same boat as
the person who has the manufactured "spiritual" powerlessness. But in
the sense of looking for "an easy way out" (drinking, drugging) it is
the same.

AA didn't come up with anything. They borrowed everything from the
Fundamentalist religious right, Buchmanism to be exact.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com


> "Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O46dnUfeef-dxzLfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>
>>dan mcgown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fNednXmO0N1S1zLfRVn-og@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>dan mcgown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:NO6dnU0QCKUNtjLfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Dan,
>>>>
>>>>If I am to get you right, if I am to take you at your word, you don't
>>>>care if the leaders of the 12-Step "fellowship" you support (e.g. by
>>>>carrying the message, attacking critics) conspires with the courts to get
>>>>government coercion into your relgious group, you just don't care.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, being a good 12-Stepper, with your "concious contact with God"
>>>>and all that from working the Steps, you have no concern whatsoever with
>>>>the First Amendmant, freedom of relgion, freedom of association and such
>>>>trivialites.
>>>>
>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Your logic is as bad as your spelling and that is atrocious. I
>>>don't support the "12 step leaders." I don't even know who they are.
>>
>>Dan,
>>
>>Okay, my logic is bad. You support a "fellowship," don't know who the
>>leaders are, and so you don't support the leadership. Is that like a, say
>>for example, a Fundamentalist Christian who attends services at the Church
>>of God every Sunday, puts a buck in the basket and says how wonderful the
>>church is somehow not supporting the leadership?
>>
>>I am well aware, that in a normal religious group, people know who their
>>leaders are. Just because Step groups call them "public servants" doesn't
>>make them any more-or-less leaders.
>>
>>
>>>I have never made a blanket endorsement of the AA organization. I have
>>>"carried the message" that working the 12 steps has been good for me but
>>>I have also "carried the message" that if something else works for you
>>>then do it and tell us about it.
>>
>>If you had a wife suffered morning sickness in the 50s and Thalidomide
>>cured it and you got lucky and she didn't have a "flipper baby," would you
>>be blind to the side effects, refuse to hear about them, and tell others,
>>Thalidomide worked for her.
>>
>>
>>> The main thing is that I don't attack people who are merely critics
>>>of AA. I do criticize people who merely attack AA, if you are capable of
>>>seeing the difference. You are on a different plane from simple critics.
>>>You spread dogmatic, unthinking bile and vitriol. If AA's success rate
>>>soared to 99%, instead of being glad that people were stopping drinking,
>>>you would be angry that it was AA doing it.
>>
>>If AA's success rate soared to 99% instead of its miserable 3% or so . . .
>>Well, if frogs had wings . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am a skeptic. I don't swallow all of the AA dogma. I don't get
>>>as much out of meetings as some claim to get. I don't buy into the tie
>>>to religion.
>>
>>You don't "buy into the tie to religion"? What does that mean? You are
>>trying to restart a group that centers around the 12-Steps which are the
>>method of finding God and the group is not religious? Of course, I
>>undertand this is a learned response, "brainwashing" to be more exact, but
>>don't you understand how ludicrous it is to say that AA is not religious?
>>
>>What do you think "pray for knowledge of God's Will for us and the power
>>to carry that out" means? Do you think "We can go to any church we want
>>to?" makes it non-religious? If that is so, so is Billy Graham and his
>>crusade.
>>
>>
>>>***BUT*** I have never seen any of the coercive crap that you blather
>>>about except for the fact that some courts will require meetings as part
>>>of probation.
>>
>>What does the above sentence mean? It reads like you are saying that you
>>have never seen any of the coercive crap except for the coercive crap.
>>
>>
>>> Guess what, stud -- criminal sanctions, whether jail or probation
>>>are supposed to be coercive. That's what criminal sanctions are for.
>>>They are also supposed to be tailored to try to rehabilitate the
>>>criminal. If a judge has a repeat DUI offender where do you expect the
>>>judge to send him? To a bar? Or do you just want the judge to waive his
>>>finger sternly and say: "Just say no to drink."
>>
>>There is that black and white Stepper thinking. Either sentence them to
>>AA or a bar, huh? Those are the two choices?
>>
>>While the court is supposed to have a great deal of power over people
>>under judicial sanctions, it is illegal, against the U.S. Constitution, to
>>force relgion on them.
>>
>>
>>> All that I have ever seen you do in here is attack AA. Okay, take
>>>it as read that AA is flawed. Stop the ranting about AA and tell us how
>>>you think the problem should be solved. -- and hey, if you don't have an
>>>alternative solution to offer then shut the hell up.
>>
>>Here is part of the solution. Stop spreading ideas that make drinking
>>problems worse. Certain cultures (like the English and the Irish) have
>>more severe drinking problems. These are cultures that attribute great
>>power to alcohol ("Devil Drink," "Demon Rum" or "John Barleycorn calling
>>from the mantel piece"). Other cultures where drinking problems are rare
>>(like the Jewish culture) don't believe in "Powerlessness" (especially
>>with a capital "P") but due believe in personal responsibility and the
>>ability to make choices even though they may be difficult.
>>
>>Isolating people and filling them up with warmed over Buchmanism makes the
>>problem worse.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>

"Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qCcte.73448$PR6.1910@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Yeah Pookie,
> I attended one every week in a church basement, and just like every other
> meeting I have been in, there is allot of F'ing this and other nice little
> words that good Christians would not use so close to a house of worship,
> funny though, I though we were Religious to an Extreme according to Ken.
> Hummmm Guess when I started drinking they changed the rules on me and now
> its ok to take the lords name in Vain, lmao. Maybe Ken needs to go back
> and read the difference between what the original 6 steps of the Oxford
> group had as compared to the 12 given to us by Bill W and Dr Bob. I will
> always agree that the Oxford group was a RELIGIOUS GROUP. But I fail to
> find the relationship to AA in that regard.
>
> My name is Bill A, and I am an Alcoholic.

Hi Bill, I'm with you. I have attended meetings that were 12-step meetings,
and they were religious, but they were not AA or NA. There are churches
where people are invited to come and work on their addiction with other
Christians, and although they loosely base themselves on AA, they are not.
They write their own 12 steps and have their own ways of doing things, all
based on God as He is understood by Christians. I've never seen any praying
in AA meetings, or anything resembling a Christian worship service, so I
just don't understand how this whole 'religious' thing came about.
Regardless of what the group was originally, it is not the Oxford Group now,
and it sure ain't a religious group. If it were, there's a whole *lot* of
stuff that wouldn't be happening, not just the cursing!! lol

Pookie
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The only true wisdom is in knowing that you
know nothing.

Socrates
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

In article <1119025203.960146.99040@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
kohlrabi_croce@hotmail.com says...
> Excsue me, WC Fields had Rosacea. That's why he had the red face and
> the enlarged nose. It's a disease that is the "red headed step child."
> That nobody is too enthused about finding a cure for.
>
>
Well; u ain't no WC and he prolly got a lot more pussy and booze than
you. arsehole!
--

--

Jesus: BRB
Judus: LOL!


http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

Pookie
In all honesty I have never attended a meeting in Houston here that is
not closed with the lords prayer, but no strict guides are set on what you
have to say within the prayer itself. I prefer to say something like, "on
earth as it is in Texas" and in the place of Daily Bread I prefer "Daily
Strength". In other words I am not really adhering to the Christian prayer,
I am making it my own. I am not a Christian as many believe is required for
AA. I am in reality a Wicca follower. Ummmmmmmm I guess I am going to hell
for that one, yeeeeee hawwwwwww, see ya'll are down there. I would also
never attended one of the church sponsored 12 step meetings as I am not a
Christian or even if Wiccans had one I would not attend that. The AA group
should be left completely clear of all denominations of religion. Yes there
are certain aspects of it that have crept into the shape and feel of the
meetings, but then again last time I check a dollar bill still said in God
we Trust. I don't see the folks that are so against AA, just because we use
the word God in a general sense, throwing away every dollar they get and
preaching out about the brainwashing of the U.S. Government that is trying
to convert them over with overt messages about God.

I'm Bill A. I am an Alcoholic

"pookie" <jahselassieI@toast.net> wrote in message
news:11bej79ftl9k4b9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:qCcte.73448$PR6.1910@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> Yeah Pookie,
>> I attended one every week in a church basement, and just like every other
>> meeting I have been in, there is allot of F'ing this and other nice
>> little words that good Christians would not use so close to a house of
>> worship, funny though, I though we were Religious to an Extreme according
>> to Ken. Hummmm Guess when I started drinking they changed the rules on me
>> and now its ok to take the lords name in Vain, lmao. Maybe Ken needs to
>> go back and read the difference between what the original 6 steps of the
>> Oxford group had as compared to the 12 given to us by Bill W and Dr Bob.
>> I will always agree that the Oxford group was a RELIGIOUS GROUP. But I
>> fail to find the relationship to AA in that regard.
>>
>> My name is Bill A, and I am an Alcoholic.
>
> Hi Bill, I'm with you. I have attended meetings that were 12-step
> meetings, and they were religious, but they were not AA or NA. There are
> churches where people are invited to come and work on their addiction with
> other Christians, and although they loosely base themselves on AA, they
> are not. They write their own 12 steps and have their own ways of doing
> things, all based on God as He is understood by Christians. I've never
> seen any praying in AA meetings, or anything resembling a Christian
> worship service, so I just don't understand how this whole 'religious'
> thing came about. Regardless of what the group was originally, it is not
> the Oxford Group now, and it sure ain't a religious group. If it were,
> there's a whole *lot* of stuff that wouldn't be happening, not just the
> cursing!! lol
>
> Pookie
> --
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> The only true wisdom is in knowing that you
> know nothing.
>
> Socrates
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>

"Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
newsvLte.75623$PR6.17885@tornado.texas.rr.com
> Pookie
> In all honesty I have never attended a meeting in Houston here
> that is not closed with the lords prayer, but no strict guides are
> set on what you have to say within the prayer itself. I prefer to
> say something like, "on earth as it is in Texas" and in the place
> of Daily Bread I prefer "Daily Strength".

Do your AA meetings sound like pentecostal revival meetings, or are
you the only one that speaks in tongues?

Bob

Sure Bob, let me be the first to tell you though, and sheeeeeeeh don't tell
anyone else. But later on after we read chapter 5 how it works. We all put
on our flowing robes and sacrifice a young new comer virgin, young and
innocent and clad only in a very sheer white nighty. Then we use the AA
slogans, these are really spell casting mantras and in using them were able
to conjure up the forces of evil lead by Bill W and Dr Bob. These forces
are gathering up and preparing to march out the dark gates of Gondor, oh
wait, wrong fantasy.

My Name Is Bill A. I am an Alcoholic
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42b78e5e$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> "Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> newsvLte.75623$PR6.17885@tornado.texas.rr.com
>> Pookie
>> In all honesty I have never attended a meeting in Houston here
>> that is not closed with the lords prayer, but no strict guides are
>> set on what you have to say within the prayer itself. I prefer to
>> say something like, "on earth as it is in Texas" and in the place
>> of Daily Bread I prefer "Daily Strength".
>
> Do your AA meetings sound like pentecostal revival meetings, or are you
> the only one that speaks in tongues?
>
> Bob
>

"Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PaVte.75646$PR6.35422@tornado.texas.rr.com
> Sure Bob, let me be the first to tell you though, and sheeeeeeeh
> don't tell anyone else. But later on after we read chapter 5 how
> it works. We all put on our flowing robes and sacrifice a young
> new comer virgin,

http://tinyurl.com/cw3cp

Virgin?

Bob

ROFLMAO,
Ok Bob, sure they are Virgins! After they have completed step one they are
repaired in all ways.

Bill A.
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42b825c0_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> "Bill Alsobrook" <balsobrook@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:PaVte.75646$PR6.35422@tornado.texas.rr.com
>> Sure Bob, let me be the first to tell you though, and sheeeeeeeh
>> don't tell anyone else. But later on after we read chapter 5 how
>> it works. We all put on our flowing robes and sacrifice a young
>> new comer virgin,
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cw3cp
>
> Virgin?
>
> Bob
>