Ken:

According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their first
contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered or
court recommended or "court coerced".

Comments?

Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left AA, to
go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But, if
there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue drinking
(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for "other
methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any alcohol
related problems again...

stuart wrote:

>Ken:
>
>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their first
>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered or
>court recommended or "court coerced".
>
>Comments?
>
Stuart,

When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.

Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
doesn't match the promotional brochure?

Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement

"74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"

If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.

It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.

>
>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left AA, to
>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But, if
>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue drinking
>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for "other
>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any alcohol
>related problems again...
>
Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
tails of it.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1134240192.783192.22890@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> stuart wrote:
>
>>Ken:
>>
>>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their first
>>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered or
>>court recommended or "court coerced".
>>
>>Comments?
>>
> Stuart,
>
> When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
> survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
> Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
> available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
> glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.
>
> Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
> from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
> show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
> doesn't match the promotional brochure?
>
> Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement
>
> "74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"
>
> If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
> brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
> drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
> place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.
>
> It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
> rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
> taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.
>
>>
>>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left AA,
>>to
>>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But, if
>>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue
>>drinking
>>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
>>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for
>>"other
>>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any
>>alcohol
>>related problems again...
>>
> Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
> tails of it.
>

Sure. This survey doe not account for folks who came to meetings, then
stopped going to meetings, ie anyone excluded from the above noted survey.
That clarify the paragraph?
The survey targets those who were at the time, actively participating in AA.
So what about the rest...?

Did you look at the survey I am referring to? This is new, as far as I can
tell.

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

stuart wrote:

>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>news:1134240192.783192.22890@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>>Ken:
>>>
>>>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>>>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their first
>>>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered or
>>>court recommended or "court coerced".
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
>>survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
>>Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
>>available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
>>glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.
>>
>>Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
>>from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
>>show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
>>doesn't match the promotional brochure?
>>
>>Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement
>>
>>"74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"
>>
>>If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
>>brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
>>drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
>>place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.
>>
>>It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
>>rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
>>taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.
>>
>>>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left AA,
>>>to
>>>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But, if
>>>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue
>>>drinking
>>>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
>>>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for
>>>"other
>>>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any
>>>alcohol
>>>related problems again...
>>>
>>Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
>>tails of it.
>>
>
>Sure. This survey doe not account for folks who came to meetings, then
>stopped going to meetings, ie anyone excluded from the above noted survey.
>That clarify the paragraph?
>The survey targets those who were at the time, actively participating in AA.
>So what about the rest...?
>
Stuart,

What about the rest? It says _absolutely nothing_ about the rest, does
it?

>
>Did you look at the survey I am referring to? This is new, as far as I can
>tell.
>

I'm assuming it is a new triennial survey. Is there something new
about it? Are they again allowing academics and researchers to see the
data it is supposed to be based on or are they keeping the actual data
secret and it is just the glossy promotional pamphlet put out by AAWS?

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1134243073.505527.13690@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> stuart wrote:
>
>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>news:1134240192.783192.22890@g49g2000cwa.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>>stuart wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken:
>>>>
>>>>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>>>>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their
>>>>first
>>>>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered or
>>>>court recommended or "court coerced".
>>>>
>>>>Comments?
>>>>
>>>Stuart,
>>>
>>>When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
>>>survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
>>>Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
>>>available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
>>>glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.
>>>
>>>Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
>>>from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
>>>show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
>>>doesn't match the promotional brochure?
>>>
>>>Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement
>>>
>>>"74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"
>>>
>>>If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
>>>brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
>>>drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
>>>place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.
>>>
>>>It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
>>>rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
>>>taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.
>>>
>>>>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left
>>>>AA,
>>>>to
>>>>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But,
>>>>if
>>>>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue
>>>>drinking
>>>>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
>>>>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for
>>>>"other
>>>>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any
>>>>alcohol
>>>>related problems again...
>>>>
>>>Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
>>>tails of it.
>>>
>>
>>Sure. This survey doe not account for folks who came to meetings, then
>>stopped going to meetings, ie anyone excluded from the above noted survey.
>>That clarify the paragraph?
>>The survey targets those who were at the time, actively participating in
>>AA.
>>So what about the rest...?
>>
> Stuart,
>
> What about the rest? It says _absolutely nothing_ about the rest, does
> it?


No. So what do you comment about those who left, and became successful with
other methods. How many?




>>Did you look at the survey I am referring to? This is new, as far as I can
>>tell.
>>
>
> I'm assuming it is a new triennial survey. Is there something new
> about it? Are they again allowing academics and researchers to see the
> data it is supposed to be based on or are they keeping the actual data
> secret and it is just the glossy promotional pamphlet put out by AAWS?
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com
>

On 10 Dec 2005 10:43:12 -0800, "Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote:


:|
:|>
:|>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left AA, to
:|>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But, if
:|>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue drinking
:|>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
:|>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for "other
:|>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any alcohol
:|>related problems again...
:|>
:|Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
:|tails of it.
:|
:|Ken Ragge
:|http://www.morerevealed.com

It doesn't make much sense to me either, but I think he's trying to tap dance
around the well known fact that a lot of these "surveys" are rigged to the
advantage of those who conduct them. Way back in the 50's there was a very good
book around titled; "How to Lie With Statistics." It very nicely explains some
of the games people will play with numbers.


Have a nice day;

Bryce L. Martin

stuart wrote:

>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>news:1134243073.505527.13690@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1134240192.783192.22890@g49g2000cwa.google groups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>stuart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken:
>>>>>
>>>>>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>>>>>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their
>>>>>first
>>>>>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered or
>>>>>court recommended or "court coerced".
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Stuart,
>>>>
>>>>When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
>>>>survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
>>>>Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
>>>>available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
>>>>glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.
>>>>
>>>>Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
>>>
>>>
>>>>show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
>>>>doesn't match the promotional brochure?
>>>>
>>>>Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement
>>>>
>>>>"74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"
>>>>
>>>>If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
>>>>brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
>>>>drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
>>>>place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.
>>>>
>>>>It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
>>>>rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
>>>>taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left
>>>>>AA,
>>>>>to
>>>>>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But,
>>>>>if
>>>>>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue
>>>>>drinking
>>>>>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
>>>>>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for
>>>>>"other
>>>>>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any
>>>>>alcohol
>>>>>related problems again...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
>>>>tails of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sure. This survey doe not account for folks who came to meetings, then
>>>stopped going to meetings, ie anyone excluded from the above noted survey.
>>>That clarify the paragraph?
>>>The survey targets those who were at the time, actively participating in
>>>AA.
>>>So what about the rest...?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>What about the rest? It says _absolutely nothing_ about the rest, does
>>it?
>>
>>
>
>
>No. So what do you comment about those who left, and became successful with
>other methods. How many?
>
>
>
Stuart,

I can say _nothing_ about them based on the promotional brochure from
AAWS, if that is what you mean.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

>
>
>
>
>>>Did you look at the survey I am referring to? This is new, as far as I can
>>>tell.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm assuming it is a new triennial survey. Is there something new
>>about it? Are they again allowing academics and researchers to see the
>>data it is supposed to be based on or are they keeping the actual data
>>secret and it is just the glossy promotional pamphlet put out by AAWS?
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Bryce L. Martin wrote:

>On 10 Dec 2005 10:43:12 -0800, "Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote:
>
>
>:|
>:|>
>:|>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left AA, to
>:|>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But, if
>:|>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue drinking
>:|>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help but
>:|>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for "other
>:|>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any alcohol
>:|>related problems again...
>:|>
>:|Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
>:|tails of it.
>:|
>:|Ken Ragge
>:|http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>It doesn't make much sense to me either, but I think he's trying to tap dance
>around the well known fact that a lot of these "surveys" are rigged to the
>advantage of those who conduct them. Way back in the 50's there was a very good
>book around titled; "How to Lie With Statistics." It very nicely explains some
>of the games people will play with numbers.
>
>
>Have a nice day;
>
>Bryce L. Martin
>
>
Bryce,

Yes he is. I just hope with all the tap dancing he doesn't trip and
fall an hurt himself.

What is surpising to me is that AAWS got caught 'lying with statistics'
when some people got a hold of internal documents on their triennial
survery and it was widely posted about here on the Internet a few years
ago and yet he is, with the cat is long out of the bag, acting as if
there is some sound new information with meaning being presented.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

"Ken" <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:W6mdnVjTC58jrQbenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> stuart wrote:
>
>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>news:1134243073.505527.13690@o13g2000cwo.googleg roups.com...
>>
>>>stuart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1134240192.783192.22890@g49g2000cwa.googl egroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>stuart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>>>>>>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their
>>>>>>first
>>>>>>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>court recommended or "court coerced".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Comments?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Stuart,
>>>>>
>>>>>When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
>>>>>survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
>>>>>Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
>>>>>available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
>>>>>glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
>>>>>
>>>>>from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
>>>>
>>>>>show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
>>>>>doesn't match the promotional brochure?
>>>>>
>>>>>Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement
>>>>>
>>>>>"74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"
>>>>>
>>>>>If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
>>>>>brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
>>>>>drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
>>>>>place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
>>>>>rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
>>>>>taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left
>>>>>>AA,
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But,
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue
>>>>>>drinking
>>>>>>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for
>>>>>>"other
>>>>>>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any
>>>>>>alcohol
>>>>>>related problems again...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
>>>>>tails of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Sure. This survey doe not account for folks who came to meetings, then
>>>>stopped going to meetings, ie anyone excluded from the above noted
>>>>survey.
>>>>That clarify the paragraph?
>>>>The survey targets those who were at the time, actively participating in
>>>>AA.
>>>>So what about the rest...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Stuart,
>>>
>>>What about the rest? It says _absolutely nothing_ about the rest, does
>>>it?
>>>
>>
>>
>>No. So what do you comment about those who left, and became successful
>>with other methods. How many?
>>
>>
> Stuart,
>
> I can say _nothing_ about them based on the promotional brochure from
AAWS, if that is what you mean.

OK. Can you comment on numbers from any other source Re: numbers of
successful people using other methods of recovery, or methods to abet a
drinking problem.?
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Did you look at the survey I am referring to? This is new, as far as I
>>>>can
>>>>tell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'm assuming it is a new triennial survey. Is there something new
>>>about it? Are they again allowing academics and researchers to see the
>>>data it is supposed to be based on or are they keeping the actual data
>>>secret and it is just the glossy promotional pamphlet put out by AAWS?
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

stuart wrote:

>"Ken" <nospam@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>news:W6mdnVjTC58jrQbenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com ...
>
>
>>stuart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1134243073.505527.13690@o13g2000cwo.google groups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>stuart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ken Ragge" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1134240192.783192.22890@g49g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>stuart wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ken:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>According to a confidential survey of 7500 AA members, clearly 74% who
>>>>>>>stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety and 11% admitted that their
>>>>>>>first
>>>>>>>contact with AA was "through the courts" meaning either court ordered
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>court recommended or "court coerced".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Comments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stuart,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When I've quoted the internal documents from AAWS about the triennial
>>>>>>survey, I've been roundly criticized for every imaginable reason by 12
>>>>>>Steppers. Of course, not only are the internal documents no longer
>>>>>>available but even the raw data has become 'confidential.' Only the
>>>>>>glossy publicity pamphlet has been available for years now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why in the world would I give any credence whatsoever to the numbers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>from the glossy pamphlet when the raw data, which in the past has been
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>show to paint quite a different picture, is kept secret because it
>>>>>>doesn't match the promotional brochure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also there is the matter of the meaningless of your statement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"74% who stayed have at least 1 year of sobriety"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If that is indeed true and not a fabrication for the glossy promotional
>>>>>>brochure, it has absolutely no meaning. For those who continue to
>>>>>>drink excessively, the "sicker than others seat" is not a very friendly
>>>>>>place to hang out so of course there are few of them left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is like saying that of those who continued to take snake oil for
>>>>>>rapidly advancing cancer for one year, 95% of them that are still
>>>>>>taking snake oil at the one year point have had complete remission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, the sobriety rate does not count those who came, then left
>>>>>>>AA,
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>go on drinking. That number could be any size, possibly enormous. But,
>>>>>>>if
>>>>>>>there is a sizable group of people who come, then leave to continue
>>>>>>>drinking
>>>>>>>(presumably not to return although some clearly do), one cannot help
>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>wonder what the actual numbers who attend for awhile, then leave for
>>>>>>>"other
>>>>>>>methods" such as RR, or MM, quit on their own etc and never have any
>>>>>>>alcohol
>>>>>>>related problems again...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could you repeat the above paragraph? I can't quite make heads or
>>>>>>tails of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Sure. This survey doe not account for folks who came to meetings, then
>>>>>stopped going to meetings, ie anyone excluded from the above noted
>>>>>survey.
>>>>>That clarify the paragraph?
>>>>>The survey targets those who were at the time, actively participating in
>>>>>AA.
>>>>>So what about the rest...?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Stuart,
>>>>
>>>>What about the rest? It says _absolutely nothing_ about the rest, does
>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No. So what do you comment about those who left, and became successful
>>>with other methods. How many?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Stuart,
>>
>>I can say _nothing_ about them based on the promotional brochure from
>>
>>
> AAWS, if that is what you mean.
>
>OK. Can you comment on numbers from any other source Re: numbers of
>successful people using other methods of recovery, or methods to abet a
>drinking problem.?
>
>
Stuart,

Sure. http://www.morerevealed.com/mr/newmr_30.jsp beginning with the
third paragraph. Clicking on the red numbers on the next page will
bring up the sources used. While it doesn't say anything about methods
of recovery except AA or not AA, it most certainly is a good place to start.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Did you look at the survey I am referring to? This is new, as far as I
>>>>>can
>>>>>tell.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I'm assuming it is a new triennial survey. Is there something new
>>>>about it? Are they again allowing academics and researchers to see the
>>>>data it is supposed to be based on or are they keeping the actual data
>>>>secret and it is just the glossy promotional pamphlet put out by AAWS?
>>>>
>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>