Ken wrote:
> GILL wrote:
>> Ken wrote:
>>> DaveB wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:10:01 -0800, GILL <gills@nospam.comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DaveB wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:40:38 -0800, Ken <ken@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GILL wrote:
>>>>>>>> famepublicity@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alcoholics Anonymous challenged to take part in an open debate
>>>>>>>> Twisting words and ideas to sell books? What a novel tactic. Oh
>>>>>>>> yeah, spam.
>>>>>>> Gill,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I must have missed something. Wasn't the poster challenging AA
>>>>>>> to a debate? Of course, A.A. won't accept the challenge because
>>>>>>> they can only lose in an open forum. If you think you can do
>>>>>>> better than official A.A. or you know someone who can, perhaps
>>>>>>> you can accept the challenge. If Lillian and Murdoch won't
>>>>>>> debate you because you aren't an official A.A. spokesman, perhaps
>>>>>>> you can debate someone on the Yahoo A.A. debate list. After the
>>>>>>> first debate two or three years ago, it has been impossible to
>>>>>>> find anyone willing to take the A.A. side, even though the list
>>>>>>> was half-owned by an A.A.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken Ragge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why debate something that doesn't matter?
>>>>>> What difference does it make how someone gets sober?
>>>>>> You folks go on-and-on about nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daveb
>>>>> This is true, I have nothing to debate, but spam is spam.
>>>>
>>>> It was directed towards Ken.......
>>>> He is a spam machine
>>>> Daveb
>>>
>>> Dave B,
>>>
>>> Haven't we been through this before? Aren't you well aware that I am
>>> selling _nothing_? Aren't you, according to your "program," supposed
>>> to make amends? Isn't there something in the sacred Steps like, "and
>>> when we were wrong promptly admitted it"?
>>>
>>> Now, if you can show me where I am selling anything, then of course
>>> you don't owe me amends. However, from here it looks to me like you
>>> are simply saying something nasty because you don't like what I said.
>>
>> Looks like you have books for sale, right?
>>
> Gill,
>
> No. No books for sale. I haven't had any books for sale for years. There
> are a few books that I give away free at:
> http://www.morerevealed.com/library/index.jsp
>
> One, More Revealed, was written as a result of 3 1/2 years of research
> on A.A. after leaving the cult. The others, all related to the Step
> groups, vary from official Oxford Group literature written when Bill
> Wilson, Dr. Bob and "the first 100" (probably really closer to 40) were
> Oxford Groupers, a criticism of the Oxford Group written by an Episcopal
> Church lady, again written when Bill Wilson, Dr. Bob and "the first 100"
> were all members of the Oxford Group to modern-day books.
>
> On modern-day AA is 12-Step Horror Stories by Rebecca Fransway,
> Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? by Chaz Bufe, and Resisting 12-Step
> Coercion by Stanton Peele and Chaz Bufe with Archie Brodsky.
>
> The older books on the Oxford Group and my book are are not sold
> anywhere. The other books I have no clue as to whether they are still
> for sale.
>
> Must I remind you that A.A.'s "Big Book" is for sale and is profitable
> to a number of people?
>
>>>
>>> As to what you posted earlier, here is my response:
>>>
>>> >>> Why debate something that doesn't matter?
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter? Do you mean because it doesn't matter to _you_ it
>>> doesn't matter? Are you not aware that in the U.S. alone between one
>>> and two million people are coerced into the Step groups. It
>>> certainly matters to those who are concerned about the U.S.
>>> Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For those from the European
>>> Community, coercion by the government into the Step groups fall under
>>> their own civil liberties.
>>
>> Sounds like typical bleeding heart liberal crap. "I'm being forced to
>> see the word God!"
>
> LOL! It is neither a liberal nor conservative issue, at least as the
> political parties are now organized. If you knew your American history,
> you would know that the government was to stay out of religious affairs
> because our founders knew of the terrible corruption that happens when
> the government gets involved with religion, when the government picks
> religious leaders and vice versa. Have you never heard "Power corrupts.
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? I think you would have a great deal
> of difficulty defining the founders of this country in terms of liberal
> or conservative as used either term is used today.
>
> The American way is for the government to _not_ coerce any religious
> belief on anyone under any circumstances whether it is Christian,
> Jewish, Hindu, atheist _or_ 12-Step.
>
> Perhaps your real problem is you don't like admitting you have been had.
> "Spiritual, not religious."
>
>>>
>>> >>> What difference does it make how someone gets sober?
>>>
>>> I've yet to see _any_ evidence except for testimonials more suitable
>>> to Wednesday-night prayer meetings or TV infomercials. Any time that
>>> A.A. has been compared to other treatment or no treatment whatsoever,
>>> A.A. has failed the test. As a matter of fact, in one of the largest
>>> studies of its type done by Harvard psychiatrist, Al-Anon and A.A.
>>> leader George Vaillant it was found that the death rate for the AA's
>>> was 6 times that of the non-AAs.
>>
>> That's just funny, drunks die more often? Duh
>
> They were all drunks, both the ones who went to A.A. and the ones who
> didn't. If you don't like a study done by an A.A. trustee and Al-Anon
> with credentials as a psychiatrist from Harvard who very publicly
> continued promoting A.A. in this country, maybe you'll like the study
> done by Dittman et al where drunken drivers were all at random sentenced
> to probation under one of three conditions.
You don't seem to get sarcasm.

> 1. A.A.
> 2. treatment which was probably A.A.-based, now called "12-Step
> facilitation"
> 3. just plain probation.
> Guess who was rearrested the least for drunken driving? Guess who was
> rearrested the most?
Well YOU were in AA, why don't you die?
>
> This study and others are discussed along with references to the
> journals in which they appeared in the chapter beginning at:
> http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_26.jsp
>
>>>
>>> For those that AA killed and their loved ones, that makes a big
>>> difference even if it doesn't to the members of the group that killed
>>> them under the guise of help.
>>
>> Oh help me the AAs are coming!
>
> Well, yes. If one is somewhere where they could be killed in an
> automobile accident, they are in greater danger of dying if there is an
> A.A. on the road than if there isn't.
That's just retarded.
>
>>>
>>> >>> You folks go on-and-on about nothing.
>>>
>>> Well, all I can say is that not being a member of A.A., I'm allowed
>>> to think, feel, and use my reason. Using Grouper language, I am "a
>>> member of the debating society."
>>
>> Must, listen, to, the, leader........OH fuck off jack ass!
>> Must make amends...sorry
>
> Sounds like you've got A.A. spirituality down pat. LOL!
>
>>>
>>> If at some level group members didn't know how terribly wrong "the
>>> Progam" is, they would have no qualms about debating. Don't you want
>>> to help "carry the message"? Or do you want to avoid honest and open
>>> debate with the general public?
>>
>> Oh yeah, I read, what is it you do? write? It's the shit.
>
> Again, LOL! I love people who don't even have the balls to read what
> I've written criticize it because it is contradiction with a piece of
> crap religious literature (the Big Book) written by members of a bizarre
> cult called the Oxford Group.
You cut/paste and write out of
context, what, should I believe
your crap?

>
> I suppose you also don't want to know that Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob's
> "grandsponser" Frank B. praised Hitler and called for a fascist
> dictatorship in the U.S.
You sure are spending a bunch of
time and energy to look up all this
stuff, or maybe I should say you
keep a large portion of your hard
drive full of your ready pat book
marks? For what? Don't even repeat
what you've already said.
>
> Telling the truth is "the shit" to you.
>
> Ken Ragge

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:33:14 -0800, famepublicity@googlemail.com wrote:

> Murdoch and Lilian MacDonald

Book publicity... Cute.

--
http://www.oretek.com

I am sorry that I missed the debate. Murdoch and Lilian are full of
shit! Did I read far enough to get to the paragraph about alcoholics
becoming social drinkers? Chemical dependency does not lend itself to
logic - quitting drinking is easy - I've done it dozens of times...

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:33:14 -0800 (PST),
"famepublicity@googlemail.com" <famepublicity@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Alcoholics Anonymous challenged to take part in an open debate
>
>Monday 19 November 2007
>
>Murdoch and Lilian MacDonald, two former alcoholics from Ayrshire in
>Scotland, have issued a challenge to Alcoholics Anonymous to take part
>in an open debate in the media about alcoholism and AA's 12-Step
>programme.
>
>"Firstly, Alcoholics Anonymous is wrong," Murdoch and Lilian say.
>"Alcoholism is not a progressive, incurable disease or illness which
>alcoholics are born with. It is a behaviour problem, a response to
>dysfunctional childhood.
>
>"Alcoholics are not addicted to alcohol. They are addicted to the
>escape that alcohol affords. Escape from life, or certain aspects of
>life which they find too difficult or too painful to cope with, or the
>associated feelings that go with not coping. Alcohol is a quick fix,
>and addiction means an habitual response or repetitive behaviour."
>
>In the first step of the programme, Alcoholics Anonymous members are
>told that they "powerless over alcohol" and that therefore there is
>nothing they can do about it but accept lifelong abstinence. But
>Murdoch and Lilian have proved that the opposite is true and that
>there's a lot that alcoholics can do for themselves.
>
>They believe that everybody is capable of changing their behaviour.
>They say: "If, as we did, alcoholics choose to identify and to address
>their issues from the past, or, alternatively, simply take a more
>mature attitude of responsibility for their behaviour and learn to
>deal with their life, most will be able drink responsibly once again
>if and when they so wish.
>
>"Advocating lifelong abstinence from alcohol on the other hand is
>merely treating the symptom rather than the underlying problem, and is
>just a damage-limitation exercise."
>
>Murdoch and Lilian's second point is that Alcoholics Anonymous is not
>effective.
>
>According to both an independent US government survey and AA's own
>membership surveys, AA-style treatment works for only 5% of its
>participants.
>
>And a report published by the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration says:
>"The available experimental studies did not demonstrate the
>effectiveness of AA or other 12-step approaches in reducing alcohol
>use and achieving abstinence compared with other treatments," although
>they say further research is needed.
>
>Moreover. leading American addiction expert Dr Stanton Peele shows
>that most sufferers from all so-called addictions, including
>alcoholism, mature out of their dependence without any intervention
>whatsoever, and in the case of alcoholism, a sizeable proportion of
>them are able to drink normally again.
>
>The third point of Lilian and Murdoch's challenge is that Alcoholics
>Anonymous is dogmatic, inflexible and impervious to change.
>
>"Any normal organisation would be open to new ideas," they say, "and
>would welcome discussion and change as new discoveries and progress
>are made in the field of alcoholism.
>
>"Unfortunately AA has adopted a cult-like attitude, and regards its so-
>called programme of recovery as set in stone forever. No changes have
>been made or even allowed in more than 70 years of its existence, and
>no questioning or discussion is tolerated."
>
>The waters are further muddied, Murdoch and Lilian say, by the fact
>that AA's 12-Step Programme is borrowed from an early 19th century
>American evangelical movement, with half of the twelve steps
>mentioning God.
>
>Interestingly, all American courts have ruled that government agencies
>cannot encourage or support AA or 12-step treatment, since their
>religious basis violates the First Amendment's ban against state
>support of religion.
>
>And the status quo has been perpetuated by private rehab clinics that
>have piggybacked AA and hijacked its 12-Step programme for their own
>profit. Profit that is maximised by using a ready-made one size fits
>all prescription instead of providing individual treatment for
>individual people.
>
>So Murdoch and Lilian conclude that a completely new organisation may
>be the only solution if Alcoholics Anonymous remains unwilling to
>embrace change and progress. They say that AA's absolute refusal to
>accept change that is already happening is their greatest weakness.
>
>EDITOR'S NOTE
>
>Dr Stanton Peele PhD JD is an internationally recognised addiction
>expert and father of three. His books include "7 Tools to Beat
>Addiction" and "Addiction-Proof Your Child". Stanton Peele has had no
>part in the preparation or issue of this press release.
>
>http://www.peele.net
>
>Murdoch and Lilian are authors of "Phoenix in a Bottle" - how they
>overcame alcoholism by dealing with the underlying cause, and are now
>able to drink responsibly again.
>
>Available direct from the publisher:
>http://www.melrosebooks.com/bookDetails.php?id=15
>
>Available on Amazon UK
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Bott.../dp/1905226144
>
>Lilian and Murdoch's website:
>http://www.alcoholicscandrinksafelyagain.com
>
>
>http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view....php?rID=36305
>
>
>http://i-newswire.com/pr133238.html
>
>
>http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=press&id=25616
>
>
>
>

Fuck you sacrament, Pis chu fier d'être Québécois. Criss!

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:29:02 -0500, Allan wrote:

> I am sorry that I missed the debate. Murdoch and Lilian are full of
> shit! Did I read far enough to get to the paragraph about alcoholics

It wasn't a debate. It was a marketing campaign.

--
http://www.oretek.com

Joe Jared wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:29:02 -0500, Allan wrote:
>
>> I am sorry that I missed the debate. Murdoch and Lilian are full of
>> shit! Did I read far enough to get to the paragraph about alcoholics
>
> It wasn't a debate. It was a marketing campaign.
>

Joe,

And since Steppers won't debate in a public forum because they have no
win when the light of day shines on their "program," it is a great
marketing plan, wouldn't you say?

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