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

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 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
http://www.morerevealed.com/

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
>http://www.morerevealed.com/

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

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.

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

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

Understood

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.

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.

>>> 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.

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.

>>> 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."

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?

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

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?

>
> 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!"

>
> >>> 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

>
> 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!

>
> >>> 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

>
> 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.

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.
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?

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.

>>
>> >>> 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.

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.

Telling the truth is "the shit" to you.

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