Re: scientific data

[Agent_Orange]

"Cartman" <omar_adebisi@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ij6dnbUuLKBbGXujXTWcpQ@speakeasy.net>...
> AA is not about science....it's about honesty (with self and others) and
> hard work (as well as myriad other improvements). All of the scientific
> advances in the world will have little to no effect on "How it Works". It's
> analagous with saying "Given the eternity of technological advances, surely
> there's a better way to worship a deity since the bible/tora/koran/[fill in
> religious text of choice here] was written.
>
> IMO, It's the ideas and people of AA that make it possible.....
>
> C-man


Agreed that A.A. is not based on science.
But what is it based on then? Superstition? Voodoo medicine?
Faith healing? Frank Buchman's fascist cult religion?
Bill Wilson's delusions of grandeur and narcissistic personality
disorder?

I'm all for honesty here. Let's have more honesty.
So let's honestly look at all of the facts, and admit that A.A. does
not work at all. A.A. has a huge zero percent success rate, above
normal spontaneous remission.

What that means is: In any randomly-selected group of alcoholics,
there are always a few people who are ready, eager, and willing to quit
drinking because they are just sick and tired of being sick and tired,
and wish to save their own lives and regain their health.
So they quit drinking, and then A.A. falsely claims the credit for their
sobriety.

A.A. does not make any more people quit drinking than the ones who would
have quit drinking anyway.
A.A. does not increase the rate of sobriety in alcoholics at all.
In fact, it tends to lower it, while increasing the death rate and
the rate of binge drinking.
See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant
and
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Brandsma

Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol guarantees
disaster. (And it supplies a great excuse for relapsing: "I couldn't
help but tie one on, Honey. I got triggered and went into a strange
mental blank spot where self-knowledge and will power were useless,
and I was drunk before I even knew what was happening.")

And that is all that is happening in A.A.. Any claims that A.A. works in
some mystical way that cannot be scientifically tested is just so much
fraud. It's like a child who says that he really did do his homework,
and he really does know his lessons, but his dog at his homework,
and he knows his lessons, but only in a spiritual dimension that is not
subject to scientific testing.
(That's just how Bill Wilson learned calculus, too.
For Bill's brilliant accomplishments in calculus, see:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-religious_faith.html#Bills_education )

It's very simple: A.A. flunks every test because the A.A. 12-step
program does not work.

And that is the honest truth. So by all means, let's have more honesty.

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Agent_Orange]

agent_orange@linuxmail.org (Agent_Orange) wrote in message news:<8e728989.0307101536.31efc1de@posting.google.com>...
> "Cartman" <omar_adebisi@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ij6dnbUuLKBbGXujXTWcpQ@speakeasy.net>...
> > AA is not about science....it's about honesty (with self and others) and
> > hard work (as well as myriad other improvements). All of the scientific
> > advances in the world will have little to no effect on "How it Works". It's
> > analagous with saying "Given the eternity of technological advances, surely
> > there's a better way to worship a deity since the bible/tora/koran/[fill in
> > religious text of choice here] was written.
> >
> > IMO, It's the ideas and people of AA that make it possible.....
> >
> > C-man
>
Still waiting to hear what A.A. is based on...
>
> Agreed that A.A. is not based on science.
> But what is it based on then? Superstition? Voodoo medicine?
> Faith healing? Frank Buchman's fascist cult religion?
> Bill Wilson's delusions of grandeur and narcissistic personality
> disorder?
>
> I'm all for honesty here. Let's have more honesty.
> So let's honestly look at all of the facts, and admit that A.A. does
> not work at all. A.A. has a huge zero percent success rate, above
> normal spontaneous remission.
>
> What that means is: In any randomly-selected group of alcoholics,
> there are always a few people who are ready, eager, and willing to quit
> drinking because they are just sick and tired of being sick and tired,
> and wish to save their own lives and regain their health.
> So they quit drinking, and then A.A. falsely claims the credit for their
> sobriety.
>
> A.A. does not make any more people quit drinking than the ones who would
> have quit drinking anyway.
> A.A. does not increase the rate of sobriety in alcoholics at all.
> In fact, it tends to lower it, while increasing the death rate and
> the rate of binge drinking.
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant
> and
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Brandsma
>
> Teaching alcoholics that they are powerless over alcohol guarantees
> disaster. (And it supplies a great excuse for relapsing: "I couldn't
> help but tie one on, Honey. I got triggered and went into a strange
> mental blank spot where self-knowledge and will power were useless,
> and I was drunk before I even knew what was happening.")
>
> And that is all that is happening in A.A.. Any claims that A.A. works in
> some mystical way that cannot be scientifically tested is just so much
> fraud. It's like a child who says that he really did do his homework,
> and he really does know his lessons, but his dog at his homework,
> and he knows his lessons, but only in a spiritual dimension that is not
> subject to scientific testing.
> (That's just how Bill Wilson learned calculus, too.
> For Bill's brilliant accomplishments in calculus, see:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-religious_faith.html#Bills_education )
>
> It's very simple: A.A. flunks every test because the A.A. 12-step
> program does not work.
>
> And that is the honest truth. So by all means, let's have more honesty.
>
> * Agent Orange *
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Dan McGown]

Hey, for me AA is based on the fundamental basis of science:
pragmatic results.
As long as I (and my 2 genetic brothers and my brothers and sisters in
AA) keep going to meetings and trying to follow those 12 nasty steps, we
aren't drinking.
When I try to do something else, I end up drinking.
Having noted a definite and repeatable pattern of cause and effect, we
have formed a working hypothesis that this system works. We will wait for
someone with more time on their hands to formulate a general theory to
explain the apparent relationship.

* Einstein said, "If we knew what we were*
* doing, it wouldn't be research." *

[Robert McGregor]

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0307140957.1d4daf70@posting.google.c om...
> >
> > It's very simple: A.A. flunks every test because the A.A. 12-step
> > program does not work.
> >
> > And that is the honest truth. So by all means, let's have more honesty.

If you actually are honest, you have demonstrated a vital truth, the truth
that honesty and truth are not necessarily synonymous, at all.

Bob

[Cartman]

<HUGE SNIP>

Mea culpa, Mea culpa. My profound apologies for the delay....I go to 7
evening meetings a week (Huge waste of time, right?). Combined with my
daytime job and consulting projects, I just don't have the time to engage in
battles of wits....especially with those who are tragically disarmed. Before
you mention it, yes, I have seen your website. Coming from someone with a
"linuxmail.org" domain, it is disappointing to say the least (I bet you
rarely venture outside the KDE environment into the world of "shell" if you
even have a clue what I'm talking about).

Now, to waste more time on your quasi-scientific blather......(And
"quasi-scientific" is a compliment):

1. I just returned from a meeting where the speaker "mysteriously"
accumulated 33 years of sobriety......apparently, in spite of AA.

2. Living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, an old blue-collar steel town, I am
fortunate to have access to hundreds of meetings. The movie "Deer Hunter" is
a great portrayal of the Pittsburgh where many AA's were "formed". Anyway,
while apparently wasting time in these meetings, I find myself speaking with
and listening to countless people who (again "mysteriously") have plunged to
the depths of insanity/disfunction/illness and with the help of AA, have
arisen (Absolutely NO religious connotations inferred here at all. Don't
even start.). Whether their higher power is God (as they know him) or a
steel folding chair, they are sober. As a matter of fact, these rotten
bastards have the nerve not to drink, even in the face of your farcical
"facts".

3. If I accept the FACT that I am "powerless over alcohol", I am recognizing
the risk the picking up even one drink poses. This does not provide me with
an excuse, rather an approach for dealing with a very prevalent, socially
acceptable drug. Watching 2 minutes of T.V. commercials during a sporting
event is sufficient "evidence" that alcohol is an accepted drug,
masquerading as a party. There are those (AA and Non-AA) that have not or
will not understand that they cannot control their drinking once they pick
up the smartly packaged 12 pack of beer.......(In case you haven't clued in,
this indicates powerlessness).

This is NOT an AA forum or NG. It is "alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism". AA
is not a publicly traded firm, I am not a stockholder in AA and am not
watching my "share price" suffer from your dishonest, biased rantings (both
here and on your pathetic website). However, if you feel compelled to
"debunk" AA, please provide an alternative for us poor, misguided
unfortunates. Given the vast amount of time and research you have invested,
it would be entirely appropriate that you even start the successful
alternative to AA (or any other program that you probably failed to "get").
Just think, you could be the next Bill W. and some complete Asshole could
create a website slamming you in 60+ years....You'll be immortalized!

There, I spent more time than I intended ranting to a clueless idiot......

GFY,

- Cartman

[Cartman]

I am far more learned having read your reply. Applying "Post Hoc, Ergo
Propter Hoc", you have helped me (btw, in ENGLISH it's referred to as a
spurious correlation). In this case, it is true........to the contrary,
everyone reading your posting is a little bit dumber for having read it.

Seek life elsewhere............

Would you be my sponsor so we can go out boozing?

- Cartman



"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0307171550.503c2a21@posting.google.c om...
> "Cartman" <omar_adebisi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<WrWdnYPzNN6OIomiRTvU2Q@speakeasy.net>...
> ###
> ### Mea culpa, Mea culpa. My profound apologies for the delay....I go to 7
> ### evening meetings a week (Huge waste of time, right?). Combined with my
> ### daytime job and consulting projects, I just don't have the time to
engage in
> ### battles of wits....especially with those who are tragically disarmed.
Before
> ### you mention it, yes, I have seen your website. Coming from someone
with a
> ### "linuxmail.org" domain, it is disappointing to say the least (I bet
you
> ### rarely venture outside the KDE environment into the world of "shell"
if you
> ### even have a clue what I'm talking about).
> ###
>
> That is a good demonstration of an Ad Hominem attack. See the description
> of that tactic on my web page on Propaganda Techniques:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#ad_hominem
>
> ### Now, to waste more time on your quasi-scientific blather......(And
> ### "quasi-scientific" is a compliment):
> ###
> ### 1. I just returned from a meeting where the speaker "mysteriously"
> ### accumulated 33 years of sobriety......apparently, in spite of AA.
> ###
>
> Come now, you know what logical fallacy that is. "Joe still has all
> of his hair; he never went bald. He says it is because he goes to
> Baskin Robbins and eats chocolate ice cream every day.
> Therefore it is a proven fact that eating chocolate ice cream prevents
> male pattern baldness. Why just look at all of the years of accumulated
> hair you find in any Baskin Robbins store."
>
> That is, of course, totally false logic -- another propaganda stunt called
> "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc", which means "It happened after something,
> so it was caused by that something" -- "The rooster crows, then the
> sun rises, so the rooster's crowing must be making the sun rise."
> "Joe goes to A.A. meetings, then he stays sober, so it must be the
> meetings making him stay sober." Nonsense. Maybe he just doesn't
> want to die drunk. Maybe he just got sick and tired of being sick and
> tired, and decided to get healthy.
>
> And the fact that he likes A.A. meetings and swears by them
> means nothing. The reason that pushers of quack medicine keep
> their customers is because many people are easy to fool with false
> assumptions of cause and effect. "I was sick as could be, but then
> I drank 5 bottles of Dr. Quackinduck's Magic Rejuventation Elixir,
> and I immediately got better. So Dr. Quackinduck's medicine really
> works good." False logic. The speaker does not know whether he
> was going to get better anyway, without the Elixir. People usually
> do, you know, except for the last illnesses. Only a large,
> carefully-designed controlled study can ferret the truth out of
> the false assumptions of effectiveness. (Like the FDA does with
> medicines.)
>
> See the comments of Dr. Beyerstein (Quackwatch) and Dr. David Duncan
> about anecdotal evidence and quack medicine:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#anecdote
>
> ### 2. Living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, an old blue-collar steel town,
I am
> ### fortunate to have access to hundreds of meetings. The movie "Deer
Hunter" is
> ### a great portrayal of the Pittsburgh where many AA's were "formed".
Anyway,
> ### while apparently wasting time in these meetings, I find myself
speaking with
> ### and listening to countless people who (again "mysteriously") have
plunged to
> ### the depths of insanity/disfunction/illness and with the help of AA,
have
> ### arisen (Absolutely NO religious connotations inferred here at all.
Don't
> ### even start.). Whether their higher power is God (as they know him) or
a
> ### steel folding chair, they are sober. As a matter of fact, these rotten
> ### bastards have the nerve not to drink, even in the face of your
farcical
> ### "facts".
> ###
>
> Farcical facts? I even quote a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous World
Services
> Inc., (who is also a doctor and a professor of psychology,)
> who used A.A. treatment on alcoholics for 20 years, and concluded
> that it was ineffective, and even killed alcoholics -- the death rate of
the
> A.A. group was "appalling" -- and you just dismiss such information as
> "pseudo-science" and "farcical facts". You are doing the standard
> stereotypical alcoholic's "Minimization and Denial" tap-dance.
>
> Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
>
> Prof. George E. Vaillant wrote, in spite of his love for A.A., that:
> "After initial discharge, only five patients in the Clinic sample never
> relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence that
> the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history
> of the disease."
> (The "natural history" meaning, "what usually happens to alcoholics".)
>
> And:
> "Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism,
> but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling."
> [Note that out of the first 100 alcoholics that Vaillant treated
> with A.A., 29 died in the 8-year duration of the study.]
>
> And:
> "Once again, our results were no better than the natural history of
> the disorder."
>
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant
> for Prof. Vaillant's report.
>
> ### 3. If I accept the FACT that I am "powerless over alcohol", I am
recognizing
> ### the risk the picking up even one drink poses. This does not provide me
with
> ### an excuse, rather an approach for dealing with a very prevalent,
socially
> ### acceptable drug. Watching 2 minutes of T.V. commercials during a
sporting
> ### event is sufficient "evidence" that alcohol is an accepted drug,
> ### masquerading as a party. There are those (AA and Non-AA) that have not
or
> ### will not understand that they cannot control their drinking once they
pick
> ### up the smartly packaged 12 pack of beer.......(In case you haven't
clued in,
> ### this indicates powerlessness).
> ###
>
> I accept the fact that I am powerless over alcohol *after* I get 6 or 8
beers
> in me, and that any return to drinking would be a personal disaster.
> But we are saying very different things.
> Your version of powerlessness leads you to believe that you must be
dependent
> on a cult to keep you sober.
> My version of powerlessness leads me to believe that I simply should not
ever
> drink any alcohol. I don't need a cult to tell me not to drink ethanol.
> On a day-in, day-out basis, I am not powerless over alcohol. I can walk
right
> past it and totally ignore it, and do, often.
>
> ### This is NOT an AA forum or NG. It is
"alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism". AA
> ### is not a publicly traded firm, I am not a stockholder in AA and am not
> ### watching my "share price" suffer from your dishonest, biased rantings
(both
> ### here and on your pathetic website). However, if you feel compelled to
> ### "debunk" AA, please provide an alternative for us poor, misguided
> ### unfortunates. Given the vast amount of time and research you have
invested,
> ### it would be entirely appropriate that you even start the successful
> ### alternative to AA (or any other program that you probably failed to
"get").
> ### Just think, you could be the next Bill W. and some complete Asshole
could
> ### create a website slamming you in 60+ years....You'll be immortalized!
> ###
> ### There, I spent more time than I intended ranting to a clueless
idiot......
> ###
> ### GFY,
> ###
> ### - Cartman
> ###
>
> You want an alternative plan that works better than A.A.?
> That's easy: it is the program that 80% of all successful sober
> recovered alcoholics use: The One-Step Program:
> JUST DON'T DRINK ANY MORE ALCOHOL.
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Harvard_Mental
> for what the Harvard Medical School said on the subject.
>
> * Agent Orange *
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
> * that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
> * he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Agent_Orange]

"pauly" <paul.youREMOVETHISles@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<KD6Sa.104$gt.22094@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > Maybe he just doesn't
> > want to die drunk. Maybe he just got sick and tired of being sick and
> > tired, and decided to get healthy.
> >

> My friend who is becomming a bit of an AA junkie, swears by it. I would feel
> bad pointing out to him that it is probably the antabuse that's stopping him
> drinking ;-)

I understand. The people who are happy in that environment
need not be disturbed if they don't want to be.

But to then stretch the assumption that it works to the point
where courts and "treatment programs" sentence people to 12-step
meetings and programs is another matter entirely.

There is a world of difference between letting one person believe
in quack medicine or voodoo medicine, and forcing that voodoo
medicine on others.

* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Agent_Orange]

"pauly" <paul.youREMOVETHISles@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<YLvSa.5099$47.694454@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...
> Do you know Jack
> Trimpey? Does Jack Trimpey know you ? Are you Jack Trimpey? If not you two
> should get together and dicscuss it over a .................:-)

No, I don't know Jack Trimpey; never met him, and I am not him.
I have read two of his books, the Small Book and Rational Recovery.
I especially liked the idea of "The Beast" (the addiction monster)
found in the back of the RR book, because that matched my own
experience. See:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-addmonst.html

My reaction to the rest of his stuff was just so-so.

About this:
>> That is a good way of looking at it, but from your previous
>> posts, one which I wouldn't have expected. He seems happy,
>> again that could be the anti depressants, again I've not
>> pointed this out; no need.

Actually, I have said repeatedly in my writings that I really
don't care if a bunch of burned-out old alcoholics want to
gather in church basements and declare themselves to be the
Chosen People of God. I feel sorry for them. I have nothing
against them per se. (See Judge John T., "The Chosen" --
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-Why_We_Were_Chosen.html )

Where they cross the line is in forcing their religion on others,
(and using judges, parole officers, therapists and counselors
to do the forcing for them),
and in passing off faith healing and spiritism as valid,
effective medical treatment for alcoholism,
and in then lying about their failure rate to entice other
people to try their failed methods.
That is immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional, besides being
downright inconsiderate.

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Agent_Orange]

"Shawster" <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<702Ta.47175$k85.1803937@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fa86b36b7d0f50194f46dc0a78651a4d@free.teranew s.com...
> > On 19 Jul 2003 17:41:11 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
> > (Agent_Orange) wrote:
> >
> > >But to then stretch the assumption that it works to the point
> > >where courts and "treatment programs" sentence people to 12-step
> > >meetings and programs is another matter entirely.
> >
> > Certainly the sentencing by Courts to AA is a matter I have always
> > strongly opposed. But the problem clearly lies with the (typically
> > US) Courts, not AA.
>
> but then again, nothing happens by accident.
>
> >
> > --
> > Blue Moon
> >

Nothing happens by accident? That is pseudo-religious
wishful thinking.
Did God want the World Trade Center to come down, and
all of those people to be killed and children orphaned?
Was that part of the Great Plan where Nothing Happens
By Accident?

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Blue Moon]

On 22 Jul 2003 11:59:41 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
(Agent_Orange) wrote:

>Nothing happens by accident? That is pseudo-religious
>wishful thinking.
>Did God want the World Trade Center to come down, and
>all of those people to be killed and children orphaned?
>Was that part of the Great Plan where Nothing Happens
>By Accident?

I've no idea. Neither, I suspect, do you. But it DID shake quite a
few Americans out of complacent thinking, and it even persuaded a few
REAL Christians to actually go and try to find out what the rest of
the world has been really crying about. For just too long America had
been playing self-appointed global policeman, whilst turning a very
blind eye to many of the injustices it helped perpetrate. The whole
Palestine/Isreal situation is a case in point. Years of financial aid
to terrorist organisations such as the IRA under the pretext of
"support for the families of soldiers" is another.

Does that make what happened right? No, not at all! It was clearly
wrong. Those brain-dead opium addicts haven't been martyred by any
principles I recognise. But maybe something on that scale was needed
to wake certain people up to the rest of the world.

Maybe it can also wake a few people up to the real destructive power
of substance abuse/addiction. I honestly suspect those nutters were
literally out of their skulls. Let's face it, nobody in their right
mind would do such a thing, let alone produce the stupid notion that
it was some deity-inspired act.

--
Blue Moon

[Shawster]

Ah so desu ne. rehab.

how do they get away with the linking to AA and the donations and such??

thanks for the info.



"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bfsvdr$ihst4$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> http://www.hazelden.org/visit_us.dbm
>
> "Shawster" <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ObnUa.17992$BB6.486524@twister.tampabay.rr.co m...
> > what's a hazelden??
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:32:04 GMT, "Shawster"
<shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>Ah so desu ne. rehab.
>
>how do they get away with the linking to AA and the donations and such??

Donations? To AA? That shouldn't happen. In the UK the Charities
Act was changed specifically to accommodate AA's Tradition 7.

--
Blue Moon

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <ObnUa.17992$BB6.486524@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Shawster
<shawster@tampabay.rr.com> writes
>what's a hazelden??

She did 'Searchin, Looking for love'
--
Jonathan Bratt

[rosie readandpost]

shaw,
hazelden is a rehab center(many locations in the usa) for many addictions and diseases, with a connected "family"
treatment center.
they ARE NOT connected to AA, except in their liberal use of the 12 STEP FORMAT.


--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

[rosie readandpost]

:)

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

"In a few days they will show us another fat body with a beard and say it's Saddam."
ZOHAIR MATY, a 30-year-old Iraqi laborer, expressing skepticism that pictures of Saddam Hussein's sons' bodies were
authentic.






"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message news:vLvURatlOkI$EwAz@aol.com...
> In message <ObnUa.17992$BB6.486524@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Shawster
> <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> writes
> >what's a hazelden??
>
> She did 'Searchin, Looking for love'
> --
> Jonathan Bratt

[Agent_Orange]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<bfhl03$elufb$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>> Not double talk at all. That honesty and truth are not synonymous is self
>> evident, perhaps only to those with a modicum of perception though. One way
>> to effect, and utilise that realisation, is implicit in the 12 steps from
>> AA.
>>
>> If you are indeed honest, that the obvious effectiveness of "taking a good
>> look at oneself," fundamental to the 12 step program, is way beyond the
>> limitations of your comprehension, does not surprise me at all.

I was right. This is cult double-talk. "Honesty" and "telling the truth" are not
the same thing? That's a good one. And you try to rationalize such nonsense
by claiming that you cannot know the whole truth... Well I can know enough
of the truth to know the difference between lying to somebody and telling
the truth to them.

And then you throw is a little Ad Hominem attack, claiming that I am incapable
of understanding your brilliant cult-think, to cover for your lack of a
good explanation...

>>
>> That you may have never ever had occasion to accept you have
>> been honestly wrong, given your cyber verbosity, is an indicator of the
>> depth of your perception.
>>
>> > Are you trying to tell me that being "honest" in
>> > the Alcoholics Anonymous program requires that you
>> > do NOT tell the truth?
>>
>> Not at all. To the contrary, it seems you are trying to tell that to me.
>>
>> > That's really cultish thinking.
>>
>> I'm not surprised at that either.
>>
>> Bob
>>
Again, you lay on an Ad Hominem attack, claiming that I have never been honest.
But it is you who is arguing that being "honest" in Alcoholics Anonymous
does not require telling the truth...


* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *

[Otto]

In article <8e728989.0307271510.62de6ffe@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> You make the choice. It is you who is keeping you from drinking.
> The meetings are irrelevant.

Then being "told" this here, by anyone else, is irrelevent, unnecessary
and impositionally coercive.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Robert McGregor]

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0307271512.26b234f6@posting.google.c om...
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<bfhl03$elufb$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >>
> >> Not double talk at all. That honesty and truth are not synonymous is
self
> >> evident, perhaps only to those with a modicum of perception though. One
way
> >> to effect, and utilise that realisation, is implicit in the 12 steps
from
> >> AA.
> >>
> >> If you are indeed honest, that the obvious effectiveness of "taking a
good
> >> look at oneself," fundamental to the 12 step program, is way beyond the
> >> limitations of your comprehension, does not surprise me at all.
>
> I was right. This is cult double-talk. "Honesty" and "telling the truth"
are not
> the same thing?

Jeez, you are a real live cyber idiot! What cult am I supposed to belong to?

Honesty is telling what one perceives to be the truth. Given that perception
is often erroneus, what an honest person actually tells can be that far from
the truth it is indisputably a lie. Your rantings are an excellent example.
Did that sink into your feeble mind?

Bob

[Otto]

In article <8e728989.0307271512.26b234f6@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> And then you throw is a little Ad Hominem attack, claiming that I am incapable
> of understanding your brilliant cult-think, to cover for your lack of a
> good explanation...

Apparently you are not only a big fan of what you consider "cult-think"
but like to regard yourself as a real student of that -- or master of
it. Why, you're even guilty of all the same "tactics." So much for
supposedly denouncing it.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Agent_Orange]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<bg1n1i$k193r$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:8e728989.0307271512.26b234f6@posting.google.c om...
> > "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<bfhl03$elufb$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >>
> > >> Not double talk at all. That honesty and truth are not synonymous is
> self
> > >> evident, perhaps only to those with a modicum of perception though. One
> way
> > >> to effect, and utilise that realisation, is implicit in the 12 steps
> from
> > >> AA.
> > >>
> > >> If you are indeed honest, that the obvious effectiveness of "taking a
> good
> > >> look at oneself," fundamental to the 12 step program, is way beyond the
> > >> limitations of your comprehension, does not surprise me at all.
> >
> > I was right. This is cult double-talk. "Honesty" and "telling the truth"
> are not
> > the same thing?
>
> Jeez, you are a real live cyber idiot! What cult am I supposed to belong to?
>
Alcoholics Anonymous, of course.


> Honesty is telling what one perceives to be the truth. Given that perception
> is often erroneus, what an honest person actually tells can be that far from
> the truth it is indisputably a lie. Your rantings are an excellent example.
> Did that sink into your feeble mind?
>
> Bob


Your argument that since we cannot know the whole grand cosmic truth, we
cannot tell the truth is a really pathetic bit of inept sophistry.

Of course you know when you are lying. Deliberately stating things
that you know to be untrue is very different from being
misinformed and inadvertently repeating untrue information.

Let's get down to brass tacks and take a good real-world example
of dishonesty, and not telling the truth.

In your previous letter, you spoke of "If you are indeed honest,
.... the obvious effectiveness of 'taking a good
look at oneself, fundamental to the 12 step program..."

So let's take a good look at the recent actions of Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services Inc.

First, a little background that I think we both agree on:
Do you agree that the Big Book "Alcoholics Anonymous", first
edition, was written in late 1938 and early 1939 by Bill Wilson,
Henry Parkhurst, Dr. Robert Smith, Dr. Silkworth, and about
30 other people?
(See http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-bigbook.html
for the list.)

Okay then, AAWS legal representatives went to Mexico and committed
perjury in a Mexican court, testifying that a "Wyne Parks" had
rather recently written the book, so it was still under copyright.
That was a lie. It was not honest. They did not tell the truth.

Then the AAWS legal representatives went to Germany and testified
in court that Bill Wilson was the *sole* author of the book.
That was another lie. That was dishonest.
That was not telling the truth.
(Go see http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-not_good.html#AAWS_perjury
for the details.)

Now we do not need to know all of the grand cosmic truths of the
Universe to know that AAWS was lying, and not being honest.

I am sure that you can see that.

Apparently the leaders of Alcoholics Anonymous are in great
need of a moral inventory and taking a good look at themselves.
Wouldn't you say so?

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *

[Otto]

In article <8e728989.0307291917.6430160f@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> > Honesty is telling what one perceives to be the truth. Given that perception
> > is often erroneus, what an honest person actually tells can be that far from
> > the truth it is indisputably a lie. Your rantings are an excellent example.
> > Did that sink into your feeble mind?

> Your argument that since we cannot know the whole grand cosmic truth, we
> cannot tell the truth is a really pathetic bit of inept sophistry.
>
> Of course you know when you are lying. Deliberately stating things
> that you know to be untrue is very different from being
> misinformed and inadvertently repeating untrue information.
>
> Let's get down to brass tacks and take a good real-world example
> of dishonesty, and not telling the truth.
>
> In your previous letter, you spoke of "If you are indeed honest,
> ... the obvious effectiveness of 'taking a good
> look at oneself, fundamental to the 12 step program..."
>
> So let's take a good look at the recent actions of Alcoholics
> Anonymous World Services Inc....

Yet, Bob said "what one perceives" and you quote "look at one's self,"
not at AAWS and a particular incident involving those certain persons.
To be honest about it.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Robert McGregor]

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0307291917.6430160f@posting.google.c om...
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<bg1n1i$k193r$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> > news:8e728989.0307271512.26b234f6@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:<bfhl03$elufb$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > >>
> > > >> Not double talk at all. That honesty and truth are not synonymous
is
> > self
> > > >> evident, perhaps only to those with a modicum of perception though.
One
> > way
> > > >> to effect, and utilise that realisation, is implicit in the 12
steps
> > from
> > > >> AA.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you are indeed honest, that the obvious effectiveness of "taking
a
> > good
> > > >> look at oneself," fundamental to the 12 step program, is way beyond
the
> > > >> limitations of your comprehension, does not surprise me at all.
> > >
> > > I was right. This is cult double-talk. "Honesty" and "telling the
truth"
> > are not
> > > the same thing?
> >
> > Jeez, you are a real live cyber idiot! What cult am I supposed to belong
to?
> >
> Alcoholics Anonymous, of course.

You are lying, again

>
>
> > Honesty is telling what one perceives to be the truth. Given that
perception
> > is often erroneus, what an honest person actually tells can be that far
from
> > the truth it is indisputably a lie. Your rantings are an excellent
example.
> > Did that sink into your feeble mind?
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> Your argument that since we cannot know the whole grand cosmic truth, we
> cannot tell the truth is a really pathetic bit of inept sophistry.

That's your own inept sophistry, not my argument here at all.

>
> Of course you know when you are lying. Deliberately stating things
> that you know to be untrue is very different from being
> misinformed and inadvertently repeating untrue information.

In either case, a lie is a lie.

>
> Let's get down to brass tacks

I suspect you need more than tacks up yer arse boy!

Bob

[Agent_Orange]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<bg7gis$ldpp4$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> You are lying, again

No lie. Go see:
See http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-cult.html

> I suspect you need more than tacks up yer arse boy!
>
> Bob

Again, you have nothing but resentments and anger,
and not a single fact to offer. Nothing but more
ad hominem. (See
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#ad_hominem
for an explanation of what it is.)


* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *

[Robert McGregor]

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0307301623.138186db@posting.google.c om...
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<bg7gis$ldpp4$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > You are lying, again
>
> No lie. Go see:
> See http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-cult.html

Up you and your site, arsehole. There's enough of your lies here.



> > I suspect you need more than tacks up yer arse boy!
> >
> > Bob
>
> Again, you have nothing but resentments and anger,
> and not a single fact to offer. Nothing but more
> ad hominem.

There are facts you wouldn't recognise even if yer ears were boxed with
them.

Ad hominem only applies when there is an argument to avoid. Reality is that
I'm not an AA member at all, yer fuckwit.

Bob

[Robert McGregor]

"STAAMFA" <STAAMPFA@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DOZVa.182688$o86.150602@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Agent_Orange" <
>
> | > You are lying, again
> |
> | No lie. Go see:
> | See http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-cult.html
> |
> | > I suspect you need more than tacks up yer arse boy!
> | >
> | > Bob
> |
> | Again, you have nothing but resentments and anger,
> | and not a single fact to offer. Nothing but more
> | ad hominem. (See
> | http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-propaganda.html#ad_hominem
> | for an explanation of what it is.)
>
> McGregor is one of a growing number of beasts which I've recently taken to
> referring to as, or perhaps prone to acting as a very confused breed of
duck
> that thinks it's a dog. This duck acts, smells, waddles, and quacks like
a
> duck but it demands to be referred to as a dog. Ergo a quackwoof-woof or
> quackbow-wow. They're rampant on the other newsgroup.
>
> I suspect, that he and Virt, and a few others are some of those people
> that've seen enough of AA to know enough to get the hell out of it but not
> enough not to stick around and indirectly defend their participation in it
> in the first place.


hahahaha, then there was Blue Moon here, protesting more than strenuously
that I did not mention I once attended AA, despite the reality that I no
longer even qualify for AA membership.

Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.

Bob

[Virtualoso]

In article <DOZVa.182688$o86.150602@news1.central.cox.net>, STAAMFA
<STAAMPFA@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I suspect, that he and Virt, and a few others are some of those people
> that've seen enough of AA to know enough to get the hell out of it but not
> enough not to stick around and indirectly defend their participation in it
> in the first place.

Only because your "suspicions" are entirely of your own imagination
and, possibly, a brain disorder. Like the other "conspiracy theory"
symptoms of folks with nutty websites that get pointed to here. It's
often just a sickness.

[Moonraker]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bg9t22$md1mo$1@ID-

>, despite the reality that I no
> longer even qualify for AA membership.
>
> Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.
>
> Bob
>
>
"The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."

Do you no longer have that desire, Bob?

[STAAMFA]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net>
|
| "Robert McGregor" <
|
| >, despite the reality that I no
| > longer even qualify for AA membership.
| >
| > Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.
| >
| > Bob
| >
| >
| "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."
|
| Do you no longer have that desire, Bob?

;0)

[Robert McGregor]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0x%Va.44$rJ4.7@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bg9t22$md1mo$1@ID-
>
> >, despite the reality that I no
> > longer even qualify for AA membership.
> >
> > Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."
>
> Do you no longer have that desire, Bob?
>

I would have to drink first, and I have learned how to stay stopped.

Bob

[Otto]

In article <sS%Va.184736$o86.94103@news1.central.cox.net>, STAAMFA
<STAAMPFA@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net>
> |
> | "Robert McGregor" <
> |
> | >, despite the reality that I no
> | > longer even qualify for AA membership.
> | >
> | > Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.
> | >
> | > Bob
> | >
> | >
> | "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."
> |
> | Do you no longer have that desire, Bob?
>
> ;0)

AA membership is entirely self-granted or not, quite aside from any
requirement if one might choose to. Then again, if one hasn't been
drinking for some time, there very well may not be any desire to stop
drinking anymore. In fact, AA's program shows the way to have one's
desire to drink at all completely solved and gone.

More mere attempted purely semantical maneuvers from the empty-handed
detrAActors.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Moonraker]

"Otto" <alcoholics@autonomous.org> wrote in message
news:300720032047032147%alcoholics@autonomous.org. ..
> In article <sS%Va.184736$o86.94103@news1.central.cox.net>, STAAMFA
> <STAAMPFA@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net>
> > |
> > | "Robert McGregor" <
> > |
> > | >, despite the reality that I no
> > | > longer even qualify for AA membership.
> > | >
> > | > Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.
> > | >
> > | > Bob
> > | >
> > | >
> > | "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking."
> > |
> > | Do you no longer have that desire, Bob?
> >
> > ;0)
>
> AA membership is entirely self-granted or not, quite aside from any
> requirement if one might choose to. Then again, if one hasn't been
> drinking for some time, there very well may not be any desire to stop
> drinking anymore. In fact, AA's program shows the way to have one's
> desire to drink at all completely solved and gone.
>
> More mere attempted purely semantical maneuvers from the empty-handed
> detrAActors.
>

Who, sir, are you referring to as an AA detractor?

[Robert McGregor]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Sx7Wa.6699$f%2.2224@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>
> "Otto" <alcoholics@autonomous.org> wrote in message
> news:300720032047032147%alcoholics@autonomous.org. ..
> > In article <sS%Va.184736$o86.94103@news1.central.cox.net>, STAAMFA
> > <STAAMPFA@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net>
> > > |
> > > | "Robert McGregor" <
> > > |
> > > | >, despite the reality that I no
> > > | > longer even qualify for AA membership.
> > > | >
> > > | > Your confusion is exceeded only by your obsession.
> > > | >
> > > | > Bob
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > > | "The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop
drinking."
> > > |
> > > | Do you no longer have that desire, Bob?
> > >
> > > ;0)
> >
> > AA membership is entirely self-granted or not, quite aside from any
> > requirement if one might choose to. Then again, if one hasn't been
> > drinking for some time, there very well may not be any desire to stop
> > drinking anymore. In fact, AA's program shows the way to have one's
> > desire to drink at all completely solved and gone.
> >
> > More mere attempted purely semantical maneuvers from the empty-handed
> > detrAActors.
> >
>
> Who, sir, are you referring to as an AA detractor?
>
>

Perhaps Otto is referring to your AA detraction Sir, by negative example!

Bob ..... the devil made me do it;-)

[Agent_Orange]

Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b27c9e246ea3f23ac7c014fd0544b4d9@free.teranews.com >...

> Since when was Hazelden AA? I've never even seen a Hazelden book sold
> at an AA meeting.
>
That's a lame argument. I've never seen a copy of 12x12 or
Pass It On sold at an A.A. meeting, either. But AAWS is
certainly part of the A.A. empire.

> >"11. By telling the A.A. story to clergy members,
> >doctors, judges, educators, employers, or police
> >officials if we know them well enough to further
> >the A.A. cause, or to help out a fellow member."
> >The Little Red Book, Hazelden, page 128.
>
> "Help out" doesn't seem to coincide with "force" in my dictionary.
>
Oh yes it does. Steppers call it "Forcing them to get help".

> >"By educating doctors, the clergy, judges, police
> >officials, and industrial personel regarding the
> >type of people A.A. can help, we will avoid flooding
> >our ranks with an unwieldy preponderance of
> >nonalcoholics."
> >The Little Red Book, Hazelden, page 137.
>
> Quite. The AA message is for alcoholics, so clearly those with
> problems not of an alcoholic nature need help elsewhere.
>

You're are trying to dodge the point that A.A. *chooses*
to force selected alcoholics into their meetings.
That's illegal and immoral, as well as unconstitutional.
It's also foisting quack medicine on sick people.

> >And I'm not going to buy the argument that Hazelden
> >has nothing to do with A.A., and A.A. has no control
> >over Hazelden.
>
> Why not? Just because it's the truth?

No, because it's not the truth at all. Hazelden is the
biggest promoter and proselytizer of A.A. that there is.
And it's a fair recruiter too.

> In that case, I hold you accountable for the deaths of millions in the
> third world. You benefit for (sic) your government's aggressive and
> underhand treatment of the rest of the planet, therefore by your logic
> you are directly responsible.

I don't benefit from it. I've been fighting it for 35 years.
But what about you?

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* Heisenberg said, "I'm not really sure if *
* that even was Shrödinger's cat. I think *
* he might have used somebody else's cat..." *

[Blue Moon]

On 31 Jul 2003 18:22:34 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
(Agent_Orange) wrote:

>Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b27c9e246ea3f23ac7c014fd0544b4d9@free.teranews.com >...
>
>> Since when was Hazelden AA? I've never even seen a Hazelden book sold
>> at an AA meeting.
>>
>That's a lame argument. I've never seen a copy of 12x12 or
>Pass It On sold at an A.A. meeting, either.

So how many AA meetings have you been to recently? AA does NOT sell
Hazelden books.

>But AAWS is certainly part of the A.A. empire.

What's that got to do with Hazelden?

>> Quite. The AA message is for alcoholics, so clearly those with
>> problems not of an alcoholic nature need help elsewhere.
>
>You're are trying to dodge the point that A.A. *chooses*
>to force selected alcoholics into their meetings.

On what evidence do you assert this? Everywhere I've been in AA this
is bullshit.

>That's illegal and immoral, as well as unconstitutional.

It certainly would be.

>> >And I'm not going to buy the argument that Hazelden
>> >has nothing to do with A.A., and A.A. has no control
>> >over Hazelden.
>>
>> Why not? Just because it's the truth?
>
>No, because it's not the truth at all. Hazelden is the
>biggest promoter and proselytizer of A.A. that there is.
>And it's a fair recruiter too.

That's up to them. Has nothing to do with AA. You think AA should
stop selling its books to Hazelden?

>> In that case, I hold you accountable for the deaths of millions in the
>> third world. You benefit for (sic) your government's aggressive and
>> underhand treatment of the rest of the planet, therefore by your logic
>> you are directly responsible.
>
>I don't benefit from it. I've been fighting it for 35 years.

You're a citizen of a nation which benefits? If so, you benefit.

>But what about you?

What about me?

--
Blue Moon

[Jay]

Hi Agent Orange...

I guess my question is, what are the names of the scientists who have
conducted these tests, in what cities were they conducted, what were the
tests known as, and for what duration did they last?

I've read over your website a little bit... I find it hard to follow
however, as you've packed so much into it. What I'm looking for is a reply
listing hard and fast references, names, dates, institutions funding the
tests and all of that.

I look forward to your response

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0307271510.62de6ffe@posting.google.c om...
> "Dan McGown" <DMcGown@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:<XhCQa.178$2b1.215731@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
>
> >>
> >> Hey, for me AA is based on the fundamental basis of science:
> >> pragmatic results.
> >> As long as I (and my 2 genetic brothers and my brothers and
sisters in
> >> AA) keep going to meetings and trying to follow those 12 nasty steps,
we
> >> aren't drinking.
> >> When I try to do something else, I end up drinking.
> >> Having noted a definite and repeatable pattern of cause and
effect, we
> >> have formed a working hypothesis that this system works. We will wait
for
> >> someone with more time on their hands to formulate a general theory to
> >> explain the apparent relationship.
> >>
> >> * Einstein said, "If we knew what we were*
> >> * doing, it wouldn't be research." *
> >>
>
> You have given the answer already. You express drinking as a choice:
> EITHER I will drink alcohol, OR I will go to an A.A. meeting.
>
> You make the choice. It is you who is keeping you from drinking.
> The meetings are irrelevant.
>
> And some people express it as an AND:
> "I will go to an A.A. meeting, AND then I will go to the
> bar and drink."
>
> I also express it as an AND, but I do it like this:
> I will not go to A.A. meetings or do the 12 steps, AND
> I also will not drink alcohol.
>
> Your expressing drinking as a choice is no different than saying,
> EITHER I will go to church and spend the evening praying, OR
> I will go to a bar and get drunk.
>
> The prayers are not keeping the person sober, the choice not
> to go to the bar and drink alcohol is.
>
> And that person could as easily have said,
> EITHER I will go to a K.K.K. meeting and burn crosses, OR
> I will go to the bar and get drunk.
>
> Obviously, cross-burning is not a very effective program for
> sobriety, and really has nothing to do with not drinking.
>
> By the way, your phrase "AA is based on the fundamental basis of
> science: pragmatic results" is wrong.
> Bad judgements concerning perceived cause and effect relationships
> are NOT the basis of science.
> Science is based on rigorously-controlled observation to
> eliminate such errors.
>
> How you do a good randomized controlled study is:
>
> 1.) Get a large bunch of alcoholics from somewhere, the more
> the better.
> 2.) Randomly, evenly, divide them into two groups.
> 3.) Send one group to A.A..
> 4.) Do nothing with the other group. Just send them home and
> ignore them. Let them drink all they want. That's the control
> group that gets no "treatment" for alcoholism.
> 5.) Check on all of those alcoholics at least once a year, for
> as many years as possible, preferably for at least for five
> or six years, and see how they are doing. Count how many are
> dead, and how many are still drinking too much, and how many
> are abstaining, and how many are drinking moderately. Also
> check their arrest records and see who got repeatedly re-arrested
> for public drunkenness or for drunk driving.
> 6.) Then compare the results from the control group to the
> results from the A.A. group to see what effect A.A. really had
> on the alcoholics.
>
> Every time that experiment has been done, the A.A. group
> scored *worse* than the group that got no treatment at all.
> Teaching people that they are powerless over alcohol, and
> should expect "Higher Power" to magically remove the desire
> to drink alcohol is a fatally flawed program.
>
> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html
>
>
> * Agent Orange *
> * agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
> * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
> * http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
> * True infomation, human intelligence, *
> * and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
> * cult leaders... *

[staamfa]

"staamfa" <

One of the interesting notes of treatment counselors was

" Jon Morgenstern, of the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, has observed
alcohol counselors in regular treatment settings and reports their standard
of therapy is extremely poor (personal communication, early 1997, at a PBS
production meeting)."

Keep in mind the majority of these counselors are 12 step members themselves
with the majority of those being AA members.

These AA members haven't a clue about good therapy instead favoring the AA
faith based aproach. This is born out again by noting the TEDS data which
show the extremely high recidivisim rate patients including those which
attended the AA modality centers which came in at 93%.

At least 93% of these centers, probably actually higher, are utilizing AA
and it aint working worth a damn judging from the inrodinantly high
recidivism rates.




| Project MATCH:
|
| http://www.peele.net/lib/projmach.html
|
| "The results that are consistent across both MATCH and NLAES are that (1)
| minimal or no treatment produces outcomes that are equal to/better than
| those from longer/standard treatments [to be read 12 step based disease
| concept methods]; (2) patient traits and initiative are far more important
| than treatment type or intensity for recovery; (3) reduced drinking is the
| most common outcome for alcohol-dependent individuals, an idea that has
been
| verboten on the American alcoholism scene (Peele, 1992)."
|
| ++++
|
| Conclusions
| "The largest, statistically most powerful, psychotherapy trial ever
| conducted," and also by far the most expensive, produced little new
| information.
|
| Research limitations -- including a highly selected client population and
| unusually high level of quality control of treatment -- make
generalization
| of these results dubious.
|
| "The overall effect of being part of Project MATCH, with extensive
| assessment, attractive treatments, and aggressive follow-up may have
| minimized naturally occurring variability among treatment modalities and
| may, in part, account for the favorable treatment outcomes" (Project MATCH
| Research Team, 1997, p. 24).
|
| The principal result of this study was that modest treatment contact
| produced substantial and enduring drinking reductions among an alcohol
| dependent population.
|
| Motivational enhancement involving 4 or fewer sessions produced results as
| good as treatments involving several times as many sessions.
|
| While no treatment characteristics were significant, and virtually no
| treatment-patient matches, psychological and contextual traits of
alcoholics
| were significant for outcomes.
|
| -- And the kicker
|
| Treatment outcomes were conceived primarily as successful reduction in
| drinking, which is utterly at variance with treatment goals as usually
| conceived in the U.S., where 99 percent of programs urge abstinence (Roman
&
| Blum, 1997).
|
| --------------------
|
|
|

[Otto]

In article <VG2Ya.242637$o86.226245@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "staamfa" <
>
> One of the interesting notes of treatment counselors was
>
> " Jon Morgenstern, of the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, has observed
> alcohol counselors in regular treatment settings and reports their standard
> of therapy is extremely poor (personal communication, early 1997, at a PBS
> production meeting)."

Raising the key question of just what, then, is a proper "standard of
thereapy" and according to whom, based on what.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Blue Moon]

You'll notice that none of the statistics outline how many actually
tried to work the program. If AA attendance was all that was
required, the bars would all be shut and everyone would be having a
wonderful time in AA instead. As for treatment centres, they're not
AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite unproven,
and in any event is irrelevant. It's like holding the English
language responsible for the relapse rate... And yet such people then
seem to point to AA as being illogical!

There's probably a high proportion of treatment centre inmates who are
there against their will, whereas the AA program is only for those who
have an honest desire to stay off the booze. There's also a lot of
nonsense in treatment centres, that seems to find its way into AA.
The reality is that the treatment industry has probably caused AA more
problems, not less.

AA is a long way from being perfect. Many AA members are, at best,
badly qualified to offer suggestions to anyone. However the success
rate for those who actually follow the real AA directions is far
higher than any statistician with an AA axe to grind is going to
admit, or even be easily able to determine. That only 5% of people
will follow the directions in the first place is simply a symptom of
human nature, as evidenced in ANY unpaid organisation on the planet.
Wherever you go, whatever unpaid organisation you're in, only about 5%
of the members will be doing what they're supposed to do. It's not
the fault of any group, it's just how it is.

Maybe if people were paid to work the Steps, more would do them. But
recovery doesn't work that way. It can't, because the motives for
doing the work would be wrong.

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon" <

| You'll notice that none of the statistics outline how many actually
| tried to work the program.

So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's not
what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a common
position.

|If AA attendance was all that was
| required, the bars would all be shut and everyone would be having a
| wonderful time in AA instead.

Not following you here. You seem to be acknowledging AA's dismal track
record here.

| As for treatment centres, they're not
| AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite unproven,
| and in any event is irrelevant.

Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them. I'm
saying that the majority of counselors at them are 12 step members with the
majority of those AA members. In additon it is relavant because the
majority of the the reatment centers are AA based following the treat 'em
with AA model. You may complain all day but that doesn't change the fact
that when AA use is actually tracked, as it is, indirectly through TEDS data
we see that the recidivisim rates are horrible.


| It's like holding the English
| language responsible for the relapse rate... And yet such people then
| seem to point to AA as being illogical!

I would say that your argument here seems illogical because I can't really
follow it. Care to explain.

| There's probably a high proportion of treatment centre inmates who are
| there against their will, whereas the AA program is only for those who
| have an honest desire to stay off the booze.

Stop fooling yourself there is a high percentage of coerced people in AA
every day. 1.5 to 1.7 million people are coerced into 12 step treatment
with the majority coerced into AA every year.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Too many AA's arbitrarily dismiss
any culpability for AA in this. Despite the fact that the majority of
facilities are manned by a majority of steppers and utilize the 12 step
model sending their patients to AA, they refuse to accept the dismal
recidivism rates these places show -- They see AA + X where the X is
variable treatment and they claim that the X is the cause of the failure
when the X varies throughout treatment but the constant AA remains the same
throughout as does the percentage of treatment failure and recidivism from
year to year.

The problem isn't the X it's AA.

[Virtualoso]

In article <EFdYa.244087$o86.35784@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Blue Moon" <
>
> | You'll notice that none of the statistics outline how many actually
> | tried to work the program.
>
> So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's not
> what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a common
> position.
>
> |If AA attendance was all that was
> | required, the bars would all be shut and everyone would be having a
> | wonderful time in AA instead.
>
> Not following you here. You seem to be acknowledging AA's dismal track
> record here.
>
> | As for treatment centres, they're not
> | AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite unproven,
> | and in any event is irrelevant.
>
> Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them. I'm
> saying that the majority of counselors at them are 12 step members with the
> majority of those AA members. In additon it is relavant because the
> majority of the the reatment centers are AA based following the treat 'em
> with AA model. You may complain all day but that doesn't change the fact
> that when AA use is actually tracked, as it is, indirectly through TEDS data
> we see that the recidivisim rates are horrible.


Inpatient substance abuse treatment programs emphasizing the spiritually
oriented "12-step" approach to addiction save money and promote
abstinence more effectively than treatment programs that emphasize
practical coping skills, say researchers at the Standford University
School of Medicine.

Graduates from the 12-step-oriented programs slice their long-term
health care costs by more than half by turning to community-based
self-help groups rather than to professional mental health services,
say the researchers. They are also significantly more likely to remain
abstinent following their treatment.

"Groups like Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are taking a
huge burden off of the health care system," said Keith Humphreys. "We
found that addiction treatment programs are more effective and less
expensive when they link patients to spiritually-based self-help
groups."

Although one quarter of all deaths in this country are caused by
alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs, funding for substance abuse
treatment programs nationwide has decreased dramatically in recent
years, according to Humphreys.

"Most mental health treatment professionals are being asked to do more
and more with less and less," he said. Humphreys and co-author Rudolf
Moos investigated whether free community-based support groups could
stand in for professional mental health treatment, reducing health care
cost without compromising patient outcome.

Humphreys studied 1,774 substance-dependent men who had been
enrolled in inpatient substance abuse treatment programs at 10 medical
centers around the country. Five of the programs strongly emphasized
the 12-step approach to addiction - a spiritually oriented philosophy
that urges individuals to take responsibility for their actions and ask
for help from God in conquering their dependency. These programs
frequently hold Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings
on-site, and refer to the "Big Book" - an inspirational text that
complements the 12 steps.

The remaining five programs used a therapy that concentrates on
teaching individuals coping skills to avoid relapse. The men in the
study were evenly divided between the two types of programs.

Humphreys found that those men that had been enrolled in scientific
therapy programs had total mental health care costs that were about
$4,700 higher than those that had been enrolled in 12-step oriented
programs, even though their starting values were similar.

The cost difference was due to the fact that the men who were enrolled
in the 12-step oriented approach were significantly more likely to
attend meetings of community based self-help groups after discharge,
and were less likely to call on traditional medical professionals to
help them avoid relapsing.

The 12-step oriented programs were not only cost-efficient, they were
also effective.

The study indicates that it would be beneficial for treatment programs
around the United States to incorporate more of the 12-step philosophy
into their substance abuse therapies, and to increase their efforts to
link their patients with community-based self-help groups after
discharge.

"In the current health care climate, a clinical strategy that reduces
the ongoing health care costs of substance abuse patients by 64 percent
while also promoting good outcome deserves serious attention," conclude
Humphreys and Moos in the paper.

Humphreys, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, is
the lead author of the study published in the May issue of Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research. Humphreys is also the associate
director of the Program Evaluation and Resource Center at the VA Palo
Alto Health Care System in Menlo Park.

Rudolph Moos is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral health
sciences at Stanford University Medical Center and the director of the
VA Center for Health Care Evaluation.

[Agent_Orange]

"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<AQ_Xa.1736$ZV6.275284@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> Hi Agent Orange...
>
> I guess my question is, what are the names of the scientists who have
> conducted these tests, in what cities were they conducted, what were the
> tests known as, and for what duration did they last?
>
> I've read over your website a little bit... I find it hard to follow
> however, as you've packed so much into it. What I'm looking for is a reply
> listing hard and fast references, names, dates, institutions funding the
> tests and all of that.
>
> I look forward to your response

Hi. The best tests were done by Prof. George E. Vaillant,
Trustee of AAWS, and Doctors Ditman, Walsh, and Brandsma.

I quoted from their papers and books at:
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Brandsma
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Ditman
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Walsh

I shall have to check which cities a couple were done in.
I remember that Dr. George Vaillant did his work at
Cambridge Hospital in Boston. Dr. Ditman did his in San
Diego. I'm not sure about the other two.

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:36:52 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Blue Moon" <
>
>| You'll notice that none of the statistics outline how many actually
>| tried to work the program.
>
>So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's not
>what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a common
>position.

Given that your own documentation shows that many walk into AA yet
don't work the program, that would be rather difficult.

>|If AA attendance was all that was
>| required, the bars would all be shut and everyone would be having a
>| wonderful time in AA instead.
>
>Not following you here. You seem to be acknowledging AA's dismal track
>record here.

Of course. AA doesn't deny that most who walk into their first
meeting are not likely to still be sober a year later. That most
people either don't want to get sober, or are unwilling to do the work
required, is not coincidence.

>| As for treatment centres, they're not
>| AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite unproven,
>| and in any event is irrelevant.
>
>Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them.

Really? I've seen that suggestion made more than once in this
newsgroup before now.

>I'm saying that the majority of counselors at them are 12 step members with the
>majority of those AA members.

Given the anonymity of AA membership, how is this statistic
demonstrated?

>In additon it is relavant because the majority of the the reatment centers are AA
>based following the treat 'em with AA model.

That's the treatment centre's choice. That the individuals in
treatment centres don't actually DO anything beyond the 3rd Step (if
that) plus some kind of life story is also not AA's choice, but rather
a symptom of the time constraints treatment centres put on their
treatment.

>| It's like holding the English
>| language responsible for the relapse rate... And yet such people then
>| seem to point to AA as being illogical!
>
>I would say that your argument here seems illogical because I can't really
>follow it. Care to explain.

Apparently you wouldn't understand. Blaming AA for the poor
performance of a treatment centre is like blaming the English language
or the brand of coffee they use (or anything else that's totally
unrelated) for the performance of the treatment centre. Treatment
centres use the English language to portray their ideas, no? So, by
that logic, the English language is just as guilty as AA for the
outcome.

[Blue Moon]

On 6 Aug 2003 19:56:47 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
(Agent_Orange) wrote:

>"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<AQ_Xa.1736$ZV6.275284@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> Hi Agent Orange...
>>
>> I guess my question is, what are the names of the scientists who have
>> conducted these tests, in what cities were they conducted, what were the
>> tests known as, and for what duration did they last?
>>
>> I've read over your website a little bit... I find it hard to follow
>> however, as you've packed so much into it. What I'm looking for is a reply
>> listing hard and fast references, names, dates, institutions funding the
>> tests and all of that.
>>
>> I look forward to your response
>
>Hi. The best tests were done by Prof. George E. Vaillant,

"Best"? How do you qualify that?

[Otto]

In article <5pAYa.2466$Ih1.824673@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6484f6ec17d651c5442046e07594678f@free.teranew s.com...
>
> > ... Treatment
> > centres use the English language to portray their ideas, no? So, by
> > that logic, the English language is just as guilty as AA for the
> > outcome.
>
> Not necessarily. Granted, if all the patients were non-english speaking and
> the hospital staff continued to only utilize English, then it isn't the
> language that is at fault--but rather the ignorance of the staff. Same is
> true of a staff that continues to administer a method that produces dismal
> results and is based on archaic principles and science, science that has
> been proven to be hardly worth the title of junk science even. However, the
> fact remains that it is the method that is failing the patients, not so with
> a language.

If the treatment centers are not using viable "methods" than that's a
matter to take up with the treatment centers, if anyone, obviously. By
anyone that may be actually concerned enough to do so.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Otto]

In article <8e728989.0308071645.26675e76@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> Blue Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<401aee824c7b90ea034c2f2967f49fd3@free.teranews.com >...
>
> > >Hi. The best tests were done by Prof. George E. Vaillant,
> >
> > "Best"? How do you qualify that?
>
> Best, as in Vaillant is a Trustee of AAWS,
> and loves A.A., and tried his best to make his
> A.A.-based program work, for *eight years*.
> He tried hard to show that A.A. is effective.
>
> If that isn't a fair test that gives A.A. every
> chance to prove itself, then I don't know what
> is.

Fast forwarding (what's it been, 20 years or so since your cited
"data"?), we find yet other experts reporting:

Inpatient substance abuse treatment programs emphasizing the spiritually
oriented "12-step" approach to addiction save money and promote
abstinence more effectively than treatment programs that emphasize
practical coping skills, say researchers at the Standford School of
Medicine.

"You shouldn't believe me, you should believe the doctors
and other experts . . . They are the scientists and researchers
and doctors who are doing the research"
- 'Agent Orange'

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[staamfa]

"Agent_Orange" <
|
| > >Hi. The best tests were done by Prof. George E. Vaillant,
| >
| > "Best"? How do you qualify that?
|
| Best, as in Vaillant is a Trustee of AAWS,
| and loves A.A., and tried his best to make his
| A.A.-based program work, for *eight years*.
| He tried hard to show that A.A. is effective.
|
| If that isn't a fair test that gives A.A. every
| chance to prove itself, then I don't know what
| is.
|
| Well, A.A. failed. Totally. And even George
| Vaillant was forced to say so.
|
| See:
| http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant

Good Show Agent.

Not to mention that the TEDS data show quite effectively and recently that
inpatient facilities using the 12 step approach, which is over 90% of them,
have a dismal failure rate. Though they lie and frequently claim success
rates higher than 80% the actual data tracking this shows that for the lie
it is.

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6484f6ec17d651c5442046e07594678f@free.teranew s.com...
| On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:36:52 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Blue Moon" <
| >
| >| You'll notice that none of the statistics outline how many actually
| >| tried to work the program.
| >
| >So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's not
| >what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a
common
| >position.
|
| Given that your own documentation shows that many walk into AA yet
| don't work the program, that would be rather difficult.

You're still choosing to ignore that members of your organization do claim
that working the steps is not required. Either it is or it isn't. When AA
chooses one we can perhaps rehash this argument.

|
| >|If AA attendance was all that was
| >| required, the bars would all be shut and everyone would be having a
| >| wonderful time in AA instead.
| >
| >Not following you here. You seem to be acknowledging AA's dismal track
| >record here.
|
| Of course. AA doesn't deny that most who walk into their first
| meeting are not likely to still be sober a year later.

Whaaaaa? You're joking right? AA acknowledges no failures but the failure
of the individual member claiming the only ones who can't make it are those
constitutionaly incabable of honesty. When was the last time you heard of
honesty being a essential in dialysis? Never.

|That most
| people either don't want to get sober, or are unwilling to do the work
| required, is not coincidence.

That beleif is not coincidence Blue. It lets you walk around believing that
your organization is the she-bang when the data don't support that. Any
percieved failures are immediatly routed to the individual while just as
quickly and percieved success are immediatly stripped from the individual
and given to the program.


|
| >| As for treatment centres, they're not
| >| AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite unproven,
| >| and in any event is irrelevant.
| >
| >Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them.
|
| Really? I've seen that suggestion made more than once in this
| newsgroup before now.

Provide examples of it then.

In any event that's beside the point of you taking a tangent and speaking of
something I never claimed in response to something I did claim. If I never
claimed it in my response why are you going off on a tangent in response to
what I did say. That's like me saying ketchup is red and you saying. The
argument that ketchup is yellow is just wrong wrong wrong. Well okay. Sure
even. Now do you want to bring your argument back on track with what I'm
actually saying?


|
| >I'm saying that the majority of counselors at them are 12 step members
with the
| >majority of those AA members.
|
| Given the anonymity of AA membership, how is this statistic
| demonstrated?

I absolutely love this argument of yours Blue on the one hand you AA's use
it in an attempt to blure how many there are in the treatment field, and on
the other you deny that in anonymity AA's can get up to no good like
attempting to block any serious study not along the disease model.

They were asked and they gave that information. So the likley hood is that
the numbers could be higher precisely because people like me are using that
as a mark against them.

| >In additon it is relavant because the majority of the the reatment
centers are AA
| >based following the treat 'em with AA model.
|
| That's the treatment centre's choice.

Your point? Whether it's the treatment facilities choice [run predominantly
by recovering 12 steppers with the majority of those being AA's] to coerce
it's members into AA or not that doesn't translate into the choice of the
individual being coerced into AA nore does it matter one way or another
they're still in AA. Now if you wan't to claim that it's the coercees
distaste that's causing the problem then we should perhaps be looking at
AA's stance on allowing people to be forced into it. No matter how you look
at it realisticly the problem is with AA.

|That the individuals in
| treatment centres don't actually DO anything beyond the 3rd Step (if
| that) plus some kind of life story is also not AA's choice, but rather
| a symptom of the time constraints treatment centres put on their
| treatment.

If true, which I doubt, that's an even bigger indictment of AA, because it
indicates the variable X isn't so large after all. And because it is
variable and AA is constant that tends to show that AA is the problem.

| >| It's like holding the English
| >| language responsible for the relapse rate... And yet such people then
| >| seem to point to AA as being illogical!
| >
| >I would say that your argument here seems illogical because I can't
really
| >follow it. Care to explain.
|
| Apparently you wouldn't understand.

It's apparent that I understand far better than you and your desire to
eschew the numbers in favor of attempting to make AA look prestine.

|Blaming AA for the poor
| performance of a treatment centre is like blaming the English language
| or the brand of coffee they use (or anything else that's totally
| unrelated) for the performance of the treatment centre.

As I said you dont' understand the argument I've made because it's plain as
the nose on your face that they are related. How can you even attempt to
claim that there is no relation when over 90% of the treatment centers are
coercing their victims into AA? Where the majority of the counselors
staffing them are 12 steppers with the majority of those AAs. That is the
relation. If you choose to ignore it that's fine but don't attempt to claim
afterwards that there is no relation or connection when so obviously there
is, and you're quite aware of it.

And when we take a look at the objective numbers that show how these people
are recovering we see that their recidivism rates are horrid. You can't
even claim that it's what the treatment centers are doing that causes the
high recidivisim rates (aside from sending them to AA) because you just
claimed that what they do amounts to slim to none.

|Treatment
| centres use the English language to portray their ideas, no? So, by
| that logic, the English language is just as guilty as AA for the
| outcome.

By your illogic maybe by my logic this point of yours is waste of
everybody's time because it's based on you going out of your way to ignore
the obvious connections between 12 step treatment centers coercing their
members into AA meetings frequently even having them on site (as in they are
AA groups in and of themselves) and 12 step AA.

[Mias]

Staamfa
You don't know the first thing about mathematics. If one person gets sober
using AA and he assists another to get sober, because AA suggests that he DO
SHARE it, and so it goes on, the true result from that ONE person getting
sober is mind boggling.
You guys are trying to find a scientific model to replace Love and
Friendship and there is but no way that is going to work.
People coming from rehab, where they might have gone against their will,
does not usually advocate that abstinence is possible or a recommended
state. If you had your way they would not have even known what happened to
them. A bit like the olden days Electro treatment where they just fried the
brain?
Am I missing the point or something? Is there money to be made from
following a direction that you lot are so senselessly pursuing? What else
then drives your mission to 'interpret' statistics the way you would like
them. If your father admitted to you that he would have died from
alcoholism, before you were conceived, was it not for AA, would you still
down the 'recovery rate' or is it not good just to be alive? Can you grant
other people, except you, the right to be alive?
Mias
"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72EYa.261935$o86.76753@news1.central.cox.net. ..
>
> "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6484f6ec17d651c5442046e07594678f@free.teranew s.com...
> | On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:36:52 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
> | wrote:
> |
> | >
> | >"Blue Moon" <
> | >
> | >| You'll notice that none of the statistics outline how many actually
> | >| tried to work the program.
> | >
> | >So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's
not
> | >what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a
> common
> | >position.
> |
> | Given that your own documentation shows that many walk into AA yet
> | don't work the program, that would be rather difficult.
>
> You're still choosing to ignore that members of your organization do claim
> that working the steps is not required. Either it is or it isn't. When
AA
> chooses one we can perhaps rehash this argument.
>
> |
> | >|If AA attendance was all that was
> | >| required, the bars would all be shut and everyone would be having a
> | >| wonderful time in AA instead.
> | >
> | >Not following you here. You seem to be acknowledging AA's dismal track
> | >record here.
> |
> | Of course. AA doesn't deny that most who walk into their first
> | meeting are not likely to still be sober a year later.
>
> Whaaaaa? You're joking right? AA acknowledges no failures but the
failure
> of the individual member claiming the only ones who can't make it are
those
> constitutionaly incabable of honesty. When was the last time you heard of
> honesty being a essential in dialysis? Never.
>
> |That most
> | people either don't want to get sober, or are unwilling to do the work
> | required, is not coincidence.
>
> That beleif is not coincidence Blue. It lets you walk around believing
that
> your organization is the she-bang when the data don't support that. Any
> percieved failures are immediatly routed to the individual while just as
> quickly and percieved success are immediatly stripped from the individual
> and given to the program.
>
>
> |
> | >| As for treatment centres, they're not
> | >| AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite
unproven,
> | >| and in any event is irrelevant.
> | >
> | >Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them.
> |
> | Really? I've seen that suggestion made more than once in this
> | newsgroup before now.
>
> Provide examples of it then.
>
> In any event that's beside the point of you taking a tangent and speaking
of
> something I never claimed in response to something I did claim. If I
never
> claimed it in my response why are you going off on a tangent in response
to
> what I did say. That's like me saying ketchup is red and you saying. The
> argument that ketchup is yellow is just wrong wrong wrong. Well okay.
Sure
> even. Now do you want to bring your argument back on track with what I'm
> actually saying?
>
>
> |
> | >I'm saying that the majority of counselors at them are 12 step members
> with the
> | >majority of those AA members.
> |
> | Given the anonymity of AA membership, how is this statistic
> | demonstrated?
>
> I absolutely love this argument of yours Blue on the one hand you AA's use
> it in an attempt to blure how many there are in the treatment field, and
on
> the other you deny that in anonymity AA's can get up to no good like
> attempting to block any serious study not along the disease model.
>
> They were asked and they gave that information. So the likley hood is
that
> the numbers could be higher precisely because people like me are using
that
> as a mark against them.
>
> | >In additon it is relavant because the majority of the the reatment
> centers are AA
> | >based following the treat 'em with AA model.
> |
> | That's the treatment centre's choice.
>
> Your point? Whether it's the treatment facilities choice [run
predominantly
> by recovering 12 steppers with the majority of those being AA's] to coerce
> it's members into AA or not that doesn't translate into the choice of the
> individual being coerced into AA nore does it matter one way or another
> they're still in AA. Now if you wan't to claim that it's the coercees
> distaste that's causing the problem then we should perhaps be looking at
> AA's stance on allowing people to be forced into it. No matter how you
look
> at it realisticly the problem is with AA.
>
> |That the individuals in
> | treatment centres don't actually DO anything beyond the 3rd Step (if
> | that) plus some kind of life story is also not AA's choice, but rather
> | a symptom of the time constraints treatment centres put on their
> | treatment.
>
> If true, which I doubt, that's an even bigger indictment of AA, because it
> indicates the variable X isn't so large after all. And because it is
> variable and AA is constant that tends to show that AA is the problem.
>
> | >| It's like holding the English
> | >| language responsible for the relapse rate... And yet such people
then
> | >| seem to point to AA as being illogical!
> | >
> | >I would say that your argument here seems illogical because I can't
> really
> | >follow it. Care to explain.
> |
> | Apparently you wouldn't understand.
>
> It's apparent that I understand far better than you and your desire to
> eschew the numbers in favor of attempting to make AA look prestine.
>
> |Blaming AA for the poor
> | performance of a treatment centre is like blaming the English language
> | or the brand of coffee they use (or anything else that's totally
> | unrelated) for the performance of the treatment centre.
>
> As I said you dont' understand the argument I've made because it's plain
as
> the nose on your face that they are related. How can you even attempt to
> claim that there is no relation when over 90% of the treatment centers are
> coercing their victims into AA? Where the majority of the counselors
> staffing them are 12 steppers with the majority of those AAs. That is the
> relation. If you choose to ignore it that's fine but don't attempt to
claim
> afterwards that there is no relation or connection when so obviously there
> is, and you're quite aware of it.
>
> And when we take a look at the objective numbers that show how these
people
> are recovering we see that their recidivism rates are horrid. You can't
> even claim that it's what the treatment centers are doing that causes the
> high recidivisim rates (aside from sending them to AA) because you just
> claimed that what they do amounts to slim to none.
>
> |Treatment
> | centres use the English language to portray their ideas, no? So, by
> | that logic, the English language is just as guilty as AA for the
> | outcome.
>
> By your illogic maybe by my logic this point of yours is waste of
> everybody's time because it's based on you going out of your way to ignore
> the obvious connections between 12 step treatment centers coercing their
> members into AA meetings frequently even having them on site (as in they
are
> AA groups in and of themselves) and 12 step AA.
>
>

[Mias]

Staamfa wrote
> http://www.barefootsworld.net/12stscript.html

> "RECOVERY DOES come from DOING THE STEPS, and in the process of doing ALL
> the Steps in ones daily life the SPIRITUAL TRUTH of scripture will make
> sense, and God will reveal Himself to you in a form that you can accept,
can
> understand, can believe in and have faith in, IN ALL THINGS, and AT ALL
> TIMES. "

Staamfa
How do you reconcile the above post with the following?
Mias

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EFdYa.244087$o86.35784@news1.central.cox.net. ..
>
> So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's not
> what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a common
> position.

[staamfa]

"Mias" <
| Staamfa
| You don't know the first thing about mathematics.

Of course not as a student of engineering I wouldn't need to know the
slightest bit about it. :0)

|If

If grasshoppers had machine guns the birds wouldn't fuss with 'em.

|one person gets sober
| using AA and he assists another to get sober, because AA suggests that he
DO
| SHARE it,

share what?

|and so it goes on, the true result from that ONE person getting
| sober is mind boggling.

AA is neglegible in the true number of people with drinking problems. The
overwhelming number of people with drinking problems in AA recover on their
own which is something that AA begrudgingly admits to. Since AA is
anonymous you can't prove anyone recovers from alcohol abuse using it and on
the other hand using the data which tracks AA use in 12 step treatment
centers we can see the horrid recidivisim rates using AA is. Rates which
the 12 step treatment centers themselves lie about when they claim high
success rates.


|You guys are trying to find a scientific model to replace ...

a religious one. Yes AA is religious and it doesn't work very well. And
it can't even keep the majority of it's members for very long which is why
it has to resort to coercion of new members. That alone is more than
sufficient to want it ousted out of the current treatment approaches.

If you want your religious experience then please go ahead and enjoy it just
stop trying to pretend to the world that AA is anything but religious.

[staamfa]

"staamfa" <
| The
| overwhelming number of people with drinking problems in AA recover on
their
| own which is something that AA begrudgingly admits to.

that should read the outside of AA recover on their own....

That's not to say that AA is responsible for everyone in it's recovery or
anyone's for that matter.

[Mias]

Staamfa
What comes to mind is 'remove first the beam from thine own eye before
removing the splinter from .....' I think I should better practice that, in
a perfect world. If I was a 'true believer' would you say that I HAD to
practice the above to remain true?
I believe that one's faith should be seen from the life one leads and by the
example one sets. If those are not there then no amount of preaching or
canvassing will make them appear and one will not be doing the faith you
believe in any favour. If AA's do not come out with a standpoint, to your
liking, it might be because they have realised the futility of preaching and
rambling without LIVING it.
Mias

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rlFYa.263629$o86.199708@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Mias" <
> | Staamfa wrote
> | > http://www.barefootsworld.net/12stscript.html
> |
> | > "RECOVERY DOES come from DOING THE STEPS, and in the process of doing
> ALL
> | > the Steps in ones daily life the SPIRITUAL TRUTH of scripture will
make
> | > sense, and God will reveal Himself to you in a form that you can
accept,
> | can
> | > understand, can believe in and have faith in, IN ALL THINGS, and AT
ALL
> | > TIMES. "
> |
> | Staamfa
> | How do you reconcile the above post with the following?
> | Mias
> |
> | "staamfa" <
> | >
> | > So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's
not
> | > what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a
> common
> | > position.
>
> Sure no problem:
>
> First I never said the above which isn't clear from the way you chose to
> quote it without any explanation. The above was a quote from a pro AA
site
> where the AA was being honest about AA.
>
> To answer your question, AA's frequently claim both.
>
> That's where the "I wish you AA's would come togehter with a common
> position" As in I wish you AA's would stop changing your positions to
suite
> the immediate needs of the argument to make AA look good.
>
> Any more questions please feel free to ask away.
>
> It looks ridiculous because you chose to interpret it as two completely
> different positions on my part however they're the same one: That AA's
> change their positions frequently or that AA's are all over the place
about
> what AA is despite their big book describing it. Too frequently the
position
> they take is simply in an effort to make AA look better than it actually
is.
>
> So if you're looking for inconsistency in statements then I would suggest
> you initiate your search in AA because this isn't one.
>
>

[staamfa]

"Mias" <


| I believe that one's faith should be seen from the life one ...

If you want to change the subject then start another thread.

[Mias]

> To answer your question, AA's frequently claim both.
>
> That's where the "I wish you AA's would come togehter with a common
> position" As in I wish you AA's would stop changing your positions to
suite
> the immediate needs of the argument to make AA look good.
>
>| I believe that one's faith should be seen from the life one ...

>If you want to change the subject then start another thread.

Self-explanatory. No new thread.

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rlFYa.263629$o86.199708@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Mias" <
> | Staamfa wrote
> | > http://www.barefootsworld.net/12stscript.html
> |
> | > "RECOVERY DOES come from DOING THE STEPS, and in the process of doing
> ALL
> | > the Steps in ones daily life the SPIRITUAL TRUTH of scripture will
make
> | > sense, and God will reveal Himself to you in a form that you can
accept,
> | can
> | > understand, can believe in and have faith in, IN ALL THINGS, and AT
ALL
> | > TIMES. "
> |
> | Staamfa
> | How do you reconcile the above post with the following?
> | Mias
> |
> | "staamfa" <
> | >
> | > So you're claiming that one needs to work the program of AA? That's
not
> | > what others AA's state. I wish you AA's would come together with a
> common
> | > position.
>
> Sure no problem:
>
> First I never said the above which isn't clear from the way you chose to
> quote it without any explanation. The above was a quote from a pro AA
site
> where the AA was being honest about AA.
>
> To answer your question, AA's frequently claim both.
>
> That's where the "I wish you AA's would come togehter with a common
> position" As in I wish you AA's would stop changing your positions to
suite
> the immediate needs of the argument to make AA look good.
>
> Any more questions please feel free to ask away.
>
> It looks ridiculous because you chose to interpret it as two completely
> different positions on my part however they're the same one: That AA's
> change their positions frequently or that AA's are all over the place
about
> what AA is despite their big book describing it. Too frequently the
position
> they take is simply in an effort to make AA look better than it actually
is.
>
> So if you're looking for inconsistency in statements then I would suggest
> you initiate your search in AA because this isn't one.
>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vUFYa.264329$o86.58644@news1.central.cox.net. ..

[Robert McGregor]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yoFYa.263694$o86.7392@news1.central.cox.net.. .

[Robert McGregor]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rlFYa.263629$o86.199708@news1.central.cox.net ...

[Robert McGregor]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rlFYa.263630$o86.155772@news1.central.cox.net ...

[Robert McGregor]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72EYa.261933$o86.58024@news1.central.cox.net. ..

[Robert McGregor]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72EYa.261935$o86.76753@news1.central.cox.net. ..

[staamfa]

"Mias" <
| >| I believe that one's faith should be seen from the life one ...
|
| >If you want to change the subject then start another thread.
|
| Self-explanatory. No new thread.

Yes, Well, New Thread.

[Otto]

In article <rlFYa.263630$o86.155772@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> AA is neglegible in the true number of people with drinking problems. The
> overwhelming number of people with drinking problems in AA recover on their
> own which is something that AA begrudgingly admits to. Since AA is
> anonymous you can't prove anyone recovers from alcohol abuse using it and on
> the other hand using the data which tracks AA use in 12 step treatment
> centers we can see the horrid recidivisim rates using AA is. Rates which
> the 12 step treatment centers themselves lie about when they claim high
> success rates.

The AAnti-AA Conspiracy Theorist Fanatics weave their delusive paranoid
plots into Gordian Knots of tangled logic, bizarre accusations, wild
suspicions and other dementia, as seen on the amateurish websites with
elaborate "explanations" revealing their twisty notions and the foamy,
driven postings railing against what they imagine.


"You shouldn't believe me, you should believe the doctors
and other experts . . . They are the scientists and researchers
and doctors who are doing the research and creating the evidence."
- 'Agent Orange'

----------------------------------------------------
³Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes
and Where It Comes From²
Dr. Daniel Pipes, senior lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, on
his book, "Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It
Comes From,"

But my topic here, despite the title, is not so much about conspiracies
but about conspiracy theories--the wrong- headed fear of conspiracy,
the overwhelming, overpowering and exaggerated fear of conspiracies.

.... But, I mean, the key point is there is a history to this. This is
not just ideas that have always been in human minds. And my focus in
this book is not the fear that you and I might have of our rival in the
firm or our neighbor. What I'm talking about here, primarily, are
conspiracy theories ... that what I give it is an ism. I call it
conspiracism, and I think it's like nationalism or fascism or
liberalism. It's a body of ideas. And what's so striking is that over
some two centuries, the body of ideas, whether they be anti-Jewish or
anti-secret society, keep recurring and recurring. They come back over
and over again.

And the ideas which are present today, one can find their origins very
clearly in the 18th century. ... And there's a whole literature--a vast
literature of these conspiracy theories, and they range very widely. I
mean, I'm including, say, the 2,000 books about the death of John F.
Kennedy. ... They go on and on, and I think their general effect has
been just a very, very harmful one on humanity at large.

.... And over and over again, you find that conspiracy theorists, the
ones who are really devoting their lives to this, whether they be on
the far left or the far right or aestheticists--they invariably say
that ... They read something and ... It's like a conversion from
something into something else, from one religion into another religion.
Now that's only a small number. Most people don't ... devote themselves
to pursuing conspiracy theories. But I think it's indicative of the
kind of seriousness and importance that people attribute to these
ideas.

Here, what I could do was build on the works of many other authors.
There's a substantial literature on conspiracy theories in Western
history, American and European. ... They have led to wars, repression,
terrorism. And so I tried to understand what this mentality signifies
and where it comes from ...

The only real conspiracies--or almost only real conspiracies are
counterconspiracies. In other words, if I'm a conspiracy theorist, I
believe that this is a good way of operating, an effective way of
operating. And therefore, I'm inclined to operate this way myself, and
that's precisely what you find.

Take Hitler. He believed in a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.
What he did to counter that alleged Jewish conspiracy was to create a
real conspiracy, the Nazi Party, and he apparently took a number of
ideas from the alleged Jewish conspiracy and made them part of his Nazi
movement, and the Nazi movement was an attempt to take over ...

So over and over again, I find that the conspiracy theorist becomes,
himself, a conspirator. And that in most cases, the real conspiracy,
the one that actually takes place, follows from the actions, the mind
of a conspiracy theorist. So there's a circle. And so my policy
conclusion from this is when you hear a conspiracy theory being
alleged, watch out for the conspiracy.

Look around carefully.

... One of the key characteristics of the conspiracy theorist is he
confuses the powerful and the powerless. ... It's a typical mistake of
the conspiracy theorist. Things are not what they seem to be;
therefore, the weak is really the powerful, the powerful is really the
weak. It's a very consistent mistake.

The major point that I came away with that's relevant to our topic
today is that--how chaotic it is... how unideological so much of it
is... it just happens as things spin out. And that--the conspiracy
theorists who see some grandiose plan being effected ... are just
completely off base. It's just a chaotic institution and never manages
to see something several chess moves ahead in the way that the
conspiracy theorists imagine it can.

But the web or the connections between the conspiracy and the
conspiracy theory are very thick, to the point that, as I was trying to
understand this, my head would hurt, because where I distinguished
between the actual conspiracy and the fear of conspiracy ... it becomes
almost inextricable. When you're dealing with a loner, a conspiracy
theorist ... well, you know, you can easily distinguish between his
thinking and what's happening in the country.

We paid an enormous price for these conspiracy theories, but we in the
West are no longer still prey to them, and with luck, it won't be too
long until peoples in other parts of the world will also graduate out
of this.

There are people ... not terribly consequential ... It's very
interesting. People who otherwise are not terribly intellectual become
intellectuals, become specialists, scholars, as it were, or
pseudo-scholars ... there is this pseudo-scholarship that mimics
conventional scholarship, I thought it important to indicate to the
reader who the conspiracy theorist is and who the conventional analyst
is ... But most of the time it's pretty clear.

But you'll find that some of the books ... have all the apparatus of a
scholarly book, with footnotes and appendices and bibliographies and
all the rest, and yet, are stark-raving mad.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Blue Moon]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:37:55 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>You're still choosing to ignore that members of your organization do claim
>that working the steps is not required.

When have I denied this? I've never denied this. On the contrary,
I've expressed my anger at such nonsense in AA. Of course, as you're
apparently not in AA you'd not see it. No, you'd just stand outside
throwing stones at the window trying ineptly to play God.

> Either it is or it isn't. When AA
>chooses one we can perhaps rehash this argument.

The only people who make such a statement are people who've never
worked the program or even read the basic literature. I've no idea
why they're in AA. But as AA is an open door with no membership
rules, such people won't get thrown out. Who knows? Maybe one day
they'll feel enough pain to actually do what the literature suggests.

That AA has been bastardised by the treatment centres teaching
nonsense is a problem AA gets to live with, not change within the
treatment industry. Indeed, in order to recover many people have to
UNlearn much of what a treatment centre has taught them.

>|That most
>| people either don't want to get sober, or are unwilling to do the work
>| required, is not coincidence.
>
>That beleif is not coincidence Blue. It lets you walk around believing that
>your organization is the she-bang when the data don't support that.

The organization is not the whole she-bang, and I've never claimed
that it is. If it was, I'd be following the advice of clueless
newcomers in some groups. That such groups are top-heavy with
newcomers is certainly a problem for that group. Other groups have
other problems. Waddyaknow, life's about problems, and dealing with
them.

>Any percieved failures are immediatly routed to the individual while just as
>quickly and percieved success are immediatly stripped from the individual
>and given to the program.

Says who?

I have heard some people in AA come out with such nonsense (e.g. "I
take no credit for the actions I have taken"), and it annoys me
because it's clearly wrong, and even nonsense. Curiously, I don't
believe I've ever heard anyone say that who's story does NOT include
being an inmate at a treatment centre.

Now that would be understandable if most sober people in AA got there
via a treatment centre. But as there's no more chance of a treatment
centre inmate working the program than someone walking into AA off the
streets, the proportion of ex-treatment vs off-street sober AA members
seems roughly equal. In fact, with many groups the long-term sobriety
seems to be with those who walked into AA voluntarily. I don't recall
any one of them saying they're not responsible for the actions they
chose to take.

Unfortunately some of the treatment centre brainwashing seems so
complete that any suggestion of "hey, you took that action, you take
credit for it!" seems to instill fear. So some people from treatment
centres do seem to be taught literally to stay sober on fear, and must
unlearn that if they're to recover.

That teaching does not come from within AA. That AA is now infested
with such messages that clearly contradict AA's own literature is
unfortunate, but something we have to just try and work around.

So whilst a treatment centre may detox someone, in my experience they
seem to prolong the recovery process rather than shorten it.

So, whilst I don't deny that some people will say such things in AA,
it's not supposed to be an AA message. The AA book clearly suggests
Actions on the part of the individual. Clearly the individual is
responsible for the willingness whether or not to take those actions,
and thus can take credit, or not, for the outcome. I take credit for
the work I've applied to my recovery, even at those times when people
in AA itself let me down.

>| >| As for treatment centres, they're not
>| >| AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite unproven,
>| >| and in any event is irrelevant.
>| >
>| >Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them.
>|
>| Really? I've seen that suggestion made more than once in this
>| newsgroup before now.
>
>Provide examples of it then.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P53A23885

>| >I'm saying that the majority of counselors at them are 12 step members
>with the
>| >majority of those AA members.
>|
>| Given the anonymity of AA membership, how is this statistic
>| demonstrated?
>
>I absolutely love this argument of yours Blue

You should do, because anyone who's really got a clue about AA
Traditions would not endorse such a study. That they're people who've
not yet grasped AA concepts before shouting from the rooftops is very
common. It's a fact that such people do NOT represent AA, no matter
how much they may imply that they do.

>|That the individuals in
>| treatment centres don't actually DO anything beyond the 3rd Step (if
>| that) plus some kind of life story is also not AA's choice, but rather
>| a symptom of the time constraints treatment centres put on their
>| treatment.
>
>If true, which I doubt, that's an even bigger indictment of AA, because it
>indicates the variable X isn't so large after all. And because it is
>variable and AA is constant that tends to show that AA is the problem.

What the fuck are you talking about now?

>It's apparent that I understand far better than you and your desire to
>eschew the numbers in favor of attempting to make AA look prestine.

I'm not trying to say AA is pristine. There is much that is wrong
with AA. In my experience, what's wrong with AA just doesn't coincide
with much of the bullshit being spouted here, that's all.

>|Blaming AA for the poor
>| performance of a treatment centre is like blaming the English language
>| or the brand of coffee they use (or anything else that's totally
>| unrelated) for the performance of the treatment centre.
>
>As I said you dont' understand the argument I've made because it's plain as
>the nose on your face that they are related. How can you even attempt to
>claim that there is no relation when over 90% of the treatment centers are
>coercing their victims into AA? Where the majority of the counselors
>staffing them are 12 steppers with the majority of those AAs. That is the
>relation. If you choose to ignore it that's fine but don't attempt to claim
>afterwards that there is no relation or connection when so obviously there
>is, and you're quite aware of it.

Geez. Next you'll be blaming AA for the poor performance of the stock
market because of all those stock-brokers who'd turn out to be
members. Or you'll be blaming AA for a rapist because he was a
member... I see Rebecca Fransway (or whatever her name is) has tried
that little gem!

>|Treatment
>| centres use the English language to portray their ideas, no? So, by
>| that logic, the English language is just as guilty as AA for the
>| outcome.
>
>By your illogic maybe by my logic this point of yours is waste of
>everybody's time

No, what is a "waste of everybody's time" is you coming out with
unfounded bullshit. You have a problem with how treatment centres are
run? Take it up with them! I don't care either way. Maybe you can
even make an impact on how they do stuff, and thus indirectly solve
some of the problems they bring into AA. That'd be nice :)

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1864e9efff0268667f50f7f965f66352@TeraNews...
| On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:37:55 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
| wrote:
|
| >"Blue Moon" <
| >| >| As for treatment centres, they're not
| >| >| AA. The argument that only AA members operate them is quite
unproven,
| >| >| and in any event is irrelevant.
| >| >
| >| >Nobody is making the arguement that only AA members operate them.
| >|
| >| Really? I've seen that suggestion made more than once in this
| >| newsgroup before now
| >
| >Please provide evidence of this.
|
| You want egg on face twice? Ok, here you go...

Considering you've yet to do so once I would suggest you stop jumping the
gun.

| http://makeashorterlink.com/?P53A23885
|
| BTW you can't even get the gender right.

He said:
However, the treatment centers are staffed by AA (and other 12-Step)
members"

You said:
I see. So all the doctors and nurses are all members of one fellowship or
another? Er...right.

Only thing is he never said "all" you did. Knowing Ken neither does he
believe that "all" trickment center staffers are just that most are.

He never said solely, that was your introduction with "all", just as you
attempted to introduce the same in this one. What you're showing is
evidence that you can't read very well, and you have a tendency to
exaggerate and put words into people's mouths.

My statement stands the majority of trickment field workers are steppers
with the majority of those being AAs. Now instead of your attempts at
running from that simple fact.... deal with it.

Do you actually have a straight statement from someone saying "all" are
steppers, from this newsgroup from a nonstepper?

[Blue Moon]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:27:03 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>He said:
>However, the treatment centers are staffed by AA (and other 12-Step)
>members"
>
>You said:
>I see. So all the doctors and nurses are all members of one fellowship or
>another? Er...right.
>
>Only thing is he never said "all" you did.

So much for any claim that it's ME trying to twist things around!

You have a problem with English comprehension? My usage of the word
"all" was followed by a question mark (?). The question was asking
him to clarify his statement that "the treatment centers are staffed
by AA (and other 12-Step) members" and whether that included the
medics. He did not say "mostly staffed" or anything else, he said
"staffed".

He did clarify this allegation in the affirmative, claiming simply
that "the reality of the situation is uncomfortable for you" (which,
in fact, it's not because I know it's not true and even if it were
it'd be none of my business). However, despite the opportunity to
retract or clarify, he's simply confirming the implication that "all
the doctors and nurses are all members of one fellowship or another".
If you follow the thread I subsequently went on to demonstrate a
real-world example that any such assertion is false. There was no
dispute even then over what was either said or meant, and again no
attempt to clarify anything other than what was said.

So how on earth you conclude that he meant anything other than what
was said, and even agreed as implied, I've no idea.

>Knowing Ken neither does he believe that "all" trickment center staffers
>are just that most are.

That's not what he said. It's also not a correction or clarification
that he made when questioned on it. So how do you now conclude the
contrary. Are you Ken's mouthpiece, with more insight into his mind
than he has himself, or are you just trying to cover tracks?

>My statement stands the majority of trickment field workers are steppers
>with the majority of those being AAs. Now instead of your attempts at
>running from that simple fact.... deal with it.

I've no need to "deal with it" at all! I've not even disputed any
such claim, I've no idea if it's true or not ... it might be true, but
as I don't care either way I really don't give a rat's ass. What's
under dispute is whether it really has anything to do with AA, that's
all.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:27:03 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Blue Moon" <
>|
>| >You're still choosing to ignore that members of your organization do
>claim
>| >that working the steps is not required.
>|
>| When have I denied this? I've never denied this.
>
>Didn't say you denied it, I said you ignored it, and you have till now.

Ignored what? Sorry, I ignore much of the bullshit you post simply
because I can't be bothered with it. However if I notice anyone,
either here or in a meeting, suggesting that working the Steps is not
required in order to recover, I'll usually find some way of
contradicting that suggestion.

>|Of course, as you're
>| apparently not in AA you'd not see it. No, you'd just stand outside
>| throwing stones at the window trying ineptly to play God.
>
>Come again? How is pointing out the shortfalls of AA trying to play god?

You're not pointing out pitfalls so much as throwing tantrums.

>You're not one of those peope that things AA is inspired by god, which
>necesitates that any changes come from that direction are you?

No, but I am someone who sometimes recognises a childlike mentality
trying to dictate what everyone else says or does in order to find
peace of mind.

>| > Either it is or it isn't. When AA
>| >chooses one we can perhaps rehash this argument.
>|
>| The only people who make such a statement are people who've never
>| worked the program or even read the basic literature.
>
>Is it or isn't it required to works the steps to work the program of AA?
>It's a very simple question Blue. If you can't answer such a simple question
>what makes your organization worhtwhile that it's members are struck with an
>inability to ascertain the requirments of working the program.

I've answered that question many times. If I'm working the program of
AA, I'm working the Steps. Being a member of the fellowship is very
different from working the program. I'm not sure how or when that
confusion arose, but too often I hear people say "I'm IN the program",
which is not what they mean. I'm both IN the fellowship, and ON the
program.

>| I've no idea
>| why they're in AA. But as AA is an open door with no membership
>| rules, such people won't get thrown out.
>
>That's just simply not true. What is it AA states is the requirement for
>membership? Then don't claim that AA doesn't claim membership rules.

As a desire to stop drinking is one that can be claimed by anyone who
walks in, there's no rules. There's no way to test anyone else's
desire to stop drinking. Pity really - at one time I was tempted to
try creating a "sober AA" so we could get rid of all the nonsense. I
then worked out that this would be a futile exercise, as there's no
way to test anyone's desire to recover.

If you read the long form of tradition 3, at the back of the Big Book,
it makes it clear that there's no exclusion.

>| Who knows? Maybe one day
>| they'll feel enough pain to actually do what the literature suggests.
>
>If it's required to work the steps then it's not a suggestion. So Blue
>what's required to work the program of AA?

Have a read of pages 58 and 59 in the big book. It's all there. Your
problem is that you're still confusing AA membership with the AA
program. The AA fellowship makes no requirement on anyone to work the
Steps.

>| That AA has been bastardised by the treatment centres teaching
>| nonsense is a problem
>
>Back the truck up Blue. The majority of people staffing those treatment
>centers are 12 steppers members of your organziation and others like it.
>The majority of those trickment centers follow the AA disease model coercing
>their victims into AA even becomming AA groups themselves to do it, holding
>AA meetings on site. Stop trying to disassociate AA from the problem. AA
>and it's members are the problem.

IF that's true, then you can go change the treatment centres into a
model more suited to your tastes. Or shut them down, it matters
little to me. AA meetings are held in all sorts of places, however I
do know that some treatment centres hold "AA" meetings that are
restricted to treatment centre inpatients only. This practice is
wrong, however such meetings are not endorsed by AA (they don't appear
on AA meeting lists, don't have representation at AA intergroup, etc.)

>| The organization is not the whole she-bang, and I've never claimed
>| that it is. If it was, I'd be following the advice of clueless
>| newcomers in some groups.
>
>As opposed to what? Following the advice of long timers in trickment
>centers where they're shoving people into AA with horrid recidivism rates?

I've never had anything to do with treatment centres, other than one
afternoon giving an AA talk where I basically told the inmates I don't
care whether they go to AA or not. No, I follow the suggestions
outlined in the Steps, and those offered by people who are generally
also not, and never have been, involved in the treatment industry
(other than my sponsor, who was once a treatment inmate and later had
to deprogram himself from much of what he'd learned there).

>| I have heard some people in AA come out with such nonsense (e.g. "I
>| take no credit for the actions I have taken"), and it annoys me
>| because it's clearly wrong, and even nonsense.
>
>Some my backside you've heard most people in AA do it because most do.

Bullshit.

>| No, what is a "waste of everybody's time" is you coming out with
>| unfounded bullshit.
>
>No, what's a waste of everybody's time is your posts.

Then don't read them, and don't respond to them!

>You have yet to support anything you've said including your claims that here
>can be heard people saying that ALL trickment field workers are steppers,
>instead of the majority.

Sure I have. You just can't seem to stomach the notion that I
actually did!

>The threads name is scientific data either provide it or take
>your anecdotal proselitizing somewhere else.

You're not asking for any scientific data, no matter what the thread
title says.

>I don't care either way. Maybe you can
>| even make an impact on how they do stuff, and thus indirectly solve
>| some of the problems they bring into AA. That'd be nice :)
>
>They? From the way you react evertime this subject comes up I'm given to
>believe that you're one of the the "they"

Every time? You delude yourself!

>Are you a treatment center worker or in someway related to them?

No, and no. Never even been an inmate, and I feel for some of the
poor sods who have.

>Because if you're arguing this point you should have the decency
>to reveal your affiliation.

Indeed. I have none.

--
Blue Moon

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon"

| >He said:
| >However, the treatment centers are staffed by AA (and other 12-Step)
| >members"
| >
| >You said:
| >I see. So all the doctors and nurses are all members of one fellowship
or
| >another? Er...right.
| >
| >Only thing is he never said "all" you did.
|
| So much for any claim that it's ME trying to twist things around!
|
| You have a problem with English comprehension? My usage of the word
| "all" was followed by a question mark (?).


Your use of the words "I see." Indicates your question wasn't meant not as
an interogatory but a sarcastic statement of fact.

You're wasting my time Blue. If you have something useful, and accurate,
than offer it.


|The question was asking
| him to clarify his statement that "the treatment centers are staffed
| by AA (and other 12-Step) members" and whether that included the
| medics. He did not say "mostly staffed" or anything else, he said
| "staffed".

No you weren't, you had already made up your mind what you thought he meant,
and you accused him of saying what he never actually said. He simply chose
to address directly the reason for your skepticism. Once again he never said
ALL, You did.

| He did clarify this allegation in the affirmative, claiming simply
| that "the reality of the situation is uncomfortable for you" (which,
| in fact, it's not because I know it's not true and even if it were
| it'd be none of my business).

No he did not, what he did there was acknowledge that you were uncomfortable
with the number of AA's as treatment counselors in trickment houses. Which
you are as you've shown every time this issue comes up. At no time does
he either state or confirm a statement that he beleivs ALL counselors are
steppers. Knowing him I can tell you that he does beleive the majority are.
And surprise surprise they actually are the majority of counselors. As you
are well aware.


|However, despite the opportunity to
| retract or clarify, he's simply confirming the implication that "all
| the doctors and nurses are all members of one fellowship or another".

He did no such thing he simply acknowledges "your" discomfort with the
reality of the fact that 12 steppers do staff treatment centers. He never
claims all staff members are 12 step members however as Ken you and I are
well aware the majority of them are.

| If you follow the thread I subsequently went on to demonstrate a
| real-world example that any such assertion is false.

I asked you before: Do you or do you not have a streight statement from
someone posting here that isn't a stepper or one of it's supports claiming
directly that ALL treatment field counselors are steppers?

Simple quote will do failing that a simple no will do.

[Shawster]

> You're well aware of what you were ignoring and what I claimed you were
> ignoring having responded to it above.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I really hope you don't take yourself seriously.

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 02:35:01 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Your use of the words "I see." Indicates your question wasn't meant not as
>an interogatory but a sarcastic statement of fact.

One which clearly wasn't refuted, yet was directly affirmed.

>You're wasting my time Blue. If you have something useful, and accurate,
>than offer it.

I have responded to this thread, which you created specifically asking
for me to respond presumably under the false assumption that I
couldn't. There's nothing useful to any of this nonsense at all. In
fact, I don't recall you ever saying anything useful for anyone else
in this newsgroup at all. Except perhaps your mate Ken and his ilk.

>|The question was asking
>| him to clarify his statement that "the treatment centers are staffed
>| by AA (and other 12-Step) members" and whether that included the
>| medics. He did not say "mostly staffed" or anything else, he said
>| "staffed".
>
>No you weren't, you had already made up your mind what you thought he meant,
>and you accused him of saying what he never actually said. He simply chose
>to address directly the reason for your skepticism. Once again he never said
>ALL, You did.

"Staffed by" means "staffed by". To my knowledge it has no other
meaning, and no correction was offered despite being invited not once
but twice.

>No he did not, what he did there was acknowledge that you were uncomfortable
>with the number of AA's as treatment counselors in trickment houses.

However that perception was awry. Not unusual for Ken, nor for you.
I don't give a shit about treatment centres, or how they're run. Give
me something tangible about AA's involvement in them, and I may think
differently. But I don't go by just your opinion, ill-founded as it
is.

>At no time does
>he either state or confirm a statement that he beleivs ALL counselors are
>steppers.

We're not discussing "all counselors", we're discussing the staffing
of treatment centres. Treatment centres don't have the monopoly on
counselors. However he certainly confirmed the belief that all
treatment centre staff are members of a 12 Step fellowship. And that
specifically included the medics.

>And surprise surprise they actually are the majority of counselors. As you
>are well aware.

No, I'm not "well aware" of this at all. And even if I was, I
couldn't give a shit. The only reason I'm bothering with your rubbish
at all is because of your lies about AA. You could say all you want
about treatment centres and I'd neither know nor care whether it's the
truth.

>I asked you before: Do you or do you not have a streight statement from
>someone posting here that isn't a stepper or one of it's supports claiming
>directly that ALL treatment field counselors are steppers?

"Staffed by" means exactly that. Confirmation of a direct question as
to whether this includes all medics means exactly that. Go find a
dictionary or a book on English comprehension if you are having
difficulty with that. Meanwhile, unless you can find something useful
to say, quit trying to waste my time. I'm done with you.

--
Blue Moon

[Otto]

In article <OsZYa.23948$K4.1305485@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Shawster
<shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> > You're well aware of what you were ignoring and what I claimed you were
> > ignoring having responded to it above.
>
> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> I really hope you don't take yourself seriously.


Paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by a mistaken belief (delusion)
that the individual is being conspired against or persecuted by others.
In general, individuals with paranoid schizophrenia cling strongly to
their delusional beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary, and
despite the inability of others to verify those beliefs. Delusions are
defined as firmly held beliefs that are untrue, not shared by others in
the culture, and not easily modifiable. The delusions of a paranoid
schizophrenic individual are usually misinterpretations of events or of
the individual's senses and revolve around a certain theme that makes
perfect sense to the individual. These are not classified as bizarre
since these occurrences are possibilities in ordinary life, i.e., being
under surveillance by the CIA or FBI.

Compared to other forms of schizophrenia, the thinking of a paranoid
schizophrenic individual is not grossly abnormal except for the
delusion, and mania (catatonia) are not apparent as in other forms of
schizophrenia. Delusions of grandeur are often followed by delusions of
persecution. In the individual?s contorted mind, it makes sense that he
or she is being watched and persecuted by envious people.

The course of paranoid schizophrenia may be episodic with partial or
complete remissions or it may be chronic. In chronic cases, the florid
symptoms persist over years, and it is difficult to distinguish
discrete episodes. The onset in paranoid schizophrenia tends to occur
later in life than in other forms of schizophrenia.

Paranoid schizophrenia is the most common form of schizophrenia in most
parts of the world.

--
"There are types entirely normal in every respect except in the effect alcohol
has upon them. They are often able, intelligent, friendly people." Dr.
Silkworth

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 02:59:58 GMT, "Shawster"
<shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> You're well aware of what you were ignoring and what I claimed you were
>> ignoring having responded to it above.
>
>ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>
>I really hope you don't take yourself seriously.

He sometimes sounds like Jim Hacker trying to take on Humphrey Appleby
in the BBC comedy series "Yes, Minister".

--
Blue Moon

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon" <
| wrote:
|
| >Your use of the words "I see." Indicates your question wasn't meant not
as
| >an interogatory but a sarcastic statement of fact.
|
| One which clearly wasn't refuted, yet was directly affirmed.


No it wasn't directly affirmed. What was was your discomfort the number of
AA currently staffing trickment facilities.


And so what if it wasn't refuted. Personally I'm accused of some of the
most stupid things I could think of and I don't bother to refute even a
fraction of it because it is so stupid. Ken get's it even worse than I do.

This is getting to the point where pursuing it is just stupid.

|
| >You're wasting my time Blue. If you have something useful, and accurate,
| >than offer it.
|
| I have responded to this thread, which you created specifically asking
| for me to respond presumably under the false assumption that I
| couldn't.

You haven't. You claime that you've seen here someone saying that ALL
treatment field counselors were 12 steppers you have yet to provide direct
support for that claim. What you've provided is your interpretation of
something which clearly does not support your position. He did not say
"all" treatment workers were steppers. You did in your erroneous
restatement of what he siad disquised as question.

|There's nothing useful to any of this nonsense at all.

Nothing whatever to your assertions which you can't back up.

|
| "Staffed by" means "staffed by". To my knowledge it has no other
| meaning, and no correction was offered despite being invited not once
| but twice.

And "McDonalds is staffed by teens" that statement does not exclude
mcdonalds being staffed by adults as well. It's not an exclusive statement
as was your interpretation. Had he wanted to say what you're asserting he
said he would have stated "all" or "solely" by. Failing that what we're
dealing with is YOUR interpretation which does not in any way indicate what
he actually stated there which was not a statement of exclusivity nor can it
be interpreted that way. I mean it can because you're obviously choosing to
but that is not a proper interpretation of the actual meaning of the words
he used.


|
| >No he did not, what he did there was acknowledge that you were
uncomfortable
| >with the number of AA's as treatment counselors in trickment houses.
|
| However that perception was awry. Not unusual for Ken, nor for you.
| I don't give a shit about treatment centres, or how they're run. Give
| me something tangible about AA's involvement in them, and I may think
| differently.

I already have you're choosing to ignore it. AA's staff them (again not a
statement of exclusivity so don't go there) but steppers are the majority of
staff members treating people with a method that's shown to have horrible
recidivism rates. What may you ask is that method. Why it's AA. Does
someone need to beat you over the head with that before you acknoweldge AA
is "directly" implicated.

|But I don't go by just your opinion, ill-founded as it
| is.

And that's my point all you're offering is your opinion obviously errant
because you can't even make out the plain english language Ken was using.
I'm giving my opinion sure enough but it's an opinion that, unlike you with
your opinions, I did back up with factual numbers which show the horrible
recidivism rates amont treatment centers the majority of whcih are 12 step
based and staffed in the majority by 12 steppers who themselves are in the
majority AAs.

What have you offered? Nothing worthy of note really. You certainly
haven't been able to back up one thing you've said thus far.

| >I asked you before: Do you or do you not have a streight statement from
| >someone posting here that isn't a stepper or one of it's supports
claiming
| >directly that ALL treatment field counselors are steppers?
|
| "Staffed by" means exactly that.

Staffed by does mean exactly that and nothing more. It's not a statement of
exclusivity as you're attempting to make it in your haste to believe the
worst of those who don't support your position. He did not state, at any
time, that "ALL" trickment field workers are steppers. Never did it. In
fact the only one that did was you, once with him in a statement disquised
as a question and the other with me.

|Confirmation of a direct question as
| to whether this includes all medics means exactly that.

What he confirmed there was your discomfort with the truth that steppers do
comprise the majority of counselors at trickment facilities. What he did
was ignore your silly question and address the real basis of your objection.


|Go find a
| dictionary or a book on English comprehension if you are having
| difficulty with that. Meanwhile, unless you can find something useful
| to say,

Please do, you could use it.

|quit trying to waste my time. I'm done with you.

If you can't find a direct statement where someone not a member of a step
group or one of its supporters have stated directly that "all" treatment
field workers are steppers than be honest enough to say that.

Failing that, and you have failed so far, stop claiming that they have.

[staamfa]

"Shawster" <
| > You're well aware of what you were ignoring and what I claimed you were
| > ignoring having responded to it above.
|
| ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
|
| I really hope you don't take yourself seriously.

Not at all, and neither will I allow someone who's already answered a point
only to later claim he doesn't know what that point was, waste my time.

[Shawster]

">
> And "McDonalds is staffed by teens" that statement does not exclude
> mcdonalds being staffed by adults as well.

sure it does. if there is an adult staffing McDonalds, then the statement
is false.

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:50:20 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Shawster" <
>|
>| ">
>| > And "McDonalds is staffed by teens" that statement does not exclude
>| > mcdonalds being staffed by adults as well.
>|
>| sure it does. if there is an adult staffing McDonalds, then the statement
>| is false.
>
>No it doesn't it's not a statement of exclusivity. To say that McDonalds is
>staffed by teens doesn't exclude that it may also have non teens on that
>staff.

In the cited example, "teenage staff" or "teenage staff members" would
be appropriate to describe a proportion of employees that were
teenagers, whereas "staffed by teens" is a statement of exclusivity.

From dictionary.com:

"tr.v. staffed, staff·ing, staffs
1. To provide with a staff of workers or assistants.
2. To serve on the staff of.
"

"staff
....
The personnel who carry out a specific enterprise: (the nursing staff
of a hospital)
"

Doesn't mention "a proportion of the personnel" or anything of the
sort, it's all those doing the work. The only proportionality could
be that directors may or may not be included in "staff", though even
then they'd often be referred to as "senior staff" if they are
executive directors.

--
Blue Moon

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon" <

| The personnel who carry out a specific enterprise: (the nursing staff
| of a hospital)
| "
|
| Doesn't mention "a proportion of the personnel"

Sure doesn't. So why do you assume that it's "all" of them? Hence my point
it's not exclusive.

[staamfa]

"Mias" <
| > No it doesn't it's not a statement of exclusivity. To say that
McDonalds
| is
| > staffed by teens doesn't exclude that it may also have non teens on that
| > staff.
| Staamfa
| Are you at the moment in a treatment center or some state run institution
| that you are so worried about their staffing?

No. Is that a requirement for noting the shortfalls of AA and the trickment
industry in this country?

|I have seldom seen any
| sobriety of consequence emerging from a treatment center except that the
| life of the alcoholic was saved perhaps and the seed for recovery sown.

Well that's certainly a strong indictment of AA and the trickment industry
since the majority follow the disease model and 12 step ideology, and the
majority of counselors are longtime 12 step members with the majority of
those being AA members, teaching stepism and forcing their victims to attend
AA both at their meetings and outside the facility.

|That
| includes my personal experience. The choice to recover must be exactly
that,
| a CHOICE not forced.

Sure Okay. Too bad AA doesn't honor or respect that.

|An institution with paid staff are not equipped to
| change a persons attitude.

Tell that to the majority 12 step members and the majority of those AA's
that staff them. Then tell it to every AA you meet because they take an
active part in coercees trickment because they allow them to be forced into
AA.

|It is only the example of another that can do
| that, in most cases.

hewy. Hogwash. It's the individual's desire to stop period. They don't
need to see someone stop to stop. That's like saying someone needs to see
someone not kill someone in order to have the motivation not to do it.
Ridiculous.

|The worst case scenario, IMHO, would be if the staff
| were AA members.

What do you mean "would be". The majority of staff members are steppers and
the majority of those are AA's.


|I have seen many times that when a recovering alcoholic
| starts doing counseling for reward a bit of honesty goes out of the window
| and they start sharing for effect instead of about themselves.

That's a chronic problem in AA. The shares get worse in worse until they
bare absolutely no relation to the original incident. But then what do you
expect from the members of a group that honors the perception of recovery
from utter depravity. The worse the claim of depravity the more admired
they are. It's a sick twist on what most of society deems appropriate.

|Per
| definition, (Honesty) that is doomed to fail because all alcoholics do not
| have the same experiences as all other alcoholics.

So we're all unique. Well go figure. You say that as though it's some
unique insight to AA's. Of course we're all unique.

|Some alcoholics can
| identify with some alcoholics and therein lies healing.

healing from what? All they need to do is decide not to drink and do it.
Don't need an organization for the rest of your life to do that if you're
serious about it. Anything else isn't the purview of AA.

|There is no one
| message that works for all.

Yes yes I know AA is whatever any member happens to say it is, except of
course when they insist it's not.

|One should take what suits you and discard the
| rest forever or until later.

There is no later after forever and since AA's are inclined to take things
one day at a time for fear of making demands of the future this seems a
rather moot point.

| (If you have not walked the
| walk you can not talk the talk)

One doesn't need to blow one's brains out to know that's not very conducive
to living.

[Mias]

Staamfa
If you want to test the strength of your will power 'not to do something'
then please take a good dose of Epsom Salts and then DO NOT shit for a week.
If you can do that, it will prove that you qualify to 'decide to stop...'
Eitherway I think a good shit can only do you good IMHO
I asked about your location because I am trying to understand where your
total (and very selective) ignorance regarding alcoholism might stem from.
Your tone sounds if you are killing time while spending time somewhere.
Perhaps if you could share that I might be able to be of assistance.
By the way My name is Mias and I am an alcoholic. Are you an alcoholic?
Mias
"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bu4Za.293832$o86.161210@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Mias" <
> | > No it doesn't it's not a statement of exclusivity. To say that
> McDonalds
> | is
> | > staffed by teens doesn't exclude that it may also have non teens on
that
> | > staff.
> | Staamfa
> | Are you at the moment in a treatment center or some state run
institution
> | that you are so worried about their staffing?
>
> No. Is that a requirement for noting the shortfalls of AA and the
trickment
> industry in this country?
>
> |I have seldom seen any
> | sobriety of consequence emerging from a treatment center except that the
> | life of the alcoholic was saved perhaps and the seed for recovery sown.
>
> Well that's certainly a strong indictment of AA and the trickment industry
> since the majority follow the disease model and 12 step ideology, and the
> majority of counselors are longtime 12 step members with the majority of
> those being AA members, teaching stepism and forcing their victims to
attend
> AA both at their meetings and outside the facility.
>
> |That
> | includes my personal experience. The choice to recover must be exactly
> that,
> | a CHOICE not forced.
>
> Sure Okay. Too bad AA doesn't honor or respect that.
>
> |An institution with paid staff are not equipped to
> | change a persons attitude.
>
> Tell that to the majority 12 step members and the majority of those AA's
> that staff them. Then tell it to every AA you meet because they take an
> active part in coercees trickment because they allow them to be forced
into
> AA.
>
> |It is only the example of another that can do
> | that, in most cases.
>
> hewy. Hogwash. It's the individual's desire to stop period. They don't
> need to see someone stop to stop. That's like saying someone needs to see
> someone not kill someone in order to have the motivation not to do it.
> Ridiculous.
>
> |The worst case scenario, IMHO, would be if the staff
> | were AA members.
>
> What do you mean "would be". The majority of staff members are steppers
and
> the majority of those are AA's.
>
>
> |I have seen many times that when a recovering alcoholic
> | starts doing counseling for reward a bit of honesty goes out of the
window
> | and they start sharing for effect instead of about themselves.
>
> That's a chronic problem in AA. The shares get worse in worse until they
> bare absolutely no relation to the original incident. But then what do
you
> expect from the members of a group that honors the perception of recovery
> from utter depravity. The worse the claim of depravity the more admired
> they are. It's a sick twist on what most of society deems appropriate.
>
> |Per
> | definition, (Honesty) that is doomed to fail because all alcoholics do
not
> | have the same experiences as all other alcoholics.
>
> So we're all unique. Well go figure. You say that as though it's some
> unique insight to AA's. Of course we're all unique.
>
> |Some alcoholics can
> | identify with some alcoholics and therein lies healing.
>
> healing from what? All they need to do is decide not to drink and do it.
> Don't need an organization for the rest of your life to do that if you're
> serious about it. Anything else isn't the purview of AA.
>
> |There is no one
> | message that works for all.
>
> Yes yes I know AA is whatever any member happens to say it is, except of
> course when they insist it's not.
>
> |One should take what suits you and discard the
> | rest forever or until later.
>
> There is no later after forever and since AA's are inclined to take things
> one day at a time for fear of making demands of the future this seems a
> rather moot point.
>
> | (If you have not walked the
> | walk you can not talk the talk)
>
> One doesn't need to blow one's brains out to know that's not very
conducive
> to living.
>
>

[Mias]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lNWYa.279204$o86.257334@news1.central.cox.net ...
> "F.H." <
> | An arfer is like the guy sitting at the bar and telling his friends
> | every night, year after year, how he dumped his ex-wife.
>
> That's what AA's have a tendency to do. re-hash their past, not living
> really, just living in the past in dingy old smoke filled rewms.
staamfa
You do not have the faintest clue what AA is about and your arrogancy is
only exceeded by your total ignorance of alcoholism and AA.
Mias

[Mias]

Thanks Tor.
I do worry however should that type of post be the only one a suffering
alcoholic reads. Your way is however the way I should have gone long ago
because there is no getting love and feeling for other alcoholics into these
types hearts. As a matter of fact they see love and kindness as a weakness.
Kind regards
Mias
"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:KM6Za.111476$852.49680@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <bh2ldo$2q8$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za says... while attaching C4 explosives
> to computer and foaming at the mouth!
>
> > You do not have the faintest clue what AA is about and your arrogancy is
> > only exceeded by your total ignorance of alcoholism and AA.
> > Mias
> >
> >
> >
>
> Hi Mias.......Do yourself a favor & don't bother with the moron,
> research "narcissism" and you'll get a good idea on how not to "feed"
> the supply.

[Markus]

"Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:bh38p8$ca9$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Thanks Tor.
> I do worry however should that type of post be the only one a suffering
> alcoholic reads.

Why? Because the reader may recognize that the 12 steps really aren't for
them and find sobriety somewhere else? Why does that bother you?

ASIDE: Please point out where in any of the posts you are referring to that
it is suggested the reader continue to drink.

> Your way is however the way I should have gone long ago
> because there is no getting love and feeling for other alcoholics into
these
> types hearts.

So "these types" recommend something other, in fact anything other than the
12 steps, and this equates to having no love for those who feel they have a
problem with alcohol? Your agenda is showing again Mias.

> As a matter of fact they see love and kindness as a weakness.

Your mistaken.

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Mias]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vdaZa.3020$Ih1.1241588@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bh38p8$ca9$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Thanks Tor.
> > I do worry however should that type of post be the only one a suffering
> > alcoholic reads.
>
> Why? Because the reader may recognize that the 12 steps really aren't for
> them and find sobriety somewhere else? Why does that bother you?

If you have been in the hell of alcoholism rampant then more hate-speech
does not help at all. One just goes away or only the fringe are attracted.
>
> ASIDE: Please point out where in any of the posts you are referring to
that
> it is suggested the reader continue to drink.

Using will power as a method does not work IMHO. That leaves brainwashing in
your camp as the only alternative.
>
> > Your way is however the way I should have gone long ago
> > because there is no getting love and feeling for other alcoholics into
> these
> > types hearts.
>
> So "these types" recommend something other, in fact anything other than
the
> 12 steps, and this equates to having no love for those who feel they have
a
> problem with alcohol? Your agenda is showing again Mias.

No - I am referring to your 'bent on hell' attitude that you are the only
way and the so called 'opposition' must be eradicated. AA does not advocate
that sort of behaviour at all so you are fighting a very unfair fight. You
show no empathy for the still suffering alcoholic and your cause is all that
must be canvassed. (Money motive?)
>
> > As a matter of fact they see love and kindness as a weakness.
I am not mistaken and the proof of that lies in graves across the country...
>
> Your mistaken.
>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
>
>

[Markus]

"Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:bh3ccl$dud$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...

> > Why? Because the reader may recognize that the 12 steps really aren't
for
> > them and find sobriety somewhere else? Why does that bother you?

> If you have been in the hell of alcoholism rampant then more hate-speech
> does not help at all. One just goes away or only the fringe are attracted.

Care to post THAT study? Or are you just doing as usual and typing to hear
yourself type?

Also, why can you not answer the question? Lemme rephrase it: Does it
bother you that folks may find recovery in something other than the 12
steps?

> ASIDE: Please point out where in any of the posts you are referring to
> that it is suggested the reader continue to drink.

> Using will power as a method does not work IMHO. That leaves brainwashing
in
> your camp as the only alternative.

Again, you cannot answer a question directly, can you? I'll take that to
mean you cannot point out where anyone has suggested to someone to continue
drinking. Also, please give examples of brainwashing "in my camp." I
promote no individual method, but do suggest the reader at least research
the ones available. A search of this newsgroup for the subject line of
"Alternatives to 12 step" will find the posted links.

ASIDE: I will also recompile a list under the title of Non-step links as
these programs deserve a better reference then that of "Alternative."

> No - I am referring to your 'bent on hell' attitude that you are the only
> way and the so called 'opposition' must be eradicated.

Tehee. Is your profession in any way related to drama? Look, I just point
out what is actually bunk, and what I perceive to be bunk is all. Your
free to debate that, but to date you haven't. You either ignore what was
written, or put some non-sequitur spin on it.

> AA does not advocate that sort of behaviour at all so
> you are fighting a very unfair fight.

Boy, you certainly wouldn't want to go against what AA advocates now would
you?

> You show no empathy for the still suffering alcoholic

Resorting to an unfounded emotional appeal is pathetic at best.

> and your cause is all that must be canvassed. (Money motive?)

Again, it is obvious you believe that AA is the only way for all who have a
problem. And how pray tell, would I benefit monetarily from helping someone
find sobriety utilizing one or more of the *FREE* non step programs?

-Markus

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 18:50:34 +0200, "Mias"
<emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote:

>I do worry however should that type of post be the only one a suffering
>alcoholic reads.

I'm not sure even the sickest drinker would take the nonsense
seriously. The point of living so miserably is beyond me.

Occasionally I meet someone in AA who's also apparently sober, yet
nutty as a fruitcake. You gotta feel for them, but in my experience
even the most unwell of newcomers doesn't seem to get attracted to
what they offer.

--
Blue Moon

[staamfa]

"Mias" <

| > "F.H." <
| > | An arfer is like the guy sitting at the bar and telling his friends
| > | every night, year after year, how he dumped his ex-wife.
| >
| > That's what AA's have a tendency to do. re-hash their past, not living
| > really, just living in the past in dingy old smoke filled rewms.
| staamfa


| You do not have the faintest clue what AA is about and your arrogancy is
| only exceeded by your total ignorance of alcoholism and AA.
| Mias

I beg to differ Mias, I would submit that even though it's your organization
I know more about it than you. I'm far more familiar about what "it" is and
does than you. And it's your arrogance that brought you to this newsgroup,
one that has absolutely nothing to do with promoting 12 step groups, to
further your aims.

[staamfa]

"Mias" <
| Staamfa
| If you want to test the strength of your will power 'not to do something'
| then please take a good dose of Epsom Salts and then DO NOT shit for a
week.

LOL.

[staamfa]

"Mias

| I do worry however should that type of post be the only one a suffering
| alcoholic reads.

You worry so much you felt the need to come to a newsgroup that has nothing
to do with promoting the 12 steps to promote them via AA.

You should thank me then considering what the TEDS data shows about AAs
horrid recidivism rates at trickment centers.


|Your way is however the way I should have gone long ago
| because there is no getting love and feeling for other alcoholics into
these
| types hearts.

So you say, but who's really displaying the milk of human kindness, the
accomplice that believing in the riteous nature of a horrid organization
proseletizes it ensnaring more with it's tenter-hooks, or the one who upon
seeing the true nature of the beast sets out to help those ensnared by it
free themselves?

|As a matter of fact they see love and kindness as a weakness.

You're not terribly accurate are you Mias. But then I see where that might
come from.

[Virtualoso]

In article <HRfZa.306320$o86.78699@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I beg to differ Mias, I would submit that even though it's your organization
> I know more about it than you. I'm far more familiar about what "it" is and
> does than you.

Classic megalomania.

[Virtualoso]

In article <IRfZa.306322$o86.305515@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Mias" <
>
> | Using will power as a method does not work IMHO.
>
> That is your stated opinion yes, even as you use it to not drink.
>
> |That leaves brainwashing in
> | your camp as the only alternative.
>
> Come again? If we say will power and you deny that and come up with a
> conclusion that that only leaves brainwashing then that's your conclusion.
>
> | No - I am referring to your 'bent on hell' attitude that you are the only
> | way and the so called 'opposition' must be eradicated.
>
> If you stopped to take a look at it rationally you would see that ...

Mias, you've noticed how he keeps telling you what and how to think or
not, and whether what you think is real or true or not. He runs the
crowd that are fans of mind control and brain washing methods, fancying
themselves quite the experts. Even outright advocating the use of these
methods and tactics - but only for their own purposes, of course.

[Mias]

Dear Virtualoso
Yeah - there is a screw loose somewhere there and thank you for that
suggestion. I am in any case done with this crowd on this topic as, whatever
one diagnoses them, their way of life I do not want and I feel sad for them
when one day they wake up, as they will have to. So yes, thanks again for
the tip.
Mias
"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:090820031915283435%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <IRfZa.306322$o86.305515@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
> <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mias" <
> >
> > | Using will power as a method does not work IMHO.
> >
> > That is your stated opinion yes, even as you use it to not drink.
> >
> > |That leaves brainwashing in
> > | your camp as the only alternative.
> >
> > Come again? If we say will power and you deny that and come up with a
> > conclusion that that only leaves brainwashing then that's your
conclusion.
> >
> > | No - I am referring to your 'bent on hell' attitude that you are the
only
> > | way and the so called 'opposition' must be eradicated.
> >
> > If you stopped to take a look at it rationally you would see that ...
>
> Mias, you've noticed how he keeps telling you what and how to think or
> not, and whether what you think is real or true or not. He runs the
> crowd that are fans of mind control and brain washing methods, fancying
> themselves quite the experts. Even outright advocating the use of these
> methods and tactics - but only for their own purposes, of course.

[Mias]

> Classic paranoidal delusions of grandeur.
Did that not go out when they started treating Syphilis with Penicillin?

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:090820031912463734%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <HRfZa.306321$o86.4822@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
> <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So you say, but who's really displaying the milk of human kindness, the
> > accomplice that believing in the riteous nature of a horrid organization
> > proseletizes it ensnaring more with it's tenter-hooks, or the one who
upon
> > seeing the true nature of the beast sets out to help those ensnared by
it
> > free themselves?
>
> Classic paranoidal delusions of grandeur.

[staamfa]

"Mias" <
| Dear Virtualoso [Chris Kohler alias Otto Virtualoso and no doubt others
sock puppets]
| Yeah - there is a screw loose somewhere there and thank you for that
| suggestion.

Sure you could think that. Or you could think the truth which is that you
belong to a religious organization that claims it's not, that promotes
itself rather vigourously and claims it doesn't, that participates in
coercion of people and claims it doesn't, that requires god to work it's
program and claims it doesnt, that when used by treatment centers to treat
people has a horrid recidivism rate yet claims it doesn't, that can't keep
the majoirty of its members much past the 6 month mark and as a result has
to resort to compelling new members via courts, and other coercing bodies
frequently staffed in large part by steppers.

If anyone's got issues I would say it's AAs.


|I am in any case done with this crowd on this topic as, whatever
| one diagnoses them, their way of life I do not want and I feel sad for
them
| when one day they wake up, as they will have to.

But Mias it's you that's sleeping.

|So yes, thanks again for
| the tip.

"so yes thank you again for nudging me back into the deepest part of slumber
before they woke me up"

[Markus]

"Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:bh4fu8$1ls$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Dear Virtualoso
> Yeah - there is a screw loose somewhere there and thank you for that
> suggestion.

Figures you'd get together with a convicted pedophile as the rewms are chock
full of sick people, just that some are "sicker than others" ehh? This
clown Virtualoso also has multiple sock puppets because he is sooo desperate
to have those read his ilk whom have killfiled his perverted sorry ass.

Good show Mias.

-Markus

[Moonraker]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:w1tZa.3222$Ih1.1459374@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bh4fu8$1ls$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Dear Virtualoso
> > Yeah - there is a screw loose somewhere there and thank you for that
> > suggestion.
>
> Figures you'd get together with a convicted pedophile as the rewms are
chock
> full of sick people, just that some are "sicker than others" ehh? This
> clown Virtualoso also has multiple sock puppets because he is sooo
desperate
> to have those read his ilk whom have killfiled his perverted sorry ass.
>
> Good show Mias.
>
> -Markus
>
>

Them's pretty strong words, podnuh! You got any proof about anybody
'round these parts being a "convicted pedophile"?

Don't worry about breaking anybody's anonymity, now. It'll be a matter of
public record, and I'm sure you can take that information and immediately
connect the dots to a screen name and ISP account?

[Virtualoso]

In article <w1tZa.3222$Ih1.1459374@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bh4fu8$1ls$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Dear Virtualoso
> > Yeah - there is a screw loose somewhere there and thank you for that
> > suggestion.
>
> Figures you'd get together with a convicted pedophile as the rewms are chock
> full of sick people, just that some are "sicker than others" ehh? This
> clown Virtualoso also has multiple sock puppets because he is sooo desperate
> to have those read his ilk whom have killfiled his perverted sorry ass.
>
> Good show Mias.

The lies and smear campaign commence again? Must be Markus' lack of
better true premise.

[Tram]

Otto <alcoholics@autonomous.org> wrote in
news:080820032012380433%alcoholics@autonomous.org:

> In article <OsZYa.23948$K4.1305485@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Shawster <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > You're well aware of what you were ignoring and what I
>> > claimed you were ignoring having responded to it above.
>>
>> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>>
>> I really hope you don't take yourself seriously.
>
>
> Paranoid schizophrenia is characterized by a mistaken belief

Does this disease involve compulsive cutting and pasting?