Additions to the More Revealed Website

[ken@isp.com]

Hello everyone,

For those unfamiliar with the website, it deals with the 12-Step
cults, groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous,
Gamblers Anonymous and perhaps as many as 1,000 other "fellowships"
descended from the pro-facist, bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist
Christian Oxford Group/Moral Re-Armament.

I've been busy on the Morewebsite and as a result there are some new
things. Devin's papers are up, reachable through the home page by
clicking on the link to "Devin's Corner." Hopefully, there'll be
more soon.

The "Grouper Database" has been rewritten to hopefully be more
useful and easier to use. There is only one piece in the database
but hopefully, next week I'll be able to get to a library and do
some research and maybe some of you have some names you'd like to
enter.

There has been a new "horror story" added, also reachable through
the home page.

And don't forget the forums and four books about the Step groups on
line free for personal use.

Ken Ragge

[Gregg Fowler]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:38:49 -0500, <ken@isp.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> For those unfamiliar with the website, it deals with the 12-Step
> cults, groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous,
> Gamblers Anonymous and perhaps as many as 1,000 other "fellowships"
> descended from the pro-facist, bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist
> Christian Oxford Group/Moral Re-Armament.
>
> I've been busy on the Morewebsite and as a result there are some new
> things. Devin's papers are up, reachable through the home page by
> clicking on the link to "Devin's Corner." Hopefully, there'll be
> more soon.
>
> The "Grouper Database" has been rewritten to hopefully be more
> useful and easier to use. There is only one piece in the database
> but hopefully, next week I'll be able to get to a library and do
> some research and maybe some of you have some names you'd like to
> enter.
>
> There has been a new "horror story" added, also reachable through
> the home page.
>
> And don't forget the forums and four books about the Step groups on
> line free for personal use.
>
> Ken Ragge
>

Hey Key,

A link would have been nice.



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Ken]

Gregg Fowler wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:38:49 -0500, <ken@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> For those unfamiliar with the website, it deals with the 12-Step
>> cults, groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous,
>> Gamblers Anonymous and perhaps as many as 1,000 other "fellowships"
>> descended from the pro-facist, bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist
>> Christian Oxford Group/Moral Re-Armament.
>>
>> I've been busy on the Morewebsite and as a result there are some new
>> things. Devin's papers are up, reachable through the home page by
>> clicking on the link to "Devin's Corner." Hopefully, there'll be
>> more soon.
>>
>> The "Grouper Database" has been rewritten to hopefully be more
>> useful and easier to use. There is only one piece in the database
>> but hopefully, next week I'll be able to get to a library and do
>> some research and maybe some of you have some names you'd like to
>> enter.
>>
>> There has been a new "horror story" added, also reachable through
>> the home page.
>>
>> And don't forget the forums and four books about the Step groups on
>> line free for personal use.
>>
>> Ken Ragge
>>
>
> Hey Key,
>
> A link would have been nice.
>
>
>

That's the second time this year I've done that. Rather humbling, if I
do say so myself. :) Thanks for pointing it out.

The link is http://www.morerevealed.com

Ken Ragge

[Bobby L]

All these 12-step "cults" as Ken describes did not descend from some
"pro-facist" bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist Christian Oxford Group/Moral
Re-Armament.
Let us at least get the facts straight here. There was no "Sort Of" to the
funadmentalism whatsoever. Ken's logic in this case is "if A = B and B = C,
then A = C", which is sound logic poorly applied. The logic which I see
more aptly applied to Ken's thesis is "if A is similar to B and B is similar
to C, then A is similar to C," which is a logical error.

AA came out of a significant "split" from not a "sort-of" Fundamentalist
Christian Oxford Group -- in the fact there was no "sort-of" to it at all.
The Oxford Group was indeed a FUNDAMENTALIST group, which believed in the
practice of what was then referred to as First Century Christianity;
however, I contend the Oxford group and many AAs today missed the part about
"attraction, not promotion." In addition, as the early AAers became more
centric n the dealing with alcoholism first and primarily, they became less
favored among the Oxford Groups. The other 12-step groups Ken mentions came
out of the medical/psychiatric communty's support of AA's program of
recovery, and AA's later group decision to avoid "outside issues," --
"cobbler, stick to thy last."

That said, while not agreeing with Ken in many parts of what I feel is a
fundamentally flawed thesis, I will concede that "in my opinion" (I do not
speak for AA as a whole, just for me) that the program has been diluted and
misapplied over time not only in an attempt to apply "the 12 steps" to so
many other problems under the sun, but more importantly and likely more
significantly, in the attempts of others to apply "the 12 steps" while
having no personal experience in the application thereof (boy, there's a
50-cent sentence if I ever saw one). AA's own experience shows that
alcoholics attempting to work "the 12 Steps" with persons of other maladies
of which they have little or no experience or point of reference can only
lead to failure, and will likely aggravate an already untenable situation.

We, as alcoholics, and non-alcoholics also I suppose, when giving advice or
suggestion, quite often forget, when we have finished, what we were doing
when we started. I sometimes forget that I am giving advice and suggestion,
not rules of life or law -- and that, I have found, will dig me into a
bigger hole than I ever imagined.

Plainly and simply, if you are not ready to go to any lengths to stop
drinking, then please avail yourself to Ken, his advice and the other
organizations that Ken recommends, although I do wonder which of these Ken
has personal experience in using. This thought generates many others
thoughts -- If he has tried them all, then which one did he try last?
Apparently, the one he tried last is perhaps the one that another should
seek first, don't you think? I also wonder if Ken has any experience with
any of these -- is he recommending a solution or just AA bashing? Chasing
rabbits here...

Anyway, if you still have options, then please go to
http://www.morerevealed.com/misc/orglinks.htm and avail yourself to these
solutions. Also, a quick search on the internet for Agent Orange's website
will avail other possibilities also. I have repeatly proposed that one
should not come to AA until you have run out of other options -- because
that is what I did.

If you do come AA or if you already here and you see me, keep in mind, that
based on my experience,
--This is not "therapy" and was never meant to be.
--The 12 Steps are ACTIONS to achieve sobriety.
--They are numbered for a reason.
--Half measures will not get you half sober.
--It is not about achieving control
--We get sober, but I/You do the work.
--I, among others, will not advise you not to make any major changes in the
first year of your sobriety .
----In fact, I will suggest you change your entire life!
----One day at a time and the sooner the better.
--Very few of us are here because we spilled a couple of drinks at a party
--Getting sober is easy - Staying sober is work
----And it will take you the rest of your life.

Are we in AA part of a cult? That's a lot like asking for directions -- the
answer depends on where you are standing when you ask the question. I
understand, AA's program of recovery is not the only way to get/stay sober,
it was simply the only way that worked for me. The only experience I can
share with you is mine.

Bobby L

[Ken]

Bobby L wrote:
> All these 12-step "cults" as Ken describes did not descend from some
> "pro-facist" bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist Christian Oxford Group/Moral
> Re-Armament.
> Let us at least get the facts straight here. There was no "Sort Of" to the
> funadmentalism whatsoever. Ken's logic in this case is "if A = B and B = C,
> then A = C", which is sound logic poorly applied. The logic which I see
> more aptly applied to Ken's thesis is "if A is similar to B and B is similar
> to C, then A is similar to C," which is a logical error.
>
> AA came out of a significant "split" from not a "sort-of" Fundamentalist
> Christian Oxford Group -- in the fact there was no "sort-of" to it at all.
> The Oxford Group was indeed a FUNDAMENTALIST group, which believed in the
> practice of what was then referred to as First Century Christianity;

Bobby,

Yes, that is how the referred to themselves, "First Century Christian
Fellowship" before they changed their name to "Oxford Group," then
"Moral Re-Armament," and now "Initiatives of Change."

The "sort of" qualifier was because there was much within Oxford Group
that was at odds with much of Christianity. One of the most decisive
factors of me was that they put "The Gospel of Personal Experience"
(sharing) on a par with the New Testament. That was decidedly not
Christian, at least not any kind of Christian that existed in the last
millenia and most of the one before.

Also, they were very restrictive in their use of the Bible. Study, and
even mention, was made of only a few parts of the New Testament (e.g.
James). Also there were the direct messages from God, "conscious
contact." Proselytization was keenly honed, and not so haphazard as
previous Christian groups had practiced. Moreover, in India, where
people got upset at their attempts to proseletyze Christianity, they
backpeddled and one then only needed God, their God of course, to be
saved and, of course, an Oxford Grouper. The list goes on and on. While
there are plenty of semantics to argue here, the Oxford Group, while
extremely Fundamentalist in terms of taking their doctrine quite
literally, were not quite Christian in normal usages of the term.

> however, I contend the Oxford group and many AAs today missed the part about
> "attraction, not promotion." In addition, as the early AAers became more
> centric n the dealing with alcoholism first and primarily, they became less
> favored among the Oxford Groups.

If you remember the criticisms of those who later became AA members in
the AA literature and then read up on the Oxford Group, virtually all of
the criticims of the Oxford Group were criticisms of them not following
their own (Oxford Group's) spiritual principles.

Even the idea of separate meetings (which even the early AA meetings
were not) grew from the Oxford Group's belief in "like working with
like" ("one alcoholic working with another").

As far as "attraction, not promotion" goes, AA has, principly using its
front groups, been promoting AA for decades. Of course, now perhaps it
is more of a program of coercion than attraction or promotion. The
NCADD and other groups of Steppers have been very successful at
establishing that.

> The other 12-step groups Ken mentions came
> out of the medical/psychiatric communty's support of AA's program of
> recovery, and AA's later group decision to avoid "outside issues," --
> "cobbler, stick to thy last."

Actually, the first non-AA 12 Step meetings grew directly out of AA. Of
course Al-Anon and then NA and Gamblers Anonymous. Any support in the
medical/psychiatric community was support from 12-Step members in the
medical/psychiatric community. "Two hatters" are not new.

> That said, while not agreeing with Ken in many parts of what I feel is a
> fundamentally flawed thesis, I will concede that "in my opinion" (I do not
> speak for AA as a whole, just for me) that the program has been diluted and
> misapplied over time not only in an attempt to apply "the 12 steps" to so
> many other problems under the sun, but more importantly and likely more
> significantly, in the attempts of others to apply "the 12 steps" while
> having no personal experience in the application thereof (boy, there's a
> 50-cent sentence if I ever saw one). AA's own experience shows that
> alcoholics attempting to work "the 12 Steps" with persons of other maladies
> of which they have little or no experience or point of reference can only
> lead to failure, and will likely aggravate an already untenable situation.
>
I've heard over and over again that AA's current disastrous results in
stopping anyone from drinking just don't measure up because this or that
changed in AA. However, if you check out the archives at the AA History
Lovers group on Yahoo, which is made up virtually entirely of Steppers,
and several Stepper historians at that, you will find that even in the
earliest of days, most everyone failed, the promotional claims of 75%
nothwithstanding.

> We, as alcoholics, and non-alcoholics also I suppose, when giving advice or
> suggestion, quite often forget, when we have finished, what we were doing
> when we started. I sometimes forget that I am giving advice and suggestion,
> not rules of life or law -- and that, I have found, will dig me into a
> bigger hole than I ever imagined.

Yes, you must remember to follow the methods originally laid down by
Frank Buchman and the Oxford group, all the way back in the 1918 "Soul
Surgery."

> Plainly and simply, if you are not ready to go to any lengths to stop
> drinking, then please avail yourself to Ken,

Why avail themselves to me? If you are not ready to stop drinking, you
aren't going to stop drinking. If you really are ready to stop
drinking, you will no matter where you go. That is, of course, unless
you go somewhere that is more interested in "tilling the black soil of
hopelessness" in order to gain a religious convert, stopping (or
moderating) be damned.

> his advice and the other
> organizations that Ken recommends, although I do wonder which of these Ken
> has personal experience in using. This thought generates many others
> thoughts -- If he has tried them all, then which one did he try last?
> Apparently, the one he tried last is perhaps the one that another should
> seek first, don't you think? I also wonder if Ken has any experience with
> any of these -- is he recommending a solution or just AA bashing? Chasing
> rabbits here...

The other organizations I list on morerevealed.com are all secular,
meaning they leave peoples' relgious beliefs alone, and none of them
insist someone will die drunk if they leave.

> Anyway, if you still have options, then please go to
> http://www.morerevealed.com/misc/orglinks.htm and avail yourself to these
> solutions. Also, a quick search on the internet for Agent Orange's website
> will avail other possibilities also. I have repeatly proposed that one
> should not come to AA until you have run out of other options -- because
> that is what I did.

There is always the option of drinking less. Abstention, of course, is
drinking less.

> If you do come AA or if you already here and you see me, keep in mind, that
> based on my experience,
> --This is not "therapy" and was never meant to be.

No, it is religious indoctrination. It is all about the Steps. There is
_nothing_ in the Steps about not drinking. It is all about finding the
"personal God" of the Oxford Group and modern day Step groups.

> --The 12 Steps are ACTIONS to achieve sobriety.

No, they are intended for religious indoctrination. There is nothing in
them about how to maintain abstinence.

> --They are numbered for a reason.

Yes, I suppose so. Wilson, when he wrote them, thought 12 was a
spiritual number.

> --Half measures will not get you half sober.
> --It is not about achieving control

No, it is about ceding control to group authority.

> --We get sober, but I/You do the work.

Actually, according to AA's own statistics, only a very small
percentage, only 2 1/2 to 5 percent actually "get sober." A horrifying
number of the rest can be found puking their guts out and lying on the
floors of the bar or in the gutter lamenting their "disease" and
"Powerlessness."

> --I, among others, will not advise you not to make any major changes in the
> first year of your sobriety .

As well you shouldn't. The idea is to foster dependency on the Step
groups. If someone makes changes (e.g. gets motivated and finds a
better job, starts exercising and eating better, changes or improves
their primary relationships, etc.) and life gets better, where is "the
black soil of hopelessness" to be tilled by proseletyzing elders? If one
takes the Steps to better manage one's own life, what is a sponsor to do?

> ----In fact, I will suggest you change your entire life!

Yes. The way this change is brought about in people is carefully laid
out in Oxford Group's 1918 conversion manual, "Soul Surgery."

> ----One day at a time and the sooner the better.
> --Very few of us are here because we spilled a couple of drinks at a party

And if you stick around long enough and pay attention, you will find
that one's tale of drinking before joining the program gets
progressively worse with time.

> --Getting sober is easy - Staying sober is work
> ----And it will take you the rest of your life.

Nope. It is 12-Step members who struggle to maintain changes in their
life. Most people, when they've really had enough, establish solid new
patterns over time.

> Are we in AA part of a cult? That's a lot like asking for directions -- the
> answer depends on where you are standing when you ask the question. I
> understand, AA's program of recovery is not the only way to get/stay sober,
> it was simply the only way that worked for me. The only experience I can
> share with you is mine.

And Thalidomide worked real well for many women in the 50s. No side
effects. It is what happened to those who had side effects ("flipper"
babies) that was the reason that Thalidomide was pulled from the market.
It is when one takes into account what Thalidomide (or AA) does to
_everyone_ who takes it.

In the 1940s, founder of the 12-Step front group NCADD went before
Congress pleading for money for education about alcoholism. NCADD has
been very successful in education people to have the attitudes that make
drinking worse. When she first sought money to begin the NCADD
"educational" campaign, she told congress that there were 100,000
alcoholics. How many does NCADD say we have today? What are the side
effects of "carrying the message" in America today?

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

> Bobby L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[El Greco]

Bobby L wrote:
> All these 12-step "cults" as Ken describes did not descend from some
> "pro-facist" bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist Christian Oxford Group/Moral
> Re-Armament.
> Let us at least get the facts straight here. There was no "Sort Of" to the
> funadmentalism whatsoever. Ken's logic in this case is "if A = B and B = C,
> then A = C", which is sound logic poorly applied. The logic which I see
> more aptly applied to Ken's thesis is "if A is similar to B and B is similar
> to C, then A is similar to C," which is a logical error.
<SNIP>

OK, on the OT:

That doesn't seem like a logical error. Wouldn't it depend on what A, B,
and C actually are before we can make that conclusion?

[Bobby L]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:d4cfe$4287a323$42517d54$30727@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> Bobby L wrote:
> > All these 12-step "cults" as Ken describes did not descend from some
> > "pro-facist" bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist Christian Oxford Group/Moral
> > Re-Armament.
> > Let us at least get the facts straight here. There was no "Sort Of" to
the
> > funadmentalism whatsoever. Ken's logic in this case is "if A = B and B
= C,
> > then A = C", which is sound logic poorly applied. The logic which I see
> > more aptly applied to Ken's thesis is "if A is similar to B and B is
similar
> > to C, then A is similar to C," which is a logical error.
> >
> > AA came out of a significant "split" from not a "sort-of" Fundamentalist
> > Christian Oxford Group -- in the fact there was no "sort-of" to it at
all.
> > The Oxford Group was indeed a FUNDAMENTALIST group, which believed in
the
> > practice of what was then referred to as First Century Christianity;
>
> Bobby,
>
> Yes, that is how the referred to themselves, "First Century Christian
> Fellowship" before they changed their name to "Oxford Group," then
> "Moral Re-Armament," and now "Initiatives of Change."
>
> The "sort of" qualifier was because there was much within Oxford Group
> that was at odds with much of Christianity. One of the most decisive
> factors of me was that they put "The Gospel of Personal Experience"
> (sharing) on a par with the New Testament. That was decidedly not
> Christian, at least not any kind of Christian that existed in the last
> millenia and most of the one before.
>
> Also, they were very restrictive in their use of the Bible. Study, and
> even mention, was made of only a few parts of the New Testament (e.g.
> James). Also there were the direct messages from God, "conscious
> contact." Proselytization was keenly honed, and not so haphazard as
> previous Christian groups had practiced. Moreover, in India, where
> people got upset at their attempts to proseletyze Christianity, they
> backpeddled and one then only needed God, their God of course, to be
> saved and, of course, an Oxford Grouper. The list goes on and on. While
> there are plenty of semantics to argue here, the Oxford Group, while
> extremely Fundamentalist in terms of taking their doctrine quite
> literally, were not quite Christian in normal usages of the term.
>
> > however, I contend the Oxford group and many AAs today missed the part
about
> > "attraction, not promotion." In addition, as the early AAers became
more
> > centric n the dealing with alcoholism first and primarily, they became
less
> > favored among the Oxford Groups.
>
> If you remember the criticisms of those who later became AA members in
> the AA literature and then read up on the Oxford Group, virtually all of
> the criticims of the Oxford Group were criticisms of them not following
> their own (Oxford Group's) spiritual principles.
>
> Even the idea of separate meetings (which even the early AA meetings
> were not) grew from the Oxford Group's belief in "like working with
> like" ("one alcoholic working with another").
>
> As far as "attraction, not promotion" goes, AA has, principly using its
> front groups, been promoting AA for decades. Of course, now perhaps it
> is more of a program of coercion than attraction or promotion. The
> NCADD and other groups of Steppers have been very successful at
> establishing that.
>
> > The other 12-step groups Ken mentions came
> > out of the medical/psychiatric communty's support of AA's program of
> > recovery, and AA's later group decision to avoid "outside issues," --
> > "cobbler, stick to thy last."
>
> Actually, the first non-AA 12 Step meetings grew directly out of AA. Of
> course Al-Anon and then NA and Gamblers Anonymous. Any support in the
> medical/psychiatric community was support from 12-Step members in the
> medical/psychiatric community. "Two hatters" are not new.
>
> > That said, while not agreeing with Ken in many parts of what I feel is a
> > fundamentally flawed thesis, I will concede that "in my opinion" (I do
not
> > speak for AA as a whole, just for me) that the program has been diluted
and
> > misapplied over time not only in an attempt to apply "the 12 steps" to
so
> > many other problems under the sun, but more importantly and likely more
> > significantly, in the attempts of others to apply "the 12 steps" while
> > having no personal experience in the application thereof (boy, there's a
> > 50-cent sentence if I ever saw one). AA's own experience shows that
> > alcoholics attempting to work "the 12 Steps" with persons of other
maladies
> > of which they have little or no experience or point of reference can
only
> > lead to failure, and will likely aggravate an already untenable
situation.
> >
> I've heard over and over again that AA's current disastrous results in
> stopping anyone from drinking just don't measure up because this or that
> changed in AA. However, if you check out the archives at the AA History
> Lovers group on Yahoo, which is made up virtually entirely of Steppers,
> and several Stepper historians at that, you will find that even in the
> earliest of days, most everyone failed, the promotional claims of 75%
> nothwithstanding.
>
> > We, as alcoholics, and non-alcoholics also I suppose, when giving advice
or
> > suggestion, quite often forget, when we have finished, what we were
doing
> > when we started. I sometimes forget that I am giving advice and
suggestion,
> > not rules of life or law -- and that, I have found, will dig me into a
> > bigger hole than I ever imagined.
>
> Yes, you must remember to follow the methods originally laid down by
> Frank Buchman and the Oxford group, all the way back in the 1918 "Soul
> Surgery."
>
> > Plainly and simply, if you are not ready to go to any lengths to stop
> > drinking, then please avail yourself to Ken,
>
> Why avail themselves to me? If you are not ready to stop drinking, you
> aren't going to stop drinking. If you really are ready to stop
> drinking, you will no matter where you go. That is, of course, unless
> you go somewhere that is more interested in "tilling the black soil of
> hopelessness" in order to gain a religious convert, stopping (or
> moderating) be damned.
>
> > his advice and the other
> > organizations that Ken recommends, although I do wonder which of these
Ken
> > has personal experience in using. This thought generates many others
> > thoughts -- If he has tried them all, then which one did he try last?
> > Apparently, the one he tried last is perhaps the one that another should
> > seek first, don't you think? I also wonder if Ken has any experience
with
> > any of these -- is he recommending a solution or just AA bashing?
Chasing
> > rabbits here...
>
> The other organizations I list on morerevealed.com are all secular,
> meaning they leave peoples' relgious beliefs alone, and none of them
> insist someone will die drunk if they leave.
>
> > Anyway, if you still have options, then please go to
> > http://www.morerevealed.com/misc/orglinks.htm and avail yourself to
these
> > solutions. Also, a quick search on the internet for Agent Orange's
website
> > will avail other possibilities also. I have repeatly proposed that one
> > should not come to AA until you have run out of other options -- because
> > that is what I did.
>
> There is always the option of drinking less. Abstention, of course, is
> drinking less.
>
> > If you do come AA or if you already here and you see me, keep in mind,
that
> > based on my experience,
> > --This is not "therapy" and was never meant to be.
>
> No, it is religious indoctrination. It is all about the Steps. There is
> _nothing_ in the Steps about not drinking. It is all about finding the
> "personal God" of the Oxford Group and modern day Step groups.
>
> > --The 12 Steps are ACTIONS to achieve sobriety.
>
> No, they are intended for religious indoctrination. There is nothing in
> them about how to maintain abstinence.
>
> > --They are numbered for a reason.
>
> Yes, I suppose so. Wilson, when he wrote them, thought 12 was a
> spiritual number.
>
> > --Half measures will not get you half sober.
> > --It is not about achieving control
>
> No, it is about ceding control to group authority.
>
> > --We get sober, but I/You do the work.
>
> Actually, according to AA's own statistics, only a very small
> percentage, only 2 1/2 to 5 percent actually "get sober." A horrifying
> number of the rest can be found puking their guts out and lying on the
> floors of the bar or in the gutter lamenting their "disease" and
> "Powerlessness."
>
> > --I, among others, will not advise you not to make any major changes in
the
> > first year of your sobriety .
>
> As well you shouldn't. The idea is to foster dependency on the Step
> groups. If someone makes changes (e.g. gets motivated and finds a
> better job, starts exercising and eating better, changes or improves
> their primary relationships, etc.) and life gets better, where is "the
> black soil of hopelessness" to be tilled by proseletyzing elders? If one
> takes the Steps to better manage one's own life, what is a sponsor to do?
>
> > ----In fact, I will suggest you change your entire life!
>
> Yes. The way this change is brought about in people is carefully laid
> out in Oxford Group's 1918 conversion manual, "Soul Surgery."
>
> > ----One day at a time and the sooner the better.
> > --Very few of us are here because we spilled a couple of drinks at a
party
>
> And if you stick around long enough and pay attention, you will find
> that one's tale of drinking before joining the program gets
> progressively worse with time.
>
> > --Getting sober is easy - Staying sober is work
> > ----And it will take you the rest of your life.
>
> Nope. It is 12-Step members who struggle to maintain changes in their
> life. Most people, when they've really had enough, establish solid new
> patterns over time.
>
> > Are we in AA part of a cult? That's a lot like asking for directions --
the
> > answer depends on where you are standing when you ask the question. I
> > understand, AA's program of recovery is not the only way to get/stay
sober,
> > it was simply the only way that worked for me. The only experience I
can
> > share with you is mine.
>
> And Thalidomide worked real well for many women in the 50s. No side
> effects. It is what happened to those who had side effects ("flipper"
> babies) that was the reason that Thalidomide was pulled from the market.
> It is when one takes into account what Thalidomide (or AA) does to
> _everyone_ who takes it.
>
> In the 1940s, founder of the 12-Step front group NCADD went before
> Congress pleading for money for education about alcoholism. NCADD has
> been very successful in education people to have the attitudes that make
> drinking worse. When she first sought money to begin the NCADD
> "educational" campaign, she told congress that there were 100,000
> alcoholics. How many does NCADD say we have today? What are the side
> effects of "carrying the message" in America today?
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com
>
> > Bobby L
> >
> >

So you are just AA bashing. Here I was thinking you were offering
alternatives because you cared about helping others get sober and stay
sober.

So what did AA do to you?

Bobby L

[Bobby L]

"El Greco" <el_grecoa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n_Nhe.73999$NC6.4699@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to .verio.net...
> Bobby L wrote:
> > All these 12-step "cults" as Ken describes did not descend from some
> > "pro-facist" bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist Christian Oxford Group/Moral
> > Re-Armament.
> > Let us at least get the facts straight here. There was no "Sort Of" to
the
> > funadmentalism whatsoever. Ken's logic in this case is "if A = B and B
= C,
> > then A = C", which is sound logic poorly applied. The logic which I see
> > more aptly applied to Ken's thesis is "if A is similar to B and B is
similar
> > to C, then A is similar to C," which is a logical error.
> <SNIP>
>
> OK, on the OT:
>
> That doesn't seem like a logical error. Wouldn't it depend on what A, B,
> and C actually are before we can make that conclusion?

Sound logic does not require further information. The logical error is that
there is no imperative that A and C be similar.

[Ken]

> So you are just AA bashing. Here I was thinking you were offering
> alternatives because you cared about helping others get sober and stay
> sober.
>
> So what did AA do to you?
>
> Bobby L
>

Bobby,

You call it bashing. I call it warning other people before they get
caught up like I and dear freinds did.

Of course, you would call it bashing. Scientologists call any criticism
of Scientology bashing. So, I'm sure, would Hari Krishnas, members of
the People's Temple, Jehovah's Witnesses and etc.

So be it.

The point is, I don't believe in disease, I don't believe in AA, and I
don't believe it is wrong to speak out and let people know they don't
have to be AA'ers or died from their "Powerlessness." The organizations
I mention on my website do not believe in "Powerlessness" and do not
threaten people with "jails, institutions or death" if they fail to
believe, "follow suggestions" or just up and leave.

Ken Ragge

[Mias]

Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like an
ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By the way
what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna keep it
short - "Blow of Noddy"
Kind regards
Mias
<ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1116128329.444373.244790@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> For those unfamiliar with the website, it deals with the 12-Step
> cults, groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous,
> Gamblers Anonymous and perhaps as many as 1,000 other "fellowships"
> descended from the pro-facist, bizarre sort-of Fundamentalist
> Christian Oxford Group/Moral Re-Armament.
>
> I've been busy on the Morewebsite and as a result there are some new
> things. Devin's papers are up, reachable through the home page by
> clicking on the link to "Devin's Corner." Hopefully, there'll be
> more soon.
>
> The "Grouper Database" has been rewritten to hopefully be more
> useful and easier to use. There is only one piece in the database
> but hopefully, next week I'll be able to get to a library and do
> some research and maybe some of you have some names you'd like to
> enter.
>
> There has been a new "horror story" added, also reachable through
> the home page.
>
> And don't forget the forums and four books about the Step groups on
> line free for personal use.
>
> Ken Ragge
>

[abc]

"Mias" <emiasNO@SPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:d6eh5f$hvb$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like an
> ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By the
> way what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna keep it
> short - "Blow of Noddy"
> Kind regards
> Mias


I never heard of Ragge, until I read his post here. He has an interesting
web
site, and in doing a Google search, I see he has a history of trashing AA.
My experience over the years with his ilk has always resulted in learning
they have an agenda, whether it be money or whatever. They *always*
have an agenda, overt or covert. Last year, I sat in on a Reformers
Unanimous
presentation at a local church. They were trying to convince the church
to sponsor a RU group. The RU presentation started out by immediately
trashing AA. Seems the church currently allowed a rent-paying AA group
to meet in their facilities. Obviously, RU wanted the AA group out of the
church. RU's agenda, in this case, was fairly obvious. AA paid rent and
took nothing from the church. RU could not tolerate that. RU's goal, if
allowed to start a local group, was to be the sole source of RU literature
and
other RU items, which would be *sold* to the church for absurd prices.
The RU group would pay no rent. A sweet deal for RU, pay nothing and
charge for everything. In this case, it was just a matter of following the
trail
of the money to reveal the agenda. Ragge types come and go. I view
them as a curiosity, one that will probably be off the radar sooner or
later.


abc

[Ken]

abc wrote:
> "Mias" <emiasNO@SPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
> news:d6eh5f$hvb$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
>>Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like an
>>ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By the
>>way what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna keep it
>>short - "Blow of Noddy"
>>Kind regards
>>Mias
>
>
>
> I never heard of Ragge, until I read his post here. He has an interesting
> web
> site, and in doing a Google search, I see he has a history of trashing AA.
> My experience over the years with his ilk has always resulted in learning
> they have an agenda, whether it be money or whatever. They *always*
> have an agenda, overt or covert. Last year, I sat in on a Reformers
> Unanimous
> presentation at a local church. They were trying to convince the church
> to sponsor a RU group. The RU presentation started out by immediately
> trashing AA. Seems the church currently allowed a rent-paying AA group
> to meet in their facilities. Obviously, RU wanted the AA group out of the
> church. RU's agenda, in this case, was fairly obvious. AA paid rent and
> took nothing from the church. RU could not tolerate that. RU's goal, if
> allowed to start a local group, was to be the sole source of RU literature
> and
> other RU items, which would be *sold* to the church for absurd prices.
> The RU group would pay no rent. A sweet deal for RU, pay nothing and
> charge for everything. In this case, it was just a matter of following the
> trail
> of the money to reveal the agenda. Ragge types come and go. I view
> them as a curiosity, one that will probably be off the radar sooner or
> later.
>
>
> abc
>

abc,

I have no clue what Reformers Unanimous is. However, I find it curious
that you use the example of an obviously greedy group of some sort of
another in criticizing me for criticizing AA. How odd.

Why do you try to come up with some sort of valid criticism. Certainly,
accusing me of greed is far off the mark. There is no group, no
organization and no money in anything I do critical of the Step groups.
Not one dime.

But then, you probably don't care. When one's sacred cow is gored, even
if it is a giant cockroach, the response is always attack the messenger
and ignore the message.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

[Ken]

Mias wrote:

> Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like an
> ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By the way
> what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna keep it
> short - "Blow of Noddy"
> Kind regards
> Mias

Mias,

Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

[Mias]

Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should try
however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by them never
finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice. There is a place
where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in the next life. Try to
stay away from that.
Kind regards
Mias
16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA
"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> Mias wrote:
>
>> Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like
>> an ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By
>> the way what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna
>> keep it short - "Blow of Noddy"
>> Kind regards
>> Mias
>
> Mias,
>
> Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
> insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
> doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

[dan mcgown]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> Mias wrote:
> Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
> insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
> doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if any may
be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or have to say
about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and, if you tried it,
I don't know what effort you put into working the 12 steps, as opposed to
just going to meetings and/or maybe having a sponsor.
From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then good
on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you don't do
both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't matter what
tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps of AA are the
tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with all due respect, I
believe that I'll continue to use them.
Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
Dan

[abc]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:31eac$428b80f7$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> abc wrote:
>> "Mias" <emiasNO@SPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
>> news:d6eh5f$hvb$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>
>>>Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like
>>>an ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By
>>>the way what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna
>>>keep it short - "Blow of Noddy"
>>>Kind regards
>>>Mias
>>
>>
>>
>> I never heard of Ragge, until I read his post here. He has an
>> interesting web
>> site, and in doing a Google search, I see he has a history of trashing
>> AA.
>> My experience over the years with his ilk has always resulted in learning
>> they have an agenda, whether it be money or whatever. They *always*
>> have an agenda, overt or covert. Last year, I sat in on a Reformers
>> Unanimous
>> presentation at a local church. They were trying to convince the church
>> to sponsor a RU group. The RU presentation started out by immediately
>> trashing AA. Seems the church currently allowed a rent-paying AA group
>> to meet in their facilities. Obviously, RU wanted the AA group out of
>> the
>> church. RU's agenda, in this case, was fairly obvious. AA paid rent and
>> took nothing from the church. RU could not tolerate that. RU's goal, if
>> allowed to start a local group, was to be the sole source of RU
>> literature and
>> other RU items, which would be *sold* to the church for absurd prices.
>> The RU group would pay no rent. A sweet deal for RU, pay nothing and
>> charge for everything. In this case, it was just a matter of following
>> the trail
>> of the money to reveal the agenda. Ragge types come and go. I view
>> them as a curiosity, one that will probably be off the radar sooner or
>> later.
>>
>>
>> abc
>>
>
> abc,
>
> I have no clue what Reformers Unanimous is. However, I find it curious
> that you use the example of an obviously greedy group of some sort of
> another in criticizing me for criticizing AA. How odd.
>
> Why do you try to come up with some sort of valid criticism. Certainly,
> accusing me of greed is far off the mark. There is no group, no
> organization and no money in anything I do critical of the Step groups.
> Not one dime.
>
> But then, you probably don't care. When one's sacred cow is gored, even
> if it is a giant cockroach, the response is always attack the messenger
> and ignore the message.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com



If you will kindly reread my comments, you will note that I described RU's
agenda. I don't know what your agenda is. Moreover, I don't care what
it is. I did not utilize RU to be critical of you. Please feel free to
continue
to criticize AA, if you must. Geee, I did not see any where in my comments
where I said AA is my sacred cow. In fact, you don't have the foggiest
notion as to what, if any, my connection with AA is or was or ever was.
As I noted in my remarks, I found your web site "interesting." So AA
is a "giant cockroach"? I could say that you have resorted to name
calling, so you must have nothing to offer, or you are losing your campaign
against AA. That is usually why people resort to name calling. And
puleeeeeeeeze, my saying I believe you have an agenda is not attacking you
by any means. With as long as you have been attacking AA, I am sure
you know an attack when you see it. I said you were greedy? That's
more news to me.


abc

[Bobby L]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:cc8fb$428a4bbe$425173a0$11894@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> > So you are just AA bashing. Here I was thinking you were offering
> > alternatives because you cared about helping others get sober and stay
> > sober.
> >
> > So what did AA do to you?
> >
> > Bobby L
> >
>
> Bobby,
>
> You call it bashing. I call it warning other people before they get
> caught up like I and dear freinds did.
>
> Of course, you would call it bashing. Scientologists call any criticism
> of Scientology bashing. So, I'm sure, would Hari Krishnas, members of
> the People's Temple, Jehovah's Witnesses and etc.
>
> So be it.
>
> The point is, I don't believe in disease, I don't believe in AA, and I
> don't believe it is wrong to speak out and let people know they don't
> have to be AA'ers or died from their "Powerlessness." The organizations
> I mention on my website do not believe in "Powerlessness" and do not
> threaten people with "jails, institutions or death" if they fail to
> believe, "follow suggestions" or just up and leave.
>
> Ken Ragge

Your accusations do not match my experience. But more to the point.... You
did not answer my queston.

What did AA do to you?

Bobby L

[Ken]

Mias wrote:
> Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should try
> however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by them never
> finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice. There is a place
> where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in the next life. Try to
> stay away from that.
> Kind regards
> Mias
> 16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA

Mias,

You caution me against killing people, yet the "program" you recommend
does exactly that. Have you not read George Vaillant's "The Natural
History of Alcoholism" where he writes about his own study of sending
people to AA where those who went, did worse. Vaillant was an AA board
member and is an Al-Anon.

The only "evidence" of AA working is the kind of evidence one hears at
Wednesday-night-prayer meetings and on TV infomercials.

Someone asked me on this list what happened to me to be so critical of
AA. What happened was that I read actual scientific research, I went
beyond reading just conference approved literature and material written
by groupers.

Ken Ragge

[Ken]

dan mcgown wrote:

> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>
>>Mias wrote:
>>Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
>>insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
>>doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
> For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
> have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if any may
> be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or have to say
> about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and, if you tried it,
> I don't know what effort you put into working the 12 steps, as opposed to
> just going to meetings and/or maybe having a sponsor.
> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
> another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then good
> on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you don't do
> both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't matter what
> tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps of AA are the
> tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with all due respect, I
> believe that I'll continue to use them.
> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
> Dan
>
>
Dan,

What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

[Ken]

abc wrote:

> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:31eac$428b80f7$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>
>>abc wrote:
>>
>>>"Mias" <emiasNO@SPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
>>>news:d6eh5f$hvb$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like
>>>>an ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By
>>>>the way what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna
>>>>keep it short - "Blow of Noddy"
>>>>Kind regards
>>>>Mias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I never heard of Ragge, until I read his post here. He has an
>>>interesting web
>>>site, and in doing a Google search, I see he has a history of trashing
>>>AA.
>>>My experience over the years with his ilk has always resulted in learning
>>>they have an agenda, whether it be money or whatever. They *always*
>>>have an agenda, overt or covert. Last year, I sat in on a Reformers
>>>Unanimous
>>>presentation at a local church. They were trying to convince the church
>>>to sponsor a RU group. The RU presentation started out by immediately
>>>trashing AA. Seems the church currently allowed a rent-paying AA group
>>>to meet in their facilities. Obviously, RU wanted the AA group out of
>>>the
>>>church. RU's agenda, in this case, was fairly obvious. AA paid rent and
>>>took nothing from the church. RU could not tolerate that. RU's goal, if
>>>allowed to start a local group, was to be the sole source of RU
>>>literature and
>>>other RU items, which would be *sold* to the church for absurd prices.
>>>The RU group would pay no rent. A sweet deal for RU, pay nothing and
>>>charge for everything. In this case, it was just a matter of following
>>>the trail
>>>of the money to reveal the agenda. Ragge types come and go. I view
>>>them as a curiosity, one that will probably be off the radar sooner or
>>>later.
>>>
>>>
>>>abc
>>>
>>
>>abc,
>>
>>I have no clue what Reformers Unanimous is. However, I find it curious
>>that you use the example of an obviously greedy group of some sort of
>>another in criticizing me for criticizing AA. How odd.
>>
>>Why do you try to come up with some sort of valid criticism. Certainly,
>>accusing me of greed is far off the mark. There is no group, no
>>organization and no money in anything I do critical of the Step groups.
>>Not one dime.
>>
>>But then, you probably don't care. When one's sacred cow is gored, even
>>if it is a giant cockroach, the response is always attack the messenger
>>and ignore the message.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>
>
> If you will kindly reread my comments, you will note that I described RU's
> agenda. I don't know what your agenda is. Moreover, I don't care what
> it is. I did not utilize RU to be critical of you. Please feel free to
> continue
> to criticize AA, if you must. Geee, I did not see any where in my comments
> where I said AA is my sacred cow. In fact, you don't have the foggiest
> notion as to what, if any, my connection with AA is or was or ever was.
> As I noted in my remarks, I found your web site "interesting." So AA
> is a "giant cockroach"? I could say that you have resorted to name
> calling, so you must have nothing to offer, or you are losing your campaign
> against AA. That is usually why people resort to name calling. And
> puleeeeeeeeze, my saying I believe you have an agenda is not attacking you
> by any means. With as long as you have been attacking AA, I am sure
> you know an attack when you see it. I said you were greedy? That's
> more news to me.
>
>
> abc
>
>
abc,

If you reread what you wrote, you might see that it is run-of-the-mill
passive-aggressive Stepper bullshit.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

[dan mcgown]

Oh, I guess that you are just a troll. I said nothing about my religious
beliefs and said that I wasn't concerned about yours -- and yet the best
that you could do is toss back some irrelevant crap about "proseletyzing
your religious beliefs " -- Are you completely illiterate, totally illogical
or just looking for an argument?


"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:ec1c4$428c0d57$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> dan mcgown wrote:
>
>> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>
>>>Mias wrote:
>>>Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
>>>insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
>>>doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>> For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
>> have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if any
>> may be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or have to
>> say about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and, if you
>> tried it, I don't know what effort you put into working the 12 steps, as
>> opposed to just going to meetings and/or maybe having a sponsor.
>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>> another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>> good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>> don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>> matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps of
>> AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with all
>> due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
>> Dan
> Dan,
>
> What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
> proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

[abc]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:d98c6$428c0dc0$42517fd2$21777@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> abc wrote:
>
>> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:31eac$428b80f7$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>
>>>abc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mias" <emiasNO@SPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
>>>>news:d6eh5f$hvb$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear Ken - every now and again, on schedule, you blow through here like
>>>>>an ill wind. Every time I try to convince you that AA is not a cult (By
>>>>>the way what is your defenition of a cult?) etc. This time I am gonna
>>>>>keep it short - "Blow of Noddy"
>>>>>Kind regards
>>>>>Mias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I never heard of Ragge, until I read his post here. He has an
>>>>interesting web
>>>>site, and in doing a Google search, I see he has a history of trashing
>>>>AA.
>>>>My experience over the years with his ilk has always resulted in
>>>>learning
>>>>they have an agenda, whether it be money or whatever. They *always*
>>>>have an agenda, overt or covert. Last year, I sat in on a Reformers
>>>>Unanimous
>>>>presentation at a local church. They were trying to convince the church
>>>>to sponsor a RU group. The RU presentation started out by immediately
>>>>trashing AA. Seems the church currently allowed a rent-paying AA group
>>>>to meet in their facilities. Obviously, RU wanted the AA group out of
>>>>the
>>>>church. RU's agenda, in this case, was fairly obvious. AA paid rent
>>>>and
>>>>took nothing from the church. RU could not tolerate that. RU's goal,
>>>>if
>>>>allowed to start a local group, was to be the sole source of RU
>>>>literature and
>>>>other RU items, which would be *sold* to the church for absurd prices.
>>>>The RU group would pay no rent. A sweet deal for RU, pay nothing and
>>>>charge for everything. In this case, it was just a matter of following
>>>>the trail
>>>>of the money to reveal the agenda. Ragge types come and go. I view
>>>>them as a curiosity, one that will probably be off the radar sooner or
>>>>later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>abc
>>>>
>>>
>>>abc,
>>>
>>>I have no clue what Reformers Unanimous is. However, I find it curious
>>>that you use the example of an obviously greedy group of some sort of
>>>another in criticizing me for criticizing AA. How odd.
>>>
>>>Why do you try to come up with some sort of valid criticism. Certainly,
>>>accusing me of greed is far off the mark. There is no group, no
>>>organization and no money in anything I do critical of the Step groups.
>>>Not one dime.
>>>
>>>But then, you probably don't care. When one's sacred cow is gored, even
>>>if it is a giant cockroach, the response is always attack the messenger
>>>and ignore the message.
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you will kindly reread my comments, you will note that I described
>> RU's
>> agenda. I don't know what your agenda is. Moreover, I don't care what
>> it is. I did not utilize RU to be critical of you. Please feel free to
>> continue
>> to criticize AA, if you must. Geee, I did not see any where in my
>> comments
>> where I said AA is my sacred cow. In fact, you don't have the foggiest
>> notion as to what, if any, my connection with AA is or was or ever was.
>> As I noted in my remarks, I found your web site "interesting." So AA
>> is a "giant cockroach"? I could say that you have resorted to name
>> calling, so you must have nothing to offer, or you are losing your
>> campaign
>> against AA. That is usually why people resort to name calling. And
>> puleeeeeeeeze, my saying I believe you have an agenda is not attacking
>> you
>> by any means. With as long as you have been attacking AA, I am sure
>> you know an attack when you see it. I said you were greedy? That's
>> more news to me.
>>
>>
>> abc
>>
>>
> abc,
>
> If you reread what you wrote, you might see that it is run-of-the-mill
> passive-aggressive Stepper bullshit.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com




YAWWWWWWWWWWWWN!

[abc]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:83df2$428c0cff$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> Mias wrote:
>> Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should try
>> however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by them
>> never finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice. There is a
>> place where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in the next life.
>> Try to stay away from that.
>> Kind regards
>> Mias
>> 16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA
>
> Mias,
>
> You caution me against killing people, yet the "program" you recommend
> does exactly that. Have you not read George Vaillant's "The Natural
> History of Alcoholism" where he writes about his own study of sending
> people to AA where those who went, did worse. Vaillant was an AA board
> member and is an Al-Anon.
>
> The only "evidence" of AA working is the kind of evidence one hears at
> Wednesday-night-prayer meetings and on TV infomercials.
>
> Someone asked me on this list what happened to me to be so critical of AA.
> What happened was that I read actual scientific research, I went beyond
> reading just conference approved literature and material written by
> groupers.
>
> Ken Ragge



Hmmmm, scientific research? Sounds like the usual
Creationist - Evolutionary discussion again.

abc

[abc]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:ec1c4$428c0d57$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> dan mcgown wrote:
>
>> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>
>>>Mias wrote:
>>>Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
>>>insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
>>>doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>> For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
>> have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if any
>> may be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or have to
>> say about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and, if you
>> tried it, I don't know what effort you put into working the 12 steps, as
>> opposed to just going to meetings and/or maybe having a sponsor.
>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>> another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>> good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>> don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>> matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps of
>> AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with all
>> due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
>> Dan
> Dan,
>
> What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
> proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com



No absolutes. Yeah, that's the way we ought to live.
Free will run riot.


abc

[Ken]

dan mcgown wrot:
>>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>>>another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>>>good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>>>don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>>>matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12
steps of
>>>AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with
all
>>>due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
ken wrote:
>>Dan,
>>
>>What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
>>proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
dan mcgown wrote:
> Oh, I guess that you are just a troll. I said nothing about my religious
> beliefs and said that I wasn't concerned about yours -- and yet the best
> that you could do is toss back some irrelevant crap about "proseletyzing
> your religious beliefs " -- Are you completely illiterate, totally illogical
> or just looking for an argument?
>
Dan,

Reread what you wrote above. Can you not find the expression of core
12-Step beliefs throughout? For example,

"From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
another drunk get and stay sober."

First, you are using Step language, using the word "sober" when
non-Steppers would think you mean simple abstinence, not the "spiritual"
or "emotional" "sobriety" the Steps claim to offer.

Then you go on to call the Steps "tools." Well, they are tools, sort of.
They are not tools to use to keep oneself abstinent, they are tools
that one is to be gotten to use on themselves to acheive religious
conversion.

"Stay sober and help a drunk . . ." is the old Oxford Group's "like
working with like" updated. And you continue, "-- that's all there is,
really." Well, for members of a cult, that is all their is, all their
is of any importance, anyway. It is "working with others" and "carrying
the message." Proseletyzing, pure and simple.

Ken Ragge



> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:ec1c4$428c0d57$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>
>>dan mcgown wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mias wrote:
>>>>Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
>>>>insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
>>>>doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>>>>
>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>
>>>
>>> For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
>>>have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if any
>>>may be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or have to
>>>say about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and, if you
>>>tried it, I don't know what effort you put into working the 12 steps, as
>>>opposed to just going to meetings and/or maybe having a sponsor.
>>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>>>another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>>>good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>>>don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>>>matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps of
>>>AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with all
>>>due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
>>> Dan
>>
>>Dan,
>>
>>What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
>>proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>

[Ken]

abc wrote:
> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:83df2$428c0cff$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>
>>Mias wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should try
>>>however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by them
>>>never finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice. There is a
>>>place where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in the next life.
>>>Try to stay away from that.
>>>Kind regards
>>>Mias
>>>16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA
>>
>>Mias,
>>
>>You caution me against killing people, yet the "program" you recommend
>>does exactly that. Have you not read George Vaillant's "The Natural
>>History of Alcoholism" where he writes about his own study of sending
>>people to AA where those who went, did worse. Vaillant was an AA board
>>member and is an Al-Anon.
>>
>>The only "evidence" of AA working is the kind of evidence one hears at
>>Wednesday-night-prayer meetings and on TV infomercials.
>>
>>Someone asked me on this list what happened to me to be so critical of AA.
>>What happened was that I read actual scientific research, I went beyond
>>reading just conference approved literature and material written by
>>groupers.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>
>
>
>
> Hmmmm, scientific research? Sounds like the usual
> Creationist - Evolutionary discussion again.
>
> abc
>

abc,

That is exactly what it is. People like George Vaillant who are
Steppers themselves write "scientific" works expounding Step doctrine
while never revealing either their membership nor the source of their
ideas. The "education" of the public in this "Sacred Science" has been
done in large part by Stepper front groups like the NCADD and great
effort has been made to suppress studies and discount findings counter
to Step doctrine.

If you remember the name Jellinek, he was a fraud who founded the sacred
science which is very similar in the way it is reasoned (or not
reasoned) out. He merely took the results of an AA poll of AA members,
threw out the ones he didn't like, and (I beleive with Marty Mann) wrote
up the disease in terms of Stepdom. It has gone on from there.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

[Dan McGown]

Oh, I understand. What the plain meaning of my words is doesn't
matter. What matters is how you interpret my words based upon your virulent
bias against anything that might be in any way related to a 12 step program.
The difference between your blind belligerence and just being a troll
could only matter to a troll breeder. I have neither the time nor the
inclination to continue to dispute with someone who bases his argument on
redefining ever word that I use to suit his own purposes.
Since you don't think that staying sober or helping a drunk are
laudable goals, I suggest that you do neither.


"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:a7030$428cb8ab$425142bd$25679@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> dan mcgown wrot:
> >>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
> >>>another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
> >>>good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
> >>>don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
> >>>matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12
> steps of
> >>>AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with
> all
> >>>due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
> >>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
> ken wrote:
> >>Dan,
> >>
> >>What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
> >>proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
> >>
> >>Ken Ragge
> >>http://www.morerevealed.com
> dan mcgown wrote:
>> Oh, I guess that you are just a troll. I said nothing about my religious
>> beliefs and said that I wasn't concerned about yours -- and yet the best
>> that you could do is toss back some irrelevant crap about "proseletyzing
>> your religious beliefs " -- Are you completely illiterate, totally
>> illogical or just looking for an argument?
>>
> Dan,
>
> Reread what you wrote above. Can you not find the expression of core
> 12-Step beliefs throughout? For example,
>
> "From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
> another drunk get and stay sober."
>
> First, you are using Step language, using the word "sober" when
> non-Steppers would think you mean simple abstinence, not the "spiritual"
> or "emotional" "sobriety" the Steps claim to offer.
>
> Then you go on to call the Steps "tools." Well, they are tools, sort of.
> They are not tools to use to keep oneself abstinent, they are tools that
> one is to be gotten to use on themselves to acheive religious conversion.
>
> "Stay sober and help a drunk . . ." is the old Oxford Group's "like
> working with like" updated. And you continue, "-- that's all there is,
> really." Well, for members of a cult, that is all their is, all their is
> of any importance, anyway. It is "working with others" and "carrying the
> message." Proseletyzing, pure and simple.
>
> Ken Ragge
>
>
>
>> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:ec1c4$428c0d57$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>
>>>dan mcgown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mias wrote:
>>>>>Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
>>>>>insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
>>>>>doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
>>>> have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if
>>>> any may be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or
>>>> have to say about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and,
>>>> if you tried it, I don't know what effort you put into working the 12
>>>> steps, as opposed to just going to meetings and/or maybe having a
>>>> sponsor.
>>>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>>>> another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>>>> good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>>>> don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>>>> matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps
>>>> of AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with
>>>> all due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>>>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>>Dan,
>>>
>>>What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
>>>proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>

[abc]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:346c9$428cba55$425142bd$25706@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
> abc wrote:
>> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:83df2$428c0cff$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>
>>>Mias wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should try
>>>>however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by them
>>>>never finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice. There is a
>>>>place where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in the next life.
>>>>Try to stay away from that.
>>>>Kind regards
>>>>Mias
>>>>16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA
>>>
>>>Mias,
>>>
>>>You caution me against killing people, yet the "program" you recommend
>>>does exactly that. Have you not read George Vaillant's "The Natural
>>>History of Alcoholism" where he writes about his own study of sending
>>>people to AA where those who went, did worse. Vaillant was an AA board
>>>member and is an Al-Anon.
>>>
>>>The only "evidence" of AA working is the kind of evidence one hears at
>>>Wednesday-night-prayer meetings and on TV infomercials.
>>>
>>>Someone asked me on this list what happened to me to be so critical of
>>>AA. What happened was that I read actual scientific research, I went
>>>beyond reading just conference approved literature and material written
>>>by groupers.
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmmm, scientific research? Sounds like the usual
>> Creationist - Evolutionary discussion again.
>>
>> abc
>>
>
> abc,
>
> That is exactly what it is. People like George Vaillant who are Steppers
> themselves write "scientific" works expounding Step doctrine while never
> revealing either their membership nor the source of their ideas. The
> "education" of the public in this "Sacred Science" has been done in large
> part by Stepper front groups like the NCADD and great effort has been made
> to suppress studies and discount findings counter to Step doctrine.
>
> If you remember the name Jellinek, he was a fraud who founded the sacred
> science which is very similar in the way it is reasoned (or not reasoned)
> out. He merely took the results of an AA poll of AA members, threw out
> the ones he didn't like, and (I beleive with Marty Mann) wrote up the
> disease in terms of Stepdom. It has gone on from there.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com



AA is, and always should be, a program for those who have
no where else to turn and are desperate to stop drinking.
Meaning those alcoholics who will do anything to stop drinking,
short of doing anything that is immoral or illegal. Dang! Bet
that's why those AA guys are so successful.

abc

[Ken]

Dan McGown wrote:
> Oh, I understand. What the plain meaning of my words is doesn't
> matter. What matters is how you interpret my words based upon your virulent
> bias against anything that might be in any way related to a 12 step program.

Dan,

The "plain meaning" of your words in Programese is a different "plain
meaning" in Stardard English. Of course, the use of such words in such
words serves a purpose. Other groups, like Scientologists, Moonies and
People's Temple redefine language too.

Ken Ragge

> The difference between your blind belligerence and just being a troll
> could only matter to a troll breeder. I have neither the time nor the
> inclination to continue to dispute with someone who bases his argument on
> redefining ever word that I use to suit his own purposes.
> Since you don't think that staying sober or helping a drunk are
> laudable goals, I suggest that you do neither.
>
>
> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:a7030$428cb8ab$425142bd$25679@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>
>>dan mcgown wrot:
>>
>>>>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>>>>>another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>>>>>good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>>>>>don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>>>>>matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12
>>
>>steps of
>>
>>>>>AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with
>>
>>all
>>
>>>>>due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>>>>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
>>
>>ken wrote:
>>
>>>>Dan,
>>>>
>>>>What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
>>>>proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>>>>
>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>dan mcgown wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, I guess that you are just a troll. I said nothing about my religious
>>>beliefs and said that I wasn't concerned about yours -- and yet the best
>>>that you could do is toss back some irrelevant crap about "proseletyzing
>>>your religious beliefs " -- Are you completely illiterate, totally
>>>illogical or just looking for an argument?
>>>
>>
>>Dan,
>>
>>Reread what you wrote above. Can you not find the expression of core
>>12-Step beliefs throughout? For example,
>>
>>"From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>>another drunk get and stay sober."
>>
>>First, you are using Step language, using the word "sober" when
>>non-Steppers would think you mean simple abstinence, not the "spiritual"
>>or "emotional" "sobriety" the Steps claim to offer.
>>
>>Then you go on to call the Steps "tools." Well, they are tools, sort of.
>>They are not tools to use to keep oneself abstinent, they are tools that
>>one is to be gotten to use on themselves to acheive religious conversion.
>>
>>"Stay sober and help a drunk . . ." is the old Oxford Group's "like
>>working with like" updated. And you continue, "-- that's all there is,
>>really." Well, for members of a cult, that is all their is, all their is
>>of any importance, anyway. It is "working with others" and "carrying the
>>message." Proseletyzing, pure and simple.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ec1c4$428c0d57$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>dan mcgown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:c1772$428b818e$4251710c$18432@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mias wrote:
>>>>>>Well, in order to keep it short myself, I would say that any group that
>>>>>>insists that someone is "surely signing his own death warrant" if he
>>>>>>doesn't practice group doctrine is to be seriously looked at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For myself, Ken, I don't care what your religion is, or whether you
>>>>>have one, and I don't care what your organizational affiliations, if
>>>>>any may be. In fact, I don't even much care what you think about or
>>>>>have to say about AA. I don't know whether it would work for you and,
>>>>>if you tried it, I don't know what effort you put into working the 12
>>>>>steps, as opposed to just going to meetings and/or maybe having a
>>>>>sponsor.
>>>>> From my perspective there are only two goals: stay sober and help
>>>>>another drunk get and stay sober. If you do both of those things then
>>>>>good on ye and I don't much care what tools you use to do it. If you
>>>>>don't do both of those things then I have no use for you and it doesn't
>>>>>matter what tools you use to fail. For what it's worth, the 12 steps
>>>>>of AA are the tools that I have used to be able to do both and so, with
>>>>>all due respect, I believe that I'll continue to use them.
>>>>> Stay sober and help a drunk -- that's all there is, really.
>>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>Dan,
>>>>
>>>>What a tiny, narrow world you live in, where there is nothing but
>>>>proseletyzing your religious beliefs to those in trouble.
>>>>
>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>>
>>>
>

[Ken]

abc wrote:

> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:346c9$428cba55$425142bd$25706@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>
>>abc wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>news:83df2$428c0cff$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should try
>>>>>however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by them
>>>>>never finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice. There is a
>>>>>place where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in the next life.
>>>>>Try to stay away from that.
>>>>>Kind regards
>>>>>Mias
>>>>>16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA
>>>>
>>>>Mias,
>>>>
>>>>You caution me against killing people, yet the "program" you recommend
>>>>does exactly that. Have you not read George Vaillant's "The Natural
>>>>History of Alcoholism" where he writes about his own study of sending
>>>>people to AA where those who went, did worse. Vaillant was an AA board
>>>>member and is an Al-Anon.
>>>>
>>>>The only "evidence" of AA working is the kind of evidence one hears at
>>>>Wednesday-night-prayer meetings and on TV infomercials.
>>>>
>>>>Someone asked me on this list what happened to me to be so critical of
>>>>AA. What happened was that I read actual scientific research, I went
>>>>beyond reading just conference approved literature and material written
>>>>by groupers.
>>>>
>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmmm, scientific research? Sounds like the usual
>>>Creationist - Evolutionary discussion again.
>>>
>>>abc
>>>
>>
>>abc,
>>
>>That is exactly what it is. People like George Vaillant who are Steppers
>>themselves write "scientific" works expounding Step doctrine while never
>>revealing either their membership nor the source of their ideas. The
>>"education" of the public in this "Sacred Science" has been done in large
>>part by Stepper front groups like the NCADD and great effort has been made
>>to suppress studies and discount findings counter to Step doctrine.
>>
>>If you remember the name Jellinek, he was a fraud who founded the sacred
>>science which is very similar in the way it is reasoned (or not reasoned)
>>out. He merely took the results of an AA poll of AA members, threw out
>>the ones he didn't like, and (I beleive with Marty Mann) wrote up the
>>disease in terms of Stepdom. It has gone on from there.
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>
>
> AA is, and always should be, a program for those who have
> no where else to turn and are desperate to stop drinking.
> Meaning those alcoholics who will do anything to stop drinking,
> short of doing anything that is immoral or illegal. Dang! Bet
> that's why those AA guys are so successful.
>
> abc
>

abc,

AA is a program of coercion, not of attraction. It is there for whoever
can be gotten there whether by promotion or coercion. If an "alcoholic"
will do anything to stop drinking, then why doesn't he just stop?
That's right, you present images and suggestions of powerless so his
attempts to stop get more and more screwed up.

Where do you come off saying AA is so successful? Just because it is
repeated over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Show me one
methodolocially sound piece of research that shows it works.

Wednesday-night prayer meeting and TV infomercial type testimony are
mean nothing.

Ken Ragge

[abc]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:6335b$428e4d1c$4f62482$2440@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> abc wrote:
>
>> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>> news:346c9$428cba55$425142bd$25706@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>
>>>abc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:83df2$428c0cff$42517fd2$21776@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear Ken - well, as long as it keeps you sober let it be. You should
>>>>>>try however not to do harm where good is. You can kill some people by
>>>>>>them never finding a solution if they mistakenly take your advice.
>>>>>>There is a place where people that causes s..t here on earth fry in
>>>>>>the next life. Try to stay away from that.
>>>>>>Kind regards
>>>>>>Mias
>>>>>>16 years and thank you AA for God and God for AA
>>>>>
>>>>>Mias,
>>>>>
>>>>>You caution me against killing people, yet the "program" you recommend
>>>>>does exactly that. Have you not read George Vaillant's "The Natural
>>>>>History of Alcoholism" where he writes about his own study of sending
>>>>>people to AA where those who went, did worse. Vaillant was an AA board
>>>>>member and is an Al-Anon.
>>>>>
>>>>>The only "evidence" of AA working is the kind of evidence one hears at
>>>>>Wednesday-night-prayer meetings and on TV infomercials.
>>>>>
>>>>>Someone asked me on this list what happened to me to be so critical of
>>>>>AA. What happened was that I read actual scientific research, I went
>>>>>beyond reading just conference approved literature and material written
>>>>>by groupers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ken Ragge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hmmmm, scientific research? Sounds like the usual
>>>>Creationist - Evolutionary discussion again.
>>>>
>>>>abc
>>>>
>>>
>>>abc,
>>>
>>>That is exactly what it is. People like George Vaillant who are Steppers
>>>themselves write "scientific" works expounding Step doctrine while never
>>>revealing either their membership nor the source of their ideas. The
>>>"education" of the public in this "Sacred Science" has been done in large
>>>part by Stepper front groups like the NCADD and great effort has been
>>>made to suppress studies and discount findings counter to Step doctrine.
>>>
>>>If you remember the name Jellinek, he was a fraud who founded the sacred
>>>science which is very similar in the way it is reasoned (or not reasoned)
>>>out. He merely took the results of an AA poll of AA members, threw out
>>>the ones he didn't like, and (I beleive with Marty Mann) wrote up the
>>>disease in terms of Stepdom. It has gone on from there.
>>>
>>>Ken Ragge
>>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AA is, and always should be, a program for those who have
>> no where else to turn and are desperate to stop drinking.
>> Meaning those alcoholics who will do anything to stop drinking,
>> short of doing anything that is immoral or illegal. Dang! Bet
>> that's why those AA guys are so successful.
>>
>> abc
>>
>
> abc,
>
> AA is a program of coercion, not of attraction. It is there for whoever
> can be gotten there whether by promotion or coercion. If an "alcoholic"
> will do anything to stop drinking, then why doesn't he just stop? That's
> right, you present images and suggestions of powerless so his attempts to
> stop get more and more screwed up.
>
> Where do you come off saying AA is so successful? Just because it is
> repeated over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Show me one
> methodolocially sound piece of research that shows it works.
>
> Wednesday-night prayer meeting and TV infomercial type testimony are mean
> nothing.
>
> Ken Ragge



I don't know how someone would go about actually "measuring" the
success of AA. Here is something anyone can do though. Go to
somewhere where there is a very large AA meeting. Take a look at
the cars in the parking lot. No doubt you will see anything from very
expensive cars, down to junkers. Take a good look at how many
expensive cars there are. They belong to the guys who have been
sober the longest.

abc

[J.C.]

Ken <ken@isp.com> writes:

> AA is a program of coercion, not of attraction. It is there for
> whoever can be gotten there whether by promotion or coercion. If an
> "alcoholic" will do anything to stop drinking, then why doesn't he
> just stop? That's right, you present images and suggestions of
> powerless so his attempts to stop get more and more screwed up.
>
> Where do you come off saying AA is so successful? Just because it is
> repeated over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Show me
> one methodolocially sound piece of research that shows it works.

What about project MATCH? I assume you are familiar with that series?

[Ken]

J.C. wrote:
> Ken <ken@isp.com> writes:
>
>
>>AA is a program of coercion, not of attraction. It is there for
>>whoever can be gotten there whether by promotion or coercion. If an
>>"alcoholic" will do anything to stop drinking, then why doesn't he
>>just stop? That's right, you present images and suggestions of
>>powerless so his attempts to stop get more and more screwed up.
>>
>>Where do you come off saying AA is so successful? Just because it is
>>repeated over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Show me
>>one methodolocially sound piece of research that shows it works.
>
>
> What about project MATCH? I assume you are familiar with that series?
>

J.C.,

What about Project Match? What do you think that proved? One thing
wrong with it was that there was no control group. Can you imagine a
study which was supposed to prove which breakfast cereal was best for
curing, say, brain cancer?

Imagine the researchers divide people up into three groups and each
group eats a different breakfast cereal every day, one Wheaties, one
Cheerios, and one Cap'n Crunch. At the end of a year, they find that
the remission rates in all three groups is the same. Does that mean
that Cap'n Crunch works as well as Cheerios and as well as Wheaties to
cure brain cancer? Of course not. And it is the same with Project
Match. There was no control group.

PM has been touted by the treatment industry as proving "treatment
works." Nothing could be further from the truth. It proved nothing.

Well, maybe one thing. Coming from a governmental perspective, where
cost matters, Motivational Interviewing turned out to be the best of
those tested. It cost the least.

So where is the evidence that AA works short of Wednesday-night prayer
meeting and TV ad type testimonials?

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com

[Mias]

Well Ken - I am living evidence in that I tried every bloody which way and
AA worked for me in the end. I do not know how to convey to you that you
must push your own brand without cutting others down. Let the best man win
so to speak. Personally I do not believe you are for real and for me you
border on evil
Good luck
Mias
16 Years clean and sober because of AA and enjoying every second!
"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:53487$428f5544$4f6274e$8447@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> J.C. wrote:
>> Ken <ken@isp.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>AA is a program of coercion, not of attraction. It is there for
>>>whoever can be gotten there whether by promotion or coercion. If an
>>>"alcoholic" will do anything to stop drinking, then why doesn't he
>>>just stop? That's right, you present images and suggestions of
>>>powerless so his attempts to stop get more and more screwed up.
>>>
>>>Where do you come off saying AA is so successful? Just because it is
>>>repeated over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Show me
>>>one methodolocially sound piece of research that shows it works.
>>
>>
>> What about project MATCH? I assume you are familiar with that series?
>>
>
> J.C.,
>
> What about Project Match? What do you think that proved? One thing wrong
> with it was that there was no control group. Can you imagine a study
> which was supposed to prove which breakfast cereal was best for curing,
> say, brain cancer?
>
> Imagine the researchers divide people up into three groups and each group
> eats a different breakfast cereal every day, one Wheaties, one Cheerios,
> and one Cap'n Crunch. At the end of a year, they find that the remission
> rates in all three groups is the same. Does that mean that Cap'n Crunch
> works as well as Cheerios and as well as Wheaties to cure brain cancer?
> Of course not. And it is the same with Project Match. There was no
> control group.
>
> PM has been touted by the treatment industry as proving "treatment works."
> Nothing could be further from the truth. It proved nothing.
>
> Well, maybe one thing. Coming from a governmental perspective, where cost
> matters, Motivational Interviewing turned out to be the best of those
> tested. It cost the least.
>
> So where is the evidence that AA works short of Wednesday-night prayer
> meeting and TV ad type testimonials?
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com

[Ken]

Mias wrote:
> Well Ken - I am living evidence in that I tried every bloody which way and
> AA worked for me in the end. I do not know how to convey to you that you
> must push your own brand without cutting others down. Let the best man win
> so to speak. Personally I do not believe you are for real and for me you
> border on evil
> Good luck
> Mias
> 16 Years clean and sober because of AA and enjoying every second!
> "Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:53487$428f5544$4f6274e$8447@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>

Mias,

Are you sure that AA worked for you or is it not possible that you just
got sick and tired of drinking to excess? Methodologically sound
research shows that AA works, at best, no better than "nothing."

That you no longer self-destructively drink, that is great. But the
fact that you don't drink is _not_ any better proof of AA "working" than
a Wednesday-night sharer at the local Baptist church attributing his
cancer remission to the local Church.

I don't think you are evil. Well-intentioned? Sure. Misguided? Yes, I
think that too.

Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com


>>J.C. wrote:
>>
>>>Ken <ken@isp.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>AA is a program of coercion, not of attraction. It is there for
>>>>whoever can be gotten there whether by promotion or coercion. If an
>>>>"alcoholic" will do anything to stop drinking, then why doesn't he
>>>>just stop? That's right, you present images and suggestions of
>>>>powerless so his attempts to stop get more and more screwed up.
>>>>
>>>>Where do you come off saying AA is so successful? Just because it is
>>>>repeated over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Show me
>>>>one methodolocially sound piece of research that shows it works.
>>>
>>>
>>>What about project MATCH? I assume you are familiar with that series?
>>>
>>
>>J.C.,
>>
>>What about Project Match? What do you think that proved? One thing wrong
>>with it was that there was no control group. Can you imagine a study
>>which was supposed to prove which breakfast cereal was best for curing,
>>say, brain cancer?
>>
>>Imagine the researchers divide people up into three groups and each group
>>eats a different breakfast cereal every day, one Wheaties, one Cheerios,
>>and one Cap'n Crunch. At the end of a year, they find that the remission
>>rates in all three groups is the same. Does that mean that Cap'n Crunch
>>works as well as Cheerios and as well as Wheaties to cure brain cancer?
>>Of course not. And it is the same with Project Match. There was no
>>control group.
>>
>>PM has been touted by the treatment industry as proving "treatment works."
>>Nothing could be further from the truth. It proved nothing.
>>
>>Well, maybe one thing. Coming from a governmental perspective, where cost
>>matters, Motivational Interviewing turned out to be the best of those
>>tested. It cost the least.
>>
>>So where is the evidence that AA works short of Wednesday-night prayer
>>meeting and TV ad type testimonials?
>>
>>Ken Ragge
>>http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>

[Mias]

"Ken" <ken@isp.com> wrote in message
news:d10cc$428f7988$4f6277a$9553@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> Are you sure that AA worked for you or is it not possible that you just
> got sick and tired of drinking to excess? Methodologically sound research
> shows that AA works, at best, no better than "nothing."
Ken - believe me I tried every which way including suicide and putting the
cork on. AA works! I thank God for AA and AA for God. Why do you not just
promote whatever way you think should work and leave AA alone?
Are you an alcoholic? What worked for you?
That AA works is as visible as that the sun shines or that the wind blows.
Truth is easy to recognize. This game of yours is not so easy that is why I
suspect your game to be built on lies. Is it? What you are busy doing
borders on evil or if you are doing it with negative intent, is evil.