Some Words About A.A.'s Effectiveness from an A.A. Board Member
Ken
Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
“It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA
members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking
self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was
working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ...
After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never
relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence
that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural
history of the disease. ...Not only had we failed to alter the
natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a
year was appalling.” [The Natural History of Alcoholism, Cambridge,
London: Harvard University Press, 1983:283-285]
This is why one rarely sees any methodologically-sound comparing A.A. to
any other treatment or no treatment whatsoever.
“...if we have not cured all the alcoholics who were first
detoxified over 8 years ago, the likelihood of members of the Clinic
sample attending AA has been significantly increased.” [The Natural
History of Alcoholism, Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press,
1983:292]
And this is why A.A. is such a scary, dangerous organization no matter
how sincere the A.A. members you meet/know may be. An M.D. from Harvard
in his own research finds A.A. doesn't work, yet he still is compelled
to boast of his ability to get people to attend A.A. It is like, "Our
research showed that giving people experimental drug X killed them at an
appalling rate, but all is not lost. We got lots of people to take drug X!"
You can read brief summaries of Vaillant's and other research on A.A.
at: http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_26.jsp
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
F.H.
> The following is from Harvard psychiatrist, A.A. board member and
> Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
>
> “It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA
> members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking
> self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
> inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was
> working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
>
> But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ...
Yes, proving efficacy *can* be a rub, eh Ken. How's that going with
*your* narcissistic obsession? What *is* the criteria for success in
jousting with windmills? "Efficacy" indeed.
Rob D.
> The following is from Harvard psychiatrist, A.A. board member and
> Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
>
> “It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA
> members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking
> self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
> inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was
> working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
>
> But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ...
>
> After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never
> relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence
> that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural
> history of the disease. ...Not only had we failed to alter the
> natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a
> year was appalling.”
Especially as compared to the previous death rate
of...hmmm...er...um...
Gosh...looks like my chances of dying this year, due to my
participation in AA, is 3%!
I had better look for something else!
(We're doomed, I tells ya! Doooomed!)
Ken
Actually, if you are someone who has been in A.A. for a long time and
successfully abstinent, you are probably very unlikely to die from
drinking although smoking-related causes is near the top of the list of
likely causes of death. But no matter, I suppose. A.A. members even
when they know they are about to go off on a suicidal binge, at least
from what I've seen, tend to promote the program even more ardently.
In any case, note from the studies in the table below taken from George
Vaillant's own book on Vaillant's own study, "The Natural History of
Alcoholism." His (the A.A. study) has the highest death rate of all
that A.A. board member Vaillant decided to include in the table.
TABLE 8.2 Long-term follow-up of treated and untreated alcoholics.
Study
n in original sample
n followed up
duration of follow-up (years) abstinent or social drinking improved
abusing alcohol or dead dead gamma alcoholics
Vaillant's
clinic sample [A.A.]
106
100
8
38%
7%
55%
29%
95%
Myerson and Mayer 1966
101
100
10
22%
24
54
20
100
Bratfos 1974
1179
478
10
12
25
63
14
87
Goodwin, Crane, and Guze 1971
123
93
8
26
15
59
5
c.75
Voetglin and Broz 1949
?
104
7
22
13
65
?
?
Lundquist 1973
200
200
9
27
20
53
22.5
c.75
/The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes, Patterns, and Paths to
Recovery/, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1983, pages 283-286. cited from
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
matters, from the table here is the duration and the death rate for each
study:
Study duration dead
in years
Vaillant's 8 29%
clinic
sample
Myerson 10 20%
and Mayer
1966
Bratfos 1974 10 14%
Goodwin, Crane, 8 5%
and Guze 1971
Voetglin and 7 ?
Broz 1949
Lundquist 1973 9 22.5%
To see the table from /The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes,
Patterns, and Paths to Recovery/, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983, pages 283-286 with all data laid out in a
reasonable manner see:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant or order
Vaillant's book from your library to see the original.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
F.H.
> To see the table from /The Natural History of Alcoholism: Causes,
> Patterns, and Paths to Recovery/, George E. Vaillant, Harvard University
> Press, Cambridge, MA,
What a surprise, an old man who spent his entire life studying or
practicing psychiatry writes a book on alcoholism which focuses on
causes such as habit, social conditions, ethnic culture, depression,
antisocial and extroverted personalities, family problems (due to
alcoholism), and concludes that long-term sobriety usually involves:
1. a less harmful, substitute dependency.
2. new relationships
3. sources of inspiration and hope
4. experiencing negative consequences of drinking.
By Gawd, one had better avoid 12 step programs if they need any of
*those* things. BUT FEAR NOT....Ken Ragge will arrive on his white horse
to save all these societal rejects from the evil 12 step programs.
Of course, like any good *psychiatrist* the good doctor avoids any
mention of nutrition, particularly the relationship between low blood
sugar (hypoglycemia) and alcohol abuse.
http://www.healthrecovery.net/7_Weeks_To_Sobriety_author.html
Ken
I'm at a bit of a loss what the point you are trying to make is. The
"old man who . . ." is A.A. board member George Vaillant. His
" habit, social conditions, ethnic culture, depression,
antisocial and extroverted personalities, family problems (due to
alcoholism), and concludes that long-term sobriety usually involves:
1. a less harmful, substitute dependency.
2. new relationships
3. sources of inspiration and hope
4. experiencing negative consequences of drinking. "
Was an attempt to defend A.A. and promote A.A. with the general public.
His treatment was A.A. His high death rate, which surprised him but
didn't slow him down from recommending A.A., was A.A.
Are you suggesting that A.A., where one is normally told to eat a
chocolate bar or something else sweet to cope with cravings, only had
the highest death rate because A.A.s eat too many sweets?
http://www.healthrecovery.net/7_Weeks_To_Sobriety_author.html
Do you have any evidence that the other studies and Vaillant's A.A.
study were different in terms of diet?
Or did you just slip that URL in a "proof" for me to use in an argument
elsewhere where I mentioned the high rate of suicide in A.A. and a
cartoon character insisted I reference research? If so, thank you but
this woman who is struggling to come to terms with the death of her son
misses the point altogether. The first place she should have looked was
the "treatment" center her son went to and her justifications for
sending him there.
Also, I am curious if you buy her direct contradiction, at least on the
page you gave, of A.A. dogma.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
F.H.
> F.H. wrote:
> http://www.healthrecovery.net/7_Weeks_To_Sobriety_author.html
>
>
>> Do you have any evidence that the other studies and Vaillant's A.A.
>> study were different in terms of diet?
I don't afford you or your obsession much of my time Ken. If you have
related studies about nutrition and alcoholism by all means post them.
You might accidentally wind up helping someone. ;)
> Or did you just slip that URL in a "proof" for me to use in an argument
> elsewhere where I mentioned the high rate of suicide in A.A. and a
> cartoon character insisted I reference research?
As always you decide what *others* intended and interpret data as it
suits your obsession. ;)
> If so, thank you but this woman who is struggling to come to terms with
> the death of her son misses the point altogether.
LOL, now *you* are the psychiatrist. Did you happen to connect the dots
to get a clue about how long ago her son died, doctor Ken?
> The first place she should have looked was the "treatment" center her son
> went to and her justifications for sending him there.
"Should" is a very big word in the vocabulary of narcissistic White
Knights (and control freaks) who lack the wisdom and maturity to grasp
the distinction between the things they can and cannot change.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> The following is from Harvard psychiatrist, A.A. board member and
> Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
>
> “It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA
> members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking
> self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
> inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was
> working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
Hey Kenny, your quote above is incorrect and very misleading. The part
mentioning "[AA members]" is not in Vaillant's book, you added that.
So, I'm going to fix it for you. This quote is also incorrect "But
then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ..." You
purposely misquoted the author to deceive. Not cool. The "[We]" part
Ken added and Ken decided to intentionally misquote Vaillant.
"To me, alcoholism became a fascinating disease. It seemed perfectly
clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic,
by using multimodality therapy, by disregarding "motivation," by
turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in
breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital
into the treatment system of A.A., I was working for the most exciting
alcohol program in the world.
But then came the rub. Fuelled by our enthusiasm, I and the director,
William Clark, tried to prove our efficacy."
There you go Ken, now the quote means something completely different.
I do applaud you in your attempt at deceiving people.
> After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never
> relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence
> that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural
> history of the disease. ...Not only had we failed to alter the
> natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a
> year was appalling.” [The Natural History of Alcoholism, Cambridge,
> London: Harvard University Press, 1983:283-285]
>
> This is why one rarely sees any methodologically-sound comparing A.A. to
> any other treatment or no treatment whatsoever.
The quote Ken mentioned above is not about AA. But he it was a good
try at attempting to intentionally deceive people.
> “...if we have not cured all the alcoholics who were first
> detoxified over 8 years ago, the likelihood of members of the Clinic
> sample attending AA has been significantly increased.” [The Natural
> History of Alcoholism, Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press,
> 1983:292]
>
> And this is why A.A. is such a scary, dangerous organization no matter
> how sincere the A.A. members you meet/know may be. An M.D. from Harvard
> in his own research finds A.A. doesn't work, yet he still is compelled
> to boast of his ability to get people to attend A.A. It is like, "Our
> research showed that giving people experimental drug X killed them at an
> appalling rate, but all is not lost. We got lots of people to take drug X!"
>
> You can read brief summaries of Vaillant's and other research on A.A.
> at:http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_26.jsp
>
> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
Man Ken, attempting to mislead people by misquoting Vaillant is kind
of pathetic and very dishonest.
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>> F.H. wrote:
>
>> http://www.healthrecovery.net/7_Weeks_To_Sobriety_author.html
>>
>>
>>> Do you have any evidence that the other studies and Vaillant's A.A.
>>> study were different in terms of diet?
>
> I don't afford you or your obsession much of my time Ken. If you have
> related studies about nutrition and alcoholism by all means post them.
> You might accidentally wind up helping someone. ;)
So why did you attach that woman's article on nutrition and alcoholism
in your post?
>
>> Or did you just slip that URL in a "proof" for me to use in an
>> argument elsewhere where I mentioned the high rate of suicide in A.A.
>> and a cartoon character insisted I reference research?
>
> As always you decide what *others* intended and interpret data as it
> suits your obsession. ;)
Did you miss the question mark? I asked a question.
>
>> If so, thank you but this woman who is struggling to come to terms
>> with the death of her son misses the point altogether.
>
> LOL, now *you* are the psychiatrist. Did you happen to connect the
> dots to get a clue about how long ago her son died, doctor Ken?
Only a psychiatrist can talk about people and their motivations? Are
you trying to completely shred every last bit of 12-Step programs???????
(extra question marks, just in case you miss the first one)
What is the relevance of how long before her son died? Do you believe
that there is a certain period of time that passes and "poof!" the death
of her son is irrelevant to what she (or anyone else) thinks and does?
(Please note the question mark.)
>
>> The first place she should have looked was the "treatment" center her
>> son went to and her justifications for sending him there.
>
> "Should" is a very big word in the vocabulary of narcissistic White
> Knights (and control freaks) who lack the wisdom and maturity to grasp
> the distinction between the things they can and cannot change.
Well, now finally you are defending the 12-Step programs and 12-Step
treatment centers. Of course, I'm sure you can amplify your defense and
tell me just why a suicide following 12-Step indoctrination in a 12-Step
treatment center should never have the 12-Step indoctrination/treatment
part of it looked at. And God forbid that someone with letters behind
their name should ever question their own behavior as if they are human
like the rest of us. :-)
In any case, it is if not "nice," at least comfortably familiar for you
to be back in character.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Bob
evident researchers are, probably without exception, building their
respective studies on, at best, naive presumptions.
Alcoholics Anonymous was founded by and for alcoholics generally
recognised by the medical profession as alcoholics of the hopeless
variety, but wanting to drink like other people.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5zzrr2.
As Alcoholics Anonymous developed from that foundation, the word
'honest' was removed from their requirement for membership.
http://anonpress.org/bb/foreword.htm - http://silkworth.net/bb/app1.html
That removal coincided with a new influx of members, many of whom had
not been accommodated by previous AA descriptors, such as
non-alcoholic social outcasts of different varieties, amongst whom
were a significant proportion of illicit/pharmaceutical drug addicts.
Those drug addicts are generally easily recognised by a self
descriptor of "wanting to get wasted" as opposed to AA's founding
members, "wanting to drink like other people."
Surely, in any 'alcoholism' study, contradictory motivational
differences *must* be accounted for,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/25drin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Review Sees No Advantage in 12-Step Programs
"Dr. Edward V. Nunes, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia,
said research had demonstrated that certain elements of A.A. were
effective. “Some of the wisdom embodied in A.A., such as the notion
of persons, places and things that trigger drinking, are very much a
part of cognitive-behavioral therapy, which is a scientifically
driven, empirically validated treatment,” Dr. Nunes said."
As far as I know, Nunes 'wisdom' is delusion. The "persons, places
and things" is Narcotics Anonymous rhetoric. Certainly not from the
AA for real alcoholics, whose viewpoint is clearly expressed here:-
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5hqkl8
One thing I learned experientially from that AA viewpoint in
conjunction with AA's '24 hour plan' is that 'trigger drinking' is
not even in the equation. Having already resolved not to drink just
for that day, each day, pop psychology 'triggers' were absolutely
irrelevant
While "scientific' researchers are building on errors, must they,
too, depend on a "Higher Power"; to appropriately skew their work to
a definitive conclusion?
Further on in the same report,
"The review covered only carefully controlled trials. But Sarah
Zemore, of the Alcohol Research Group of the National Alcohol
Research Center, said studies that observed the results of a
treatment without setting up randomized control groups could also be
informative.
“Does A.A. or some other mutual-help group work for people who seek
it voluntarily?” she said. “Obviously, a randomized trial cannot
address that question. But observational data can.”
It is unlikely that substance abuse experts will widely reject A.A.
on the basis of these findings."
-------------------------------
Seems to me if 'researchers' want to take anything seriously, they
best adhere to that oft repeated AA admonition. "Some of us have
tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was nil ...".
http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_58.htm
--
Bob
Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
Rob D.
>
> Also, I am curious if you buy her direct contradiction, at least on the
> page you gave, of A.A. dogma.
>
> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
The woman's nearly as full of crap as you are.
No reputable hospital is going to forbid her to tell her she loves her
son, no matter what. No reputable hospital is going to tell her to
tell her kid her love is condition..."I will only love you if you stop
drinking."
She was dealing with quacks, because quackery naturally appeals to
her...just look at her site.
It cost her her son because she didn't deal with someone reputable.
Sure, he might have ended up killing himself in any case (some drunks
do), but her failure to follow what anyone with sense could have told
her had to be a contributing factor.
Yours just seems another form of quackery. I am sure you have a
terrific success rate...the only reason desperate alcoholics aren't
beating down your door is...well...it must be evil AA.
Yeh.
That must be it.
F.H.
> F.H. wrote:
>> Ken wrote:
>>> F.H. wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.healthrecovery.net/7_Weeks_To_Sobriety_author.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do you have any evidence that the other studies and Vaillant's A.A.
>>>> study were different in terms of diet?
>>
>> I don't afford you or your obsession much of my time Ken. If you have
>> related studies about nutrition and alcoholism by all means post them.
>> You might accidentally wind up helping someone. ;)
> F.H.,
>
> So why did you attach that woman's article on nutrition and alcoholism
> in your post?
To inject some truth and insight.
>>> Or did you just slip that URL in a "proof" for me to use in an
>>> argument elsewhere where I mentioned the high rate of suicide in A.A.
>>> and a cartoon character insisted I reference research?
>>
>> As always you decide what *others* intended and interpret data as it
>> suits your obsession. ;)
> Did you miss the question mark? I asked a question.
You have my permission to consider it a stand alone observation. I'm
watching a football game and my newsreader is not distinguishing your
posts.
>>> If so, thank you but this woman who is struggling to come to terms
>>> with the death of her son misses the point altogether.
>>
>> LOL, now *you* are the psychiatrist. Did you happen to connect the
>> dots to get a clue about how long ago her son died, doctor Ken?
> What is the relevance of how long before her son died?
There are stages of grieving. You presumed this woman "is struggling."
"Is" as in now.
>>
>>> The first place she should have looked was the "treatment" center her
>>> son went to and her justifications for sending him there.
>>
>> "Should" is a very big word in the vocabulary of narcissistic White
>> Knights (and control freaks) who lack the wisdom and maturity to grasp
>> the distinction between the things they can and cannot change.
> Well, now finally you are defending the 12-Step programs and 12-Step
> treatment centers. Of course, I'm sure you can amplify your defense and
> tell me just why a suicide following 12-Step indoctrination in a 12-Step
> treatment center should never have the 12-Step indoctrination/treatment
> part of it looked at.
LOL, You do "see what you want to see" don't you? LOL, let me count the
presumptions.
As some here on araa will be glad to inform you, I have *not* worked the
steps, nor have I been in a treatment program. I *did* have a fairly
long history of overindulgence with alcohol that AA with a boost from
the courts *did* help me with.
I'm also an agnostic so I must have been really lucky to escape all
those crazy cult members. Luckily, I did not run into someone like you
at that critical stage of my life.
F.H.
> On Sep 13, 4:31 pm, Ken <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Also, I am curious if you buy her direct contradiction, at least on the
>> page you gave, of A.A. dogma.
>>
>> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
>
> The woman's nearly as full of crap as you are.
Really?
> No reputable hospital is going to forbid her to tell her she loves her
> son, no matter what. No reputable hospital is going to tell her to
> tell her kid her love is condition..."I will only love you if you stop
> drinking."
>
> She was dealing with quacks, because quackery naturally appeals to
> her...just look at her site.
Was "dealing with quacks" is *very* past tense. How on earth did you
accertain that *now* "quackery naturally appeals to her?" What on her
site alerted you to quackery?. Please specify.
> It cost her her son because she didn't deal with someone reputable.
> Sure, he might have ended up killing himself in any case (some drunks
> do), but her failure to follow what anyone with sense could have told
> her had to be a contributing factor.
It was a long time ago and has nothing that I can see to do with what
she believes today.
> Yours just seems another form of quackery. I am sure you have a
> terrific success rate...the only reason desperate alcoholics aren't
> beating down your door is...well...it must be evil AA.
No Rob, alcoholics are *so* underestimated. It takes a bullshitter to
recognize a bullshitter, or a quack. (present company excluded just for
today)
Ken
identify yourself as one and act like one. Now I'm wondering if you are
as intelligent as a cartoon character.
Mr. Snuffleupagus wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:21 am, Ken <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> The following is from Harvard psychiatrist, A.A. board member and
>> Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
>>
>> “It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA
>> members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking
>> self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
>> inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was
>> working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
>>
>
> Hey Kenny, your quote above is incorrect and very misleading. The part
> mentioning "[AA members]" is not in Vaillant's book, you added that.
>
When one uses brackets "[]" it is done to let the reader know that
something too lengthy for a brief quote or something in the context of
the part quoted was defined by the person quoted elsewhere. They are
there _specifically_ to let the reader know that the words were not in
the original, at least not in the same precise location.
And your next one is just as inane if non more so.
> So, I'm going to fix it for you. This quote is also incorrect "But
> then came the rub. [We] tried to prove our efficacy. ..." You
> purposely misquoted the author to deceive. Not cool. The "[We]" part
> Ken added and Ken decided to intentionally misquote Vaillant.
>
The [We] part is referring to, as you quote in a more lengthy fashion
below,
"I and the director, William Clark". That is two people. In English,
one can say, "Fred and I went hunting" or "We went hunting" without
changing the meaning. The brackets are there just so the reader, if he
wishes, can go and check to see if a different meaning was inserted than
the original.
> "To me, alcoholism became a fascinating disease. It seemed perfectly
> clear that by meeting the immediate individual needs of the alcoholic,
> by using multimodality therapy, by disregarding "motivation," by
> turning to recovering alcoholics rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in
> breaking self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
> inexorably moving patients from dependence upon the general hospital
> into the treatment system of A.A., I was working for the most exciting
> alcohol program in the world.
>
> But then came the rub. Fuelled by our enthusiasm, I and the director,
> William Clark, tried to prove our efficacy."
>
> There you go Ken, now the quote means something completely different.
> I do applaud you in your attempt at deceiving people.
>
>
I'm afraid I can't applaud you being an idiot. Any two people speaking
for themselves is "we" and doesn't change the meaning.
In quoting Vaillant in a book he wrote on his study of two groups, one
which went to A.A. and one which didn't go to A.A. and referring to the
ones who went to A.A. as going to "A.A. members" is not misleading.
>
>> After initial discharge, only 5 patients in the Clinic sample never
>> relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence
>> that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural
>> history of the disease. ...Not only had we failed to alter the
>> natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a
>> year was appalling.” [The Natural History of Alcoholism, Cambridge,
>> London: Harvard University Press, 1983:283-285]
>>
>> This is why one rarely sees any methodologically-sound comparing A.A. to
>> any other treatment or no treatment whatsoever.
>>
>
> The quote Ken mentioned above is not about AA. But he it was a good
> try at attempting to intentionally deceive people.
>
>
Lol! Then what was the quote about? What was Vaillant writing about?
What were the two groups in his study? Lol!
>> “...if we have not cured all the alcoholics who were first
>> detoxified over 8 years ago, the likelihood of members of the Clinic
>> sample attending AA has been significantly increased.” [The Natural
>> History of Alcoholism, Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press,
>> 1983:292]
>>
>> And this is why A.A. is such a scary, dangerous organization no matter
>> how sincere the A.A. members you meet/know may be. An M.D. from Harvard
>> in his own research finds A.A. doesn't work, yet he still is compelled
>> to boast of his ability to get people to attend A.A. It is like, "Our
>> research showed that giving people experimental drug X killed them at an
>> appalling rate, but all is not lost. We got lots of people to take drug X!"
>>
>> You can read brief summaries of Vaillant's and other research on A.A.
>> at:http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_26.jsp
>>
>> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
>>
>
> Man Ken, attempting to mislead people by misquoting Vaillant is kind
> of pathetic and very dishonest.
>
Attempting to mislead people by going goofy and pretending (or, even
sadder, not having a clue) that Vaillant was misquoted is what is
pathetic and dishonest.
But then what should I expect from an "anonymous" cartoon character?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morevealed.com/
Ken
Your first sentence says it all. The only thing I find rather curious
is that a study by a member of the board of directors of Alcoholics
Anonymous is taken as being by someone who doesn't know about
"alcoholism" and "A.A."
You don't like studies by A.A. leaders. You don't like studies by A.A.
believers. You don't like studies by non-A.A.s.
Are we to merely believe your assertions based in having read the Big
Book while going through withdrawal as ultimate truths?
If so, I'm really glad you weren't reading Dianetics.
Or maybe not.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Bob
Ken wrote:
Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:11:51 -0700
|> "but I would bet big money
|> that blanket insanity in A.A. is the norm when members feel
|>threatened
|> when the "fellowship" and its doctrine are questioned. It is like
|> kicking a yellow jacket nest. There is no intelligence involved,
|>just knee-jerk defense because at some level they don't really
|>believe."
Other than commensurate hostility being an understandable reaction
when *any* passion/experience is first bombarded with absurd
assertions, how could poor Ken hope to validate his cult/conspiracy
theory by trying to "kick a yellow jacket nest" with one foot already
thrust firmly in his mouth?
Ken
A.A. suicides are always written off as being irrelevant to A.A.
Actually, the rate of "no treatment" is far better than the A.A. rate in
that there are far fewer/no side-effects.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
If I am presuming this woman is struggling, you are presuming she has
"gotten over it."
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> The first place she should have looked was the "treatment" center
>>>> her son went to and her justifications for sending him there.
>>>
>>> "Should" is a very big word in the vocabulary of narcissistic White
>>> Knights (and control freaks) who lack the wisdom and maturity to
>>> grasp the distinction between the things they can and cannot change.
>
>> Well, now finally you are defending the 12-Step programs and 12-Step
>> treatment centers. Of course, I'm sure you can amplify your defense
>> and tell me just why a suicide following 12-Step indoctrination in a
>> 12-Step treatment center should never have the 12-Step
>> indoctrination/treatment part of it looked at.
>
> LOL, You do "see what you want to see" don't you? LOL, let me count
> the presumptions.
>
> As some here on araa will be glad to inform you, I have *not* worked
> the steps, nor have I been in a treatment program. I *did* have a
> fairly long history of overindulgence with alcohol that AA with a
> boost from the courts *did* help me with.
>
> I'm also an agnostic so I must have been really lucky to escape all
> those crazy cult members. Luckily, I did not run into someone like
> you at that critical stage of my life.
Do you mean you were saved by A.A. but don't believe anything the A.A.
doctrine says? If so, I'm not sure we aren't more in agreement than
not. I've never alleged, for the most part, that A.A. beliefs harm
anyone if they don't believe them.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Bob
> Bob,
>
> Your first sentence says it all. The only thing I find rather
> curious is that a study by a member of the board of directors of
> Alcoholics Anonymous is taken as being by someone who doesn't know
> about "alcoholism" and "A.A."
If it causes you curiosity, its your problem. My citations were all
in place, sans the distortions almost inevitably evident in your
extrapolations.
> You don't like studies by A.A. leaders. You don't like studies by
> A.A. believers. You don't like studies by non-A.A.s.
I don't like your fabrications, in this instance because, even in
your own little backwater of Usenet, I've repeatedly referenced
observational and professional 'Studies" that fit snugly inside my
prejudices as being valid.
http://tinyurl.com/6zzfeq http://tinyurl.com/63r7vn
http://tinyurl.com/5qr5cm
>
> Are we to merely believe your assertions based in having read the
> Big Book while going through withdrawal as ultimate truths?
Not at all, My assertions are obviously open to acceptance or
rejection and I'm not much bothered either way.
If I *was* bothered, I would be the first to contact those
researchers direct, rather than try and emulate your obsession with
newsgroup masturbation. Besides, that *is* your forte, and
I've no desire at all to be second best to anyone.
F.H.
Since she has written a book and continues to help many people.
>>>>> The first place she should have looked was the "treatment" center
>>>>> her son went to and her justifications for sending him there.
>>>>
>>>> "Should" is a very big word in the vocabulary of narcissistic White
>>>> Knights (and control freaks) who lack the wisdom and maturity to
>>>> grasp the distinction between the things they can and cannot change.
>>
>>> Well, now finally you are defending the 12-Step programs and 12-Step
>>> treatment centers. Of course, I'm sure you can amplify your defense
>>> and tell me just why a suicide following 12-Step indoctrination in a
>>> 12-Step treatment center should never have the 12-Step
>>> indoctrination/treatment part of it looked at.
>>
>> LOL, You do "see what you want to see" don't you? LOL, let me count
>> the presumptions.
>>
>> As some here on araa will be glad to inform you, I have *not* worked
>> the steps, nor have I been in a treatment program. I *did* have a
>> fairly long history of overindulgence with alcohol that AA with a
>> boost from the courts *did* help me with.
>>
>> I'm also an agnostic so I must have been really lucky to escape all
>> those crazy cult members. Luckily, I did not run into someone like
>> you at that critical stage of my life.
> Do you mean you were saved by A.A. but don't believe anything the A.A.
> doctrine says? If so, I'm not sure we aren't more in agreement than
> not. I've never alleged, for the most part, that A.A. beliefs harm
> anyone if they don't believe them.
Nice try. From "did *help* me" you went to "saved?" Over the years I
have seen where AA "helped" lots of people and I have never seen *any*
of the nutty cult behavior that you seem to have built your entire
belief system around. I *did* see a lot of people rise up from the
depths of despair to *very* productive and happy lives. What *I* believe
*is* that there are a number of factors that influence an individuals
recovery and those factors vary greatly.
Further, IMO, a good number of recovered or abstinent former abusers of
alcohol or alcoholics (pick your label) are not even sure themselves
what *exactly* the factors were. Maybe a guy was hypoglycemic and
*thought* he found God when all he did was change his diet long enough
to get his body chemistry back to normal. Or..., maybe a guy *did* find
a God of his understanding.
Ultimately, I believe, we all create our own reality. The problems
arrive when we insist on dabbling in the reality of others.
Rob D.
> Rob D. wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 4:31 pm, Ken <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> Also, I am curious if you buy her direct contradiction, at least on the
> >> page you gave, of A.A. dogma.
>
> >> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
>
> > The woman's nearly as full of crap as you are.
>
> Really?
>
> > No reputable hospital is going to forbid her to tell her she loves her
> > son, no matter what. No reputable hospital is going to tell her to
> > tell her kid her love is condition..."I will only love you if you stop
> > drinking."
>
> > She was dealing with quacks, because quackery naturally appeals to
> > her...just look at her site.
>
> Was "dealing with quacks" is *very* past tense. How on earth did you
> accertain that *now* "quackery naturally appeals to her?" What on her
> site alerted you to quackery?. Please specify.
>
Not a list of stellar, peer reviewed publications, exactly. "Psych
Today" is would be more aptly named "Pop Psych Today." It's like
getting your Catholic news from the "National Catholic Reporter," or
"The Wanderer."
Psychology Today,
Let's Live,
Harpers Bazaar,
Prevention Magazine,
Common Boundaries,
Natural Health,
Mpls. St Paul Magazine,
Minnesota Monthly,
Minnesota Physician, (Can't find this one, so can't really say)
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, (Have to admit, a cursory exam
makes this look reputable for science)
San Francisco Chronicle,
LA Times,
Chicago Daily Herald,
New Orleans Times Picayune,
Norway Times,
MpIs. Star Tribune,
Townsend Letter for Doctors (http://www.tldp.com/hierarch.htm)
Dr. Julian Whitaker's: Health and Healing Monthly Newsletter. (http://
www.drwhitaker.com/)
The last two seem (to me) to reek of quackery.
"Of course, we didn't use the term "junk food" back in 1972." --
Um...yes we did. I remember quite specifically. Just one example
would be "Raed Magazine," when I was in 7th or 8th grade: "The Joys
of Junk Food/The Horrors of Heath Food." (The article ended up being
exactly the opposite of what the title suggests; the first half was an
early version of "SuperSize Me," but on a smaller scale.) The
teachers those years were on us about "junk food" all the time.
"During these sessions, the counselors reproached me for telling Rob
that I loved him whether or not he drank. The program's approach was
more conditional: "If you do this (stop drinking), then I will do this
(love you).""
I just don't buy this. Either she is a complete and total fool, or
she is lying. Only a fool would put up with being told to make their
"love" conditional. Would *you* tolerate even a moment of this?
"That's why I must caution you to restrain your enthusiasm and
curiosity."
Ummmm.
"These highfalutin psychological explanations ignore the fact that the
symptoms are caused by a physical condition -hypoglycemia- which
causes..."
Well, gosh...we wouldn't want to spend time on "highfalutin"
explanations, now would we?
Frank, I'm not going to spend time on the rest of it.
I'll grant that blood-sugar levels play a role in recovery...primarily
from my own experience, which is anecdotal, and so not worth much.
I'm glad you fould something valuable in this woman's site, and hope
it works great for you.
Me...? I find myself thinking that if it were easier [and worked
[well [in general] ] ], lots of people would be following it. If I
could cure my alcoholism with vitamins and such, well, that's be
great. A Helluva lot easier that the kind of work I had to do going
through the steps.
Sorry. I just don't buy that it is that simple. Call it "contempt
prior to investigation" if you will.
Rob
Rob D.
>
> No Rob, alcoholics are *so* underestimated. It takes a bullshitter to
> recognize a bullshitter, or a quack. (present company excluded just for
> today)
Not quite following you...if you mean to call me a bullshitter, no
offense taken. I was quite good at bullshitting, not least of all
myself. (Just yesterday, I told a Protestant funeral director that
the rosaries I was leaving him were already blessed, but that people
would probably bring them to me to bless, anyway, "Of course, when you
bless them twice, they start to smolder, but a little holy water will
take care of that."
His secretary's head whipped around so fast I thought she'd have
whiplash. I nearly fell out of the chair laughing.)
My spider-sense usually goes off on bullshit. It went off big time on
whatsername, as it does with Tim, and tedw, and this Ken fellow.
Rob
F.H.
> Frank, I'm not going to spend time on the rest of it.
>
> I'll grant that blood-sugar levels play a role in recovery...primarily
> from my own experience, which is anecdotal, and so not worth much.
My experience and that of *several* people close to me over the years
has convinced me that it is often a key factor. I believe the
percentages she quotes.
> I'm glad you fould something valuable in this woman's site, and hope
> it works great for you.
I read the book "Seven Weeks to Sobriety" when it was fairly new and
found it informative. What "works" for me is what I've already done and
continue to do. I point to the site to draw attention to blood sugar
and nutrition only because I'm not big on the one size fits all no
matter who's size it happens to be on a given day.
F.H.
> On Sep 13, 6:06 pm, "F.H." <connectut...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> No Rob, alcoholics are *so* underestimated. It takes a bullshitter to
>> recognize a bullshitter, or a quack. (present company excluded just for
>> today)
>
> Not quite following you...if you mean to call me a bullshitter, no
> offense taken. I was quite good at bullshitting, not least of all
> myself.
I was alluding to drunks being smarter than Ken gives them credit for
(you were responding to him).
Mr. Snuffleupagus
No shit, Ken I understand when you use "[]" you're adding something
in. You need to learn how to quote properly, if you take parts of a
sentence out in a quote, you should use ellipses, which you fail to do
half the time.
Ken, you're a quack, and very funny. I guess that what you get from a
guy whose education, oops Ken doesn't have an education. Just a
Psychology Buff Degree.
Ken, the real world is calling, actually the real world is not
calling. 20 years and what have you accomplished Ken? As far as I can
see, not much. Kenny, why is your book out of print? You spend an
immense amount of time criticizing AA and you haven't affected AA at
all. I don't even know how someone could spend 20 years of their life
criticizing AA, it's beyond me.
One last thing, did you watch sesame street as a child?
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Ken, according to you, Because "A" come before "B." You seem to always
conclude "A" is the cause of "B" because "A" came first.
Speaking of suicides, you claim AA has a higher rate of suicides than
people that don't go. Then you claim you found your evidence from
George Vaillant, but for some crazy reason, you can't cite it.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> Ken wrote:
> > Bob,
>
> > Your first sentence says it all. The only thing I find rather
> > curious is that a study by a member of the board of directors of
> > Alcoholics Anonymous is taken as being by someone who doesn't know
> > about "alcoholism" and "A.A."
>
> If it causes you curiosity, its your problem. My citations were all
> in place, sans the distortions almost inevitably evident in your
> extrapolations.
>
> > You don't like studies by A.A. leaders. You don't like studies by
> > A.A. believers. You don't like studies by non-A.A.s.
>
> I don't like your fabrications, in this instance because, even in
> your own little backwater of Usenet, I've repeatedly referenced
> observational and professional 'Studies" that fit snugly inside my
>
>
>
> > Are we to merely believe your assertions based in having read the
> > Big Book while going through withdrawal as ultimate truths?
>
> Not at all, My assertions are obviously open to acceptance or
> rejection and I'm not much bothered either way.
>
> If I *was* bothered, I would be the first to contact those
> researchers direct, rather than try and emulate your obsession with
> newsgroup masturbation. Besides, that *is* your forte, and
> I've no desire at all to be second best to anyone.
>
> --
> Bob
> Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
> the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
Good one, newsgroup masturbation lol. Kenny is obsessed alright lol
Ken
should have used a quote where I didn't use ellipses. It is rather
stupid to use a quote where I do use ellipses, accuse me of being a
liar for using brackets as they are appropriately used in quotes, and
then call me a liar because I used the brackets.
And it is also rather stupid on your part to go off on another attack
against me, this time for simply criticizing A.A., apparently because
all your attempts to prove the criticisms wrong fail miserably, while
you've spent God knows how long criticizing people and making up
elementary-school type lies about those who criticize the Step groups as
if they have no right to criticize them.
You are one sad, pathetic thing.
And you ask if I've ever watched Sesame Street as a child. I know that
whatever I answer, yes or no, it will be for you grounds for attack.
How sad and pathetic that as an adult you have to go to the cartoon
world, or puppet world, for your reality.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
You've been asked on a number of occasions to provide
methodologically-sound research that shows that A.A. works and not by
just me. Instead you go off on your bizarre, crazy attacks.
If you are going to act like a cartoon character, you are going to get
all the respect a cartoon character deserves. If you are going to act
like an asshole, you are going to be treated like an asshole.
Is that simple enough for you?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
tedw
> The following is from Harvard psychiatrist, A.A. board member and
> Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
>
> “It seemed perfectly clear...by turning to recovering alcoholics [AA
> members] rather than to Ph.D.'s for lessons in breaking
> self-detrimental and more or less involuntary habits, and by
> inexorably moving patients...into the treatment system of AA, I was
> working for the most exciting alcohol program in the world.
>
>
> relapsed to alcoholic drinking, and there is compelling evidence
> that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural
> history of the disease. ...Not only had we failed to alter the
> natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a
> year was appalling.” [The Natural History of Alcoholism, Cambridge,
> London: Harvard University Press, 1983:283-285]
>
> This is why one rarely sees any methodologically-sound comparing A.A. to
> any other treatment or no treatment whatsoever.
>
> detoxified over 8 years ago, the likelihood of members of the Clinic
> sample attending AA has been significantly increased.” [The Natural
> History of Alcoholism, Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press,
> 1983:292]
>
> And this is why A.A. is such a scary, dangerous organization no matter
> how sincere the A.A. members you meet/know may be. An M.D. from Harvard
> in his own research finds A.A. doesn't work, yet he still is compelled
> to boast of his ability to get people to attend A.A. It is like, "Our
> research showed that giving people experimental drug X killed them at an
> appalling rate, but all is not lost. We got lots of people to take drug X!"
>
> You can read brief summaries of Vaillant's and other research on A.A.
> at:http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_26.jsp
>
> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
The question should that should be asked is " Is this true or not?"
If it is , then AA's should acknowledge it. What he has posted is
inconsistent with
"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our
path".
Mr. Snuffleupagus
I didn't realize until a second ago Kenny posted this message in two
groups. Ken, why are you posting your garbage in the AA member group?
Oh shit, you posted this same message in numerous groups. Fuck, you
are a crazy attention whore. Is this what you do each time you post?
Fucking bonkers. Don't you think these people are sick of seeing your
same 3 posts over and over?
Red Herring Krazy Kenny, "But then came the rub. [We] tried to prove
our efficacy. ..." In between those two sentences you should of added
an ellipse's
Still acting like a child and refusing to back up your claim.
By the way Kenny, I have never made a claim about AA efficacy.
Ken
You've got things wrong again. It wasn't posted to two groups. It was
posted to four groups. It was started in four groups. Tsk! Tsk!
I wanted everyone to see what you have to say. I think your arguments
make my points better than I ever could dream of doing. I want _you_ to
get a lot of attention for what _you_ say. I want _everyone_ to see
what a sack of shit you are. What better way then to let you carry on
in public?
If they are sick of my posts, the other groups only have _you_ to thank
for it. Not only would I not have begun this thread, but without your
encouragement I probably wouldn't even be posting on Usenet.
Have a nice day, you pathetic, miserable sack of shit.
Lol!
Do you want to take our interchanges to an even wider audience? I'd be
more than happy to oblige you.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Bob
>
>
> If they are sick of my posts, the other groups only have _you_ to
> thank for it. Not only would I not have begun this thread, but
> without your encouragement I probably wouldn't even be posting on
> Usenet.
Ken,, no sooner had I derided the concept than you've demonstratively
proven me wrong! Powerless over Person, and Place, affirmed in one
sentence!
Jeez, best you look in your hand to affirm a THING you are Powerless
over, then confess to the friends you haven't met yet @
http://www.sexaa.org/ from where you need never be owned again.
HTH :)
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> Ken wrote:
>
> > If they are sick of my posts, the other groups only have _you_ to
> > thank for it. Not only would I not have begun this thread, but
> > without your encouragement I probably wouldn't even be posting on
> > Usenet.
>
> Ken,, no sooner had I derided the concept than you've demonstratively
> proven me wrong! Powerless over Person, and Place, affirmed in one
> sentence!
>
> Jeez, best you look in your hand to affirm a THING you are Powerless
>
> HTH :)
>
> --
> Bob
> Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
> the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
This sack of shit is wondering about this claim Kenny made, but
refuses to back it up with a citation.
"More silliness. Is there legitimate evidence that the Step groups
play
a role in many suicides? Of course there is. I'll point you once
more
to George Vaillant, A.A. board member and Al-Anon who found a much
higher suicide rate in those who followed George's advice and went to
A.A. than those who didn't." -Ken Ragge
So, come on Kenny, because this sack of shit is wondering why you are
trying so hard to avoid backing up your claim. It's because you can't
back it up with a citation. So, since I'm a sack of shit, I'm
wondering why you can't prove me - a sack of shit wrong.
Bob
alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism
> http://www.ng2000.com/fw.php?tp=alcoholism Novel Compound Shows
> Promise For Treatment Of Alcoholism ... peer-reviewed results from
> a study testing Naltrexone-derived
pyridomorphinan...
>
>
http://www.ng2000.com/
"Goals: (1) To be large and generous with many categories and
sub-categories of relevant consumer-related infromation."
Infromation?
Jeez, what sort of formulas do they use that don't even ave ter bee
speeled rite??
Generous?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/Naughty-quacks
"The drug company wanted its advertising to look like an independent
study -- a "massive" scientific fakery that top medical journals
condemn because it prevents doctors from getting the straight facts
on medicines they prescribe."
Southern Research Institute and Gallo Research Center so shaky they
need to spam Usenet, but no connection?
Ken
I'm wondering why someone who doesn't understand that when someone uses
"[we]" in a citation in place of "I and the director, William Clark" and
gets called a whole list of names including a liar and accused of
attempting to deceive and asserts that it changes the meaning of the
quote thinks I am going to oblige him when he demands something.
Wait a second. That is not true. I know that anyone who is obviously so
stupid as to argue some of the stupid things you do is subject to say
and do anything stupid, especially when incensed over his precious
"treatment" from God is criticized. The fact that you think you can
scream and whine and cry and name call and expect to get rewarded for it
is probably a direct result of your upbringing, anyway.
Maybe all the extra deaths in 12-Step treatment aren't suicides. Maybe
they aren't really deaths at all. Maybe "Total Overcomers Anonymous"
(former name of Heaven's Gate) have learned to beam up those further
along the spiritual path and what those unfamiliar with spiritual things
are mistaking those earthy containers for dead bodies, just like was
done by the press when the Hale-Bopp comet last came by.
Lol!
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> Mr. Snuffleupagus wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 3:27 am, Bob <invalid...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Ken wrote:
>
> >>> If they are sick of my posts, the other groups only have _you_ to
> >>> thank for it. Not only would I not have begun this thread, but
> >>> without your encouragement I probably wouldn't even be posting on
> >>> Usenet.
>
> >> Ken,, no sooner had I derided the concept than you've demonstratively
> >> proven me wrong! Powerless over Person, and Place, affirmed in one
> >> sentence!
>
> >> Jeez, best you look in your hand to affirm a THING you are Powerless
Before you trip over your garbage Ken, riddle me this. There are 3 men
on a boat with 4 cigarettes with no matches/lighter, how do they
manage to smoke?
Quack Quack
Krazy Kenny, you should compile all your posts on usenet and make a
book. I mean, apparently you have been posting the same garbage on
usenet for at least 12 years, just gather it all up and make a book.
Might make yourself a dollar or two. You could sell the book at 12
Step Free, I'm sure some of your fine feathered finks there will pay
top dollar for The Greatest Posts by Ken Ragge on Usenet.
Quack Quack Quack
Krazy Kenny, I was wondering if I could get an autographed copy of
your book?
Quack Quack Quack Quack
Subliminal Message from AA: "Shut the fuck up".
>
> Man Ken, attempting to mislead people by misquoting Vaillant is kind
> of pathetic and very dishonest.
Bingo.
Ken
as a replacement for ""I and the director, William Clark" is the height
of stupidity.
What a pathetic joke you are.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Well Ken, the way you quoted that particular line is misleading.
Here's why. First, this is what you quoted, "But then came the rub.
[We] tried to prove our efficacy. ... " In that particular passage you
quoted, you omitted part of the second sentence and decided to
completely remove "I and the director, William Clark" from the passage
and you added the "[We]" part.
Now, the part where you decided to remove "I and the director, William
Clark" from this passage "I and the director, William Clark tried to
prove our efficacy. ..." and decided to replace it with "[We]," is
misleading. When you remove part of the quote and insert your own
contribution to the quote. You need to give an explanation in
parenthesis at the end of the quote, as to why you decided to omit
that particular part of the quote and added your own contribution. You
didn't do that, gave no explanation at all. That's misleading. The
fact that you decided to use the word "we" makes it even more
misleading because you never distinguish exactly who "we" is.
Krazy Kenny, why did you remove "I and the director, William Clark,"
in the first place?
Here is how the quote should be quoted. "But then came the rub. Fueled
by our enthusiasm, I and the director, William Clark, tried to prove
our efficacy."
Here is Krazy Kenny's version, "But then came the rub. [We] tried to
prove our efficacy. ... "
That's just one small example of Krazy Kenny quoting out of context to
mislead.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Tommy
>
> Here is Krazy Kenny's version, "But then came the rub. [We] tried to
> prove our efficacy. ... "
Can you get anything right snufflepops, its Krazy Kennys Kultist Klowns
Konspiracy -
Say it a few times to get it right
Glad to help
Tommy
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
>
> Can you get anything right snufflepops, its Krazy Kennys Kultist Klowns
> Konspiracy -
>
KKKKK ... You've been drinking again ?
You seem to be slurring your words.
Tommy
Damn, was that me, I forget :))
Cheers
Sober Tommy
KenRagge
there is any possible remedy for it. Except maybe to stick to reading
comic books.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way I quoted Vaillant's
book. I have no doubt that if I put in a note (which would have been
very insulting to the unchallenged reader), you would be confused for
any one of apparently an infinite number of reasons.
For the life of me, I can't figure out how you find using "we" in
referring to two people "confusing" and "misleading." It was very clear
since I introduced the quote from Vaillant as being from Vaillant, and I
was talking about Vaillant and his study, I find that you are really
incredibly dense or incredibly silly or just a run-of-the-mill troll.
The quote was not out of context and it was not intended to mislead. If
you are going to make such silly accusations, might I ask who you think
the other person in "we" was referring to and how jumping to your
obviously incorrect conclusion was justifiably blamed on someone else.
Did you think the someone else was a Sesame Street character or something?
Besides, I don't know it wise for you to admit the quote was "confusing"
when tens of thousands of others , both A.A. group members and
non-members, have read it and did not report being "confused" in the
least.
Like I said, maybe you ought to stick to reading comic books. Perhaps
you can save yourself a whole lot of confusion. And since it won't
confuse you, you can spare yourself looking like an idiot when you
complain about your inability to comprehend reading at the level of a
daily newspaper.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
I think Krazy Kultist Klown Kenny or KKK Kenny sounds better lol
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Well Krazy Kenny, I'm not confused by what you wrote. I don't know how
you came to that conclusion either. I simply described how you seem to
enjoy to take quotes out of context. I said it's misleading, which it
is, but that doesn't mean or imply that I'm confused. Perhaps you
didn't comprehend what I wrote, which led to your confusion.
Well, that's cleared up, the rest of you post is meaningless. It's
based on you distorting what I wrote, which is pretty much typical of
you.
This is coming from a guy, meaning you Krazy Kenny that, has depended
on AA more than AA members have for at least 20 years, maybe more. You
have your group, 12 Step Free, sounds like an oxymoron. Anyways, your
group, which you're the leader or owner of, is so similar to these 12
step groups you may or may not despise. You have formed your own
little online cult. In your online cult, you and your fellow Ragge-
ites, bitch, complain, make shit up, and have these exaggerated horror
stories of AA. These horror stories are in a way similar to AA members
drunk-a-louges. Your online cult is supposedly about recovery from AA,
but it appears that your online cult is based on AA, it's modeled on
AA. In Krazy Kenny's online cult, if a member doesn't agree with Krazy
Kenny, they get banned instantly. He can't have anyone question his
insane theories. Krazy Kenny's online cult group has it's own
cherished books, those are Krazy Kenny's online book and orange-papers
online book. Many of the Ragge-ites constantly quote and use the same
language in those online books. Basically Krazy Kenny has started his
own recovery cult movement, it's Recovery from AA, but it's is modeled
on AA.
Here's a funny example of Krazy Kenny and his silly conspiracy
theories. Krazy Kenny believes that AA has an immense amount of
influence on the USA government and may take over the government lol.
Checkout his website, there is a part that is called "The
Congressional Hall of Shame," I believe it in the "Feature" link, it's
so fucking ridiculous and funny. I will quote Krazy Kenny's
description of what "The Congressional Hall of Shame" is.
"This is a list of over 80 Congressmen and Congresswomen who are
working to force the indoctrination of additional millions of
Americans into the Step groups through the judiciary and to make all
Americans pay for 12-Step religous indoctrination (e.g. "parity" for
addiction "treatment"). Some are known to be 12-Step group members
(e.g. co-chairs Jim Ramstad (R-MN) and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). The
rest are either Step group members, just plain ignorant, or simply
could care less about the First Amendment."
"There is not a one that can be accurately termed a statesman -- a
political leader regarded as a disinterested promoter of the public
good." - Krazy Kultist Klown Kenny aka KKK Kenny
Krazy Kenny needs AA, he loves to talk about it and has been for at
least 20 years, and without AA he couldn't have have his own online
cult.
Tommy
"Mr. Snuffleupagus" <advilpm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1ad2670-250c-4c6b...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
I like your style young man - and you have KKK Kenny nut-jobbed. For
you foreigners a nut-job is a little bit like a nutmeg which is where a
scooer player nicks the ball from ahis opponent and slides it between
his parted legs - a most highly embarassing situation for a player to
find himself in = a nut-job is where the opposing player is dribbling or
juggling a ball and you take his ball away with your speedy reactions
and you then begin juggling as he was, more or less without missing a
beat. Talk about embarassing :-)
KKK Kenny has lost the ball, if he ever had it in the first place -
don't be surprised if he calls 'foul'.
Peculiar thing about these situations and amendments/judicial review
things you mention, us being a democratic constitution will never have
these problems. I guess neither will the rest of the civilised world
who have protection of freedom of speech combined with freedom of
religion.
Sometimes the granting of (let me term it very loosely as) equal rights
can turn into an actual creation of a protected or privileged class. I
think you'd agree that your equality measures now create a priveleged
class in 'protecting' the rights of blacks, homosexuals, discontented
and outspoken loudmouths that will scream about any cause that might
make them a buck. PETA FEMA Gay Pride, amti-AA lobbies, NAACP,
Anti-Vietnam, Iraq, blahdeeblah, Anti-christians, antii-jews etc etc
What I mean is that if all things are Equal, then if someone is more
equal than someone else - then your equality is a little bit
disingenous.....
PS I don't mean to demean any class or creed or colour - if I'm coming
across anti- someone, take a look in your own mirror :-))
Cheers
Puzzled Tommy
An Subliminal AA rebuttal : Krazy Kennys Kultist Klowns Konspiracy
>
> PETA Gay Pride
>
Ok .. Ok . I've read enough on this banter.
But gay pet bashing has gone too far !
Tommy
"An Subliminal AA rebuttal : Krazy Kennys Kultist Klowns Konspiracy"
<A...@ok.say> wrote in message
news:48dd8484$0$5455$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Aww criminy can you not leave poor old KKK Kenny out of it
Cheers
Tommy
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> The following is from Harvard psychiatrist, A.A. board member and
> Al-Anon George Vaillant. He is commenting on his own research.
Same school that taught George Bush?
Psychiatrist?
A christian no doubt.
I hope an Islamic extremist cuts his capitalist maggot peice of shit
head off.
KenRagge
If you want to cut his head off, I'd hate to think what you would want
to do to someone who isn't even an A.A. member who says the same thing
that Vaillant found in his research.
You do realize, don't you, that he went on to insist everyone send
everyone they can to A.A. and blamed those who went to A.A. and didn't
"recover" for being at fault for not believing?
It isn't like he ever admitted that A.A. really sucks in terms of
efficacy at helping people stop drinking.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/