One of A.A.'s Early Promotional Efforts
Ken
I was accused of "interpreting" A.A. history to suit my own ends. The
following is from conference-approved A.A. literature. I'm not sure how
quoting things in their entirety or almost in their entirety is
"interpretation". Or how noting that the early AAs who put someone they
were so afraid would get drunk under lock and key so he could go on the
air and tell how he had been saved from drinking to excess is
interpretation. In any case, interpret it as you wish.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
“[S]omebody sounded a note of caution: What if the lately released
asylum inmate Morgan should be drunk the day of the broadcast! Hard
experience told us this was a real possibility. How could such a
calamity be averted?
Very gently we suggested to a resentful Morgan that he would have to be
locked up somewhere until the night of the broadcast. It took all of
salesman Henry's wiles to put this one over, but he did. How and where
we would lock him up was the only remaining question. Henry, with full
faith now restored, solemnly declared that ‘God would provide.’
...Grumbling loudly, Morgan was conducted into captivity. For several
days we took turns staying with him right around the clock, never
letting him get out of our sight . . .
Sighs of relief went up in every New York member's home when Morgan's
voice was heard. He had hit the deadline without getting drunk. It was a
heart-stirring three minutes.”
From Pass It On 1984:209-210. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World
Services
Rich
Kenny,
I admire your determination - but do you realise the date is 1984? -
do have a contemporary point to make? - tricky question I know but
I'll leave it with you...
Rich
Ken
I do realize it is from 1984. But that is the newest book of the A.A.
conference-approved literature except for changes in the personal
stories in the back of the Big Book. Of course, many of those stories
have been changed because the writers got drunk and there are new groups
that A.A. wants to proselytize to. In any case, A.A. has not published
a new book since "Pass It On" in 1984. Are you suggesting that the
first 164 page of the Big Book, not being contemporary, are
meaningless? It seems the more you speak for A.A., the more you put
your foot in your mouth. Sure, A.A. and the other Step groups like to
pretend that there is a huge gap between themselves and the Oxford
Group, but to decide their core text, which was an Oxford Group text
expounding Oxford Group doctrine was way past way too old to cite, might
be a great advance from the mind-numbing faith healing, deceit and
dishonestly of the A.A. we all know.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
John K.
"Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_PCdneCUt-JfCiDV...@comcast.com...
> Rich wrote:
> > Ken wrote:
> >
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >> I was accused of "interpreting" A.A. history to suit my own ends. The
> >> following is from conference-approved A.A. literature. I'm not sure how
> >> quoting things in their entirety or almost in their entirety is
> >> "interpretation". Or how noting that the early AAs who put someone they
> >> were so afraid would get drunk under lock and key so he could go on the
> >> air and tell how he had been saved from drinking to excess is
> >> interpretation. In any case, interpret it as you wish.
> >>
> >> Ken Ragge
> >> http://www.morerevealed.com/
> >>
> >> asylum inmate Morgan should be drunk the day of the broadcast! Hard
> >> experience told us this was a real possibility. How could such a
> >> calamity be averted?
> >>
> >> Very gently we suggested to a resentful Morgan that he would have to be
> >> locked up somewhere until the night of the broadcast. It took all of
> >> salesman Henry's wiles to put this one over, but he did. How and where
> >> we would lock him up was the only remaining question. Henry, with full
> >> ...Grumbling loudly, Morgan was conducted into captivity. For several
> >> days we took turns staying with him right around the clock, never
> >> letting him get out of our sight . . .
> >>
> >> Sighs of relief went up in every New York member's home when Morgan's
> >> voice was heard. He had hit the deadline without getting drunk. It was
a
> >>
> >> From Pass It On 1984:209-210. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World
> >> Services
> >>
> >
> > Kenny,
> >
> > I admire your determination - but do you realise the date is 1984? -
> > do have a contemporary point to make? - tricky question I know but
> > I'll leave it with you...
> >
> > Rich
> >
> Rich,
>
> I do realize it is from 1984. But that is the newest book of the A.A.
> conference-approved literature except for changes in the personal
> stories in the back of the Big Book. Of course, many of those stories
> have been changed because the writers got drunk and there are new groups
> that A.A. wants to proselytize to. In any case, A.A. has not published
> a new book since "Pass It On" in 1984. Are you suggesting that the
> first 164 page of the Big Book, not being contemporary, are
> meaningless? It seems the more you speak for A.A., the more you put
> your foot in your mouth. Sure, A.A. and the other Step groups like to
> pretend that there is a huge gap between themselves and the Oxford
> Group, but to decide their core text, which was an Oxford Group text
> expounding Oxford Group doctrine was way past way too old to cite, might
> be a great advance from the mind-numbing faith healing, deceit and
> dishonestly of the A.A. we all know.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com/
I think Rich was asking what your point was in citing that story. I would
like to know too. Are you trying to imply that, based upon a single incident
close to 70 years ago, that AA still does that sort of thing ? Or are you
saying that an isolated incident proves that the whole program is dishonest
? What are you trying to say (or imply) ?
John K
Ken
No. I'm saying that the program was dishonest all the way back to when
A.A. dishonestly intimates that it arose as something entirely separate
from the Oxford Group.
Of course A.A. is still dishonest about its lack of success in helping
people with drinking problems. A.A. is also dishonest in soliciting
funds from state and local government for "treatment", half-way houses
and "clubhouses." A.A. will hide the deaths of members that are
attributable to drinking or suicide because of the stresses of
indoctrination. A.A. front group NCADD even went so far as to put out a
press release accusing M.M. of being the cause of Audrey Kishline's
fatal car crash even though she had renounced M.M. and joined A.A.
months before the accident.
It is difficult to find an organization more dishonest and more
disingenuous than A.A.
This does not mean that members in church basements across the country
are not trying to be honest when they make outlandish claims, repeating
things they have been indoctrinated to say in meetings like "spiritual
not religious."
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Kenny, it's important to remember that Audrey Kishline was drinking a
lot while she was was in MM. She then went to AA and continued to
drink heavily. Then she went out, drove drunk, and killed someone. Now
I have seen you attempt to blame AA for her heavy drinking and killing
someone. You have even go so far to say AA was the cause of her
drinking heavily. AA didn't cause her to drink, nor did MM.
The NCADD felt she shouldn't be looked upon as an authority on how to
manage drinking or become abstinent, when she couldn't do either. Very
simple.
Ken
drunk and killed those two people.
http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blncadd42.htm?p=1
It is grossly dishonest to use her death to attack M.M., which, by the
way always held to the A.A. idea that one is/isn't an alcoholic and that
if one finds one is an alcoholic they should go for abstinence
treatment, which is exactly what she did.
Certainly it could have been honestly said that she spent x years in
M.M. and then x months in A.A. before the accident. But the goal of the
press release wasn't to be honest. It was to blame M.M. and leave A.A.
looking pure and pristine.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Tim Bruening
Ken wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I was accused of "interpreting" A.A. history to suit my own ends. The
> following is from conference-approved A.A. literature. I'm not sure how
> quoting things in their entirety or almost in their entirety is
> "interpretation". Or how noting that the early AAs who put someone they
> were so afraid would get drunk under lock and key so he could go on the
> air and tell how he had been saved from drinking to excess is
> interpretation. In any case, interpret it as you wish.
I have a friend who periodically goes on a binge. I have wished that AA
would send a goon squad to keep her from drinking! Why doesn't AA have such
goon squads?
> http://www.morerevealed.com/
>
> “[S]omebody sounded a note of caution: What if the lately released
> asylum inmate Morgan should be drunk the day of the broadcast! Hard
> experience told us this was a real possibility. How could such a
> calamity be averted?
>
> Very gently we suggested to a resentful Morgan that he would have to be
> locked up somewhere until the night of the broadcast. It took all of
> salesman Henry's wiles to put this one over, but he did. How and where
> we would lock him up was the only remaining question. Henry, with full
> faith now restored, solemnly declared that ‘God would provide.’
> ...Grumbling loudly, Morgan was conducted into captivity. For several
> days we took turns staying with him right around the clock, never
> letting him get out of our sight . . .
>
> Sighs of relief went up in every New York member's home when Morgan's
> voice was heard. He had hit the deadline without getting drunk. It was a
> heart-stirring three minutes.”
>
> From Pass It On 1984:209-210. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World
> Services
After the broadcast, did he then get drunk?
Ken
> Ken wrote:
>
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I was accused of "interpreting" A.A. history to suit my own ends. The
>> following is from conference-approved A.A. literature. I'm not sure how
>> quoting things in their entirety or almost in their entirety is
>> "interpretation". Or how noting that the early AAs who put someone they
>> were so afraid would get drunk under lock and key so he could go on the
>> air and tell how he had been saved from drinking to excess is
>> interpretation. In any case, interpret it as you wish.
>>
>
> I have a friend who periodically goes on a binge. I have wished that AA
> would send a goon squad to keep her from drinking! Why doesn't AA have such
> goon squads?
>
>
Do you really need to ask that? The reason why they kept Morgan from
drinking was so he could go on the air and sell the Big Book. What use
is your friend to them?
>> http://www.morerevealed.com/
>>
>> “[S]omebody sounded a note of caution: What if the lately released
>> asylum inmate Morgan should be drunk the day of the broadcast! Hard
>> experience told us this was a real possibility. How could such a
>> calamity be averted?
>>
>> Very gently we suggested to a resentful Morgan that he would have to be
>> locked up somewhere until the night of the broadcast. It took all of
>> salesman Henry's wiles to put this one over, but he did. How and where
>> we would lock him up was the only remaining question. Henry, with full
>> faith now restored, solemnly declared that ‘God would provide.’
>> ...Grumbling loudly, Morgan was conducted into captivity. For several
>> days we took turns staying with him right around the clock, never
>> letting him get out of our sight . . .
>>
>> Sighs of relief went up in every New York member's home when Morgan's
>> voice was heard. He had hit the deadline without getting drunk. It was a
>> heart-stirring three minutes.”
>>
>> From Pass It On 1984:209-210. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World
>> Services
>>
>
> After the broadcast, did he then get drunk?
>
Probably. I don't remember him ever being discussed again. With the tiny
number of group members at that time, it is difficult to image he'd have
been completely ignored afterward if he stayed abstinent, at least in
A.A. But I'm curious what the relevance is to the point that the A.A.s,
including Bill Wilson, were being grossly dishonest in promoting their
Big Book and their Program.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
Kenny,
This reply I am going to print and frame; hang in my office....
> Are you suggesting that the
> first 164 page of the Big Book, not being contemporary, are
> meaningless? It seems the more you speak for A.A., the more you put
> your foot in your mouth.
This is an archetypal ( sorry to be using C. G.Jung - you probably
rail against this philosphy as well) phrase from you. You think 2 + 2
= 5. Reading my very short post your reply is obtuse, irrelevant to
the comment I made and yet again demonstrates how you think.
Rich.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Kenny, are you're joking? Did you read and do you understand the
article? You and your conspiracy theories.
Ken
Maybe you can go make another video. Need ideas? Here is one for you.
I worked at a fish and chips place as a teenager for a couple of weeks
over 40 years ago. I'm sure there is a lot you can dream up surrounding
that and you don't even need to bother pouring through everything I've
written to find something to launch one of your silly attacks.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/