Alcoholism is not a Disease
Ken
Great article and great information at the URL below.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Hello All,
Not so great articles and not that great of information on that site.
Unless you enjoy conspiracy theories. The website is funny and looks
like a 15 year old made it. This guys blog is very funny. Checkout his
post in his blog called "Another Response to “Agent Green”
"I know Groupers have no factual, logical argument against the
assertions of the growing army of Step group critics. However, their
lack of originality is getting tiresome." That is one of the more
hilarious things he wrote in his blog. I have never really seen this
guy present an logical argument. I suppose he means a logical argument
is an argument that uses one too many logical fallacies.
There should be a contest to see who can find the most fallacies in
his blog. I can guarantee there will probably be over 10 logical
fallacies. Anyone wanna play?
Ken
yourself (Are you Tim Chambers from Maryland?) , I'll respond anyway,
even though whoever you are, you are getting rather tiresome.
The article I intended to refer to is:
Alcoholism is not a Disease
http://www.soberforever.net/researchdisease2003.cfm
<http://www.soberforever.net/researchdisease2003.cfm>
In any case, if your best criticism of morerevealed.com is the home
page layout, I don't suppose can be expected to have anything worthwhile
to say about anything, ever. Have you never heard "don't judge a book
by its cover"?
Of course, since you apparently use 12-Step sources and perhaps your
"conscious contact" with God acquired by working a "spiritual, not
religious program" that promises such contact, and whatever you absorbed
in the hyponotic, emotionally-charged "thought reform" environment of
12-Step meetings, it would be very easy for you to find "fallacies." The
Moonies have no problem finding flaws in the criticisms of their
organization, at least not ones that every Moonie can agree with
because, if no other reason, Reverend Moon says so. Of course, the rest
of the world doesn't necessarily buy what Rev. Moon has to say, but they
satisfy themselves of the wisdom of a man who professes to be Jesus
Incarnate. And the Steppers satisfy themselves that what the sacred
text, "The Big Book," says. But that doesn't convince non-Steppers any
more than citing Moonie literature outside a closed environment
convinces non-Moonies.
A few years back there was an on line debate at Yahoo between a
12-Stepper and a non-12-Stepper moderated by someone uninvolved with
either side. For the longest time, there were people trying to get
another debate going but a 12-Stepper could not be found who had the
guts to publicly challenge a critic of A.A. I suppose it was "lucky" to
find one fool willing to do so, especially considering that A.A. warns
against "public controversy" because they know from long experience that
when A.A. is exposed to the light, A.A. begins to wither and die.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
wrote:
Ken Ragge is a prime example of a crank - full of nonsense. He has no
recognised education qualifications and therefore no credibility in
this field. He has a nasty proclivity to his nature - see recent
history on his yahoo health group 12 Step Free - a fine example of
megalomania. His book is another fine example of a scapegoat going on
and on about his predicament - blaming his life's problem's on AA. A
joke - I agree his web site confirms he is a joke - as shoddy an
effort on the Internet as you are ever likely to see. He equates
quantity with quality and believes such ridiculous theories such as
Chinese Brainwashing at AA meetings - LOL Ha, ha, ha. Not worthy of
serious debate( he doesn't debate)
Rich
Ken
What happened? Did I just call you a coward? Are you "Snuggleupagus"
Or "Buttcoffee" or a whole list of masks used by Tim Chambers in
Maryland to "anonymously" attack people and reply in support his own
attacks? If you are him, or merely someone who simply acts like him, no
matter. What a wimp you are. You aren't only a wimp. You are stupid.
Not for you, but for others who may read this, the word "brainwashing"
was a word used to sell American newspapers in the 50s where it was used
in stories that headlines about methods of torture that were claimed to
have been responsible for the conversion of Westerner businessmen and
religious leaders who were trapped in China after the revolution
converted to Communism. I remember reading and hearing of them in the
50s. They had names like "Chinese Water Torture" and consisted of
things like driving bamboo shoots under fingernails.
Of course, if one reads what actually was responsible for the conversion
of not only the Western prisoners but a majority of the Chinese
population, torture had _nothing_ to do with it. As a matter of fact,
in Lifton's research, he found that no one who had even merely witnessed
any of the Communist Chinese atrocities converted. But this was at the
height of the cold war and a naive America needed reassurance and
explanations for what happened to those caught up the revolution in
China. It sold far more newspapers to claim torture as an explanation
for many of the returnees,
"“repeating their false confessions, insisting upon their guilt,
praising the 'justice' and 'leniency' which they have received, and
expounding the 'truth' and 'righteousness' of all Communist doctrine.”"
The classical works on the methods the Chinese Communists used to win
converts were "Coercive Persuasion" by Edgar Schein et al and Thought
Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in
China by R.J. Lifton. The use of the term "brainwashing" in the title
of Lifton's book was in quotes because what he wrote, as well as what
Schein wrote, had absolutely nothing to do with Americans had been told
had brought about the opinion change, the change in world view, that
occurred in China.
The terms "coercive persuasion," "thought reform," and "re-education"
are all far more apt than the term "brainwashing" because of the
associations people have with that word. It originates with the Chinese
term "hsi nao" which means "wash brain." Somewhat closer to reality
would be the Fundamentalist Christian term "washed my sins away" or a
non-religious "disabused myself of those ideas." It is a matter of
bringing social pressure to bear to get people to _change themselves_ to
an outer-defined belief system.
What "thought reform," "coercive persuasion," "re-education," and
"brainwashing," if you will is closely related to the Oxford Group's
"soul surgery" and the work at the Rev. Moon's weekend retreats. As a
matter of fact, Lifton, who wrote "Thought Reform and the Psychology of
Totalism," noted that he had interviewed one protestant minister who had
been an Oxford Grouper prior to being captured by the Communists. He
himself was struck by the Chinese Communist program's similarity with
the Oxford Group's program. The Twelve Step program was directly
adopted from the Oxford Group's program.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Ken,
Do you not want to participate in the contest to see how many logical
fallacies you use? It's could be a good way for you to improve your
rhetoric.
> What happened? Did I just call you a coward? Are you "Snuggleupagus"
> Or "Buttcoffee" or a whole list of masks used by Tim Chambers in
> Maryland to "anonymously" attack people and reply in support his own
> attacks? If you are him, or merely someone who simply acts like him, no
> matter. What a wimp you are. You aren't only a wimp. You are stupid.
Not the best way to start your argument, Ken. You see, Ken, your
attack (ad hominem) is irrelevant to my claim that your arguments are
illogical. Also, Rich's claim that you're not credible. This is why
it's an ad hominem because it has no relevance to anything that has
been mentioned and it is an attack. I also enjoy your loaded
rhetorical questions "What happened? Did I just call you a coward?"
Some many fallacies, so little time. As Spock from Star Trek would
say, "This is Highly illogical."
I'm Mr. Snuffleupagus, I'm not sure who "Rich" is. Nor "Buttcoffee" or
"Tim Chambers in Maryland" is. Ken, can you enlighten me to who each
of these individuals are. I don't see the relevance in a
"buttcoffee" (WTF) or some guy named Tim Chambers who lives in
Maryland.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Ken
Yes, I'm sure your birth certificate says "Mr. Snuffleupagus" and the
fact that you follow creep Tim Chambers pattern even down to the handles
you choose is pure coincidence. And if you aren't Tim Chambers in
Maryland and "Buttcoffee" and a couple of dozen other anonymous names
that he has admitted using after getting caught doing it, it really
doesn't matter. You are no more worthy of respect.
I'm really crushed that you are so shocked and wounded that I would
reply to your and maybe others' attacks with attacks.
Yes, my arguments are illogical because the home page of my website is
not artfully done. What crushing logic.
What an idiot you are if you think I'm going to attempt logical argument
in a zoo with one whacko person pretending to be a dozen different
people all supporting each other even if there really is a thirteenth
who is his own idiot rather than just one more idiot persona of Tim
Chambers.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
> Lol!
>
> Yes, I'm sure your birth certificate says "Mr. Snuffleupagus" and the
> fact that you follow creep Tim Chambers pattern even down to the handles
> you choose is pure coincidence. And if you aren't Tim Chambers in
> Maryland and "Buttcoffee" and a couple of dozen other anonymous names
> that he has admitted using after getting caught doing it, it really
> doesn't matter. You are no more worthy of respect.
>
> I'm really crushed that you are so shocked and wounded that I would
> reply to your and maybe others' attacks with attacks.
>
> Yes, my arguments are illogical because the home page of my website is
> not artfully done. What crushing logic.
>
> What an idiot you are if you think I'm going to attempt logical argument
> in a zoo with one whacko person pretending to be a dozen different
> people all supporting each other even if there really is a thirteenth
> who is his own idiot rather than just one more idiot persona of Tim
> Chambers.
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Snuffleupagus wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 2:50 pm, Ken <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Ken,
>
> > Do you not want to participate in the contest to see how many logical
> > fallacies you use? It's could be a good way for you to improve your
> > rhetoric.
>
> >> What happened? Did I just call you a coward? Are you "Snuggleupagus"
> >> Or "Buttcoffee" or a whole list of masks used by Tim Chambers in
> >> Maryland to "anonymously" attack people and reply in support his own
> >> attacks? If you are him, or merely someone who simply acts like him, no
> >> matter. What a wimp you are. You aren't only a wimp. You are stupid.
>
> > Not the best way to start your argument, Ken. You see, Ken, your
> > attack (ad hominem) is irrelevant to my claim that your arguments are
> > illogical. Also, Rich's claim that you're not credible. This is why
> > it's an ad hominem because it has no relevance to anything that has
> > been mentioned and it is an attack. I also enjoy your loaded
> > rhetorical questions "What happened? Did I just call you a coward?"
> > Some many fallacies, so little time. As Spock from Star Trek would
> > say, "This is Highly illogical."
>
> > I'm Mr. Snuffleupagus, I'm not sure who "Rich" is. Nor "Buttcoffee" or
> > "Tim Chambers in Maryland" is. Ken, can you enlighten me to who each
> > of these individuals are. I don't see the relevance in a
> > "buttcoffee" (WTF) or some guy named Tim Chambers who lives in
> > Maryland.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny,
I think you are going mad, having read your usual wordy response. What
relevance is your reply?
I'm Rich Ramirez and live in North Carolina - does that make you feel
better.
Your diatribe about Chinese Brainwashing techniques which you think
were associated with AA is ludicrous - plain stupid. Similarly you
think if I recall correctly that a subtle "bait and switch" technique
was written into the programme and deployed by the nasty devils which
operate AA - again absolute poppycock! We(US) invented contemporary
marketing in the 1950's from which the term was created. Not 1935 when
AA was born.
You see Kenny when one has a lack of education and a inferiority
complex as you clearly have then this produces a constant tide of
drivel. I feel sorry for a grown gentleman who over nearly 20 years
has held an innocuous self-help programme to be the scapegoat for his
problems.
To put it in street parlance - your a pussy - for thinking AA did you
harm - and a pussy - for crying wolf when all along you were free to
leave - or are we going to discover you were there after a court
ordered you to attend? That would be the icing on the cake!!
Have a nice life - Godless and non-AA attending - Rich.
Ken
I repeat. You are an idiot. I don't criticize A.A. because I think
A.A. did me harm, although that would be a perfectly good reason for
anyone to criticize A.A. or any other organization. I criticize A.A. for
all the harm I've seen it do and continues to do to others. I criticize
the Step groups for the harm they have done and continue to do to our
system of government.
Of course, I don't imagine that you understand the concept of someone
being motivated to do something because they believe it right rather
than because they are motivated by fear and/or greed.
When I wrote More Revealed, I had no idea how widespread the court
coercion was and how deeply rooted the profiteering ran. I thought A.A.
simply misled and killed a lot of people.
And your last sentence is really stupid. My issue with A.A. isn't
because it is religious. It is, among other things, because it lies
about being religious. It lies about being religious to get around rules
to protect all of us and all religions, that have held sway for
centuries. It lies about being religious to get around the rules that
all religious people, and non-religious people for that matter, have
happily supported since the Catholic Church decided it no longer wanted
to be, that it wasn't right to be, both church _and_ state because all
the horror that absolute power brought about.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
armistead75
> Mr. Snuffleupagus wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 2:31 pm, Ken <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hello All,
>
> >> Great article and great information at the URL below.
>
> >> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
>
> > Hello All,
>
> > Not so great articles and not that great of information on that site.
> > Unless you enjoy conspiracy theories. The website is funny and looks
> > like a 15 year old made it. This guys blog is very funny. Checkout his
> > post in his blog called "Another Response to “Agent Green”
>
> > "I know Groupers have no factual, logical argument against the
> > assertions of the growing army of Step group critics. However, their
> > lack of originality is getting tiresome." That is one of the more
> > hilarious things he wrote in his blog. I have never really seen this
> > guy present an logical argument. I suppose he means a logical argument
> > is an argument that uses one too many logical fallacies.
>
> > There should be a contest to see who can find the most fallacies in
> > his blog. I can guarantee there will probably be over 10 logical
> > fallacies. Anyone wanna play?
>
> In spite of the fact that you are too much of a coward to identify
> yourself (Are you Tim Chambers from Maryland?) , I'll respond anyway,
> even though whoever you are, you are getting rather tiresome.
>
> The article I intended to refer to is:
>
Welll, in my all honest opinion, AA as well as all other "12 step"
groups suck. They get a person nowhere and force you to think
alcholism is a disease. Like hell it is. People make rational choices
to drink or do drugs. So how is alcholism a disease? It is not a true
disease, such as liver failure, which may have been induced/
exaggerated by the alcohol consumption over the years. There is no
such thing as an alcohol "gene" or any of that crap. It is all a lame
excuse these people use who have no self discipline or control over
their lives. AA? Many of these ass holes are nothing but
psychological abusers who like to control people via mind control and
torture..by forcing one to "confess" his/her peronal secrets to a
strangers. what bullshit. It is non of their fucking business, and you
never know who they will tell or who these people are . What many do
to the newcomer is cruel and unusual punishment.... not to mention a
covert/overt crime and major violation of ones so called
constitutional rights. I think that a persons' recovery from drugs or
alcohol should have NOTHING to do with some sort of "higher power"
crap or some dumb ass big book. It should have nothing to do with some
pseudo religious cult like AA. If you need to recover, try a rational
solution, like rational recovery. Talk to Jack Trimpey. Get yourself
AWAY from the AA cult. they are sadistic and mean people who will try
to ruin you, as they tried to me, and I do not have any addictions to
alcohol or drugs.
Rich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny,
If what you say is true then I would have apologized to you a long
time ago and not bothered to get involved.
Let's go through what you say. I'm an idiot - thank you. I'm taking an
interest in this because I see somebody maliciously attacking a benign
and benevolent fellowship. AA is just that and nothing else. It isn't
a cult, it isn't organized, it isn't a religion and if the AA
programme is adhered to as intended is perfectly harmless.
I'm taking an interest as immediately I read through your book and
blog site material my jaw dropped at the stupidity of the content. I'm
taking an interest as you think it acceptable to say the most
outrageous and ludicrous comments about AA and get off Scott-free.
Anybody who attends an AA meeting realizes that AA's "solution" to
"alcoholism" is based in spirituality. Do you understand that? Do you
want to understand? AA also relies upon abstinence. Do you understand
that? Do you want to? If AA wasn't for you why didn't you leave
without a fuss? What are you, a simple opportunist? A chancer?
Somebody with a big chip on their shoulder that's for sure?
Yes I understand your attempt at a condescending remark - I understand
the difference between right and wrong - you must believe what you
write as otherwise that would make you an idiot. Now we wouldn't want
that would we?
You are a master of deflecting and not answering questions. That's not
a skill I would ever wish to have. That makes you into a coward -
something you accuse me of. What a laugh.
You are the gentleman who endorses and encourages such material as a
picture of a women pissing onto one of AA's founders graves. You are
the gentleman who is unable to be wrong, apologize or assist others in
recovering. I cannot possibly imagine what goes through your head when
daily you are thinking of more lies to suite the monster you created.
There again with the amount of time you have devoted to this then you
are one sad, sad soul.
Back in the day when you started to contribute to ADDICT-L there were
many contributors with much the same view as I have. Although they
were predominately AA folks I guess. Eighteen years on and you have
the same tired dogma - amusingly repeating the same argument you have
against AA. All you did was create your own AAA Cult. You are the self
styled leader, you created parallel dogma to spread fabricated
bullshit.
You target AA to use as a scapegoat for your own problems.
You share a hostile social-psychological routine.
You shift blame and personal responsibility away from yourself and
onto AA.
So this idiot thinks all this of you. I think I have been fair in my
assessment of you - this is why I think you are a crank or if you like
a charlatan.
Have a beautiful day - I will.
Rich
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Hi Ken,
You truly sound like you have gone off the deep end. I enjoy your
lengthy reply to me. I'm truly sadden that you don't respect me or
anyone that criticizes you. It's quite funny that you think everyone
that criticizes you is an idiot, Tim Chambers in Maryland, buttcoffee,
and is not worthy of your respect. How many Tim Chambers' in Maryland
are there, Ken?
You seem to have really poor reading comprehension. Do you not
understand what I wrote to you? I wrote that your website looks like a
15 year old made it. Then I go on to say I have never seen you present
a logical argument (note to Ken, I changed to a different subject). I
honestly don't really understand how you came to this conclusion "Yes,
my arguments are illogical because the home page of my website is not
artfully done." In fact, your response proves that you cannot present
a logical argument.
The last paragraph in your reply to Rich is silly. Actually, your
whole response to him is silly. So you believe Bill Wilson
intentionally lied about AA not being a religious organization, just
so he and AA could get around the first amendment. You said it, "It
lies about being religious to get around rules to protect all of us
and all religions, that have held sway for centuries." You're wrong
about that comment and the rest of your paragraph. It's clear your
meaning this part of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;"
Now Ken, here is why you're wrong. The part concerning religions or
anything religious of the First Amendment didn't apply to the states
until the Supreme Court made a ruling in 1947 (Everson v. Board of
Education). The First Amendment originally applied only to the federal
government, not the states. In fact, the only reason it applies to the
states now, is because of another amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Even more, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court always
held the position that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal
government, not the states.
So, Ken, prior to 1947 the states could have a state religion if they
wanted to, could endorse religious activities, could court order
people to religious organizations if they wanted to. For centuries, as
you claim, the rules have not been the same. I believe the big book
came out in 1939. I'm don't understand your claim that AA and/or Bill
Wilson intentionally lied about AA not being a religious organization
to get around the rules. The rules were different in 1939. Why would
he and/or AA go out of their way to intentionally lie about AA not
being an religious group? So AA wouldn't have to oblige to the federal
government? Your claim doesn't make any sense. It sounds like a
conspiracy theory you pulled out of your asshole.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Rich
wrote:
Mr Snuffleupagus,
Really interesting reply to our mutual "friend". Thank you for this
contribution to the debate. I don't suppose Kenny will come back to
the truth you have rightly highlighted.
Rich
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Hola Rich,
I thought Ken would of liked to learn some American History.
Apparently, he has a limited understanding of American History. Ken
probably has no idea of what was going on in the late 1930's, that's
when AA came around. Kenny thinks up the weirdest unbelievable
bullshit. Chinese Brainwashing, where did he get this from, it sounds
so ridiculous stupid. Kenny and his pal Agent Orange love to apply
what happened in the 1920-30's to todays standard. They both seem to
believe Bill Wilson was using a bait and switch when he wrote the big
book, that he intentionally used a whole long list of propaganda
techniques to deceive people that read the big book. What comes to my
mind is, Conspiracy theory.
Rich, Ken is probably trying to think up something to come back at us
two "idiots." This is his whole life, and I think it is one sad life
to live.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
I caught a 14 inch Rainbow Trout today with my trusty fly rod and fly
Rich
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hola Dude,
Did you know Agent Orange - I forgot his real name so I am forced to
use his thickheaded pseudonym - believes 100% that Alcoholism is
genetic. So he's gone from one ludicrous idea to the next. They are a
real bunch of conspiracy ridden scapegoat freaks.
Don't forget Kenny the crank thinks that you only become "alcoholic"
if you were abused as a child - that's news to an awful lot of people
- LOL.
So what do we have - two theories from our un-educated gurus -
theories you will not be surprised to know HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY
MAINSTREAM SOCIETY - wonder why. Because they are barking mad that's
why!
Hope you are enjoying yourself - I am!!! Talk to you soon I hope...
Rich
Ken
It seems you've been to a few A.A. meetings. :-)
Alcoholism first "became" a disease in the early 1800s when Benjamin
Rush, the founder of American psychiatry decided it was. He also came
to the conclusion that being a black person was a disease symptom and
discovered teh "disease" of "revolutiana." Revolutiana was the disease
that British loyalists were suffering from. It is why they were British
loyalists rather than revolutionaries during the Revolutionary War.
Alcoholism officially became a disease when 12-Steppers lobbied and the
A.M.A. and managed to get it _voted_ a disease. It is not much
different from when Congress voted that marijuana has no medical uses.
"Don't confuse matters with the facts. It is the law."
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Bob
snip
>
> It seems you've been to a few A.A. meetings. :-) Alcoholism first
> "became" a disease in the early 1800s when Benjamin Rush, the
> founder of American psychiatry decided it was. He also came to
> the conclusion that being a black person was a disease symptom and
> discovered teh "disease" of "revolutiana." Revolutiana was the
> disease that British loyalists were suffering from. It is why
> they were British loyalists rather than revolutionaries during the
> Revolutionary War. Alcoholism officially became a disease when
> 12-Steppers lobbied and the A.M.A. and managed to get it _voted_ a
> disease. It is not much different from when Congress voted that
> marijuana has no medical uses. "Don't confuse matters with the
> facts. It is the law."
>
> Ken Ragge http://www.morerevealed.com/
>
At a convention of the National Clergy Conference on Alcoholism, Bill
Wilson, founder of Alcoholics anonymous said: “We have never called
alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a
disease entity ... “ Bill Wilson NCCA p20.
--
Bob
"I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very
often they are the same thing"-Paul Theroux, in Milroy the Magician.
Ken
I'm afraid I can't feel to bad about calling you an idiot. Aside from
the shoe apparently fitting quite well, it is trivial compared to what
you've been saying about me.
If A.A. is so wonderful, then why do they create so many people like
you and the character that goes "SniffleYourButt", "Buttcoffee" and a
dozen scat fetishist handles? If A.A. is so wonderful, then why are you
incapable of discussing issues rather than attacking the messenger? Do
you really think that you can discount Mendel's findings on genetics by:
"You target AA to use as a scapegoat for your own problems.
You share a hostile social-psychological routine.
You shift blame and personal responsibility away from yourself and onto AA.
So this idiot thinks all this of you. I think I have been fair in
myassessment of you - this is why I think you are a crank or if you
likea charlatan."
Do you think saying that about Euclid would prove his mathematical
theorems invalid? Do you think that "The Origin of Species" can be
successfully discounted as irrelevant because the cover looked like crap?
What we have here is an shining example of how a cult slogan is at least
true some of the time. "Point one finger at someone else and you are
pointing three at yourself."
Lol! Yes. A.A. is perfect and the only reasonable criticism is that
there aren't enough meetings, right?
I'm sure you think you have been fair. You are every bit as fair as a
Scientologist is when Scientology is criticized or a Mooney is when the
Moonies are criticized. There are several things that the
Scientologists and Moonies don't do that A.A. does that A.A. does
deserve criticism for. They include lobbying courts and using their own
members in the judiciary to force people into Step indoctrination. They
also include using EAPs to force 12-Step "treatment" on people at the
risk of losing their jobs, professions, and children.
When I first began criticizing A.A. on the Internet I was called by
large, independent groups of 12-Steppers in different places a "dry
drunk", a "drinking alcoholic" and "never was a real alcoholic" at the
same time. It would have been interesting to have seen them all
together trying to figure out which was the "Truth" to go with.
It was also funny to see them discussing me among themselves when they
didn't know I was on a list. One of them would pipe up, "Well, of
course what he says (about something or other) is true. I see it all the
time. What do we do to stop him?
That is the way Steppers deal with criticism of their cult. They will
at all costs avoid the issues and attack the critic. Any accusation is
better than allowing oneself to be cornered into having to offer a
logical opinion (which is generally impossible) or telling the truth
(also impossible without their house of cards collapsing).
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
> Ken wrote:
> snip
>>
>> It seems you've been to a few A.A. meetings. :-) Alcoholism first
>> "became" a disease in the early 1800s when Benjamin Rush, the
>> founder of American psychiatry decided it was. He also came to
>> the conclusion that being a black person was a disease symptom and
>> discovered teh "disease" of "revolutiana." Revolutiana was the
>> disease that British loyalists were suffering from. It is why
>> they were British loyalists rather than revolutionaries during the
>> Revolutionary War. Alcoholism officially became a disease when
>> 12-Steppers lobbied and the A.M.A. and managed to get it _voted_ a
>> disease. It is not much different from when Congress voted that
>> marijuana has no medical uses. "Don't confuse matters with the
>> facts. It is the law."
>>
>> Ken Ragge http://www.morerevealed.com/
>>
>
>
> At a convention of the National Clergy Conference on Alcoholism, Bill
> Wilson, founder of Alcoholics anonymous said: “We have never called
> alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a
> disease entity ... “ Bill Wilson NCCA p20.
>
>
Wilson was no fool. You don't tell ministers that what they consider
sin is really disease and its "cure" falls in someone elses
"franchise." If you want to win the clergy over, that would make as
much sense as telling the A.M.A. that alcoholism is a sin and outside of
the physicians' franchise.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
would want to argue that slavery was up to the states when the
Constitution was written so it, too, should have never been outlawed.
And any argument about slavery would be incomplete without bringing
attention to the fact that "any state could have had slaves if they
wanted to."
Of course, your analysis comes from wickipedia, an unimpeachable
source. It is unimpeachable because if it says anything a group of
people don't like, they can change it.
In any case, it seems you announcing that you are in favor of forced
religious attendance and sanctions for lacking in "proper" religious
belief. For instance, if a state has a majority of Methodists, should
they be able to force the Presbyterians to their services and renounce
"predestination" (or claim belief in it, don't remember which) otherwise
they will lose their jobs, have their children taken away, get thrown in
jail? Or do you only want the Step groups to have such power?
In 1939, for all practical purposes, A.A. was the Oxford Group. (see the
Plain Dealer series promoting an early A.A. meeting) People resent
others attempting to convert them from whatever religion they held.
That is why the OG came up with "more spiritual than religious," to get
in the door. The Step groups merely expanded on that idea. The Step
group benefit greatly from hiding the fact that they are a religion with
their own doctrine by getting the government to not only fund their
indoctrination centers, but to get the government to coerce attendance.
Obviously the criticism of the Step groups has changed the landscape.
It wasn't all that long ago that the Groupers would go beserk suggesting
that the Step groups are religious. Now you are arguing that the
country historically allows religions to do what the Step groups are
getting caught doing.
Whether Wilson "intentionally lied" or not is rather irrelevant. He had
been an Oxford Grouper for years, worked on an Oxford Group "team" and
was very well versed in the methods of "Soul Surgery."
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
At least the creepiness level has come down a notch since you identified
yourself as other than one of Buttcoffee's talking poop personas.
Tim Chambers (Buttcoffee),
I'm afraid that "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" was too
far over your head and hence your, "I don't know where he got that
from." The bait and switch of "God as you understand him" is Sam
Shoemaker's "any God you think might exist." Sam Shoemaker was the
American Oxford Group leader. Wilson came up with nothing on his own.
As I said in another post, Wilson was an Oxford Grouper. It is not
surprising that he and the other members of the Oxford Group's
"Alcoholic Squad" wrote a volume very much in keeping with Oxford Group
methods of, as the called it, "Soul Surgery."
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> > Mr. Snuffleupagus
>
> Well, if you want to take the "States Rights" argument, I suppose you
> would want to argue that slavery was up to the states when the
> Constitution was written so it, too, should have never been outlawed.
> And any argument about slavery would be incomplete without bringing
> attention to the fact that "any state could have had slaves if they
> wanted to."
>
> Of course, your analysis comes from wickipedia, an unimpeachable
> source. It is unimpeachable because if it says anything a group of
> people don't like, they can change it.
Kenny,
Wikipedia hahahaha good one. That probably is your source but not
mine. You see Kenny, I get my information from books that are
reliable, unlike you. You want to know where I got the information
about the First Amendment? I will tell you anyways. "What Hath God
Wrought" by Daniel Walker Howe - Won the Pulitzer prize for History
in 2007, "The U.S. Constitution: And Fascinating Facts About It" by
Terry L. Jordan - had to get this for one of my college classes,
"Education Law, Policy, And Practice: Cases And Materials" by Michael
J. Kaufman & Sherelyn R. Kaufman - Textbook for another college class,
Most of what I wrote about constitution came from this book. There are
some others, also. Do you know what college is Ken? Other than
something you didn't attend.
I enjoy your deflection and bringing up slavery. Remember when Ronald
Regan said something to the effect that he supported "state rights"
when campaigning for president? Some people branded him as a racist
for that statement. Are you trying to imply that I'm a racist, Kenny?
Kenny, when you figure out why slavery wasn't mentioned in the
constitution, I will discuss it with you. Also, here is not the place
> In any case, it seems you announcing that you are in favor of forced
> religious attendance and sanctions for lacking in "proper" religious
> belief. For instance, if a state has a majority of Methodists, should
> they be able to force the Presbyterians to their services and renounce
> "predestination" (or claim belief in it, don't remember which) otherwise
> they will lose their jobs, have their children taken away, get thrown in
> jail? Or do you only want the Step groups to have such power?
Where did I imply that I'm in favor of forced religious attendance?
Nice straw man, Kenny. I also find your use of loaded rhetorical
questions, quite amusing. I'm in favor of Americans learning about
their country. You might want to research more about the USA. You'll
find out some interesting information.
> In 1939, for all practical purposes, A.A. was the Oxford Group. (see the
> Plain Dealer series promoting an early A.A. meeting) People resent
> others attempting to convert them from whatever religion they held.
> That is why the OG came up with "more spiritual than religious," to get
> in the door. The Step groups merely expanded on that idea. The Step
> group benefit greatly from hiding the fact that they are a religion with
> their own doctrine by getting the government to not only fund their
> indoctrination centers, but to get the government to coerce attendance.
>
> Obviously the criticism of the Step groups has changed the landscape.
> It wasn't all that long ago that the Groupers would go beserk suggesting
> that the Step groups are religious. Now you are arguing that the
> country historically allows religions to do what the Step groups are
> getting caught doing.
>
> Whether Wilson "intentionally lied" or not is rather irrelevant. He had
> been an Oxford Grouper for years, worked on an Oxford Group "team" and
> was very well versed in the methods of "Soul Surgery."
>
> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
Your use of the good ol' red herring and straw man is getting
annoying. I still stand by my statement that you cannot present a
logical argument.
Mr. Snuffeupagus
Ken
Since I have no intent to spend all day here, I'm limiting what I am
replying to the following.
Mr. Snuffleupagus wrote:
> Where did I imply that I'm in favor of forced religious attendance?
> Nice straw man, Kenny.
Straw man? How is that? You attack me and a few other people who
criticize the Step groups for, among other reasons, their wholesale
participation in coercion. The Step groups are responsible for the
coercion of between one and two million people a year into Step
indoctrination.
You can ignore that all you want but ignoring it will never in a million
years change the fact.
The fact that you are attacking those who are attacking a group that
gains a large percentage of its members from coercion is grounds to not
just imply but to assertively aver that you are not troubled by Grouper
coercion.
For those who are unfamiliar with it, here is the official A.A. document
tells A.A. members how to get coercees from the courts.
AA Guidelines: Cooperation with Court, D.W.I. and Similar
Programs
<http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_pdfs/mg-05_coopwithcourt.pdf>
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
elzoid
wrote:
You will have as much fun playing with yourself.
Go back to whatever part of the cult you call your home group.
elzoid
I am an atheist and proud of it.
I am even prouder that I quit AA because of the bullying.
Get a life.
You are a mere addict and can't summon the guts to quit drinking on
your own.
Stick your higher power up your ass.
Rich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Elzoid,
Are we to believe somebody was bullying a man like you? Really?
Rich
Wozza Ports
OK. What are they?