LITTLE COURSE FOR KEN RAGGE - No1 - CONTEMPORARY MEDIA
Rich
If at times you are feeling a little left out and maybe your life's
work in AAA has lost some of it's shine, then look over at Youtube.
Channels such as Goldensun, openflows, sabbat34,amourxxx112,
Buttcoffee, DOUGD98953, Crazymeds, 12step, brytar8, vacillateallday,
loffski, pinkcloudtracy, joshtreevideo .... have either reaffirmed the
case for AA, shown how peculiar the Anti-AA rabble is or used you,
orange and Jamesg as a model on how to make complete fools of
yourselves and in total have over 250K views.
Perhaps you should make a video and have the same openness about
criticism of your views as some of these channels have. Or couldn't
you master the simple technology? Or couldn't you cope with the
banter? You may get thousands and thousands of views. That would be
better than your dozen or so contributors on 12Step Free?
Come and join contemporary society Kenny - you may find fresh ideas.
How about a video on Gamblers Anonymous? Or how to play Craps perhaps?
Or the best way to stack a shelf in a grocery store? Or the best way
to take responsibility for your own actions - a nice innocuous self-
help video?
See you around.
Hugs and kisses
Rich.
Ken
> Kenny,
>
> If at times you are feeling a little left out and maybe your life's
> work in AAA has lost some of it's shine, then look over at Youtube.
>
> Channels such as Goldensun, openflows, sabbat34,amourxxx112,
> Buttcoffee, DOUGD98953, Crazymeds, 12step, brytar8, vacillateallday,
> loffski, pinkcloudtracy, joshtreevideo .... have either reaffirmed the
> case for AA, shown how peculiar the Anti-AA rabble is or used you,
> orange and Jamesg as a model on how to make complete fools of
> yourselves and in total have over 250K views.
>
Do you mean the A.A. true believers do not appreciate me? Who would
have ever thought!
I wonder if Steve Hassan, author of "Combatting Mind Control" and critic
of the Moonies knows they talk bad about him and how he copes with the
knowledge that they speak ill of him for his ignorance for not
acknowledging the Reverend Moon as Jesus Incarnate. I'm sure it really
is something that he never, in a million years would have expected.
> Perhaps you should make a video and have the same openness about
> criticism of your views as some of these channels have. Or couldn't
> you master the simple technology? Or couldn't you cope with the
> banter? You may get thousands and thousands of views. That would be
> better than your dozen or so contributors on 12Step Free?
>
Your logical arguments based in a deep knowledge of the genesis and
purpose of the Step groups just blow me away. You must have been
practicing the 12th Step to have testimony so clearly directly from the
12 Step God. Obviously, the A.A. god is the best 12-Step troll on the
Internet. :-)
> Come and join contemporary society Kenny - you may find fresh ideas.
> How about a video on Gamblers Anonymous? Or how to play Craps perhaps?
> Or the best way to stack a shelf in a grocery store? Or the best way
> to take responsibility for your own actions - a nice innocuous self-
> help video?
>
Gamblers Anonymous would be a great thing to write about. I went to a
few meetings some years ago with a friend who wanted to see what went on
there. Her husband was a compulsive gambler and committed suicide
believing that G.A. was the only help and he decided he would rather die
that subject himself to it.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
Kenny,
What sort of mind believes that it was GA was responsible for the
tragedy of a suicide? This tragic and dreadful event couldn't possibly
have anything to do with anything else could it - like debt, house
repossession, unemployment etc - no of course not - not in your mind.
I have never mentioned Steve Hassan or the Moonies - just you.
Again and again you thrash around looking for ways not to answer a
direct question. Perhaps the next time you write a book of the nature
of Morerevealed then be a little more intelligent and make the work
less personal. An account of the facts would have been fine - in a
word impartial!
Instead your work shows you to be a crank.
Rich.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
>
> > See you around.
>
> > Hugs and kisses
>
> > Rich.
Ken, nobody knows who you are except, a handful of people. You could
say that you are not appreciated, but it's actually because no one
knows who you are. Kenny, you don't have many critics, maybe a few
who you have troubles answering. You do seem to get really offended
when someone criticizes your book, webpage, or you.
I've noticed Ken loves to talk about the Moonies. Did anyone know the
moonies own the Washington Times. Neat stuff.
Kenny's messed up mind believes that GA caused some guy to commit
suicide. Kenny has a simple mind. Kenny believes that because "A" came
before "B", "A' was the cause of "B"
Rich
Mr S,
Thank you - indeed, I believe C comes after A in Kenny's mind.
For Kenny...a little quote I think is applicable to you...
Stephen Evans (Playwright and Author) quotation...
This is the fundamental premise of how the U.S. legal system functions
-- you are responsible for your own actions. God, Jesus, Allah,
Buddha, the Grand Master of the KKK, the President of Ford Motor
Company cannot be held responsible for your actions. God doesn't go to
jail for the pound of weed you got caught going over the Laredo with -
even though he apparently has the knowledge, power, and care to
prevent it -- you go to jail. God passes go and the courts collect two
hundred dollars."
Rich
Mr. Snuffleupagus
It's kind of sick, that Ken would use this man's death in a way to
further Kenny's phony cause. Also, shows Kenny has zero respect for
this man or the man's wife.
Ken
Yes, the Step groups have perfect cover for all the people they kill.
They define diseases as always progressive and fatal unless one
undergoes their specific brand of faith healing. Then when people die
those who die are blamed and the destructive, worse-than-useless
treatment is never considered as part of the cause.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by pointing out some
methodologically-sound studies of 12-Step treatment against other
treatment or no treatment whatsoever. That would show me. If it existed.
> I have never mentioned Steve Hassan or the Moonies - just you.
>
So? And the significance of that sentence is????
> Again and again you thrash around looking for ways not to answer a
> direct question.
What direct questions? You don't ask direct questions and when you do
you start whining and crying and name calling because you don't like the
answer.
> Perhaps the next time you write a book of the nature
> of Morerevealed then be a little more intelligent and make the work
> less personal.
Yes. That sounds like very, very wise advice. If I write another
book, I'll start by taking out the acknowledgments. And then censor
anything I've seen, read or studied.
> An account of the facts would have been fine - in a
> word impartial!
>
Lol! One can't criticize a cult and come off "impartial" to cult
members or to those who are true believers even if the haven't been to a
meeting lately.
> Instead your work shows you to be a crank.
>
Of course. No one but a crank writes a book critical of a cult except a
crank. As any Scientologist their critics are cranks. Ask any Moonie
if their critics are cranks. Ask any Stepper if their critics are
cranks. You will get the same answer from all of the.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
> Rich.
>
Rich
Kenny,
You are the only nutter I have bothered to engage with...and you'll be
relieved that I have better things to do and I'll shuttle away.
However though this medium I have been able to ascertain the depth of
feeling about your work and share with many other people how ludicrous
your argument is and the sort of person you are. On all of those
counts I have been very successful.
Similarly within a very short period of time I produced a series of
videos highlighting AAA ludicrous views and they have been posted on
all the major social video hosting sites. In total 7 videos have
received over 50K views in 4-5 months. Contrary to your persecuted
mind I don't mention you by name. I have on occasions raised many a
laugh with the viewers at the views on AA that you have expressed.
I was very impressed the other day when I read this on MSN group x-
steppers...
"FWIW,
My experience with 12-step free was mixed. It's very active, but I
found Ken Ragge to be nearly as blindly dogmatic as AA.
There was also a lot of character assassination back and forth, which
I found tiresome.
JMHO
YMMV"
Shame you decided not to engage in any form of debate with Mr S,
myself and others.
So I discovered you and your kind are complete losers - dumb-ass's who
has fallen off the social ladder, climbed down the social ladder,
jumped off the social ladder, or just never bothered to climb the
social ladder in the first place. Now you are down there you have
befriended fellow losers. It is perfectly acceptable to insult losers
like you.
Bye, bye.
Rich
Ken
Again, you are too funny. You post _nothing_ that isn't easily
challenged by fact and you _never_ post anything that can't be easily
challenged with documented fact.
You say shame on me for not engaging in any form of debate with you and
your cartoon character friend. You and he don't want and never did want
debate. You wanted to ridicule and draw attention from criticism of the
Step groups. You _never_ posted any research showing the Step groups
successful. You never defended anything the Step literature had to say,
except by personal attack to draw attention from what the lit says.
I'm afraid I've got a far harsher judgment of you and your friend. One
of you said,
A man develops a cult of followers who believe him to be the second
coming of Christ. I've come to use the Reverend Moon and his cult as an
example because they are well known. The Scientologists or La Rouchies
would probably work about as well. In any case, in using the Moonies as
an example of the similarity believers of destructive cults like the
Step Groups, the response back I get is,
"Did anyone know the moonies own the Washington Times. Neat stuff."
Yes, you guys like frauds, lies and manipulators.
You guys get apoplectic when lies, fraud and manipulation are challenged.
What worse thing can I say about you?
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Kenny, lets go over your response to Rich. Pay attention now, this may
be difficult for you to understand.
> >>> Rich.
>
> > Kenny,
>
> > What sort of mind believes that it was GA was responsible for the
> > tragedy of a suicide? This tragic and dreadful event couldn't possibly
> > have anything to do with anything else could it - like debt, house
> > repossession, unemployment etc - no of course not - not in your mind.
>
> Rich,
>
> Yes, the Step groups have perfect cover for all the people they kill.
> They define diseases as always progressive and fatal unless one
> undergoes their specific brand of faith healing. Then when people die
> those who die are blamed and the destructive, worse-than-useless
> treatment is never considered as part of the cause.
Notice, you did not answer Rich's question, you side-stepped his
question and then gone on to claim that step groups have "perfect
cover for all the people they kill" Can you provide any legitimate
evidence that has shown that Step groups have killed actually anyone?
I'm going to assume you're using this definition for kill - "to
deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay."
Ken, Rich never mentioned how step groups define diseases. He hasn't
gave his opinion on the matter either.
"Then when people die those who die are blamed and the destructive,
worse-than-useless treatment is never considered as part of the
cause." So now it only part of the cause of the persons death. Didn't
you just claim step groups kill people? You sure did. Flip-Flop
> Of course, you could prove me wrong by pointing out some
> methodologically-sound studies of 12-Step treatment against other
> treatment or no treatment whatsoever. That would show me. If it existed.
Ken, Rich wants to know how you concluded that GA was the cause of
this persons suicide.That's all, pretty simple, but you again side-
step his simple question.
> > I have never mentioned Steve Hassan or the Moonies - just you.
>
> So? And the significance of that sentence is????
Kenny, you brought in completely irrelevant information, which is a
common theme for you. Steve Hassan and the Moonies have nothing to do
with what Rich asked. We should call you, Red-Herring Ken.
>> Again and again you thrash around looking for ways not to answer a
> > direct question.
>
> What direct questions? You don't ask direct questions and when you do
> you start whining and crying and name calling because you don't like the
> answer.
The first sentence Rich wrote was a question directed at you, Ken. Did
you notice the question mark?
> > Perhaps the next time you write a book of the nature
> > of Morerevealed then be a little more intelligent and make the work
> > less personal.
>
> Yes. That sounds like very, very wise advice. If I write another
> book, I'll start by taking out the acknowledgments. And then censor
> anything I've seen, read or studied.
I think Rich meant stick to the facts, rather than the conspiracies.
> >An account of the facts would have been fine - in a
> > word impartial!
Pretty good advice Rich
> Lol! One can't criticize a cult and come off "impartial" to cult
> members or to those who are true believers even if the haven't been to a
> meeting lately.> Instead your work shows you to be a crank.
>
> Of course. No one but a crank writes a book critical of a cult except a
> crank. As any Scientologist their critics are cranks. Ask any Moonie
> if their critics are cranks. Ask any Stepper if their critics are
> cranks. You will get the same answer from all of the.
>
> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
More of Ken bringing in irrelevant information (red-herring again) so
he won't have to answer the simple question Rich asked Ken.
> > Rich.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Ken
> On Sep 9, 4:21 am, Ken <k...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Kenny, lets go over your response to Rich. Pay attention now, this may
> be difficult for you to understand.
>
nonsense you always pull out of your ass.
>
>>>>> Rich.
>>>>>
>>> Kenny,
>>>
>>> What sort of mind believes that it was GA was responsible for the
>>> tragedy of a suicide? This tragic and dreadful event couldn't possibly
>>> have anything to do with anything else could it - like debt, house
>>> repossession, unemployment etc - no of course not - not in your mind.
>>>
>> Rich,
>>
>> Yes, the Step groups have perfect cover for all the people they kill.
>> They define diseases as always progressive and fatal unless one
>> undergoes their specific brand of faith healing. Then when people die
>> those who die are blamed and the destructive, worse-than-useless
>> treatment is never considered as part of the cause.
>>
>
> Notice, you did not answer Rich's question, you side-stepped his
> question and then gone on to claim that step groups have "perfect
> cover for all the people they kill"
"properly" answer "properly" "Do you still beat your wife?" or "Do you
still molest children?"
> evidence that has shown that Step groups have killed actually anyone?
>
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.
Is it difficult for you to understand that offering a "treatment" that
is about using someone's problems as leverage to coerce a religious
conversion out of them is less than helpful? Is it difficult for you to
understand that virtually shutting down not just other attempts to help
people but to prevent funding of research into things that might help
people is the same thing? Do you really not understand that when
someone gets suicidal under the pressures of indoctrination that telling
them things like, "Go ahead and drink" or "Go ahead and kill yourself"
makes suicided more likely?
Are you the idiot on YouTube that couldn't conceive that repressing
anger can lead to murder and/or suicide, who said something along the
lines of, "How can anyone do that if their anger is repressed?"
> I'm going to assume you're using this definition for kill - "to
> deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay."
>
I mean more to actively participate in a manner that increases the
chances of death.
> Ken, Rich never mentioned how step groups define diseases. He hasn't
> gave his opinion on the matter either.
>
Yes. And I never gave my opinion on summers in Saskatchewan.
> "Then when people die those who die are blamed and the destructive,
> worse-than-useless treatment is never considered as part of the
> cause." So now it only part of the cause of the persons death. Didn't
> you just claim step groups kill people? You sure did. Flip-Flop
>
Nope. Troll game playing on your part.
>
>> Of course, you could prove me wrong by pointing out some
>> methodologically-sound studies of 12-Step treatment against other
>> treatment or no treatment whatsoever. That would show me. If it existed.
>>
>
> Ken, Rich wants to know how you concluded that GA was the cause of
> this persons suicide.That's all, pretty simple, but you again side-
> step his simple question.
>
Yes, it is a pretty simple question. G.A., just like A.A. before it is
a faith healing program that has no evidence for effectiveness. In
spite of the lack of effectiveness, G.A. itself and "two-hatters" (the
12-Step term for professionals like psychologists who use their position
of trust to win converts to G.A.) have a virtual lock on treatment.
Would you argue that if the manufacturers of Thalidomide managed to keep
the side effects secret and also managed to keep any other treatment for
morning sickness off the market that that wouldn't be grounds to charge
the manufacturer for "flipper" babies? Get real.
>
>>> I have never mentioned Steve Hassan or the Moonies - just you.
>>>
>> So? And the significance of that sentence is????
>>
>
> Kenny, you brought in completely irrelevant information, which is a
> common theme for you. Steve Hassan and the Moonies have nothing to do
> with what Rich asked. We should call you, Red-Herring Ken.
>
It has _everything_ to do with what Rich asked.
>
>>> Again and again you thrash around looking for ways not to answer a
>>> direct question.
>>>
>> What direct questions? You don't ask direct questions and when you do
>> you start whining and crying and name calling because you don't like the
>> answer.
>>
>
> The first sentence Rich wrote was a question directed at you, Ken. Did
> you notice the question mark?
>
Did you notice the answer? Or did you get so busy defending your
favorite Moonie-like organization that you could not understand it?
>
>>> Perhaps the next time you write a book of the nature
>>> of Morerevealed then be a little more intelligent and make the work
>>> less personal.
>>>
>> Yes. That sounds like very, very wise advice. If I write another
>> book, I'll start by taking out the acknowledgments. And then censor
>> anything I've seen, read or studied.
>>
>
> I think Rich meant stick to the facts, rather than the conspiracies.
>
No. You know what Rich meant. He meant "Don't write things that upset
me." and "Don't write bad things about the Step groups."
>
>>> An account of the facts would have been fine - in a
>>> word impartial!
>>>
>
> Pretty good advice Rich
>
Lol! Yes, like you and Rich are impartial.
>
>> Lol! One can't criticize a cult and come off "impartial" to cult
>> members or to those who are true believers even if the haven't been to a
>> meeting lately.> Instead your work shows you to be a crank.
>>
>> Of course. No one but a crank writes a book critical of a cult except a
>> crank. As any Scientologist their critics are cranks. Ask any Moonie
>> if their critics are cranks. Ask any Stepper if their critics are
>> cranks. You will get the same answer from all of the.
>>
>> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
>>
>
> More of Ken bringing in irrelevant information (red-herring again) so
> he won't have to answer the simple question Rich asked Ken.
>
Really? It is irrelevant that members of groups similar to A.A. have
rather bizarre but very similar response to criticism? How is that
irrelevant? Or is it just you whining and crying because you can't stop
criticism of the Step groups?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
>>> Rich.
>>>
>
> Mr. Snuffleupagus
>
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Kenny, I may be silly, but George Vaillant did not find that AA/12
Step groups had a higher suicide rate than someone who did not go to
them. I repeat, HE DID NOT. Where did you get that information? If you
are going to claim from "The Natural History of Alcoholism" or the
Revisited one. It would be a responsible request for you to provide a
page number. Or did you get this from something else Vaillant wrote,
if so, please cite. Either page number, if you got it in Vaillants
book or the Journal/article, cite it. Thanks
> Is it difficult for you to understand that offering a "treatment" that
> is about using someone's problems as leverage to coerce a religious
> conversion out of them is less than helpful? Is it difficult for you to
> understand that virtually shutting down not just other attempts to help
> people but to prevent funding of research into things that might help
> people is the same thing? Do you really not understand that when
> someone gets suicidal under the pressures of indoctrination that telling
> them things like, "Go ahead and drink" or "Go ahead and kill yourself"
> makes suicided more likely?
Ken, stop with your loaded questions. A loaded question is a question
with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with
that presumption.
> Are you the idiot on YouTube that couldn't conceive that repressing
> anger can lead to murder and/or suicide, who said something along the
> lines of, "How can anyone do that if their anger is repressed?"
This is another example of a loaded question. Thank you Ken for
providing this example.
This is clearly a Ignoratio Elenchi (red herring) Logical Fallacy,
also "poisoning the well," and the Tu Quoque subfallacy to the
Argumentum ad Hominem. The two paragraphs Ken wrote above are classic
examples of a red herring since the charge about giving children
Thalidomide is irrelevant to the charge about GA. It is a red herring
also because it doesn't matter if who Ken is accusing is guilty, or of
similar wrongs, it is irrelevant to his charge original charge about
GA. This is classic Ken, some call him red herring Ken, but he doesn't
like that name.
Just for info, the basic definition of a red herring is "Any argument
in which the premises are logically unrelated to the conclusion
commits this fallacy."
> >>> I have never mentioned Steve Hassan or the Moonies - just you.
>
> >> So? And the significance of that sentence is????
>
> > Kenny, you brought in completely irrelevant information, which is a
> > common theme for you. Steve Hassan and the Moonies have nothing to do
> > with what Rich asked. We should call you, Red-Herring Ken.
>
> It has _everything_ to do with what Rich asked.
No Ken it does not, it's a Ignoratio Elenchi (red herring) which is a
logical fallacy. Two in a row of same Logical Fallacy, seems to be
standard Ken. I joke, I joke.
Actually yes it is irrelevant Ken. It's a Red Herring, "poisoning the
well," and Tu Quoque (means "You also" or You're another" in latin)
subfallacy to the Ad Hominem, and quite a few others. I explained them
above
> Ken Raggehttp://www.morerevealed.com/
>
> >>> Rich.
>
> > Mr. Snuffleupagus
Toodles,
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Ken
just one piece of methodologically-sound research showing A.A. an
effective treatment against any treatment or against no treatment
whatsoever.
When you produce that one piece, then you have a right to ask me for
research references.
For anyone else who wishes a brief recap of some of the more
methodologically-sound studies of A.A., check out "Does It Really Work?" at:
http://www.morerevealed.com/library/mr/newmr_26.jsp
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> How very odd that you have been asked on numerous occasions to produce
> just one piece of methodologically-sound research showing A.A. an
> effective treatment against any treatment or against no treatment
> whatsoever.
>
> When you produce that one piece, then you have a right to ask me for
> research references.
Kenny, again, can you stop it with the red herrings. You added a new
logical fallacy to your argument, you used Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
(shifting the burden of proof, appeal to ignorance). You are asking me
to provide evidence for something that is irrelevant with the issue at
hand(red herring and try to shift the burden of proof).
You have made the claim that AA/12 step groups have a higher rate of
suicides for someone that has gone to them, then ones who has not gone
to AA/12 steps groups. You claim, I'll just quote you:
"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."
The burden of proof lies on you, as you are the one making the claim.
The onus is on you to back up your assertions with evidence. I asked
you to provide a citation and you refused, "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof." -Carl Sagan.
Ken
are in a position to be making demands? I, and a poster from
Australia, have asked you and Rich to point out just one piece of
methodologically-sound research showing A.A. effective. Neither you nor
he have done so. Instead you have merely continued personal attacks.
Who do you think you are, someone who has ever done anything that would
cause you to deserve respect from me? Maybe you are a cartoon character
in real life, too.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
STOP with your red herrings, Red Herring Ken. What you stated above is
irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Why are you stalling? You made a claim and never backed it up. Why
do you always change the subject when you don't want to answer
something. You do this all the time. You do it in your shitty group,
to Ray, Duaine M, Sam (real doctor, unlike you), and many others. You
keep going off into irrelevant tangents, trying to get your self out
of proving your claim, I'll quote you again:
"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, proving that your argument is not a logical argument is not an
attack. Now, please provide the citations. You keep repeating that AA
has a higher suicide rate then people did not go, but yet you cannot
even provide a simple citation and for some reason you refuse to.
Sounds like you have told a fib. We should call you "Red Herring Ken
the Liar.
Ken
you have told, you are calling me a liar because I won't do what you
tell me to after I and others have asked you to do the exact same thing
on numerous occasions?
You are pathetic.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
That's great Ken, very strange how you wrote this;
"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."
You have yet to backup your claim. This is why it is a reasonable
assumption that you are lying. Why would you write that and then not
back it up with any proof. Why are you trying so hard to change the
subject at hand? You keep refusing to back up your claim for no good
reason, other than you can't back it up with any legitimate evidence.
So, come on, cite something. You're letting down 12 Step Free.