Free on line library. Books about the Step groups.
Ken
I've been a bit remiss in reminding everyone of an on line resource, the
library at morerevealed.com. Below is a list of books all at least free
for personal use.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
More Revealed: A Critical Analysis of Alcoholics Anonymous and the
Twelve Steps
by Ken Ragge
Twelve Step Horror Stories: True Tales of Misery, Betrayal and Abuse in
NA, AA
and 12-Step Treatment
Rebecca Fransway, Ed.
Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure?
Charles Bufe
Resisting 12-Twelve Step Coercion: How to Fight Forced Participitation
in AA, NA,
or 12-Step Treatment
by Stanton Peele and Charles Bufe with Archie Brodsky
Saints Run Mad
by Marjorie Harrison
First published in 1934, "Saints Run Mad" is a cricism of the Oxford
Group written by an Episcopal Church lady that reads very well as a
criticism of the 12-Step groups of today. While "Frank" (Frank Buchman)
is gone and not a word is said any more of the Absolutes, the madness
carries on today. Written from a decidedly Christian perspective, it
exposes the arrogance, hypocracy, and harm done, not only of 70 years
ago but in AA and the other Step groups today. You hardly need be
Christian to appreciate her honesty, candor and wit. But if you are,
even better.
Soul Surgery
by H. A. Walter
In the 1920s and 30s, a new convert to the Oxford Group could buy this
do-it-yourself manual for a few pennies and immediately set to work
winning new converts. Supposedly a Christian document, the essence of
the book has nothing to do with Christianity but with Buchmanism and the
details of their "scientific" program of "soul surgery" or cult
indoctrination techniques. The basic fundamental "scientific" principles
are greatly refined and still used in modern-day Step groups.
What is the Oxford Group?
by The Layman With the Notebook
Another book written in the early thirties plainly shows where much of
A.A. came from a few years before modern-day A.A.'s claim A.A. began. In
the first few words, one will see A.A.'s "the spiritual principle of
Anonymity" before there was an A.A. (the book was written anonymously)
and a description of the Oxford Group not much different from the way
modern-day A.A. describes itself.
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
Thank you for sharing Ken.
Hello Everyone too!
I've been a bit remiss in reminding everyone of an online
gentleman named Ken who is an anti-cultist cult follower.
He maintains some very entertaining collection of material at
MoreofTheSameDribble.com.
He posts more useless, meaningless, pointless points
about the men behind the curtain of the 1930 Oxford group(s),
AA hierarchy , AA statistics from 1950s, than Bill, Fred, Wilma
and Betty combined. A vast depository of dated material.
Stop by and say Hi.
Thank you.
Boo.
Ken
Schaler's "Cult Busting" where he writes about how cult members respond
when their group is criticized. While more evidence to prove his points
wasn't needed, every little bit helps. You, as a group member, can
prove his points far better than any non-grouper could ever hope to do.
Just one question. Do you think the Big Book, published in 1939 is
useless material because it, too, is from the 30s?
Thank you,
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
John K.
"Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5PWdncrQ8rPn2ybV...@comcast.com...
Let's see now. ONE person responds and you generalize that to prove how cult
members defend their cult ? I could understand it if a bunch of people
responded, but ONE ?? Come on now.
You have been criticizing AA for a long time now and there is a huge AA
presence on the net. Why is it that you don't see more than a handful bother
to ever comment in this group ? They know you are here. They seem to be
ignoring you. Hardly the actions of a bunch of cultists.
John K.
Ken
You obviously haven't been following the few interchanges among the tiny
number of people that have been posting here. It is indeed difficult to
demonstrate the accuracy of Schaler's article with no, or virtually no,
A.A.s about and "Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA" 's
contribution really was appreciated.
As far as the number of AAs who post in this group, they long ago
managed to drive the AA critical posters out even if this group was
established as an AA critical group. Almost everyone who still bothers
with discussion groups goes to private groups like the ones on Yahoo and
MSN.
You aren't complaining because not all A.A. critical people have been
permanently driven out of a group that was established as an AA critical
group, are you? :-)
I only started back posting here when Rich pretended to ask serious
questions in an effort to draw me into an argument. He felt slighted
because he was ignored on private discussion lists.
One thing I would like to know is the logical steps between "only a
handful ever bother to comment" in a dead Usenet group to that being
evidence that A.A. is not a cult. Surely there must be some logical
process somewhere between the two seemingly unrelated statements.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
Kenny,
So it's all my fault!!?? I tricked you did I? - it's very, very easy
to trick a sad, deluded bigot.
Keep dealing the cards Kenny and crying over how those simply beastly
people in Alcoholics Anonymous did you harm - it's a front for the
Nazis don't you know - LOL.
Hugs and kisses,
Rich
John K.
and I follow it pretty closely when there is anything to read. I rarely
comment as I am here mostly to try to learn and understand.
You claim that the AA critics have been driven out of their own group but,
unless that happened over 10 years ago, that's not what I have observed.
There never have been more than a handful of pro-AA contributors to this
group at any given time. Hardly enough to drive anybody out of a group they
care about. The trolls in a pro football newsgroup that I hang out in are
far worse and it is still going strong. The problem with this group is that
you folks just don't have anything to talk about. Bashing AA has got to get
old after a while.
As far as my logic goes, I refer you to the article by Schaler that you
cited. In it he says:
"Members of the cult are like a colony of insects when disturbed. A frenzy
of activity and protective measures are executed when core ideologies are
challenged. The stronger the evidence challenging the truthfulness of the
group ideology, the more likely members of the cult are to either lash out
in a more or less predictable fashion, fall apart, or disband into separate
cult colonies. "
In 10 years I haven't seen any "frenzy of activity" and you certainly
challenge "core ideologies". If AA really was a cult, I would expect to see
large numbers of members in here "defending the faith". Instead, I've seen a
handful. The big, bad, AA cult seems to be ignoring you. That must hurt.
John K.
"Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BcudnR-AcciN_ibV...@comcast.com...
Ken
Yes it did happen over 10 years ago. While you have a point that
"bashing" A.A. would quickly get old as would simply "bashing" anything,
you seem to miss that the criticism of the Step groups is no more
"bashing" A.A. than criticism of pedophile priests and their protection
by the Church was "bashing" the Catholic Church.
And if criticism of the Step groups gets so old so fast, can you explain
what Rich and Mr. SniffleYourAnus is doing both here and on YouTube?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
When someone keeps making up lies rather than dealing with issues, it is
obvious that it is their problem, not mine. And you have the gaul to
whine and cry because you aren't the only person I respond to here?
Leaving aside your silly, desperate ad hominems, Where did I _ever_
say that A.A. is a front for Nazis? Are you aware that when you tell
obvious lies, lies which if they were true could be easily shown to be
true, that you are making a fool of yourself?
If I said that A,.A. was a front for the Nazis, surely there is a record
of it somewhere.
Are you that afraid to admit you are wrong? Do you really need to prove
yourself bizarrely wrong to hide the fact that you are ignorantly wrong?
Come on. Show where I said that A.A. is a front for the Nazis.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
I didn't know Ken knew what an ad-hominem is. Interesting!
Ken, I'm here because what you write is funny. Plus, you can't back up
most of what you write. 20 years and still have not been able to prove
AA is a cult. That must stink like sweaty hairy balls.
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
> Thank you for your response. I had just reposted a link to Jeffrey
> Schaler's "Cult Busting" where he writes about how cult members respond
> when their group is criticized.
Thanks for sharing Ken.
I'm not quite sure I am a *member* of any said
club or cult .. I never received the welcome kit in the mail.
Did Schaler send you wallet size ID card ?
Regards.
Boo.
Rich
Kenny,
Tut, tut - somebody here said it very well - thanks for sharing Ken -
now back to the Nazis. Haven't you been talking to the half-a-dozen
AAA faithful recently about Buchman? I think so - but thanks for your
vitriolic comments about me. Give me some more - wipe it on really
thick - just enough to demonstrate the real you?
Nice share...
John K.
then yes, it is "bashing" the Catholic Church. Very much so.
I also don't have any idea what motivates "Rich and Mr. SniffleYourAnus". My
track record at guessing peoples motives shows that I am almost always wrong
so I rarely do it.
I notice that you dropped the discussion of AA's cultishness. Didn't have a
response ? That's alright. I really don't care whether you think AA is a
cult or not. I do have a question for you however. If AA is really a big,
bad, powerful (brainwashing, getting governments to coerce new recruits,
etc ) cult like you claim it is, why haven't they reached out and squashed
you like a bug ??? You have been attacking them for many years now. Surely
they have heard of you. Ahhh, the ignominy of it all when your sworn enemy
ignores you.
John K.
"Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:arOdnSonQaGBJyHV...@comcast.com...
Ken
> If you 'criticize' pedophile priests over, and over, and over, and over...
> then yes, it is "bashing" the Catholic Church. Very much so.
>
Are you then suggesting that those who were criticizing the Catholic
Church for pedophilia and protecting the pedophile priests should have
shut up before the Church changed their policy?
> I also don't have any idea what motivates "Rich and Mr. SniffleYourAnus". My
> track record at guessing peoples motives shows that I am almost always wrong
> so I rarely do it.
>
> I notice that you dropped the discussion of AA's cultishness. Didn't have a
> response ? That's alright. I really don't care whether you think AA is a
> cult or not.
Yes, I'm sure you don't care. That is why you have been hanging out
here for a decade. Or is it that you care that someone "gets away with"
criticizing your Program?
> I do have a question for you however. If AA is really a big,
> bad, powerful (brainwashing, getting governments to coerce new recruits,
> etc ) cult like you claim it is, why haven't they reached out and squashed
> you like a bug ??? You have been attacking them for many years now. Surely
> they have heard of you. Ahhh, the ignominy of it all when your sworn enemy
> ignores you.
>
I'm not being ignored. All of you here are representing, speaking for,
A.A. I have to admit, however, there are times when I would prefer to
be ignored. :-)
Ken
Your silliness will soon get tiresome, but for now . . .
You know as well as I do that that A.A., being set up in the pattern of
the Oxford Group, has no membership cards or membership lists.
You also know, I would hope, that Jeffrey Schaler is a university
professor. As such, he doubtless has lists of people who are signed up
for one of his classes, but this is a function of the University where
he teaches. Since he is on the other side of the country and I've not
ever taken any classes where he was instructor, there is no reason for
me to have any sort of ID card from the University where he teaches.
Do you feel as though you have successfully distracted attention from
the "Cult Busting" article where the way A.A. members behave in common
with other cults in response to criticism is described?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Prof. Schaler doesn't teach classes on cults. His classes actually
have zero to do with cults or even close to that matter. He's supposed
to be teaching classes like,
"Law, Psychology and Justice" and "Drugs, Consciousness and Human
Fulfillment" what's even more interesting, those classes are in the
Law department.
Although, when in his class, he rarely talks about anything to do with
what he supposed to be teaching. He mainly talks about himself, being
on tv, and his views that are controversial. Sometimes he even
discusses libertarianism
Bob
> John K. wrote:
>>
> I'm not being ignored. All of you here are representing, speaking for,
> A.A.
Jeez, Ken. Alone, with contextual contradictions snipped, if that
*is* an honest claim, its damning evidence of your extraordinary
stupidity.
It would be almost interesting to discover if "all of you here" is
intended to convey that John K posts with multiple identities, and if
"are representing" is intended to reference some sort of AA Secret
Service sufficiently inept to reveal what it represents.
Best as I can recall, the only AA member to post here recently is
Tex, an amicable sort of fellow; hardly likely to goad you into
prayer, fear, and trembling.
However, if your symptoms exceed that discomfort, best you contact
A.A. World Services, Inc. to ascertain if they are indeed represented
here, and by whom.
P.O. Box 459
New York, NY 10163
(212) 870-3400
> I have to admit, however, there are times when I would prefer to
> be ignored. :-)
>
Yeah, inadvertently posting fuckups can be embarrassing, can't it :)
--
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.
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
>
> Do you feel as though you have successfully distracted attention from
> the "Cult Busting" article where the way A.A. members behave in common
> with other cults in response to criticism is described?
>
Thanks for sharing Ken.
Those black SUV's in your mirror are not from the Oxford group
enforcer group. The "A.A" cult behavior is all in your mind.
Boo.
kenraggeatmore...@gmail.com
wrote:
Who cares what he is doing now? Are you trying to suggest that one
must be perfect (as the Program is claimed to be) in order to
criticize it?
Checking Schaler's website, his most recent degree is:
Doctor of Philosophy Degree
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT/ INSTITUTE FOR CHILD STUDY
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
May, 1993
Concentration in addiction theory, self psychology, and social policy
Title of Dissertation: Addiction Beliefs of Treatment Providers:
Factors Explaining Variance
That certainly is related to the subject at hand. Or are you merely
trying to distract from what he said in the article "Cult Busting" by
going of on a personal attack thus once more reaffirming what he
wrote?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
kenraggeatmore...@gmail.com
Bob,
No matter who posts with multiple anonymous handles and who doesn't,
I'm not real sure of the relevance to the accurate assertion that 12-
Steppers come out of the woodwork to attack critics rather than
attacking the critical assertions.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
kenraggeatmore...@gmail.com
So now you are imaging black SUVs. Have you thought about getting
professional help for that rather than faith healing?
Ken Ragge
http;//www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
Kenny,
You love to try and play the victim when you make a free willed choice
to contribute to this blog.
You could make the choice not to do so - very similar to the way you
left AA all those years ago. AA has changed so much since then. As
it's a very simple fellowship with a very simple programme it was
powerless to stop - even if it wanted to - being transformed or to put
it better hijacked by the "treatment industry". You and your ilk do
not poccess the courage or intelligence to see that.
If you had made it your aim to petition and lobby governments for
change then you would probably receive far greater respect. But you
are just a whinging and whining bystander - the rubber neck of the
"expert for 15 minutes" trade.
Rich
Ken
Play the victim? Do you really think your ad hominems are not seen for
what they are?
> You could make the choice not to do so - very similar to the way you
> left AA all those years ago.
Are you on drugs? What does leaving A.A. have to do with posting on a
group that was founded with the express purpose of being a forum for
those critical of the Step groups? If you don't think I'm unaware that
it has been and is overrun by Steppers anytime non-Steppers start
posting here, I just don't know what to say.
> AA has changed so much since then. As
> it's a very simple fellowship with a very simple programme it was
> powerless to stop - even if it wanted to - being transformed or to put
> it better hijacked by the "treatment industry". You and your ilk do
> not poccess the courage or intelligence to see that.
>
Yes it is all the treatment industry's fault. Now you tell me when the
treatment industry began as something separate from A.A. Before there
was an A.A., Ebby and the other groupers had Bill Wilson check into
Towns hospital for "Oxfordizing." That was what the Oxford Groupers
referred to as their method of winning converts. They would sequester
people away in hospitals allowing them only the Bible to read and
limiting visitors to Oxford Groupers.
Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob (already an Oxford Group member when they met),
using Dr. Bob's priviliges at the hospital, check prospects into the
hospital while they worked to "help" them. Marty Mann, who has been the
biggest proponent of "treatment", was in the hospital for a year and a
half with a Bible but the Bible didn't work. It was only when she was
given the Big Book that she converted and Oxford Group's "Alcoholic
Squad" switched over from the Bible (carefully selected portions of it,
of course) to the Big Book.
Soon, Dr. Bob and Sister Ignatia were treating thousands of alcoholics.
Sister Ignatia took care of the medical part, Dr. Bob and other
"recovering" alcoholics took care of the spiritual part.
Just when did A.A. members and the treatment industry they established
"overrun" the treatment industry they established? When was it "just" a
"simple fellowship"? It certainly wasn't before it started. It wasn't
on any date that it was declared to have started. It isn't now. It
never was in between.
Just when was A.A. a "simple fellowship"?
> If you had made it your aim to petition and lobby governments for
> change then you would probably receive far greater respect. But you
> are just a whinging and whining bystander - the rubber neck of the
> "expert for 15 minutes" trade.
>
I see. Should I petition the A.A., N.A. and Al-Anon members in social
services and at the county courthouse to not use every means at their
disposal to carry the message?
How long do you think an elected official would last if he enforced the
U.S. Constitution?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
> Rich
>
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
> Just when was A.A. a "simple fellowship"?
Thanks for sharing Ken.
That is all AA has really ever been.
Just a peer help group. Nothing more, nothing less.
You try to spin these long conspiracy's theories
and rumors from 60 years ago on Mr. Bob, Uncle Bill,
and Auntie May .. all these really minor characters
into a huge, subversive, planned and planted cult,
that really only exists in your 40 sq ft shack up
in the mountains.
--> Here is where you say "I'm attacking an outsider
as a cult member defending
my cult! "
Seek help Ken. Really. Accept things you CAN NOT CHANGE.
Another Subliminal message ---> The boogie man is under the bed tonight.
Sweet dreams.
Boo.
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
> Kenny,
Cute. But Kenny is not dead. Yet.
Ken
be because you think it clever to play dumb?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo" wrote:
Ken
do, no matter how hard you work the Steps, no matter how well you follow
the Steps, no matter how great you believe your 12 Step "conscious
contact" with God is, you will die just like everyone else on earth.
And probably from smoking like Bill Wilson.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> Who cares what he is doing now? Are you trying to suggest that one
> must be perfect (as the Program is claimed to be) in order to
> criticize it?
Apparently you don't care what he is doing now. I never suggested
anything of the nature you seem to believe. Sad, really sad. That's
the best you can do?
> Checking Schaler's website, his most recent degree is:
>
> Doctor of Philosophy Degree
> DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT/ INSTITUTE FOR CHILD STUDY
> UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
> May, 1993
> Concentration in addiction theory, self psychology, and social policy
> Title of Dissertation: Addiction Beliefs of Treatment Providers:
> Factors Explaining Variance
I know what his degrees are in, you missed one though You should read
his dissertation. It may be too difficult for you though. Who knows...
He could of went to a better school for a philosophy degree I just
used an Agent Orange Tactic). But, seriously, UMCP is not the best
college to go to for a graduate degree in Philosophy.
> That certainly is related to the subject at hand. Or are you merely
> trying to distract from what he said in the article "Cult Busting" by
> going of on a personal attack thus once more reaffirming what he
> wrote?
Well, it's obvious you have never read his dissertation. Am I what,
trying to distract from his online article called "Cult Busting?" Not
at all, I actually believe you may want to read the paper again. Where
did you get that I made a personal attack and towards whom? Who knows
where you got that from, you are known for making up stuff to fit your
tired argument, that you have yet to even prove. Although, you and
Prof Schaler seem not to agree on what he wrote in that article, but
that is another matter.
Kenny, I'm going to do a tactic you and Agent Orange do to discredit
someone. Notice, Jeffrey Schaler couldn't get that paper printed in
any academic journals except for an online journal. This is what you
and Orange love to do to discredit someone, Orange did it when someone
got their paper PRINTED in a REAL academic journal, you guys argument
was that the Journal was not in the USA. Therefore, you idiots, try to
discredit it immediately. Online journals are at the bottom.
Ken
> On Sep 2, 5:53 pm, kenraggeatmorerevealedwebs...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Who cares what he is doing now? Are you trying to suggest that one
>
>> must be perfect (as the Program is claimed to be) in order to
>> criticize it?
>>
>
> Apparently you don't care what he is doing now. I never suggested
> anything of the nature you seem to believe. Sad, really sad. That's
> the best you can do?
>
>> Checking Schaler's website, his most recent degree is:
>>
>> Doctor of Philosophy Degree
>> DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT/ INSTITUTE FOR CHILD STUDY
>> UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
>> May, 1993
>> Concentration in addiction theory, self psychology, and social policy
>> Title of Dissertation: Addiction Beliefs of Treatment Providers:
>> Factors Explaining Variance
>>
>
> I know what his degrees are in, you missed one though You should read
> his dissertation. It may be too difficult for you though. Who knows...
> He could of went to a better school for a philosophy degree I just
> used an Agent Orange Tactic). But, seriously, UMCP is not the best
> college to go to for a graduate degree in Philosophy.
>
Did you get a degree in philosophy from a better university? In any
case, how does the particular university a person went to determine
whether assertions made in a particular paper correct or incorrect?
>> That certainly is related to the subject at hand. Or are you merely
>> trying to distract from what he said in the article "Cult Busting" by
>> going of on a personal attack thus once more reaffirming what he
>> wrote?
>>
>
> Well, it's obvious you have never read his dissertation. Am I what,
> trying to distract from his online article called "Cult Busting?" Not
> at all, I actually believe you may want to read the paper again. Where
> did you get that I made a personal attack and towards whom? Who knows
> where you got that from, you are known for making up stuff to fit your
> tired argument, that you have yet to even prove.
Someone who has seen the videos you make doesn't have to stretch in the
least to notice that you are about making personal attacks. Do you
think you are the first lowlife on Usenet who has done such things? That
is what Usenet is about for a lot of people. Pretending they are big
when they are at a safe distance. I just got the image of a little guy
who feels real bad about himself but felt real big getting drunk in a
big car speeding down the highway. Is that how you got "in recovery"?
If so, its a shame you never got over it.
> Although, you and
> Prof Schaler seem not to agree on what he wrote in that article, but
> that is another matter.
>
> Kenny, I'm going to do a tactic you and Agent Orange do to discredit
> someone. Notice, Jeffrey Schaler couldn't get that paper printed in
> any academic journals except for an online journal. This is what you
> and Orange love to do to discredit someone, Orange did it when someone
> got their paper PRINTED in a REAL academic journal, you guys argument
> was that the Journal was not in the USA. Therefore, you idiots, try to
> discredit it immediately. Online journals are at the bottom.
>
There you go again. You don't like Orange and you don't like me, so
anything that you imagine he did (whether he did or not) I am guilty
of. Again, you really need to do better.
How about pointing out where I've ever held an article as true on not
true based on whether or where it was published?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> > change then you would probably receive far greater respect. But you
> > are just a whinging and whining bystander - the rubber neck of the
> > "expert for 15 minutes" trade.
>
> I see. Should I petition the A.A., N.A. and Al-Anon members in social
> services and at the county courthouse to not use every means at their
> disposal to carry the message?
Ken, seriously, do you have any understanding of the Constitution or
your first amendment rights? Have you ever read the Constitution
before? Never mind, dumb question because clearly you have not. It's
obvious you don't know what the first amendment says and to me, it's
obvious you have no understanding, whatsoever, about the United States
Constitution. You should use your brain more to see who you should
petition in the government, it's really not that hard.
As Rich has pointed out, you have done absolutely nothing, except
COMPLAIN about the courts/government violating the rights of the
people by court ordering people to 12 step programs. You have done
nothing at all, NOTHING. NOTHING to see to it that, maybe these
individuals rights wouldn't be violated by in court. you have done
NOTHING.
You, Agent Orange, and your 8 followers have done NOTHING. Even worse,
none of you have even suggested at doing anything.
Here is what you guys have done. You guys have complained and whined
about people getting court ordered to AA. That is doing absolutely
NOTHING at all.
What makes you guys even more pathetic is, you and your slow
followers, bitch and complain when James Ramstad ((R) MN), Patrick
Kennedy (D) (he is also the nephew of Ted Kennedy who killed someone)
and other representatives sponsor/support bills in congress that are
trying to push "pro-AA legislation." I know both are AA members.
Ken, you, Agent Orange Terrance Hodgins, Junkie James Glynn, and
Peyote Mike Brewer have all bitched and complained about these
representatives sponsoring these bills (note to Ken, Pat Kennedy.and
Jim Ramstad are in the House). You have complained, and that is all.
You, Hodgins, Jimmy, and Mike, do realize that many people lobbied or
petitioned them to support these bills. You do know that, right? Yet,
you, Hodgins, and Mike have yet to even suggest to do the same,
petitioning the government/representative/congressman/woman. Actually,
let me exclude James, he lives in the UK. He probably doesn't know
much about the USA constitution and/or what our rights are. Plus, he
has done much more than you and Hodgins have done.
What makes it even more worse, Ken. You have been criticizing AA and
complaining about our USA court system sending people to AA for about
20 years. Yet, you have never even suggested or hinted at people
petitioning the government/representative/congressman/woman. Why is
that? I'm curious as to why you, hodgins, and others rather complain
than doing anything worthwhile.
Even I have petitioned congress, my local, county and state
representative on the matters of court ordering people to AA and what
not. I'm just one person though. It's not that hard to petition
government, ken. Just need a pen/paper, word processor, envelop,
email, and/or stamp.
Fucking dumb Americans, don't even know their own constitution.
Ken you counter argument to Rich's statement shows your ignorance. It
especially shows how you're ignorant on your own country's
constitution. Your reply to Rich proves how ignorant you are and how
you must not care about people that are court ordered to AA.
> How long do you think an elected official would last if he enforced the
> U.S. Constitution?
Ken, one elected official cannot "enforce the U.S. Constitution." You
should checkout how our government works. Especially, before you make
silly statements like that
How does an elected official on his/her own enforce the constitution
Ken? Ken wrote, " How long do you think an elected official would last
if he enforced theU.S. Constitution?" This shows Kenny's ignorance on
his own government.
Go ahead with your counter argument, I'm sure I will laugh. I'm
imagining you're going to bring up what I mentioned in a different
thread about the first amendment and it's history, Probably not now,
considering I mentioned it. But go for it.
Mr Snuffleupagus
Mr. Snuffleupagus
> John,
>
> Yes it did happen over 10 years ago. While you have a point that
> "bashing" A.A. would quickly get old as would simply "bashing" anything,
> you seem to miss that the criticism of the Step groups is no more
> "bashing" A.A. than criticism of pedophile priests and their protection
> by the Church was "bashing" the Catholic Church.
>
> And if criticism of the Step groups gets so old so fast, can you explain
> what Rich and Mr. SniffleYourAnus is doing both here and on YouTube?
>
Of Course, it just so happens that Kenny these events occured longer
than 10 years ago.
John K, opf course it just randomly happened 10 years ago when you
were not a member. Such Convience
Mr. Snuffleupagus
wrote:
Kenny needs all day to research the USA constitution. Ken doesn't
understand the constituion at all. So, bear with him, he is slow. 50
nyears old and doesn't understand basic USA history or constitution.
Lets Laugh
Another Cultist Subliminal Message from AA: "Boo"
> Are you really so ignorant about A.A. history
>
>
Thanks for sharing Kenny.
Yes. Yes I am. I wasn't there. In 1932, or 45, whenever... ,
and why believe some second hand dribble about something so obscure ?
Other than you, who really cares ? What do you think you will
accomplish from these rants ? A daytime visit to Jerry Springer show ?
"AA Revealed ... Your inlaws are Oxford members. Today at 4 ! "
Pull back the curtain ! Boo ! Nothing there !
Your points are pointless. Your claims are empty.
You are shooting blanks at a dead horse.
Oxford, aka secret AA overlords, are not rolling over in their
graves concerned about what one lost, solemn individual
is ranting about on a cult that doesn't exist.
Nice web site though. I wish I could use to line my kitty litter pan.
Keep coming back ! The entertainment value is great for the cost.
Boo.
Ken
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
influence by lying about being religious. Now you want to tell us that
because some states had state religions, that it is okay for the
government to coerce people into religious indoctrination under the
threat of jail, losing their children, losing their professional
licenses and any and everything else of value to them.
And somehow you think it is okay for the courts to ignore the Circuit
Court rulings in the 17 states where such coercion has been ruled illegal.
And for a lowlife that takes my working at a grocery store when I was
going to High School over 40 years ago as grounds to make a video saying
I'm a bag boy now and here on this forum because of a poor choice of
words as an opportunity to ridicule, all because that is the best
defense against charges against the Step groups' indefensible dishonesty
and misbehavior is beyond the pale.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Ken
>> Are you really so ignorant about A.A. history
>>
>>
>
Wow! It seems that in that one sentence you have shown you have realized
that what I've been saying all this time has finally sunk in. There is
no miracle. There is no wizard. When you pull the curtain back and
take a close look at the Step groups it is nothing more or less than one
more place for faith-healing gurus to sell their wares.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
Kenny,
Well I didn't realise that you know so little - just adds to the
general rule - once a fool always a fool!
Rich
Ken
Well, I've asked you before, I can ask you again. If the Step groups
work so well, where is all the methodologically-sound research that
shows A.A. effective? If you don't get the information from scientific
research, where do you get it from? Do you get it in the form of direct
messages using your 12th Step conscious contact with the A.A. god?
Surely, out of all the millions spent on addictions research, there must
be just a few methodologically-sound studies showing A.A. effective
against other treatments or even no treatment. Why don't you settle
this for once and for all and put up some sound scientific research?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Somehow Ken Ragge cannot read. Kenny has been owned many times. No
wonder he brings up Hitler and the Nazis all the time. Kenny, lol,
losing the argument must hurt. Kenny, seriously, take a class in
rhetoric, you're not very good at it.
Ken
channeled to Bill Wilson by a centuries dead monk and whose members, if
they work the Steps properly, get messages directly from God in the 12th
Step. Who can argue with that?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Classic Ken Ragge - 20 years and according to Ken Ragge, Bill Wilson
had the 12 step program channeled to him by a "centuries dead monk."
CLASSIC KEN RAGGE. It's funny, I think lol. Ken, I think it is about
time to come up with a new conspiracy theory.
Ken read below, you may learn something.
"Sunny Day
Sweepin' the clouds away
On my way to where the air is sweet
Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame Street
Come and play
Everything's A-OK
Friendly neighbors there
That's where we meet
Can you tell me how to get
How to get to Sesame Street
It's a magic carpet ride
Every door will open wide
To Happy people like you--
Happy people like
What a beautiful
Sunny Day
Sweepin' the clouds away
On my way to where the air is sweet
Can you tell me how to get,
How to get to Sesame street...
How to get to Sesame Street
How to get to..." - The Kids - Sesame Street
Ken
channeling Boniface, the dead monk was lying? Interesting. Apparently
you only like A.A. supporters and literature being cited when when it
makes A.A. look good.
As far as a "new conspiracy", I suppose I'll have to wait for another
book to come out from authors who are most-trusted by A.A. and allowed
access to the records. Of course, between Wilson's 13 year suicidal
depression during which time he wrote the book to tell others how to be
"happily and usefully whole" which was cited in the A.A. literature and
confirmed by leading A.A. figures, his dropping acid to regain the
"spiritual experience" he had while being "oxfordized" in Towns Hospital
also confirmed in the A.A. literature, his "spook room" where he held
seances to contact the dead, also confirmed in official A.A. literature,
his threatening to punch out his nurse if he didn't get a drink on his
deathbed reported by an A.A. insider and . . .
I think I'll just leave it there. There is no need to come up with a
conspiracy when one is dealing with a whacko like Woueejee Wilson. One
only need occasionally report the details of his bizarre behavior from
the conference-approved A.A. literature, close associates and the most
trusted members of A.A. to for people who haven't turned over their
brains to the "fellowship" under the threat of death to get the picture.
You, however, need to come up with a good personal attack to detract, or
at least try to detract, from the reality of Bill Wilson and the Step
groups.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
>
> read more »
Kenny, it wasn't a personal attack. You claim Bill Wilson had the 12
step program channeled to him by "centuries dead monk." Well, maybe
the 20 years remark was a attack, but it is relevant. After 20
years,you are still coming up with weird shit like Bill Wilson being
channeled the 12 step program by "centuries dead monk," whatever that
is supposed to mean.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Now what starts with the letter "C"?
"Cookie" starts with "C"!
Let's think of other things that starts with "C"!
Uh. . .Uh. . . Who cares about da other things?!
"C" is for Cookie that's good enough for me,
"C" is for cookie that's good enough for me,
"C" is for cookie that's good enough for me,
Oh! cookie, cookie, cookie starts with "C"!
Hey, You know what? A round cookie with one bite out of it looks like
a "C"
A round donut with one bite out of it also looks like a "C" but it is
not as good as a cookie
Oh, and the moon sometimes looks like a "C" but you can't eat that
So...
Cookie Cookie Cookie Starts with "C"
Cookie Cookie Cookie Starts with "C"
John K.
been busy lately.
"Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:TMWdnZrSsY-ZECDV...@comcast.com...
> John K. wrote:
> > If you 'criticize' pedophile priests over, and over, and over, and
over...
> > then yes, it is "bashing" the Catholic Church. Very much so.
> >
> John,
>
> Are you then suggesting that those who were criticizing the Catholic
> Church for pedophilia and protecting the pedophile priests should have
> shut up before the Church changed their policy?
Not at all. I never suggested that anyone shut up. Only that that it gets
old if it's the only thing you have to talk about. That, of course, doesn't
apply if you have an obsession.
> > I also don't have any idea what motivates "Rich and Mr.
SniffleYourAnus". My
> > track record at guessing peoples motives shows that I am almost always
wrong
> > so I rarely do it.
> >
> > I notice that you dropped the discussion of AA's cultishness. Didn't
have a
> > response ? That's alright. I really don't care whether you think AA is a
> > cult or not.
> Yes, I'm sure you don't care. That is why you have been hanging out
> here for a decade. Or is it that you care that someone "gets away with"
> criticizing your Program?
I've been hanging out here for a decade because the program suggests that we
listen to our critics. In particular, from As Bill See's It, :
"We ought to listen carefully to what they say. Sometimes they are
telling the whole truth; at other times, a little truth. If we are within
their range, the whole truth, the half-truth, or no truth at all can prove
equally unpleasant to us. If they have got the whole truth, or even a little
truth, then we had better thank them and get on with our respective
inventories, admitting we were wrong. If they are talking nonsense, we can
ignore it, or else try to persuade them. Failing this, we can be sorry they
are too sick to listen, and we can try to forget the whole business."
By learning what upsets you folks about AA I can better handle the fears,
complaints, of newcomers. I can also make small changes in my own home group
to make it more attractive.
The other reason I'm here is that when I have the time, and I'm in the right
mood, it amuses me to spar with you. I'm certainly not foolish enough to
think that I could change your opinion. You have a mind like a steel trap,
one that rusted shut many years ago.
> > I do have a question for you however. If AA is really a big,
> > bad, powerful (brainwashing, getting governments to coerce new recruits,
> > etc ) cult like you claim it is, why haven't they reached out and
squashed
> > you like a bug ??? You have been attacking them for many years now.
Surely
> > they have heard of you. Ahhh, the ignominy of it all when your sworn
enemy
> > ignores you.
> >
> I'm not being ignored. All of you here are representing, speaking for,
> A.A. I have to admit, however, there are times when I would prefer to
> be ignored. :-)
All of us here ??? A few nutcases on the Internet speaking for and
representing AA ?? Nah. New York GSO speaks for AA. Have you heard from them
yet ? How about AAWS ? You keep whining that AA is an evil, ORGANIZED,
entity. Well, where is that entity ? If they exist, they certainly would
have picked more effective representatives than me to deal with you. Face it
Ken. You aren't considered a threat and AA is ignoring you.
John K.
>
> Ken Ragge
> http://www.morerevealed.com/
>
> > John K.
> >
> > "Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:arOdnSonQaGBJyHV...@comcast.com...
Bob
>
> I've been hanging out here for a decade because the program
> suggests that we listen to our critics. In particular, from As
> Bill See's It, :
>
> "We ought to listen carefully to what they say. Sometimes they are
> telling the whole truth; at other times, a little truth. If we
> are within their range, the whole truth, the half-truth, or no
> truth at all can prove equally unpleasant to us. If they have got
> the whole truth, or even a little truth, then we had better thank
> them and get on with our respective inventories, admitting we
> were wrong. If they are talking nonsense, we can ignore it, or
> else try to persuade them. Failing this, we can be sorry they are
> too sick to listen, and we can try to forget the whole business."
>
> By learning what upsets you folks about AA I can better handle the
> fears, complaints, of newcomers. I can also make small changes in
> my own home group to make it more attractive.
John K. wrote:
\
\ If AA is really a big,
\ bad, powerful (brainwashing, getting governments to coerce new
recruits,
\ etc )
John, your opinion that Bill Wilson's *opinion* is the AA program
aside, if you dispute that AA encourages governments to coerce
recruits, best you read the link to AA's rationalisation and
'Guideline' for initiating Govt. coercion
Cooperating with Court, D.W.I. and Similar Programs
http://www.aa.org/lang/en/subpage.cfm?page=108
Pertaining also to big and bad, how do you account for the behaviour
of AA WSO utilising Government while committing perjury in Mexico?
http://gsowatch.aamo.info/mex/sentenced.htm
In Germany, utilising Government in ordering AA members to cease
"carrying the message" (which is indisputably *in* the AA program)
while simultaneously, unconscionably, breaking entire AA group
Anonymity is how you choose to be represented?
http://www.heise.nu/AALawsuit/
http://alcoholism.about.com/library/blmitch22.htm
--
Bob
Calling alcoholism 'a disease' is
the politically correct substitute for 'a self induced insanity.'
Ken
Comment interspersed below.
John K. wrote:
> Comments interspersed. Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but I've
> been busy lately.
>
> "Ken" <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:TMWdnZrSsY-ZECDV...@comcast.com...
>
>> John K. wrote:
>>
>>> If you 'criticize' pedophile priests over, and over, and over, and
>>>
> over...
>
>>> then yes, it is "bashing" the Catholic Church. Very much so.
>>>
>>>
>> John,
>>
>> Are you then suggesting that those who were criticizing the Catholic
>> Church for pedophilia and protecting the pedophile priests should have
>> shut up before the Church changed their policy?
>>
>
> Not at all. I never suggested that anyone shut up. Only that that it gets
> old if it's the only thing you have to talk about. That, of course, doesn't
> apply if you have an obsession.
>
Do you realize that on a alt.recovery.from-12-steps the topic is the
Step groups? I mean really, do you think that it would be an
appropriate charge for me to make that all you and Rich and the guy with
the anal fixation only talk about me? Or to say it doesn't apply if you
guys have an obsession?
Would you be surprised if before the Catholic Church came to terms with
the problem of priests molesting children that in a group titled,
"alt.recovery.from.being.molested.by.priests." would have someone
criticizing the Catholic Church in it?
Then you are behaving exactly as one is advised to in the 1930s
do-it-yourself manual explaining the "scientific" method of "Soul
Surgery" http://www.morerevealed.com/library/surgery/surgeryfront.jsp
The only thing that is a terrible shame is that while you guys are
expert at winning new converts, you don't subject your "Program" which
is held up as a way to resolve drinking problems and, in scored if not
hundreds of other versions of the Steps, all the ills of humanity.
I lived in a Fundamentalist Christian part of the country in my teen
years. I know that one is not going to change the beliefs of those who,
like Steppers, have "conscious contact with God" like Frank Buchman.
>
>>> I do have a question for you however. If AA is really a big,
>>> bad, powerful (brainwashing, getting governments to coerce new recruits,
>>> etc ) cult like you claim it is, why haven't they reached out and
>>>
> squashed
>
>>> you like a bug ??? You have been attacking them for many years now.
>>>
> Surely
>
>>> they have heard of you. Ahhh, the ignominy of it all when your sworn
>>>
> enemy
>
>>> ignores you.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not being ignored. All of you here are representing, speaking for,
>> A.A. I have to admit, however, there are times when I would prefer to
>> be ignored. :-)
>>
>
> All of us here ??? A few nutcases on the Internet speaking for and
> representing AA ?? Nah. New York GSO speaks for AA. Have you heard from them
> yet ? How about AAWS ? You keep whining that AA is an evil, ORGANIZED,
> entity. Well, where is that entity ? If they exist, they certainly would
> have picked more effective representatives than me to deal with you. Face it Ken. You aren't considered a threat and AA is ignoring you.
>
>
Actually, an official representative of A.A. was sent out for a radio
interview in San Francisco some years ago. He was a most personable
sort. Interesting that, whereas most religious groups really are
concerned with honesty and telling the truth, when cornered about
matters of doctrine in the Big Book, he lied through his teeth. He
said, "No one in A.A. takes the Big Book seriously."
If you are so much in touch with A.A.s instruction to pay attention to
the critics to better promote your meetings, how have you failed to note
the "prime directive", to not allow A.A. to be drawn into public
controversy. A.A. knows that for them to be drawn into public
controversy is suicide and hence their official silence. The last
statement I heard from G.S.O., not that I listen, was when asked by a
news reporter about a Circuit Court ruling on A.A. being religious was
"A.A. has no opinion on outside issues."
As far as A.A. seeing me as a threat, I see no reason why they should.
What I find curious is that Rich, "SniffYourAnus", and you get so up in
arms. While not atypical, I find that amusing.
What probably is far more of a threat to A.A., is Rich and Sniffer
representing A.A.