KEN RAGGE'S NEMESIS
Rich
You brought to everybody's attention the Youtube name of ButtCoffee.
One of his videos which highlights in an amusing and clever way just
how stupid AAA is has received 56,760 hits. Is that a greater number
than your book sales? - I guess so.
He/she also has a nice collection of videos parodying a certain Mr Ken
Ragge.
The power of modern media hey Ken?
Rich
Ken
I just checked the videos listed under his "Buttcoffee" id. There is
none related to A.A. that has hit 300, no less anywhere near 56,760.
There is one with a lot of hits titled, "The Wonder Pets: Save the
Wonder Pets! <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrqFmrRtfVg>" It appears to
a cartoon aimed at children but I didn't watch it. I'm afraid to. I
just had breakfast and don't want to upchuck from watching something
that might turn out to have to do with his obsession with scat.
His A.A. videos seems to not even be drawing A.A.s. Most AAs don't want
to be associated with him for good reason. At a glance, Jame's
(blamedenial) videos are mostly running between 1,000 and 2,600.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
It has 60,000 view now. It does show how stupid Kenny and the gang
claims are.
Ken
was no video related to A.A. that scored as high as 300 hits.
If it is somewhere else under another of your "names", it is rather
stupid to think that I spend time watching every deranged thing you do.
If you remember, you are the one who apparently has poured through
everything I've ever written looking for grounds to attack. I'm sorry,
but I can't say it is clever for you to use my mentioning somewhere
having working in a Winn Dixie grocery store, which was well over 40
years ago, as grounds for some silly video. Doubtless, however, that is
the best you can do. I don't thing I need to say that I am not one of
your fans.
But it does show what kind of whacko one is subject to run into in
12-Step meetings. And it does show the level of your "spiritual growth."
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny,
I've said many times - I don't go to AA - and have another look at the
video with 60K views - I know you will not enjoy the content or it's
style based on your 18 year criticism of AA but that video is about
AAA which you assisted creating the dogma for? It's a law in physics -
each force has an opposite - or something like that - some folks are
kicking back...
Rich
elzoid
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Kenny,
>
> I've said many times - I don't go to AA - and have another look at the
> video with 60K views - I know you will not enjoy the content or it's
> style based on your 18 year criticism of AA but that video is about
> AAA which you assisted creating the dogma for? It's a law in physics -
> each force has an opposite - or something like that - some folks are
> kicking back...
>
> Rich
" Kenny,
I've said many times - I don't go to AA - and have another look at
the
video with 60K views - I know you will not enjoy the content or it's
style based on your 18 year criticism of AA but that video is about
AAA which you assisted creating the dogma for? It's a law in physics
-
each force has an opposite - or something like that - some folks are
kicking back...
Rich"
"So?"
- Dick Cheney, 2008
Ken
the above?
1. You insist you don't go to A.A.
Ok. You don't go to A.A. Or you do. Who cares? You most certainly
speak for A.A. whether you go or not.
2. Then you tell me to have another look at a video of Buttcoffee's that
you claimed had 60K views right after I reported seeing video by a
"Buttcoffee" on YouTube or any A. A. related video whatsoever with even
300 hits.
If there is no A.A. related video with over 300 hits on YouTube by
Buttcoffee, how am I to take another look at it? And why would I want
to see it anyway even if it did exist? Are you sure you aren't Tim
Chambers and the host of characters he posts back and forth to defending
himself? Are you maybe loosing track of which one of you is really you?
3. You state that I "created the dogma" for an organization that doesn't
exist.
I'm a bit puzzled. Certainly you are smart enough to look up a word you
don't understand in the dictionary before using it in an attack on
someone, aren't you?
Am I overestimating you? Even if you aren't going to A.A. perhaps it is
safe to assume you went long enough to reap the benefits of the program
. If you have reaped the benefits of the program you are, as the Big
Book describes, a miracle of mental health. As such, any voice that
tells you that I created the dogma for the American Automobile
Association (AAA) or for any association for that matter, can definitely
not be the result of mental illness. That being the case . . .
You must have gotten the 12th Step conscious contact with God that is
promised in the A.A. literature and has been promised ever since the
days of Frank "Thank Heaven for Hitler" Buchman. You aren't nuttier
than a fruit cake, you are directly hearing the voice of God.
But before you get carried away, perhaps I should tell you. God, too,
has a sense of humor and is a bit of a jokester. You don't really think
he told Frank Buchman the things he did that were used to become the
foundation of A.A. because he was serious, do you? The joke is on you.
4. Then you, using a metaphor, or at least I hope it was a metaphor,
state that your and Buttcoffee's embarassingly uncivil behavior is
because I have been criticizing A.A.
But you aren't an A.A. member. If you aren't an A.A. member, why are you
"fighting back"?
Lol!
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Too wordy of a response to Rich, so I didn't read it. Kenny that video
is about you guys and has more views that Jimmy pip-pip videos
combined lol.
Rich, Ken doesn't understand why someone would "fight back" or make
fun of a guy that has spent 20 years of his life crying about AA and
Chinese brainwashing. 20 years, wow, long time.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Rich
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr S,
Thanks. Let's re-cap.
Kenny believes that our alcoholism was brought on by "child abuse" -
that must be incredibly insulting to real victims.
He believes one attends AA and is subjected to "Chinese Brainwashing"
and the very best sales techniques - although he quotes a technique
which began in the "Wild West" and the term was in fact invented in
the 1950's
He states that AA is organized - therefore he doesn't have a basic
understanding of what a Fellowship is.
He will never understand people who no longer attend AA thinking he is
one of the many crank's in this world.
He believes AA is a cult when if actually had a life and did something
constructive with it he would quickly realize that a lot of "things"
have cult status.
He wasn't forced into AA but simply couldn't find the door to get out.
What kind of grown man is like that? A victim of his own making?
He spends nearly 20 years of his life to perpetuate a lie.
Scratch under his skin and he is a bitter, rude and angry fool.
Perhaps he should blame the Oxford Group, Buchmanites, Nazi's, a
couple of dead guy's, AA or anybody in serendipity land for such a
dreadful life he has to endure.
Keep dealing the cards Kenny. Try not to look a punter in the eye when
they loose everything because they might just blame you. Wouldn't that
be ironic??!! LOL.
Rich
Ken
Either you have no problem making up lies, you have a very tenuous grasp
on reality, or you really are just plain stupid. Did you get the
following from your 12th Step "conscious contact:" with God? Do you,
like Frank Buchman think that God is giving you messages like "Hitler is
a great guy" or are you like Bill Wilson who the A.A. literature
confirms thought he got messages, help writing, from dead people?
Comment interspersed below.
Rich wrote:
> Mr S,
>
> Thanks. Let's re-cap.
>
That sounded great. I thought maybe you had actually read something
that I had written and was going to recap it.
> Kenny believes that our alcoholism was brought on by "child abuse" -
> that must be incredibly insulting to real victims.
>
"Our" who is at the computer with you? Lol!
How would it be "insulting to real victims"? And real victims of what?
Of child abuse like Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob suffered or of "the disease
of alcoholism", a disease that is cured by the faith-healing program of
Alcoholics Anonymous?
Actually, it depends a lot on how "child abuse" is defined. For
instance, if parents beat, neglect and /or humiliate their children,
that can most certainly play an important role. It is also true that if
parents are so rude as to die in a car crash leaving behind small
children, that too will increase the chances of the child growing up to
be an alcoholic, addict and/or have problems with relationships. That
is not a secret. Except, maybe, in 12-Step circles.
> He believes one attends AA and is subjected to "Chinese Brainwashing"
> and the very best sales techniques - although he quotes a technique
> which began in the "Wild West" and the term was in fact invented in
> the 1950's
>
How would someone be subjected to "Chinese Brainwashing" in the U.S.?
If you are talking about the "hot seat" popular in many 12-Step
treatment centers, that indeed was part of the Chinese Communist program
of "re-education." Or do you have a reading comprehension problem when
I posted on the similarities between the Chinese Communist re-eduction
program and both the Step Groups and Oxford Group? You are missing a
lot and obviously don't want to know anything so I wouldn't know where
to begin, even if I thought it worthwhile.
But for others who are reading this who want to know a little about
"re-education", "thought reform", "coercive persuasion", "brainwashing"
and a few other terms that describe methods of bringing about opinion
change I'll post a few references.
"Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" by R.J. Lifton
"Coercive Persuasion" by Edgar Schein et al
These are the classic works on the Chinese Communist program of
re-education. Then there are a few pieces which deal directly with
modern American cults like "Combatting Cult Mind Control" by Steve
Hassan and an essay by Devon Sexon titled "Mind Control Tactics Of
Alcoholics Anonymous". The latter is on line at:
http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/dev_art.jsp .
> He states that AA is organized - therefore he doesn't have a basic
> understanding of what a Fellowship is.
>
It seems either you or A.A. are confused about the definitions of
"fellowship" and/or "organization." First line on a Yahoo search
brought up a page titled "The Structure of the Organization" and the
second subtitle, "How A.A. is Organized." Among the committees in Area
75 are:
an archives committee
a committee to serve as a bridge between 12-Step treatment and 12-Step
halfway houses
a committee to "carry the message" (proselytize) to professional groups
a committee to "carry the message" (proselytize) in prisons
a committee related to the distribution of the Grapevine
a committee for selling conference-approved literature and audio-visual
materials
a committee for "special needs"
a committee to "carry the message" to treatment centers
> He will never understand people who no longer attend AA thinking he is
> one of the many crank's in this world.
>
Do you think that everyone who no longer attends meetings is still a
true believer? Everyone is not you. Or don't you know that?
> He believes AA is a cult when if actually had a life and did something
> constructive with it he would quickly realize that a lot of "things"
> have cult status.
>
What does what I do and don't do in my life have to do with A.A. being a
cult? What definition of a cult are you using?
> He wasn't forced into AA but simply couldn't find the door to get out.
>
Lol! I don't think you are all in a tizzy because I couldn't find the
door to get out. I'm sure if I still was struggling "one day at a time"
to not go off on a suicidal binge, you would have no problem with me.
It is only the fact that I got out a researched where the Step groups
are from and what they really are that I talk about what I found that
makes you so resentful.
You do know, I hope, that your resentment, according to A.A. doctrine,
will make you drink. Also, according to A.A. literature, you are
supposed to not only tip your hat to me but to make amends for your
unspiritual behavior. Reading your missives, one might come to believe
that A.A. members have two sets of rules. One for the old timers and
one for everyone else.
Maybe you are deteriorating because you haven't been to a meeting lately.
> What kind of grown man is like that? A victim of his own making?
>
Oh, my gosh. Do you realize you are taking my inventory? What a
happened to A.A. members taking their own inventory? Or is that just
for the newcomers, and not at all for those with time who enjoy lording
over others?
> He spends nearly 20 years of his life to perpetuate a lie.
>
If I was, you would have no problem pointing it out. But you are
spending a good bit of your time attacking someone for the "crime" of
stating things that those outside the upper echelons of A.A. are not
supposed to know. Maybe you should go to a meeting or talk to your
sponsor. The Big Book is very clear that allowing yourself to be angry
will make you drink and die. And you are a simmering cesspool of
resentment.
> Scratch under his skin and he is a bitter, rude and angry fool.
>
Well, if I got close enough to you for you to start scratching, I would
indeed be a fool. And if you started scratching, I would indeed be
angry. And if I tasted bitter, doesn't matter. If you tried to lick me
it would gross me out. Stay away. This is plenty close enough.
"Point one finger at someone else and you are pointing three at
yourself." Now where did I hear that? It couldn't have been A.A.
oldtimers trying to shame newcomers who saw things they weren't supposed
to see into silence, could it?
> Perhaps he should blame the Oxford Group, Buchmanites, Nazi's, a
> couple of dead guy's, AA or anybody in serendipity land for such a
> dreadful life he has to endure.
>
Not being an A.A., I have no reason to blame A.A. for my life. Is this
your way of telling me that my criticism of A.A. in some way brings up
things you don't want to know about in your life? Does my criticism of
A.A. bring up bad feelings that you would rather attack me than to
acknowledge and understand?
> Keep dealing the cards Kenny. Try not to look a punter in the eye when
> they loose everything because they might just blame you. Wouldn't that
> be ironic??!! LOL.
>
You talk like I work in Las Vegas or in a real casino, where people play
against the house. No matter. It does seem, however, that you are
blaming me for _your_ life. I'm sorry, but your life is not my fault.
Remember, I don't even know you. You are the one who hangs out at A.A.
critical sites and then throws a fit because they are A.A. critical sites.
Maybe Al-Anon, with their "powerless over people, places and things"
will help you. Lol!
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
> Rich
>
Rich
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny,
For a person who purports to be critical of AA and from what I've read
dare I say you hate AA, you spend a disproportionate amount of time
measuring people who are critical of you against AA principles.
You wrote a book which is simply your own personal view on an
innocuous self-help programme. I am critical of your work from a non-
AA attendee point of view. I can drink quite safely having sobered up
a chapter in my life in AA. I moved on from AA as I have stated many
times.
I think you are plain wrong and full of contradictions as so many
cranks are. As with thousands of other "self proclaimed guru's" we
find out the path to your "infamous work" is littered with poor
research and bolstered by a spume of bile a mile long - boy do you
love to procrastinate - on how something or other did you harm - it's
obvious you are unable to get over AA. This self-proclaimed harm by AA
was inflicted in a period of nine months I believe from ADDICT-L blog
days and in your own words you then you went to AA "off and on for 2-3
years thereafter". Boy did they do a good job on you.
I saw none of the crap you allege occurs in AA from my own experience
- which is more than yourself. Neither have many, many other people I
have come across. There are many occasions in your analysis that your
interpretation is plain wrong about AA. For example you think AA is a
cult when in fact cults exist within AA - that is where the problems
arise - when people abuse AA' s inherent conceptual benevolence.
I can go on and on but then I'd end up boring people to death as you
have done years ago and continue to do so.
I make no excuses in exposing a crank like you when it's so obvious.
What you have said about AA is open to analysis and once that happens
we are where we are.
Have a nice day and as you don't wish to tolerate criticism of your
work I'll carry on exposing the truth.
Rich.
Ken
Rich,
Trust me. I only measure those who speak in defense of A.A. by A.A's
"principles." I find it rather odd, although not at all surprising,
that those that A.A. hasn't killed don't believe and don't follow A.A.
doctrine, even if they are great defenders of the indefensible.
> You wrote a book which is simply your own personal view on an
> innocuous self-help programme. I am critical of your work from a non-
> AA attendee point of view. I can drink quite safely having sobered up
> a chapter in my life in AA. I moved on from AA as I have stated many
> times.
>
How can you claim to have sobered up a chapter in your life in A.A.?
How can A.A. be responsible when everything you say and do is contrary
to A.A. doctrine as espoused to the world at large? As a matter of
fact, if you can drink safely now, you were never a "real alcoholic," at
least according to A.A. doctrine and A.A. is for "alcoholics." And how
did learning you were "Powerless" fit in with moderate drinking?
Are you not aware that I've often said that A.A. is unlikely to harm
people who don't believe what A.A. teaches? So you obviously don't
believe what they teach, yet you go all ballistic at someone else
pointing out that what they teach is wrong. Very, very strange if what
you say is to be taken at face value.
> I think you are plain wrong and full of contradictions as so many
> cranks are.
Hey, no problem. Just point me to the methodologically-sound research
that shows A.A. to be effective. Of course you can't do it because it
doesn't exist. But that has never stopped those who speak for A.A.
> As with thousands of other "self proclaimed guru's" we
> find out the path to your "infamous work" is littered with poor
> research and bolstered by a spume of bile a mile long
Again, you seem to have a real problem with the English language.
Research which shows that A.A. is useless is not necessarily poor
research. But since you know what the research says, you are more than
welcome to post methodologically-sound studies of the effectiveness of
A.A. against other treatments and/or no treatment whatsoever.
Surely, you aren't basing your defense on the "evidence" that is
directly parallel to that presented in Wednesday-night prayer meetings
and television infomercials, are you?
Surely you have research to back up the efficacy of A.A. if you are
going to speak for A.A. Don't you?
> - boy do you
> love to procrastinate
"Procrastinate"??? That makes no sense.
> - on how something or other did you harm
I speak out against A.A. not because of harm done to me. I speak out
against A.A. because of the harm I've seen and continue to see it do
others. Where are all my _personal complaints_ about A.A.? Surely, if
you are going to accuse me of making them, you can produce them when you
produce the methodologically-sound research that shows A.A. effective.
You certainly have read close to everything I've ever written if you've
read my old addict-l posts.
> - it's
> obvious you are unable to get over AA.
What are you talking about? If I hadn't gotten over A.A., I wouldn't
have been able to criticize it. A.A. indoctrinates people into
believing that "negative" thoughts about "the program" and those with
"Time" are their "disease speaking."
> This self-proclaimed harm by AA
> was inflicted in a period of nine months I believe from ADDICT-L blog
> days and in your own words you then you went to AA "off and on for 2-3
> years thereafter". Boy did they do a good job on you.
>
The above sentence makes no sense. After realizing A.A. was not what
A.A. pretended it was, I continued attending meetings for research
purposes until More Revealed was published. So? If I was to write
about the Moonies or Scientology, I would have continued attending their
meetings for research purposes too. One can't learn _everything_ poring
through university libraries. One must see it in action too.
> I saw none of the crap you allege occurs in AA from my own experience
> - which is more than yourself. Neither have many, many other people I
> have come across.
Well, I've seen a lot of people say such things on Usenet. But then as
I noted in another post, I used to from time to time sit quietly in on
discussions where I was being talked about where, thinking I wasn't
present, the groupers would admit that they had seen what I had seen and
were discussing how to handle me.
> There are many occasions in your analysis that your
> interpretation is plain wrong about AA. For example you think AA is a
> cult when in fact cults exist within AA - that is where the problems
> arise - when people abuse AA' s inherent conceptual benevolence.
>
Much of the core of my analysis of A.A. comes directly from the Steps
themselves. If you've actually read my book, you'd have read that I
stuck as close as possible to the written doctrine where ever possible.
There is no A.A. without the Steps, so you are falling far short in your
defense.
> I can go on and on but then I'd end up boring people to death as you
> have done years ago and continue to do so.
>
Lol! If I'm so boring, you do not have to read my posts. One the one
hand, you insist that what I say is off base. On the other, you
apparently hold it as harmful. If it is so wrong, (and boring) it can
hardly be harmful. Merely going to a few meetings would prove me wrong
to a potential recruit.
> I make no excuses in exposing a crank like you when it's so obvious.
>
There is your bizarre use of the English language. "Crank" is defined
for you as "critic of A.A." If I'm such a crank, you ought to be able
to point out volumes of sound research showing the efficacy of A.A.
It's been around since the first half of the last century and A.A.
promoters control the flow of addiction-research dollars. If I'm such a
crank, you should be able to show where the Steps diverge from classic
"re-education".
> What you have said about AA is open to analysis and once that happens
> we are where we are.
>
Then why do you need to make up bizarre accusations and attacks as a
defense against what I wrote?
> Have a nice day and as you don't wish to tolerate criticism of your
> work I'll carry on exposing the truth.
>
You haven't criticized my work. You have only criticized me. And the
only "truth" you have exposed is well-referenced in the article "Cult
Busting" by Dr. Jeffrey Schaler on line at:
http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/cult_busting.jsp
As Schaler notes in reference to the way people respond when their cult
is criticized,
"Colleagues present their ideas regarding similar issues in what are
perhaps at times more sensitive and tactful ways, and they have met with
similar forms of denunciation and character assassination, the typical
form of rebuttal."
"Pavlov knows nothing about conditioning reflexes. He is old, hateful
and has a stupid looking beard. And his wife is ugly too."
That, of course, says absolutely nothing about the value of Pavlov's
research. And your comments say nothing about me.
Remember, "Point one finger at someone else and you are pointing three
at yourself. "
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
> Rich.
>
>
>
>
Rich
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny,
This sentence of your last post encapsulates the past 18 years of your
campaign -
> I find it rather odd, although not at all surprising,
> that those that A.A. hasn't killed don't believe and don't follow A.A.
> doctrine, even if they are great defenders of the indefensible.
We should all focus on this -"those that AA hasn't killed" - really
Kenny? Outrageous, unadulterated crap!! LOL.
How many people has RR, SOS, MM etc killed if we are to believe this
outrageous and ludicrous premise?
How many reliable studies have been conducted on the alternative
programmes efficacy?
Why didn't you realise that it is AA which suffers from abuse NOT the
way round you believe?
I don't think AA is a panacea for a cure for addiction. It has many
faults as do the alternatives. I simply take a rational and less
personal and emotional view of AA.
More revealed about what? You actually. Perhaps you were born and
nurtured into having an inferiority complex which manifests itself
daily. We all have choices - you chose to piss on the fellowship where
you got sober. My what a guy! What a virtue to have. What a fine
person you have become.
Rich
Wozza Ports
news:032ee57b-eda6-46cb...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>Kenny,
>
>...
>I think you are plain wrong and full of contradictions as so many
>cranks are. As with thousands of other "self proclaimed guru's" we
>find out the path to your "infamous work" is littered with poor
>research and bolstered by a spume of bile a mile long - boy do you
>love to procrastinate - on how something or other did you harm -
>...
>Rich.
firstly, do you mean pontificate?
second, how about a few examples of contradictions and poor research?
third, where did Ken proclaim himself a guru?
Rich
> "Rich" <richardh...@hush.ai> wrote in message
Wozza - No I didn't mean pontificate - I said procrastinate as he
continually or intentionally evades the questions. OK? But you are
right that he does pontificate - very boring and monotonous.
- read some of the last few months threads for the arguments involved.
- get to know Kenny and his ways and you may or may not think he is
like hundreds of other "self-proclaimed guru's" - it was only my
opinion after all, you will have yours.
- Do not forget Kenny can ignore my and others criticism of his stance
on AA. But I'll just throw this at you - don't you think it is ironic
that a guy who knocks AA works for and in an exploitative industry
such as gambling? Or one of his loony ideas is that AA has it's roots
in Nazi dogma - therefore so does GA, NA, CA, OA and hundreds of other
AA mutations?
- So when you scratch below the surface of his argument you may well
find like I have what falsehood, hypocrisy and lies he continually
promotes. I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful to you but you
may like all that rubbish and you may accept what you read - I don't.
- I am not a convert to AA nor am I religious. But after reading his
book and seeing how he conducts himself then I am simply putting the
record straight.
- Hope that helps explain that this is only about his opinion on AA
and nothing else.
Rich.
Ken
> This sentence of your last post encapsulates the past 18 years of your
> campaign -
>
>
>> I find it rather odd, although not at all surprising,
>> that those that A.A. hasn't killed don't believe and don't follow A.A.
>> doctrine, even if they are great defenders of the indefensible.
>>
>
> We should all focus on this -"those that AA hasn't killed" - really
> Kenny? Outrageous, unadulterated crap!! LOL.
>
How is it "outrageous, unadulterated crap"? George Vaillant, Harvard
psychiatrist, A.A. board member and Al-Anon, in his own research where
he was trying to prove that A.A. worked found the same results for A.A.
as no treatment but found a 6 times higher death rate for the A.A.s. If
you don't like Vaillant's results, why don't you take it up with him.
You can write him at the G.S.0. in New York.
> How many people has RR, SOS, MM etc killed if we are to believe this
> outrageous and ludicrous premise?
>
It is impossible to know whether the groups you mention are effective or
not. There has been virtually no research. I would think they would do
fairly well in a controlled study against A.A. and I think it would be
great if there was a controlled study of them and A.A. against no
treatment. But of course, that will never happen.
I do think that RR serves a purpose in telling people they can quit
drinking and doesn't insist that they drink because they have the wrong
beliefs about God, meaning because they don't have A.A. beliefs and can
continue with their own religious beliefs or lack of them.
SOS, in my opinion, serves a useful function for those who have been
convinced by A.A. that they must "do something" other than not drink to
not drink. SOS does not tell them that they will die if they don't go
to SOS and if they do go, they aren't expected to attend for a lifetime.
MM was based in large parts on A.A. beliefs in "the disease of
alcoholism" and "you either have it or you don't." I'm not sure just
what their beliefs are now. But they most certainly don't insist that
everyone walking in the door is diseased for life.
Of course, as far as killing people goes, A.A.'s media machine does an
excellent job of blaming others when their members get stupid drunk and
kill people. For instance, MM founder Audrey Kishline had left MM and
joined A.A. After months in A.A. she got stupid drunk, sped the wrong
way down an interstate, and killed two people. A.A. front the NCADD
release a nationwide press release saying how MM was responsible for the
accident, never letting on that it was an A.A. member that got stupid
drunk and drove the wrong way down an interstate.
Of course, A.A. might have "suffered" if the truth was known. Perhaps
the Big Books would have cried their eyes out because no one gave them
credence.
> How many reliable studies have been conducted on the alternative
> programmes efficacy?
>
Virtually nothing that I know of. Who is going to finance them? It is
rare that the U.S. government finances any studies of A.A. that are
against other treatments or a control group. That isn't allowed because
A.A. always comes up worse than _nothing_, even when an A.A. member is
running the study. Of course, since the Step groups and the treatment
industry control the funding, they will never fund research on other
organizations.
> Why didn't you realise that it is AA which suffers from abuse NOT the
> way round you believe?
>
A.A. suffers? Lol! A.A. suffers? It suffers like a rock or a chunk of
concrete "suffers." People suffer, not organizations and/or inanimate
materials.
> I don't think AA is a panacea for a cure for addiction. It has many
> faults as do the alternatives. I simply take a rational and less
> personal and emotional view of AA.
>
No, you take a 100% personal and emotional view. If you weren't taking
a 100% personal and emotional view, you would be able to cite research
that shows A.A. effective. You would be able to cite research that
shows the nonsense that A.A. promotes as the disease of alcoholism and
the behavior of alcoholics is actually true.
You are taking exactly the kind of emotional view that Jeffrey Schaler,
Ph.D. wrote of in the paper "Cult Busting" at:
http://www.morerevealed.com/articles/cult_busting.jsp
> More revealed about what? You actually. Perhaps you were born and
> nurtured into having an inferiority complex which manifests itself
> daily.
Lol! There you go taking inventory again. And there you go avoiding
responding to my criticisms of A.A. and instead attacking me for daring
to have made them. The following scenario is _exactly_ what you are doing.
Father: The priest gave my 10 year old son alcohol and molested him,
telling him that God would kill him if he told anyone.
Defender of the church no matter what: Don't you know the church
suffers because of all the terrible things you say? What kind of father
are you? I don't even approve of your job!
> We all have choices - you chose to piss on the fellowship where
> you got sober. My what a guy! What a virtue to have. What a fine
> person you have become.
>
Why do you credit "the fellowship" for getting me sober? Why in the
world would you think the "fellowship" got me sober? Are you that far
removed from reality?
Obviously, you are in the place where rocks and doorknobs are gods and
just like Frank B, they are giving you special messages.
Ken
I noticed he didn't respond with answers but only with general
accusations. I was kind of hoping he'd try. There have been a number
of times that I've challenged Groupers to present scientific evidence
supporting the Step groups and even went so far as to give them the urls
for the NCADD, NIAAA and other government agencies to help them find
such research. They've never came up with anything methodologically
sound or even more than mere glurge.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Rich
> Wozza Ports wrote:
> > "Rich" <richardh...@hush.ai> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kenny,
LOL Kenny to Wozza, Wozza to Kenny then Kenny to Kyle, Kyle to Kenny,
Rich to Kenny - we are all top billing here! Big audience!
Rich
Mr. Snuffleupagus
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Kenny,
>
> LOL Kenny to Wozza, Wozza to Kenny then Kenny to Kyle, Kyle to Kenny,
> Rich to Kenny - we are all top billing here! Big audience!
>
> Rich
Rich,
I've noticed Ken seems not to reply to people that don't share his
view. Instead, he bounces around what they wrote or just replies with
something that has nothing to do with anything.
When someone writes something that is similar to Ken's views then, and
only then, will Ken actually reply to what the person wrote. Examples
are Wozza Wozza or Kyle.
Pretty interesting, isn't it. For someone so sure about his views. One
would think he would be able to respond to someone that doesn't share
his views, without going onto a different topic.
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Rich
Mr S,
Exactly - he peddles a kind of prostitution when you parade a personal
view like his with happenstance answers.
Rich
Ken
going off into a wordy response on the following questions so I can
learn how it is done.
Are you still in prison for child molestation?
Did you ever finally get a job you didn't get fired from for stealing?
Do you still steal drugs from terminally ill patients in the hospital
where you work as a janitor?
Now any response more than a simple "yes" or "no" and you are guilty of
being evasive, dodging the question and/or changing the subject.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Wozza Ports
Mr S,
Rich
and still no concrete examples of poor research or contradictions.
Rich
Wozza,
I am not trying to be rude but I don't know what you can not
understand. If you want to contribute to something in a more
intelligent and meaningful way then at least contribute in a fashion
which is considerably better than Mr Ragge. This argument has been
dragging on for a few months - but when I put forward a counter
argument Ragge evades the question. Or in other words - procrastinate.
However he's been doing this for 18 years or more so I'm not holding
out much hope of a sane and rational exchange.
Every once in a while he comes around in circles saying I have not
read his book - I have - and he can not accept somebody holding a
different point of view - so any excuse will do.
Then he will accuse me of being a stepper. Honestly and genuinely I'm
not - this again is a tiresome tactic by Ragge to dodge the question.
Over a couple of years I have made attempt after attempt to speak
rationally with Ragge. To no avail - it's useless. So in the absence
of a dialogue I have placed my thoughts on his work around the net
where I can discuss his work WITHOUT him. As a pleasant surprise there
is quite a large audience elsewhere willing to discuss this crank.
That's his loss and with some humor my gain.
This string will peter out as they always do. Kenny will go into his
tit-for-tat tactic as he already has. That's the way it always is -
that's reality with Ragge. It's totally acceptable to me as he's not
going to change now - the hole he is in is far to deep to get out of
by now.
Have a nice day.
Rich
Ken
As I'm sure you are well aware, Rich is incapable of giving examples of
poor research or contradictions. I used to ask 12-Step group members to
point out errors in the text of More Revealed. The biggest factual
error was a typo. I described Dr. Bob as having been in the Oxford
Group for years before he met Wilson, when it should have said, "in the
Oxford Group for one-and-a-half years before he met Wilson." Of course,
this does not mean that I haven't left in things cited from
conference-approved A.A. literature that in time have been shown to be
less than accurate. But then the groupers don't seem to complain about
that.
One more thing that if not actually wrong could have been written much
better is when I was expounding on the consequences of "learned
helplessness," of learning that it is wasted effort to try to do
something that the only reason you can't do it is because you believe
you can't and so you don't "waste" the effort trying.
If Rich actually went through the addict-l archives and read what I
wrote there, he probably came across where the 12-Step therapists tbere
accused me of creating cognitive dissonance when I pointed out their
more obvious contradictions. He knows it is pointless to do anything
but make ad hominems because whenever he has attacked my statements on
the Step groups, which he hasn't even tried in a while, it is doubtless
obvious even to himself that he embarrasses himself. And, I would add,
probably a lot of Step group members that aren't whackos of they type
one so often meets on Usenet.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/
Mr. Snuffleupagus
Ken, Rich already has pointed out errors in your book.
I personally enjoy the chapter that you go on about Bill Wilson using
Chinese Brainwashing tactics. Why you may ask. Because it's absurd.
I also think it's funny that you believe if someone defends something,
then they are in a cult. You even provide something Jeffrey Schaler
wrote, in a pathetic attempt to backup your weird beliefs.
You should take a class with Prof. Schaler.
Ken
I've explained what I wrote about the Chinese communist program of
re-education (or "educating" people to a new world view) on numerous
occasions and on some of them at such a simple level that a child in
elementary school could understand it. I'm not sure how someone could
think the pointing out of the similarities between the Chinese Communist
re-eduction and the Step group's "program" can be seen as "Bill Wilson
using Chinese Brainwashing tactics."
The Step groups most certainly use many tactics similar to those that
were used by the Chinese Communists. Bill Wilson did not come up with
them himself. He was "re-educated" in the ways of the Oxford Group
using the Oxford Group's techniques. The Oxford Group learned their
techniques in large part through trial and error. They called it the
"science" of soul surgery. It was Robert Jay Lifton who brought up the
Western minister caught up in China's revolution that underwent the
Chinese program and who was struck by how similar it was to the Oxford
Group's.
Are you going to tell me that the Step groups don't use things like
isolation from outside sources of information and "the hot seat" to
bring about opinion change? If so, you are the one being absurd.
As far as me thinking when someone defends something it means they are
in a cult, you are again being childish and absurd. Of course, when
someone defends a cult that they are a member of, or even if they don't
defend a cult they are a member of, I do think they are in a cult. I
also think that simple ad hominems as a defense against criticism of a
cult implies there is great likelihood that the attacker is a member of
the cult being criticized. Either that or severely mentally ill or both.
Do you really think there are a lot of people who rabidly defend groups
like the Moonies that aren't members of the Moonies?
Not that it would be a bad idea if he wasn't on the other side of the
country, but why do you think I should take a class from Dr. Schaler?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com/