Re: point counter-point <fwd>

[Guest guest]

And more replies from me:

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:46:48 -0600 (CST) ER

wrote:

> Mr. Watts, I am curious: are you a clinician?

No.

> Have you ever personally

> watched an alcoholic struggle in recovery and succeed?

I have slept alongside them in rehab, if that counts.

> Have you ever helped

> one to succeed and watched his life improve?

Not in a formal sense, but I have been friend to many; I

still am, although I prefer to say " former alcoholics " as I

think referring to ppl who have not met the criteria for

alcohol dependence for years as " alcoholics " is silly, even

if they do so of themselves, and the ones that now drink

moderately even more so.

> Have you attended any funerals

> of clients who did not succeed in that struggle? Or is your knowledge of

> addiction limited to your studies of learned journals?

These are very revealing questions. I accept that

practical work as a clinician could well teach a lot more

than reading journals, but I doubt that attending a

funeral could. What it could do, however, is cloud one's

judgement with emotion. Addiction treatment providers are

unique in that they tend to invoke their clients' *deaths*

as proof of how important their work is, as well as the

ones that get well. Also, although working in the field

ina particular role (such as 12-step counsellor) has

special advantages to understanding; it also has a drawback

- the clinician's fallacy. Sometimes oine can get too

close to a problem to see the whole picture; the bookworm

researcher who doesn't 'get their hands dirty' also has a

role.

> Is your knowledge of

> the AA Big Book limited to intellectual (and pseudo-intellectual)

> deconstruction, or have you ever clung to the hope found in that volume

> whilst drowning in a sea of booze?

Like being a practitioner, being a *sufferer* of a disorder

gives a unique and valuable perspective, but also carries

with it the risk of putting too much emphasis on one's own

experience over that of others.

> On a more intimate note: have you ever

> made any " mistakes " in your personal life? Would your sexual activities

> hold up to the scrutiny of some future biographer? Did you ever cheat on

> your taxes? Or an algebra test? (no, no, not projection: as a child I was

> good at algebra until I so damaged my nervous system that I have the

> greatest of difficulty keeping my paltry checking account balanced) Fail to

> speak up when some minimum wage store clerk gave you an extra ten dollars in

> change? Pee in the swimming pool? Fart in the theatre? (I don't suppose

> you go to church, so you missed out on that opportunity). I do not know if

> God exists. I used to pray " God get me out of this and I will never do it

> again " but I always did it again until I accepted help from AA..

I'm not sure what the point of this diatribe is, but if it

is in response my comments on , they were only in

response to the previous ad hominem comments made on

Skinner. I did not fire the first shot in this respect( and

most certainly not on a personal level) and in any case

they are not the basis of my argument.

I must say I am rather saddened as well as disturbed by

what you write below, as it seems a most inappropriate

thing to appear on a professional list.

> AA

> suggested I pray for God's guidance in my life. I once knew an AA member,

> now deceased of leukemia, with about ten years' abstinence at his death.

> I'll never forget his description of how, when his disease was active, he

> had to drink a water glass of whiskey every morning, so he could stop his

> hands from shaking long enough to allow him to brush his teeth. In meetings

> where the topic was " dealing with resentments " he liked to share the

> problems he had with a sister-in-law. Advised by his AA sponsor to pray for

> his in-law daily for two weeks, he did so. And on the fourteenth day she

> fell and broke her leg! Definite proof, according to my AA compatriot, that

> prayer works. What do you say, Mr. Watts? Shall we pray for one another?

> I shall pray that you get down in the trenches with those of us who try and

> try to help the poor suffering addict, despite managed care, despite

> administrators who buy into " evaluation and outcomes instruments " written by

> someone who has never witnessed a full-blown case of DT's. Elected

> officials that become such by promising to build more jail cells to protect

> the decent people (read: voters) from all those drug fiends who worship the

> Devil? (Do you suppose He exists too?) All readers, and Mr. Watts, please

> excuse my soapbox diatribe. I confess, Mr Watts! I am still alive after all

> the near-fatal mistakes I have made; therefore there must be a God! (Don;t

> look for logic in that statement, or any other statement regarding faith.

> Graham Greene taught me that faith is belief in the Almighty in the absence

> of proof that he exists. Just ask Oppenheimer).

> God loves you, Mr. Watts, and so do I!

[Guest guest]

Hi

Very good to see you posting here again.

Best,

Pete

" gary d hall " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8968

> Hi Pete;

>

> The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

> plays fast and loose with statistics.

>

> ****************************************************************

> example: By one of AA's own

> triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> recover spontaneously.

> *******************************************************************

>

> In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

> old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

> therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

>

> About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

> low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

> years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

> hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

> against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

> copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

> affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be

turned

> into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

> 37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

> month in treatment.

>

> Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

> that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

> unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

> who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

> a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

>

> However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a

different

> angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

> year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

> medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

> I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those

recovering

> were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

>

> Basically that has happened in Iowa via Insurance companies, who

> discovered that the same 300 to 500 people were keeping a 40 bed

> treatment center in business. Insurance Companies deal in real

> world stats to make money. I'd give a lease against next summers

> wages to see their stats on 12 step treatment programs. I believe

> AA admits that about 4% of alcoholics quit drinking after being

> lectured by their family doctor. Hmmm. I can fully understand that

> because my doctor got on me about my weight and I dumped 60

> pounds over the next three years. He's the same doctor that

> laughed at the idea I couldn't use pain relievers properly because

> I'm an alcoholic. He's been right on both counts, I have no problem

> with #4 tylenol and I feel better at this weight.

>

> The few AA's, percentage wise who stay sober look like a large

> number until you consider the 30 odd million that have come

> through their doors in ten years or so and about a million sober at

> any given time. I think if they burned all their books and

traditions

> and just had get togethers, the recovering rate would go up. The

> power of a peer group is well documented and having a place to be,

> with other non drinking people for a social structure, would IMO do

> more good.

>

> The twelve steps and present AA structure use three bad ideas.

> Shame, fear and if one doesn't work take two or maybe 6 or 14. If

> 14 doesn't work, YOU are defective.

>

> To abuse survivors already up to their asses in the twin alligators

of

> shame and fear, AA is like going home with no escape and as

> alcoholics we are very familiar with, if one doesn't work take six,

> because we've been doing that with alcohol and drugs.

>

> Really I think the term " Drydrunk " applies to all who are working

> the AA program and living it's way of life. It is after all, just

the

> same methods we used while drinking. That I believe is why AA's

> can twist their belief system to fit all new or old pronouncements

> from the GSO and folks like Clancy Imusland. Or as I used to hear

> jibed at folks in prison " If you'll stand for that, you'll bend over

for

> this! "

>

> Insurance companies here in Iowa will now pay for an inpatient

> treatment, if you fail at outpatient and only if you satisfactorily

> completed the outpatient. You get two outpatient and one inpatient

> per lifetime.

>

> Of course this policy put the centers out of business. I doubt now

> that there are more than 6 centers in Iowa, that are not State

> institutions. The disadvantage to State treatment is its' 6 month

> length. Not too many folks ready to do six months in a veritable

> jail. Few go twice, though some do each winter.

>

> So here, for the most part, things are back to pre 1970. I did one

> of those six months shots in 62-63 and wished I'd have gone to jail

> instead. Though I admit I enjoyed the roller skating, Dances and

> nine hole golf course. I stayed sober the first day after getting

out.

> Just long enough to find a place to live. I drank some while I was

in

> there, but that's another story.

>

> So here in The Bible Belt as you called it, the 12 step star is

> descending. Naturally with few treatments to send fresh blood to

> AA, it is also dimishing. Next time I'm in Des Moines, I'll stop at

> The Central Office and get a Des Moines meeting schedule, just to

> see how many of the 3 or 400 are left from the eighties.

>

> I was around AA for 30 years and as a treatment, IMO, it is a

> failure. Personally I didn't stay off alcohol till I got away and

stayed

> away from AA, in 1990.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

Very good to see you posting here again.

Best,

Pete

" gary d hall " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=8968

> Hi Pete;

>

> The excerpt from your reply below shows, I believe, where AA

> plays fast and loose with statistics.

>

> ****************************************************************

> example: By one of AA's own

> triennial surveys, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> recover spontaneously.

> *******************************************************************

>

> In 1989, I was in a Hazelden affiliated treatment center. Being an

> old con, I got as chummy as possible with one of the upper level

> therapists in order to make life a bit easier on myself.

>

> About the eigth or ninth day I was there, she was bemaoning the

> low recovery rate of a bit over 3% for one year and about 2% for two

> years. The graph was pretty flat after two years. This was a

> hardass beat you over the head with your sins, other folks sins

> against you don't matter, 12step center. In other words a carbon

> copy of Hazelden. The stats were overall for Hazelden and

> affiliates is my understanding. I told here Gee, this could be

turned

> into a motivational message. Our class was 37, which ONE of the

> 37 would get a year. It wasn't me, I got 4 months, counting the

> month in treatment.

>

> Even as low as these stats are, they were massaged to get them

> that good. First, no incompletes were counted. Second, no one

> unavailable by telephone or letter after a year was counted. Now

> who would be more likely to move with no forwarding or telephone,

> a sober person or one drinking? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

>

> However, even accepting their stats, let's look at it from a

different

> angle. If you started a cancer treatment and remission with one

> year results was 3% and for two Years 2%, what would the

> medical community say about your treatment? I'm no doctor, but

> I'll bet they'd say the treatment was ineffective and those

recovering

> were Spontaeous Remissions and shut you down.

>

> Basically that has happened in Iowa via Insurance companies, who

> discovered that the same 300 to 500 people were keeping a 40 bed

> treatment center in business. Insurance Companies deal in real

> world stats to make money. I'd give a lease against next summers

> wages to see their stats on 12 step treatment programs. I believe

> AA admits that about 4% of alcoholics quit drinking after being

> lectured by their family doctor. Hmmm. I can fully understand that

> because my doctor got on me about my weight and I dumped 60

> pounds over the next three years. He's the same doctor that

> laughed at the idea I couldn't use pain relievers properly because

> I'm an alcoholic. He's been right on both counts, I have no problem

> with #4 tylenol and I feel better at this weight.

>

> The few AA's, percentage wise who stay sober look like a large

> number until you consider the 30 odd million that have come

> through their doors in ten years or so and about a million sober at

> any given time. I think if they burned all their books and

traditions

> and just had get togethers, the recovering rate would go up. The

> power of a peer group is well documented and having a place to be,

> with other non drinking people for a social structure, would IMO do

> more good.

>

> The twelve steps and present AA structure use three bad ideas.

> Shame, fear and if one doesn't work take two or maybe 6 or 14. If

> 14 doesn't work, YOU are defective.

>

> To abuse survivors already up to their asses in the twin alligators

of

> shame and fear, AA is like going home with no escape and as

> alcoholics we are very familiar with, if one doesn't work take six,

> because we've been doing that with alcohol and drugs.

>

> Really I think the term " Drydrunk " applies to all who are working

> the AA program and living it's way of life. It is after all, just

the

> same methods we used while drinking. That I believe is why AA's

> can twist their belief system to fit all new or old pronouncements

> from the GSO and folks like Clancy Imusland. Or as I used to hear

> jibed at folks in prison " If you'll stand for that, you'll bend over

for

> this! "

>

> Insurance companies here in Iowa will now pay for an inpatient

> treatment, if you fail at outpatient and only if you satisfactorily

> completed the outpatient. You get two outpatient and one inpatient

> per lifetime.

>

> Of course this policy put the centers out of business. I doubt now

> that there are more than 6 centers in Iowa, that are not State

> institutions. The disadvantage to State treatment is its' 6 month

> length. Not too many folks ready to do six months in a veritable

> jail. Few go twice, though some do each winter.

>

> So here, for the most part, things are back to pre 1970. I did one

> of those six months shots in 62-63 and wished I'd have gone to jail

> instead. Though I admit I enjoyed the roller skating, Dances and

> nine hole golf course. I stayed sober the first day after getting

out.

> Just long enough to find a place to live. I drank some while I was

in

> there, but that's another story.

>

> So here in The Bible Belt as you called it, the 12 step star is

> descending. Naturally with few treatments to send fresh blood to

> AA, it is also dimishing. Next time I'm in Des Moines, I'll stop at

> The Central Office and get a Des Moines meeting schedule, just to

> see how many of the 3 or 400 are left from the eighties.

>

> I was around AA for 30 years and as a treatment, IMO, it is a

> failure. Personally I didn't stay off alcohol till I got away and

stayed

> away from AA, in 1990.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I must say I am rather saddened as well as disturbed by

> what you write below, as it seems a most inappropriate

> thing to appear on a professional list.

>

Pete:

This man sounds like a familiar voice that is heard in the professional

arena of addiction therapists. I believe much of what this man states about

changeable behaviors is mostly jibberish. Invoking his god and declaring a

bad habit a disease is, in my opinion, a sign of weakness that is indeed

specific to him and should not be projected onto the desperate and

suggestionable people seeking change from deadly habits and lifestyles.

Until these folks in the addicton treatment fields with that type of

approach to therapy checkout, and their irrational thinking is gone with

them, we will not see real progress in the treatment of addictions and other

self defeating behaviors. Screw all that hocus pocus shit !! One needs to

grab themselves up by the balls and get on with! Would'nt you say. ol'

chap?

(grandmothers from Cardiff)

Re: point counter-point <fwd>

> And more replies from me:

>

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---

>

> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:46:48 -0600 (CST) ER

> wrote:

>

> > Mr. Watts, I am curious: are you a clinician?

>

> No.

>

> > Have you ever personally

> > watched an alcoholic struggle in recovery and succeed?

>

> I have slept alongside them in rehab, if that counts.

>

> > Have you ever helped

> > one to succeed and watched his life improve?

>

> Not in a formal sense, but I have been friend to many; I

> still am, although I prefer to say " former alcoholics " as I

> think referring to ppl who have not met the criteria for

> alcohol dependence for years as " alcoholics " is silly, even

> if they do so of themselves, and the ones that now drink

> moderately even more so.

>

> > Have you attended any funerals

> > of clients who did not succeed in that struggle? Or is your knowledge

of

> > addiction limited to your studies of learned journals?

>

> These are very revealing questions. I accept that

> practical work as a clinician could well teach a lot more

> than reading journals, but I doubt that attending a

> funeral could. What it could do, however, is cloud one's

> judgement with emotion. Addiction treatment providers are

> unique in that they tend to invoke their clients' *deaths*

> as proof of how important their work is, as well as the

> ones that get well. Also, although working in the field

> ina particular role (such as 12-step counsellor) has

> special advantages to understanding; it also has a drawback

> - the clinician's fallacy. Sometimes oine can get too

> close to a problem to see the whole picture; the bookworm

> researcher who doesn't 'get their hands dirty' also has a

> role.

>

> > Is your knowledge of

> > the AA Big Book limited to intellectual (and pseudo-intellectual)

> > deconstruction, or have you ever clung to the hope found in that volume

> > whilst drowning in a sea of booze?

>

> Like being a practitioner, being a *sufferer* of a disorder

> gives a unique and valuable perspective, but also carries

> with it the risk of putting too much emphasis on one's own

> experience over that of others.

>

> > On a more intimate note: have you ever

> > made any " mistakes " in your personal life? Would your sexual activities

> > hold up to the scrutiny of some future biographer? Did you ever cheat

on

> > your taxes? Or an algebra test? (no, no, not projection: as a child I

was

> > good at algebra until I so damaged my nervous system that I have the

> > greatest of difficulty keeping my paltry checking account balanced)

Fail to

> > speak up when some minimum wage store clerk gave you an extra ten

dollars in

> > change? Pee in the swimming pool? Fart in the theatre? (I don't

suppose

> > you go to church, so you missed out on that opportunity). I do not know

if

> > God exists. I used to pray " God get me out of this and I will never do

it

> > again " but I always did it again until I accepted help from AA..

>

> I'm not sure what the point of this diatribe is, but if it

> is in response my comments on , they were only in

> response to the previous ad hominem comments made on

> Skinner. I did not fire the first shot in this respect( and

> most certainly not on a personal level) and in any case

> they are not the basis of my argument.

>

> >

>

> > AA

> > suggested I pray for God's guidance in my life. I once knew an AA

member,

> > now deceased of leukemia, with about ten years' abstinence at his death.

> > I'll never forget his description of how, when his disease was active,

he

> > had to drink a water glass of whiskey every morning, so he could stop

his

> > hands from shaking long enough to allow him to brush his teeth. In

meetings

> > where the topic was " dealing with resentments " he liked to share the

> > problems he had with a sister-in-law. Advised by his AA sponsor to pray

for

> > his in-law daily for two weeks, he did so. And on the fourteenth day

she

> > fell and broke her leg! Definite proof, according to my AA compatriot,

that

> > prayer works. What do you say, Mr. Watts? Shall we pray for one

another?

> > I shall pray that you get down in the trenches with those of us who try

and

> > try to help the poor suffering addict, despite managed care, despite

> > administrators who buy into " evaluation and outcomes instruments "

written by

> > someone who has never witnessed a full-blown case of DT's. Elected

> > officials that become such by promising to build more jail cells to

protect

> > the decent people (read: voters) from all those drug fiends who worship

the

> > Devil? (Do you suppose He exists too?) All readers, and Mr. Watts,

please

> > excuse my soapbox diatribe. I confess, Mr Watts! I am still alive after

all

> > the near-fatal mistakes I have made; therefore there must be a God!

(Don;t

> > look for logic in that statement, or any other statement regarding

faith.

> > Graham Greene taught me that faith is belief in the Almighty in the

absence

> > of proof that he exists. Just ask Oppenheimer).

> > God loves you, Mr. Watts, and so do I!

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Click on Instant Credit Card Approval at

> http://clickhere./click/1271

>

>

> -- Create a poll/survey for your eGroup!

> -- /vote?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I must say I am rather saddened as well as disturbed by

> what you write below, as it seems a most inappropriate

> thing to appear on a professional list.

>

Pete:

This man sounds like a familiar voice that is heard in the professional

arena of addiction therapists. I believe much of what this man states about

changeable behaviors is mostly jibberish. Invoking his god and declaring a

bad habit a disease is, in my opinion, a sign of weakness that is indeed

specific to him and should not be projected onto the desperate and

suggestionable people seeking change from deadly habits and lifestyles.

Until these folks in the addicton treatment fields with that type of

approach to therapy checkout, and their irrational thinking is gone with

them, we will not see real progress in the treatment of addictions and other

self defeating behaviors. Screw all that hocus pocus shit !! One needs to

grab themselves up by the balls and get on with! Would'nt you say. ol'

chap?

(grandmothers from Cardiff)

Re: point counter-point <fwd>

> And more replies from me:

>

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---

>

> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:46:48 -0600 (CST) ER

> wrote:

>

> > Mr. Watts, I am curious: are you a clinician?

>

> No.

>

> > Have you ever personally

> > watched an alcoholic struggle in recovery and succeed?

>

> I have slept alongside them in rehab, if that counts.

>

> > Have you ever helped

> > one to succeed and watched his life improve?

>

> Not in a formal sense, but I have been friend to many; I

> still am, although I prefer to say " former alcoholics " as I

> think referring to ppl who have not met the criteria for

> alcohol dependence for years as " alcoholics " is silly, even

> if they do so of themselves, and the ones that now drink

> moderately even more so.

>

> > Have you attended any funerals

> > of clients who did not succeed in that struggle? Or is your knowledge

of

> > addiction limited to your studies of learned journals?

>

> These are very revealing questions. I accept that

> practical work as a clinician could well teach a lot more

> than reading journals, but I doubt that attending a

> funeral could. What it could do, however, is cloud one's

> judgement with emotion. Addiction treatment providers are

> unique in that they tend to invoke their clients' *deaths*

> as proof of how important their work is, as well as the

> ones that get well. Also, although working in the field

> ina particular role (such as 12-step counsellor) has

> special advantages to understanding; it also has a drawback

> - the clinician's fallacy. Sometimes oine can get too

> close to a problem to see the whole picture; the bookworm

> researcher who doesn't 'get their hands dirty' also has a

> role.

>

> > Is your knowledge of

> > the AA Big Book limited to intellectual (and pseudo-intellectual)

> > deconstruction, or have you ever clung to the hope found in that volume

> > whilst drowning in a sea of booze?

>

> Like being a practitioner, being a *sufferer* of a disorder

> gives a unique and valuable perspective, but also carries

> with it the risk of putting too much emphasis on one's own

> experience over that of others.

>

> > On a more intimate note: have you ever

> > made any " mistakes " in your personal life? Would your sexual activities

> > hold up to the scrutiny of some future biographer? Did you ever cheat

on

> > your taxes? Or an algebra test? (no, no, not projection: as a child I

was

> > good at algebra until I so damaged my nervous system that I have the

> > greatest of difficulty keeping my paltry checking account balanced)

Fail to

> > speak up when some minimum wage store clerk gave you an extra ten

dollars in

> > change? Pee in the swimming pool? Fart in the theatre? (I don't

suppose

> > you go to church, so you missed out on that opportunity). I do not know

if

> > God exists. I used to pray " God get me out of this and I will never do

it

> > again " but I always did it again until I accepted help from AA..

>

> I'm not sure what the point of this diatribe is, but if it

> is in response my comments on , they were only in

> response to the previous ad hominem comments made on

> Skinner. I did not fire the first shot in this respect( and

> most certainly not on a personal level) and in any case

> they are not the basis of my argument.

>

> >

>

> > AA

> > suggested I pray for God's guidance in my life. I once knew an AA

member,

> > now deceased of leukemia, with about ten years' abstinence at his death.

> > I'll never forget his description of how, when his disease was active,

he

> > had to drink a water glass of whiskey every morning, so he could stop

his

> > hands from shaking long enough to allow him to brush his teeth. In

meetings

> > where the topic was " dealing with resentments " he liked to share the

> > problems he had with a sister-in-law. Advised by his AA sponsor to pray

for

> > his in-law daily for two weeks, he did so. And on the fourteenth day

she

> > fell and broke her leg! Definite proof, according to my AA compatriot,

that

> > prayer works. What do you say, Mr. Watts? Shall we pray for one

another?

> > I shall pray that you get down in the trenches with those of us who try

and

> > try to help the poor suffering addict, despite managed care, despite

> > administrators who buy into " evaluation and outcomes instruments "

written by

> > someone who has never witnessed a full-blown case of DT's. Elected

> > officials that become such by promising to build more jail cells to

protect

> > the decent people (read: voters) from all those drug fiends who worship

the

> > Devil? (Do you suppose He exists too?) All readers, and Mr. Watts,

please

> > excuse my soapbox diatribe. I confess, Mr Watts! I am still alive after

all

> > the near-fatal mistakes I have made; therefore there must be a God!

(Don;t

> > look for logic in that statement, or any other statement regarding

faith.

> > Graham Greene taught me that faith is belief in the Almighty in the

absence

> > of proof that he exists. Just ask Oppenheimer).

> > God loves you, Mr. Watts, and so do I!

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Click on Instant Credit Card Approval at

> http://clickhere./click/1271

>

>

> -- Create a poll/survey for your eGroup!

> -- /vote?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I must say I am rather saddened as well as disturbed by

> what you write below, as it seems a most inappropriate

> thing to appear on a professional list.

>

Pete:

This man sounds like a familiar voice that is heard in the professional

arena of addiction therapists. I believe much of what this man states about

changeable behaviors is mostly jibberish. Invoking his god and declaring a

bad habit a disease is, in my opinion, a sign of weakness that is indeed

specific to him and should not be projected onto the desperate and

suggestionable people seeking change from deadly habits and lifestyles.

Until these folks in the addicton treatment fields with that type of

approach to therapy checkout, and their irrational thinking is gone with

them, we will not see real progress in the treatment of addictions and other

self defeating behaviors. Screw all that hocus pocus shit !! One needs to

grab themselves up by the balls and get on with! Would'nt you say. ol'

chap?

(grandmothers from Cardiff)

Re: point counter-point <fwd>

> And more replies from me:

>

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---

>

> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:46:48 -0600 (CST) ER

> wrote:

>

> > Mr. Watts, I am curious: are you a clinician?

>

> No.

>

> > Have you ever personally

> > watched an alcoholic struggle in recovery and succeed?

>

> I have slept alongside them in rehab, if that counts.

>

> > Have you ever helped

> > one to succeed and watched his life improve?

>

> Not in a formal sense, but I have been friend to many; I

> still am, although I prefer to say " former alcoholics " as I

> think referring to ppl who have not met the criteria for

> alcohol dependence for years as " alcoholics " is silly, even

> if they do so of themselves, and the ones that now drink

> moderately even more so.

>

> > Have you attended any funerals

> > of clients who did not succeed in that struggle? Or is your knowledge

of

> > addiction limited to your studies of learned journals?

>

> These are very revealing questions. I accept that

> practical work as a clinician could well teach a lot more

> than reading journals, but I doubt that attending a

> funeral could. What it could do, however, is cloud one's

> judgement with emotion. Addiction treatment providers are

> unique in that they tend to invoke their clients' *deaths*

> as proof of how important their work is, as well as the

> ones that get well. Also, although working in the field

> ina particular role (such as 12-step counsellor) has

> special advantages to understanding; it also has a drawback

> - the clinician's fallacy. Sometimes oine can get too

> close to a problem to see the whole picture; the bookworm

> researcher who doesn't 'get their hands dirty' also has a

> role.

>

> > Is your knowledge of

> > the AA Big Book limited to intellectual (and pseudo-intellectual)

> > deconstruction, or have you ever clung to the hope found in that volume

> > whilst drowning in a sea of booze?

>

> Like being a practitioner, being a *sufferer* of a disorder

> gives a unique and valuable perspective, but also carries

> with it the risk of putting too much emphasis on one's own

> experience over that of others.

>

> > On a more intimate note: have you ever

> > made any " mistakes " in your personal life? Would your sexual activities

> > hold up to the scrutiny of some future biographer? Did you ever cheat

on

> > your taxes? Or an algebra test? (no, no, not projection: as a child I

was

> > good at algebra until I so damaged my nervous system that I have the

> > greatest of difficulty keeping my paltry checking account balanced)

Fail to

> > speak up when some minimum wage store clerk gave you an extra ten

dollars in

> > change? Pee in the swimming pool? Fart in the theatre? (I don't

suppose

> > you go to church, so you missed out on that opportunity). I do not know

if

> > God exists. I used to pray " God get me out of this and I will never do

it

> > again " but I always did it again until I accepted help from AA..

>

> I'm not sure what the point of this diatribe is, but if it

> is in response my comments on , they were only in

> response to the previous ad hominem comments made on

> Skinner. I did not fire the first shot in this respect( and

> most certainly not on a personal level) and in any case

> they are not the basis of my argument.

>

> >

>

> > AA

> > suggested I pray for God's guidance in my life. I once knew an AA

member,

> > now deceased of leukemia, with about ten years' abstinence at his death.

> > I'll never forget his description of how, when his disease was active,

he

> > had to drink a water glass of whiskey every morning, so he could stop

his

> > hands from shaking long enough to allow him to brush his teeth. In

meetings

> > where the topic was " dealing with resentments " he liked to share the

> > problems he had with a sister-in-law. Advised by his AA sponsor to pray

for

> > his in-law daily for two weeks, he did so. And on the fourteenth day

she

> > fell and broke her leg! Definite proof, according to my AA compatriot,

that

> > prayer works. What do you say, Mr. Watts? Shall we pray for one

another?

> > I shall pray that you get down in the trenches with those of us who try

and

> > try to help the poor suffering addict, despite managed care, despite

> > administrators who buy into " evaluation and outcomes instruments "

written by

> > someone who has never witnessed a full-blown case of DT's. Elected

> > officials that become such by promising to build more jail cells to

protect

> > the decent people (read: voters) from all those drug fiends who worship

the

> > Devil? (Do you suppose He exists too?) All readers, and Mr. Watts,

please

> > excuse my soapbox diatribe. I confess, Mr Watts! I am still alive after

all

> > the near-fatal mistakes I have made; therefore there must be a God!

(Don;t

> > look for logic in that statement, or any other statement regarding

faith.

> > Graham Greene taught me that faith is belief in the Almighty in the

absence

> > of proof that he exists. Just ask Oppenheimer).

> > God loves you, Mr. Watts, and so do I!

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Click on Instant Credit Card Approval at

> http://clickhere./click/1271

>

>

> -- Create a poll/survey for your eGroup!

> -- /vote?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gee whiz it must be a tough job acting as Gawd's mouthpiece. You would

think the almighty ruler of the cosmos might take a risk and try

speaking for itself.

Knock knock, Is Gawd home? No but Swami what's his name is here to tell

you his wishes.

>

> Pete

>

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---

>

> (Don;t

> look for logic in that statement, or any other statement regarding

faith.

> Graham Greene taught me that faith is belief in the Almighty in the

absence

> of proof that he exists. Just ask Oppenheimer).

> God loves you, Mr. Watts, and so do I!

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shirk is an asshole. I thought it was really funny when he started

bringing that shit up about 's book on usenet and another list.

He had a real problem with them not checking out the stories and he even

intimated that AA would sue. Too bad he doesn't hold the big book up to

such standards. Did they investigate the stories in the back of the big

book prior to publishing them? How do I sign up for Div 50, Pete?

Pete Watts wrote:

>

> More of my replies to APA DIv 50:

>

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---

>

> I will precede your comments with JS and mine with PW.

>

> JS:

> > While I realize that the following is anecdotal evidence I still believe it

> > has some validity. In 1995 I attended the international AA convention in San

> > Diego and saw nearly 80,000 sober people in (what was then called) Jack

> > stadium. Now that, to me anyway, is some powerful proof that AA

works.

>

> ER wrote:

>

> > > > It helps hopeless alcoholics get sober and

> > > > become productive citizens at a higher success rate than anything all

> > > the

> > > > APA researchers have been able to come up with yet.

>

> PW:

> > > Could I have citations please? Because AA routinely refuses

> > > to allow systematic investigation of it, there cannot

> > > possibly be scientific justification for this claim. There

> > > is however, some evidence it isn't true. By one of AA's own

> > > triennial survey, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> > > the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> > > recover spontaneously. Stanton Peele is of course a much

> > > better authority than me on such matters. When I used these

> > > statistics from AA's survey on addict-l, an AA practitioner

> > > said that he would report back to the AA literature

> > > committee that the statistics were being " misrepresented "

> > > and they should not be made generally available anymore;

> > > and from one report this appears to have happened.

>

> JS:

> > you always amaze me when you quote this particular survey. This was

one

> > of the most *unscientific* surveys known to mankind with many flaws in

> > methodology. I can't right off hand think of anyone who would base a

> > statement on the efficiency of a program on the basis of that survey. Yet

you

> > grasp it like a life preserver to prove your point

>

> PW:

>

> You are of course the AA practitioner who said he would

> use his influence within AA to try to prevent such " misuse "

> of these surveys. I don't know if you did try and how much

> difference you made, but shortly afterward

> epidemiologist Robin Room wrote that in his most recent

> enquiry he had been no longer allowed access to the

> survey data but could only obtain the officially released

> AA documents on them. Robin Room is an epidemiologist of

> repute; and he obviously considers this data of value, and

> for some reason AA GSO now feels that they don't like an

> independent scientist using them.

>

> When there is no method of getting very high quality data

> (and no Social Science data is ever perfect) then one must

> use what is available; and as previously expressed, it is

> considered valuable to an expert sociologist, Robin Room.

>

> Also, I do not try to use it to " prove my point " as I said

> before. What I actually said was " there is some evidence

> that it [ER's] claim " isn't true. " In other word,

> I was making quite a tentative comment based on it. In

> contrast, you state of the AA 1995 convention that it was

> " some powerful proof that AA works " - in other words, you

> are claiming " powerful proof " for something that isn't even

> a survey of any kind at all - just 80,000 ppl of a

> fellowship with the order of a million US members and two

> million worldwide - of ppl healthy enough and committed

> enough to make a journey to the convention. Just how

> small a crowd could be assembled and you consider it still

> " powerful proof " ? Good grief, who is basing a viewpoint

> on worse data, and a more extreme one to boot?

>

> JS:

> > and at the same time state

> > that Project Match, which was a well designed research project, as being

> > meaningless and useless. Isn't there a bit of a contradiction here?

>

> PW:

> I don't recall describing Match as meaningless and useless,

> and doubt that I would use such extreme terms; in fact, I

> have actually made some suggestions on the basis of it, and

> as such therefore, cannot possibly have considered it

> completely meaningless or useless. I acknowledge that

> Principal Investigators Reid and Hester are extremely

> eminent experts in the area of alcohol research. It is

> ironic that my comments on Match have made references to

> Reid and Hesters' *earlier* research, including that Match

> produced precisely the results that one would have expected

> from their earlier work, such as the lack of a " dosage

> effect " for treatment - so, in the absence of any other

> differences, one would expect 4 MET sessions to be as

> effective as the 12 provided of CBT and TSF.

>

> You state that it was a " well-designed research project " -

> but have not referred to the methodological criticisms I

> made of it. My 1500 word letter on the subject, which was

> based on a less formal one I wrote to this list, was

> considered worthy of being printed in the The Addictions

> Newsletter. That would seem to suggest to that my arguments

> were of scientific credibility, even if they were in fact

> mistaken. That letter was followed by several in response,

> also posted on this list, which were highly complimentary

> of what I had written. Only critical response was included

> by Bruce Liese in TAN - that by Fred Rotgers. Apart from

> Fred's letter, *Nobody* has responded to my criticisms of

> Match with a *scientific* argument as to why my criticisms

> are invalid. Some have claimed that a control group could

> not be included for ethical reasons - an invalid argument

> as Duncan argued at the time, and in fact I consider

> it unethical *not* to have included one, in that it would

> have told us much more valuable information if it had.

>

> Turning to Fred's objections, it is worth noting that Fred

> is by no means uncritical of Match himself, but his

> criticisms are based on its External Validity, while mine

> are mostly on its Internal.

>

> His response to me was essentially that Match wasn't

> intended to demonstrate absolute or even relative treatment

> efficacy but was to investigate the possible effectiveness

> of matching patient characteristics to treatment

> modalities. My response to this is that there is no point

> in trying to find out the effectiveness of patient matching

> in the absence of evidence that any of the modalities is

> actually effective at all, and *that* could only be

> demonstrated with a control group. [it is also worth

> noting that Match is incessantly being used as supposedly

> demonstrating both absolute and relative efficacy, which it

> wasn't supposed to do. I have seem promotional material

> from a 12-step rehab in the UK which includes an article

> from a UK national newspaper claiming that Match showed

> that " TSF is the best " - i.e a relative (and by implication

> absolute) effectiveness claim. Similarly, I have seen

> Match used to claim evidence for TSF effectiveness on the

> basis of its overall performance comparability to CBT.]

> To this it can be responded that there is already

> supportive evidence for both MET and CBT in previous

> studies, but I contend that that isn't good enough, in that

> for robustness it is necessary to have one on every

> occasion - not least here because the size and statistical

> power of Match gave a splendid opportunity which ought not

> to have been missed, especially with the lack of previous

> experimental support for TSF. This belief is also

> supported because of the problems of *External* Validity

> that bother Fred. Even though previous studies might have

> demonstrated effectiveness for MET and CBT, how could we be

> sure these would be held up for the particular client

> sample used in Match? One comment that Fred made was that

> the " methodologically sophisticated " can construct

> controls by comparing each treatment with the other two; to

> which I respond: What happens when we do this? No treatment

> is effective above control!

>

> Finally, it is not of value just to find statistical

> significance for a hypothesis; one needs a significant

> effect size too. If it should transpire that the average IQ

> of everyone called " S**** " is 1 point above the average of

> everyone called " Watts " this would almost certainly be

> massively statistically significant, and of scarcely any

> practical significance at all. Certainly it would be of

> precious little value in determining who was bringing

> greater intelligence to bear on the present debate. While

> effect sizes can be constructed from those apparently

> statistically significant matching effects observed, what

> use is this if we do not know what the effect size of the

> treatments over control are? It is like trying to determine

> whether an average IQ difference of 1 point is worth

> bothering about without knowing what the standard deviation

> of the IQ scale is.

>

> JS:

> > What I

> > have seen in your writings is that anything that is negative about AA you

> > accept as pure fact and anything that is positive about AA you discard as

> > meaningless.

>

> I do in fact apply a critical approach to negative

> appraisals of AA, and do not discard supportive things as

> automatically meaningless, but critique them in what I

> consider to be an appropriate scientific manner.

>

> JS:

> > As for the horror stories on the 12 step free zone list and The news group

> > Alt.recovery.from-12-steps, a while back I asked the person who is

supposedly

> > writing a book containing these so called horror stories what method she

> > intended to use to verify the validity of these stories. She stated that she

> > did not intend to verify them as the individuals had to be telling the true

> > since they didn't like AA. You ask for citations about positive effects of

> > AA but are willing to accept negative reports at face value. That to me is

> > not a scientific approach.

>

> J**, even assuming you report this author's response

> accurately - it was THE AUTHOR's response, not mine. I

> don't automatically accept negative reports at face value.

> In fact, when one woman claimed to have been harassed by

> AA members by various means, I made several posts asking

> her how she knew that it was AA members who were doing

> this, and I also considered the possibility

> that she was suffering from a paranoid illness. But that

> aside, I didn't suggest that the accounts of these

> individuals automatically should be accepted as true. What I

> am saying is that they are a source of discourses abt AA and

> they are legitimate to exactly the same extent that the

> positive discourses, including the 80,000 in that stadium

> are. If you accept the stadium as evidence worthy of

> consideration (with all the problems associated with

> anecdotes), you should accept 12 step free stories as also

> evidence *worthy of consideration* - no more than that. If

> I am indeed biased, all you would have to do then would

> simply invoke the evidence I neglect - simply *declaring*

> me to be biased, even if true, does not by itself

> demonstrate that I am.

>

> I rather think the extremity of evidence selection and

> conclusions drawn you see in me is actually what exists in

> yourself, which careful comparison of your arguments and

> mind reveals.

>

> There is in fact one occasion where " anecdotal " evidence is

> totally legitimate; that of the counterexample. A single

> counter-example is all that is required to blow a universal

> hypothesis out of the water.

>

> Frequently, universal claims *are* made for AA. " No-one

> will call you an alcoholic " , " One can be an atheist and

> work the AA program " and " AA is compatible with anyone's

> religious views " etc. etc. One does not need to " verify " a

> committed Christian's or Jew's claim that they find AA

> offensive to their religious views - if they say they are,

> they are - and both of these have appeared on 12sf. It

> might be a awhile before 12sf membership reaches 80,000 -

> let alone two million, but it's growing.

>

> Pete Watts

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant

> Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set

> of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a

> $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at

> http://clickhere./click/1364

>

> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!

> -- /VoiceChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

[Guest guest]

Shirk is an asshole. I thought it was really funny when he started

bringing that shit up about 's book on usenet and another list.

He had a real problem with them not checking out the stories and he even

intimated that AA would sue. Too bad he doesn't hold the big book up to

such standards. Did they investigate the stories in the back of the big

book prior to publishing them? How do I sign up for Div 50, Pete?

Pete Watts wrote:

>

> More of my replies to APA DIv 50:

>

> --- Begin Forwarded Message ---

>

> I will precede your comments with JS and mine with PW.

>

> JS:

> > While I realize that the following is anecdotal evidence I still believe it

> > has some validity. In 1995 I attended the international AA convention in San

> > Diego and saw nearly 80,000 sober people in (what was then called) Jack

> > stadium. Now that, to me anyway, is some powerful proof that AA

works.

>

> ER wrote:

>

> > > > It helps hopeless alcoholics get sober and

> > > > become productive citizens at a higher success rate than anything all

> > > the

> > > > APA researchers have been able to come up with yet.

>

> PW:

> > > Could I have citations please? Because AA routinely refuses

> > > to allow systematic investigation of it, there cannot

> > > possibly be scientific justification for this claim. There

> > > is however, some evidence it isn't true. By one of AA's own

> > > triennial survey, only 5% of newcomers are still in AA at

> > > the one year point, and 73% are still drinking. More ppl

> > > recover spontaneously. Stanton Peele is of course a much

> > > better authority than me on such matters. When I used these

> > > statistics from AA's survey on addict-l, an AA practitioner

> > > said that he would report back to the AA literature

> > > committee that the statistics were being " misrepresented "

> > > and they should not be made generally available anymore;

> > > and from one report this appears to have happened.

>

> JS:

> > you always amaze me when you quote this particular survey. This was

one

> > of the most *unscientific* surveys known to mankind with many flaws in

> > methodology. I can't right off hand think of anyone who would base a

> > statement on the efficiency of a program on the basis of that survey. Yet

you

> > grasp it like a life preserver to prove your point

>

> PW:

>

> You are of course the AA practitioner who said he would

> use his influence within AA to try to prevent such " misuse "

> of these surveys. I don't know if you did try and how much

> difference you made, but shortly afterward

> epidemiologist Robin Room wrote that in his most recent

> enquiry he had been no longer allowed access to the

> survey data but could only obtain the officially released

> AA documents on them. Robin Room is an epidemiologist of

> repute; and he obviously considers this data of value, and

> for some reason AA GSO now feels that they don't like an

> independent scientist using them.

>

> When there is no method of getting very high quality data

> (and no Social Science data is ever perfect) then one must

> use what is available; and as previously expressed, it is

> considered valuable to an expert sociologist, Robin Room.

>

> Also, I do not try to use it to " prove my point " as I said

> before. What I actually said was " there is some evidence

> that it [ER's] claim " isn't true. " In other word,

> I was making quite a tentative comment based on it. In

> contrast, you state of the AA 1995 convention that it was

> " some powerful proof that AA works " - in other words, you

> are claiming " powerful proof " for something that isn't even

> a survey of any kind at all - just 80,000 ppl of a

> fellowship with the order of a million US members and two

> million worldwide - of ppl healthy enough and committed

> enough to make a journey to the convention. Just how

> small a crowd could be assembled and you consider it still

> " powerful proof " ? Good grief, who is basing a viewpoint

> on worse data, and a more extreme one to boot?

>

> JS:

> > and at the same time state

> > that Project Match, which was a well designed research project, as being

> > meaningless and useless. Isn't there a bit of a contradiction here?

>

> PW:

> I don't recall describing Match as meaningless and useless,

> and doubt that I would use such extreme terms; in fact, I

> have actually made some suggestions on the basis of it, and

> as such therefore, cannot possibly have considered it

> completely meaningless or useless. I acknowledge that

> Principal Investigators Reid and Hester are extremely

> eminent experts in the area of alcohol research. It is

> ironic that my comments on Match have made references to

> Reid and Hesters' *earlier* research, including that Match

> produced precisely the results that one would have expected

> from their earlier work, such as the lack of a " dosage

> effect " for treatment - so, in the absence of any other

> differences, one would expect 4 MET sessions to be as

> effective as the 12 provided of CBT and TSF.

>

> You state that it was a " well-designed research project " -

> but have not referred to the methodological criticisms I

> made of it. My 1500 word letter on the subject, which was

> based on a less formal one I wrote to this list, was

> considered worthy of being printed in the The Addictions

> Newsletter. That would seem to suggest to that my arguments

> were of scientific credibility, even if they were in fact

> mistaken. That letter was followed by several in response,

> also posted on this list, which were highly complimentary

> of what I had written. Only critical response was included

> by Bruce Liese in TAN - that by Fred Rotgers. Apart from

> Fred's letter, *Nobody* has responded to my criticisms of

> Match with a *scientific* argument as to why my criticisms

> are invalid. Some have claimed that a control group could

> not be included for ethical reasons - an invalid argument

> as Duncan argued at the time, and in fact I consider

> it unethical *not* to have included one, in that it would

> have told us much more valuable information if it had.

>

> Turning to Fred's objections, it is worth noting that Fred

> is by no means uncritical of Match himself, but his

> criticisms are based on its External Validity, while mine

> are mostly on its Internal.

>

> His response to me was essentially that Match wasn't

> intended to demonstrate absolute or even relative treatment

> efficacy but was to investigate the possible effectiveness

> of matching patient characteristics to treatment

> modalities. My response to this is that there is no point

> in trying to find out the effectiveness of patient matching

> in the absence of evidence that any of the modalities is

> actually effective at all, and *that* could only be

> demonstrated with a control group. [it is also worth

> noting that Match is incessantly being used as supposedly

> demonstrating both absolute and relative efficacy, which it

> wasn't supposed to do. I have seem promotional material

> from a 12-step rehab in the UK which includes an article

> from a UK national newspaper claiming that Match showed

> that " TSF is the best " - i.e a relative (and by implication

> absolute) effectiveness claim. Similarly, I have seen

> Match used to claim evidence for TSF effectiveness on the

> basis of its overall performance comparability to CBT.]

> To this it can be responded that there is already

> supportive evidence for both MET and CBT in previous

> studies, but I contend that that isn't good enough, in that

> for robustness it is necessary to have one on every

> occasion - not least here because the size and statistical

> power of Match gave a splendid opportunity which ought not

> to have been missed, especially with the lack of previous

> experimental support for TSF. This belief is also

> supported because of the problems of *External* Validity

> that bother Fred. Even though previous studies might have

> demonstrated effectiveness for MET and CBT, how could we be

> sure these would be held up for the particular client

> sample used in Match? One comment that Fred made was that

> the " methodologically sophisticated " can construct

> controls by comparing each treatment with the other two; to

> which I respond: What happens when we do this? No treatment

> is effective above control!

>

> Finally, it is not of value just to find statistical

> significance for a hypothesis; one needs a significant

> effect size too. If it should transpire that the average IQ

> of everyone called " S**** " is 1 point above the average of

> everyone called " Watts " this would almost certainly be

> massively statistically significant, and of scarcely any

> practical significance at all. Certainly it would be of

> precious little value in determining who was bringing

> greater intelligence to bear on the present debate. While

> effect sizes can be constructed from those apparently

> statistically significant matching effects observed, what

> use is this if we do not know what the effect size of the

> treatments over control are? It is like trying to determine

> whether an average IQ difference of 1 point is worth

> bothering about without knowing what the standard deviation

> of the IQ scale is.

>

> JS:

> > What I

> > have seen in your writings is that anything that is negative about AA you

> > accept as pure fact and anything that is positive about AA you discard as

> > meaningless.

>

> I do in fact apply a critical approach to negative

> appraisals of AA, and do not discard supportive things as

> automatically meaningless, but critique them in what I

> consider to be an appropriate scientific manner.

>

> JS:

> > As for the horror stories on the 12 step free zone list and The news group

> > Alt.recovery.from-12-steps, a while back I asked the person who is

supposedly

> > writing a book containing these so called horror stories what method she

> > intended to use to verify the validity of these stories. She stated that she

> > did not intend to verify them as the individuals had to be telling the true

> > since they didn't like AA. You ask for citations about positive effects of

> > AA but are willing to accept negative reports at face value. That to me is

> > not a scientific approach.

>

> J**, even assuming you report this author's response

> accurately - it was THE AUTHOR's response, not mine. I

> don't automatically accept negative reports at face value.

> In fact, when one woman claimed to have been harassed by

> AA members by various means, I made several posts asking

> her how she knew that it was AA members who were doing

> this, and I also considered the possibility

> that she was suffering from a paranoid illness. But that

> aside, I didn't suggest that the accounts of these

> individuals automatically should be accepted as true. What I

> am saying is that they are a source of discourses abt AA and

> they are legitimate to exactly the same extent that the

> positive discourses, including the 80,000 in that stadium

> are. If you accept the stadium as evidence worthy of

> consideration (with all the problems associated with

> anecdotes), you should accept 12 step free stories as also

> evidence *worthy of consideration* - no more than that. If

> I am indeed biased, all you would have to do then would

> simply invoke the evidence I neglect - simply *declaring*

> me to be biased, even if true, does not by itself

> demonstrate that I am.

>

> I rather think the extremity of evidence selection and

> conclusions drawn you see in me is actually what exists in

> yourself, which careful comparison of your arguments and

> mind reveals.

>

> There is in fact one occasion where " anecdotal " evidence is

> totally legitimate; that of the counterexample. A single

> counter-example is all that is required to blow a universal

> hypothesis out of the water.

>

> Frequently, universal claims *are* made for AA. " No-one

> will call you an alcoholic " , " One can be an atheist and

> work the AA program " and " AA is compatible with anyone's

> religious views " etc. etc. One does not need to " verify " a

> committed Christian's or Jew's claim that they find AA

> offensive to their religious views - if they say they are,

> they are - and both of these have appeared on 12sf. It

> might be a awhile before 12sf membership reaches 80,000 -

> let alone two million, but it's growing.

>

> Pete Watts

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant

> Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set

> of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a

> $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at

> http://clickhere./click/1364

>

> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!

> -- /VoiceChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

[Guest guest]

Hello Jim

As you saw, I removed direct references to JS in that post, as I don't

want to make critical comments on named individuals if possible,

particularly if I quote something they have written, hence I do not

wish to be thought to have agreed with your evaluation of him in your

post, which I have removed from the quote below. I must admit if he

seriously hinted at suing it's immensely stupid, as such a thing would

be totally against the Traditions, I would have thought. I understand

wrote thanking ppl for letters of criticism and said that AA

would continue " taking its inventory. " I also would have thought there

would be precious little chance of succesful litigation in such

circumstances anyway (even in America).

As for the personal stories in the BB, I understand several of the

First Edition ppl's stories did indeed drink again but the only

response was simply to remove their stories from the book.

I doubt you will be able to join APA Div 50 at the present time. My own

presence there is precarious, in that ordinarily one has to not only be

an aPA member but also belong to that Division. There has been a call

to axe non-members by a very prominent individual, and my own days may

be numbered.

I have written him explaining that although part of the controversy I

believe I always remained within netiquette boundaries and based my

arguments on science. Fortunately, someone else has written asking

that the cull not proceed. Unfortunately, that leaves the step loons

still on, most of whom arent APA members either; I doubt JS is even,

and he is by no means the worst.

P.

jim yelverton wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=9083

> I thought it was really funny when he started

> bringing that shit up about 's book on usenet and another

list.

> He had a real problem with them not checking out the stories and he

even

> intimated that AA would sue. Too bad he doesn't hold the big book up

to

> such standards. Did they investigate the stories in the back of the

big

> book prior to publishing them? How do I sign up for Div 50, Pete?

>