Re: Explo$ive Growth of Non-Dependent Alcoholics and Drug Add...

[Guest guest]

mikena@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 5/27/00 2:26:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> > So when was AA/Oxford so much better?

>

> When for the first time, alcoholics and their family had some hope that was

> demonstrated by people who had already stopped drinking.

Mike,

You can't be suggesting that excessive drinkers never stopped

drinking before. The temperance movement had been around quite a while

and

tent-revival-type testimonials already existed. Certainly, I can give

Oxford's Alcoholic Squad/AA credit for being the first to use Anonymity

to separate hide the failures of members giving public testimony. But

if they fared no better (and I've seen studies from the 40s that show

they did worse than already existing religous groups) how was that

" better " ?

Sound more like " misleading " to me.

> I do not like Oxford myself. I'm sure we could get into a great discussions

> about them off the list, since I think it might bore everyone to tears.

> But...you will get no arguement from me that Buchanan was a demagougue and a

> Nazi apologist. So was Lindbergh and other America Firsters like Al

> . Might as well add Joe Kennedy to that list too. Don't forget the Duke

> and Dutchess of Windsor.

>

> The biggest Nazi appeaser and apologist comes to mind just by saying the word

>

> UMBRELLA!. Everytime, I see an umbrealla I think of Neville Chamberlein.

>

> Thank God Britain produces its Winston Churchills to balance out a slug like

> Neville Chamberlain. The sad thing is, he probably meant well.

I don't think _just_ that Oxford was pro-fascist was the entire problem

with them. Even more important was their " soul surgery " which

essentially

turned troubled people into people holding an authoritarian world view,

" powerless " people who needed to find someone/something " strong " to

latch

on to and I'm not referring, at least not directly, to their Higher

Power.

> The other part of the Oxford group I despised are the absoluts, what were

> they?

>

> Absolute Honesty

> Absolute Purity

> Absolute Humility

> Absolute ?

Honesty, Purity, Unselfishness and Love. While the language has been

changed quite a bit, these can still be found in the AA literature.

Rather than using the word " Absolute " it is " Progress, not perfection. "

> I forget the others.

>

> I do know that most people in AA were wise enough to know that these

> absolutists would not work with alchoholics, in fact I do not know too many

> people they woulld work on.

From what I can gather from reading the literature from the 30s, it was

very much like when " street junkies " clash with " respectable

alcoholics "

in meetings. The separation between Oxford and AA was not so much a

separation as the result of " a coffee pot and resentment, " simply new

Oxford Group meetings. Of course, the switch in literature to the Big

Book where he told of his being saved by the Oxford Group and the

formalization of the Oxford Group program in the steps is important.

> If my sobriety were based on these absolute's I never would have made it back

> to my second meeting. Quite honestly, if I had Doctor Bob as a Sponsor making

> me get on my knees and praying with him, rather than Bill who I feel I would

> have related much more with, my odds would have been a lot better with Bill.

If you've read much Dick B. (AA historian) he argues that the Akron

alcoholics

fared much better than the New York ones. Prior to going to

Akron and

picking up more Oxford Group insights like " one alcoholic working with

another "

(O.G.'s " like [sinners] working with like " ) no one in New York except

for

managed to stay sober.

Ken

> What I always liked about Bill was he knew human nature. I don't think any

> follies of mankind would have phased him.

>

> Enough,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/29/00 4:08:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, arroyoh@...

writes:

> Since you seem to have a problem with Ken why don't you try

> starting with this list and finish with Ken's work.

>

> Appendix D: I've listed the titles and not the narrative Ken placed

> for each title.

>

> Alcoholism and Addiction

>

> Stanton Peele

> Herbert Fingarette

>

> Self- " Recovery "

>

> Audrey Kishline

> Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky

> Jack Trimpey

>

> Cults/Totalitarian Groups/Indoctrination

>

> Bufe

> T. Furst

> Hassan

> J Lifton

> Stanley Milgram

> Edgar Schein (with Inge Schneier and Curtis H. Baker)

> Margaret Singer

>

> Journals and Journal Articles

>

> E. Ashe

> The Journal of Rational Recovery

>

> The Oxford Group

>

> Tom Driberg

> Marjorie on

> A. J. Russel

> H. A. Walter

>

> Psychiatry While the bulk of the books in this section were written

> by psychiatrists, all of them are particularly outstanding people in

> the field.

>

> S. Szasz

>

> The Self

>

> Edgar A. Barnett

> Berne

> iel Branden

> Lowen

> Alice

> Montagu

> Frederick Perls (Ralph F. Hefferline and Goodman)

> E. P. Seligman

> Claude Steiner

> Sulloway.

>

> Since when have the XA sheep been so concerned about academia other

> than to deride that segment devoted to deriding AA? Ken's approach

> is pricisely the approach needed to make the information palatable to

> those stuck in the XA rutt, (absolutely no critical thinking ability)

> some for years. He doesn't screw around with academic games trying

> to convince you that AA is a wolf in sheep's clothing he simply gives

> you the information AA would rather you didn't know and let's you

> decide for yourself.

>

> While I can't say I agree with all of his views I will say that he's

> done a laudable job of presenting ... well .... " The Real AA " Which

> is a hell of a lot more than either one of us has done either for or

> against AA.

>

First, you are wrong in sasying I hae a problem with Ken. How can I have a

problem with him when I don't even know him. I said I am willing to suspend

judgment on any writing until after I have digested it. I was just repeating

what people in the substance abuse filed told me, they are neither pro AA or

12 steps totally, nor I they really in any " camp " .

They are pragmatics, in other words what works without causing damage to the

person trying to get sober, is a treatment worth investigating for thatr

individual.

That pretty much is the essence of my philosophy on treatment. If some people

are helped by a treatment modality, and it causes no conflict with their

life's philosophy, than every effort should be made to get this person a good

reading list, and put her in touch with people who she would most likely to

identify with,

One thing I have repeatedly said on this list that I am getting bored with it

myself, is " Different strokes for different folks. " .

Unfortunatley, as long as the treatment techniques that are taught in

" substance abuse school " have a bias towards AAwe and other 12 step

programs, I never denied that they did, we will always be trying to fit the

round peg in the square hole.

By bothers me about Stanton Peel is that he promotes Therapeutic Communities.

I spent a couple of years in one. They are sadistic, autocratic, dictatorial,

members are immediatley " brainwashed " into what is called talking " concept. " ,

or running data on new residents.

The difference between TCs and AA is that in AA people are free to walk outof

the door. IN manuy of these TCs the residents are probated there and they

have to swallow a lot of shit, if they don't want ot go back and finish their

time.

This to me smacks of a cult. I'm sure everyone ius familiar with what

happened to Synanon. Synanon, btw was started by ex AA members who thought

they had a revoltuionary idea that would improve on AA to the nth degree.

Well the idea was unique, especially if you consider lifetime membership, and

an attitude that permeated the Synanon Village that contact with outside

people like mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, teachers, Chaplins, Rabbis,

Priests, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, created a " poisionous attitude " toward

the concept.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/27/00 9:54:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

benbradley@... writes:

> by troll I mean not just someone who shows up to stir

> things up, but also someone who sincerely believes what he says, but whose

> beliefs are incongruent enough with a forum's mainstream that

That is an interesting definition of a troll Ben. Especially since a few days

ago Pete Watts had his own " hand picked troll " that he wanted to participate

on the list "

I would like to see it to, because, I have a feeling about the kind of posts

we would be getting. I think the more hoinest members of this group know this

too.

WHy another troll and not me, even though I don't buy the troll nonsense.

Is this guy so witty and literate, that he will put my ideas and writing to

shame?

Well you people know Pete. Do you think he would brink someone on who was

more adamant and less willing to back down than I am? do you think, his

writings will be on the level with Dickens, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, or Wolfe.

Do you think he will be capable of debating with Pete since Pete would be his

benefactor.

Enquiring minds want to know!!! lol

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/27/00 2:26:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenr1@...

writes:

> So when was AA/Oxford so much better?

When for the first time, alcoholics and their family had some hope that was

demonstrated by people who had already stopped drinking.

I do not like Oxford myself. I'm sure we could get into a great discussions

about them off the list, since I think it might bore everyone to tears.

But...you will get no arguement from me that Buchanan was a demagougue and a

Nazi apologist. So was Lindbergh and other America Firsters like Al

. Might as well add Joe Kennedy to that list too. Don't forget the Duke

and Dutchess of Windsor.

The biggest Nazi appeaser and apologist comes to mind just by saying the word

UMBRELLA!. Everytime, I see an umbrealla I think of Neville Chamberlein.

Thank God Britain produces its Winston Churchills to balance out a slug like

Neville Chamberlain. The sad thing is, he probably meant well.

The other part of the Oxford group I despised are the absoluts, what were

they?

Absolute Honesty

Absolute Purity

Absolute Humility

Absolute ?

I forget the others.

I do know that most people in AA were wise enough to know that these

absolutists would not work with alchoholics, in fact I do not know too many

people they woulld work on.

If my sobriety were based on these absolute's I never would have made it back

to my second meeting. Quite honestly, if I had Doctor Bob as a Sponsor making

me get on my knees and praying with him, rather than Bill who I feel I would

have related much more with, my odds would have been a lot better with Bill.

What I always liked about Bill was he knew human nature. I don't think any

follies of mankind would have phased him.

Enough,

>

[Guest guest]

Just to be fair next time I go to the library andy pick up Ken's

book. I

will put aside the biases I have heard about, (not just from 12 step

people but real acacemics) . What credentials do you have Ken? the

scholarship of the book to put it nicely has not been given high

marks

except by the advocates who wrote the book reviews.

What you said was tantamount to: Well people say your work is

academic/scholastic shite, ho humm, but I'm going to take it upon

myself to rid myself of any biases this may have caused and check it

out. (Ya, Right)

While I said you SEEM to have a problem with Ken (should have said

Ken's work). Either way it was a reasonable assumption/response on my

part considering what you posted. Let's not obfuscate the issue

shall we.

When I was in treatment the only people I was allowed to associate

with were others in treatment and people in XA. Makes you wonder

don't it?

Treatment ---------> XA -------> Treatment -------> XA

You seem willing to accept the above scenario but unwilling to accept

the below which considering the number of members this one is by for

the more likely.

XA -------> Treatment -------> XA -------> Treatment -------> XA

Either way you look at it It's a vicious circle.

Re: Explo$ive Growth of Non-Dependent

Alcoholics and Drug Add...

In a message dated 5/29/00 4:08:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

arroyoh@...

writes:

First, you are wrong in sasying I hae a problem with Ken. How can I

have a

problem with him when I don't even know him. I said I am willing to

suspend

judgment on any writing until after I have digested it. I was just

repeating

what people in the substance abuse filed told me, they are neither

pro AA or

12 steps totally, nor I they really in any " camp " .

snipage

This to me smacks of a cult. I'm sure everyone ius familiar with what

happened to Synanon. Synanon, btw was started by ex AA members who

thought

they had a revoltuionary idea that would improve on AA to the nth

degree.

Well the idea was unique, especially if you consider lifetime

membership, and

an attitude that permeated the Synanon Village that contact with

outside

people like mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, teachers, Chaplins,

Rabbis,

Priests, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, created a " poisionous

attitude " toward

the concept.

[Guest guest]

Mike--

I've done some reading on TC's lately, and the concept seems to embrace a number

of approaches, from very permissive to " boot camp " style. Hence it's important

to know what a person means when they refer to TC's. Here state policy

advocates a TC approach, and despite the fact that a number of components are

required to be licensed as a treatment center (which must also be a therapeutic

community), apparently providers can combine these components in almost any

fashion, emphasize some, deemphasize some in their discretion, and be as strict

or as lax as they want to be.

Where does Stanton advocate TC's?

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

|\ z _,,,---,,_

/,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_

|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'

'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

Mike,

This is disgusting even by your standards.

How the hell would you know whether the guy I referred to would be a

troll or not? You really are a shit on a stick pal.

> In a message dated 5/27/00 9:54:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> benbradley@m... writes:

>

> > by troll I mean not just someone who shows up to stir

> > things up, but also someone who sincerely believes what he says,

but whose

> > beliefs are incongruent enough with a forum's mainstream that

>

> That is an interesting definition of a troll Ben. Especially since

a

few days

> ago Pete Watts had his own " hand picked troll " that he wanted to

participate

> on the list "

>

> I would like to see it to, because, I have a feeling about the kind

of posts

> we would be getting. I think the more hoinest members of this group

know this

> too.

>

> WHy another troll and not me, even though I don't buy the troll

nonsense.

>

> Is this guy so witty and literate, that he will put my ideas and

writing to

> shame?

>

> Well you people know Pete. Do you think he would brink someone on

who was

> more adamant and less willing to back down than I am? do you think,

his

> writings will be on the level with Dickens, Steinbeck, Fitzgerald,

or Wolfe.

>

> Do you think he will be capable of debating with Pete since Pete

would be his

> benefactor.

>

>

> Enquiring minds want to know!!! lol

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/30/00 2:53:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

kayleighs@... writes:

> Where does Stanton advocate TC's?

Good point. Since I had such a negative experience , (and some positive) in

the TC I was in in 1969-1971 I admit to casting all TCs in this light.

I know there are differences among TCs, yet, they still all have that

underlying authoritaranism. Life is blown totally out of proportion. Now, I

agree that AA can and does harm people. Well, can you imagine the harm done

to someone whose ego is stripped completely so it can be rebuilt in the TCs

image. The problem is most people (just like AA) live before they have

completed treatment. Now, if they had problems before, you can only imagine

what they feel about themselves splitting from this " caring family " .

Oh, yelling at residents is standard in TCs. They have been changing though.

When I went to my TC, we were allowed to drink alcohol when we reached a

certain point in the program!!

They just did not see any connection between alcohol and other drugs.

That has stoppped. IN fact, many TCs now bring AA and NA meetings into the

facility.

SInce, I have browsed two books by Stanton Peele after I wrote that, I am

less sure of my position. He makes so many good points, that I just can't see

him supporting one of those fascist boot camps!

[Guest guest]

Hmm. (Just like AA leave) before they have completed treatment.

Is there a timeline in AA?

I thought it was one day at a time for the rest of your life?

I hear you knocking the TC's and their caring family but I totally

missed anything about the caring AA family that drives most rational

people away.

Not attacking you here Mike just wondering that's all.

Re: Explo$ive Growth of Non-Dependent

Alcoholics and Drug Add...

In a message dated 5/30/00 2:53:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

kayleighs@... writes:

> Where does Stanton advocate TC's?

Good point. Since I had such a negative experience , (and some

positive) in

the TC I was in in 1969-1971 I admit to casting all TCs in this

light.

I know there are differences among TCs, yet, they still all have

that

underlying authoritaranism. Life is blown totally out of proportion.

Now, I

agree that AA can and does harm people. Well, can you imagine the

harm done

to someone whose ego is stripped completely so it can be rebuilt in

the TCs

image. The problem is most people (just like AA) live before they

have

completed treatment. Now, if they had problems before, you can only

imagine

what they feel about themselves splitting from this " caring family " .

[Guest guest]

Ken --

" Buchanan " ? -- who he? -- (ed.). Could this be an alias of the notorious

Buchmann Ox-Mov-12step self righteousness virus tendency?

Don't agree -- Chamberlain was guilty of no more than being a somewhat

ingenuous gentleman in his preparedness to take Hitler's word. He moved

heaven and earth at the eleventh hour flying to Germany for a meeting in Bad

Godesburg to try to talk the Nazi bastard Chirper-in-Chief out of war -- the

terrible strain he endured at this time probably contributed much to his

death soon after the war began.

It does seem, Ken, that the facts are worth defending and even if you have

to be called a pedantic git for doing so then I'm for scholarship over

inflamed opinion any day.

.

ps glad to hear yr book is wurk of geeneyuss.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: Explo$ive Growth of Non-Dependent Alcoholics

>and Drug Add...

>Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 16:00:00 +0000

>

>

>

>mikena@... wrote:

> >

> > In a message dated 5/27/00 2:26:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>kenr1@...

> > writes:

> >

> > > So when was AA/Oxford so much better?

> >

> > When for the first time, alcoholics and their family had some hope that

>was

> > demonstrated by people who had already stopped drinking.

>

>Mike,

>

>You can't be suggesting that excessive drinkers never stopped

>drinking before. The temperance movement had been around quite a while

>and

>tent-revival-type testimonials already existed. Certainly, I can give

>Oxford's Alcoholic Squad/AA credit for being the first to use Anonymity

>to separate hide the failures of members giving public testimony. But

>if they fared no better (and I've seen studies from the 40s that show

>they did worse than already existing religous groups) how was that

> " better " ?

>Sound more like " misleading " to me.

>

> > I do not like Oxford myself. I'm sure we could get into a great

>discussions

> > about them off the list, since I think it might bore everyone to tears.

> > But...you will get no arguement from me that Buchanan was a demagougue

>and a

> > Nazi apologist. So was Lindbergh and other America Firsters like

>Al

> > . Might as well add Joe Kennedy to that list too. Don't forget the

>Duke

> > and Dutchess of Windsor.

> >

> > The biggest Nazi appeaser and apologist comes to mind just by saying the

>word

> >

> > UMBRELLA!. Everytime, I see an umbrealla I think of Neville Chamberlein.

> >

> > Thank God Britain produces its Winston Churchills to balance out a slug

>like

> > Neville Chamberlain. The sad thing is, he probably meant well.

>

>I don't think _just_ that Oxford was pro-fascist was the entire problem

>with them. Even more important was their " soul surgery " which

>essentially

>turned troubled people into people holding an authoritarian world view,

> " powerless " people who needed to find someone/something " strong " to

>latch

>on to and I'm not referring, at least not directly, to their Higher

>Power.

>

> > The other part of the Oxford group I despised are the absoluts, what

>were

> > they?

> >

> > Absolute Honesty

> > Absolute Purity

> > Absolute Humility

> > Absolute ?

>

>Honesty, Purity, Unselfishness and Love. While the language has been

>changed quite a bit, these can still be found in the AA literature.

>Rather than using the word " Absolute " it is " Progress, not perfection. "

>

> > I forget the others.

> >

> > I do know that most people in AA were wise enough to know that these

> > absolutists would not work with alchoholics, in fact I do not know too

>many

> > people they woulld work on.

>

>From what I can gather from reading the literature from the 30s, it was

>very much like when " street junkies " clash with " respectable

>alcoholics "

>in meetings. The separation between Oxford and AA was not so much a

>separation as the result of " a coffee pot and resentment, " simply new

>Oxford Group meetings. Of course, the switch in literature to the Big

>Book where he told of his being saved by the Oxford Group and the

>formalization of the Oxford Group program in the steps is important.

>

> > If my sobriety were based on these absolute's I never would have made it

>back

> > to my second meeting. Quite honestly, if I had Doctor Bob as a Sponsor

>making

> > me get on my knees and praying with him, rather than Bill who I feel I

>would

> > have related much more with, my odds would have been a lot better with

>Bill.

>

>If you've read much Dick B. (AA historian) he argues that the Akron

>alcoholics

>fared much better than the New York ones. Prior to going to

>Akron and

>picking up more Oxford Group insights like " one alcoholic working with

>another "

>(O.G.'s " like [sinners] working with like " ) no one in New York except

>for

> managed to stay sober.

>

>Ken

>

> > What I always liked about Bill was he knew human nature. I don't think

>any

> > follies of mankind would have phased him.

> >

> > Enough,

> >

> >

> >

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

douglas houston wrote:

>

> Ken --

>

> " Buchanan " ? -- who he? -- (ed.). Could this be an alias of the notorious

> Buchmann Ox-Mov-12step self righteousness virus tendency?

Doug,

I'm sure that is who Mike was referring to.

> Don't agree -- Chamberlain was guilty of no more than being a somewhat

> ingenuous gentleman in his preparedness to take Hitler's word. He moved

> heaven and earth at the eleventh hour flying to Germany for a meeting in Bad

> Godesburg to try to talk the Nazi bastard Chirper-in-Chief out of war -- the

> terrible strain he endured at this time probably contributed much to his

> death soon after the war began.

> It does seem, Ken, that the facts are worth defending and even if you have

> to be called a pedantic git for doing so then I'm for scholarship over

> inflamed opinion any day.

<LOL> Did somebody call me a pedantic git?

Regards,

Ken

> .

>

> ps glad to hear yr book is wurk of geeneyuss.

>