Re: Peele on FOX-TV re Kishline

[Guest guest]

kewl, thanks Wally.

judith

> Just now found this announcement on www.peele.net, which also contains

some fresh commentary on the incident.

>

> " Stanton is scheduled to appear on " The O'Reilly Factor " to discuss the

Audrey Kishline affair at 8:00 (ET), Thursday, July 6 (repeated at 11:00 PM)

on the Fox News cable channel. "

_______________________________________________________

Say Bye to Slow Internet!

http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html

[Guest guest]

I was interviewd on the O'Reilly Factor and got ambushed. When I stated that AA

success rates are only about 5%, he said he didn't believe me and the next week,

when I couldn't respond to him, he declared some ridiculous number like 65%. (I

don't remember the exact figure he cited)

++++++++++++

>Just now found this announcement on www.peele.net, which also contains some

>fresh commentary on the incident.

>

> " Stanton is scheduled to appear on " The O'Reilly Factor " to discuss the

>Audrey Kishline affair at 8:00 (ET), Thursday, July 6 (repeated at 11:00 PM)

>on the Fox News cable channel. "

>

>-- wally

>

>

>

>

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

>Attach an entire folder of files to one email message?

>Yes! With ezAttach from FilePool.com

>http://click./1/6079/2/_/4324/_/962816475/

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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wally,

He probably got it from the forword to the second edition bb which claims a

75% success rate for those who " really tried " (50% right from the get-go and 25%

after some relapses) and an eventual return of some two thirds of those who at

first had decided that they didn't want the

program. (Alcoholics Anonymous, p. xx, 2nd ed., 1955, reprinted in 3rd ed.)

Without knowing what percentage " really tried " one can nevertheless deduce upper

and lower bounds: somewhere between 67% and 91%.

Who knows, maybe in 1955 this was true. (And of course maybe it was pure

hype.) If true, what happened? Have times changed or has aa changed?

I have observed aa from the inside since 1978 (sober since '82), and my

feeling is that the preponderance of the aa program, the " unwritten " portion--

i.e. all the folklore which floats about in meetings, a large part of which

probably originates in treatment facilities--has most

definitely evolved (devolved?) over the years. I feel that I got sober " in

spite of aa " , and was able to go to aa for years by " taking what I could use and

ignoring the rest " , but the " higher power " ridiculosities and sponsorship mania

(the word sponsor does not occur in the first 164

pages of the big book) that I hear these days would probably make it impossible

for me to get sober today if I had to do it again. As for times having changed,

well they surely have, but probably for the worse; to hope that humankind has

become less superstitious would be overly

optimistic. The vast majority still insist upon being told what to believe. And

the anti-science bias has reached astounding proportions, unless you like to

count psychobabble as science.

rwarner1@... wrote:

> I was interviewd on the O'Reilly Factor and got ambushed. When I stated that

AA success rates are only about 5%, he said he didn't believe me and the next

week, when I couldn't respond to him, he declared some ridiculous number like

65%. (I don't remember the exact figure he cited)

> ++++++++++++

>

> >Just now found this announcement on www.peele.net, which also contains some

> >fresh commentary on the incident.

> >

> > " Stanton is scheduled to appear on " The O'Reilly Factor " to discuss the

> >Audrey Kishline affair at 8:00 (ET), Thursday, July 6 (repeated at 11:00 PM)

> >on the Fox News cable channel. "

> >

> >-- wally

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >Attach an entire folder of files to one email message?

> >Yes! With ezAttach from FilePool.com

> >http://click./1/6079/2/_/4324/_/962816475/

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

> >

> >

> >

>

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

> Where do sports heroes like Jeter, Mia Hamm,

> Vince and Peyton Manning hang out? Where else?

> Click now and find ‘em all here!

> http://click./1/6211/2/_/4324/_/962824110/

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

[Guest guest]

Stanton IS cooler than your average bear -- left me a message in the sadly

neglected Gallery Bouglaf guestbook. Being cool is kewl, or as the Welsh

have it " cwl " . Hey baby, do the hand jive,

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: Peele on FOX-TV re Kishline

>Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 11:12:53 -0700 (PDT)

>

>kewl, thanks Wally.

>

>judith

>

>

>

> > Just now found this announcement on www.peele.net, which also contains

>some fresh commentary on the incident.

> >

> > " Stanton is scheduled to appear on " The O'Reilly Factor " to discuss the

>Audrey Kishline affair at 8:00 (ET), Thursday, July 6 (repeated at 11:00

>PM)

>on the Fox News cable channel. "

>

>

>

>

>

>_______________________________________________________

>Say Bye to Slow Internet!

>http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html

>

________________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

I think AA has changed. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard

people say (who were around pre-treatment-hysteria) that treatment has ruined

AA.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

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

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

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

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

<snip>

>Have times changed or has aa changed?

> I have observed aa from the inside since 1978 (sober since '82), and my

feeling is that the preponderance of the aa program, the " unwritten " portion--

i.e. all the folklore which floats about in meetings, a large part of which

probably originates in treatment facilities--has most

>definitely evolved (devolved?) over the years. I feel that I got sober " in

spite of aa " , and was able to go to aa for years by " taking what I could use and

ignoring the rest " , but the " higher power " ridiculosities and sponsorship mania

(the word sponsor does not occur in the first 164

>pages of the big book) that I hear these days would probably make it impossible

for me to get sober today if I had to do it again. As for times having changed,

well they surely have, but probably for the worse; to hope that humankind has

become less superstitious would be overly

>optimistic. The vast majority still insist upon being told what to believe.

And the anti-science bias has reached astounding proportions, unless you like to

count psychobabble as science.

>

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

Before you buy.

[Guest guest]

Actually that was Bob Warner who had the imaginary 65% number thrown at him

by O'Reilly, not me. Bob's 5% figure originates in AA's 'Triennial Survey'

of 1987 as a 1-year 'retention rate' -- i.e. if 100 people show up at their

first AA meeting, 5 will still be showing up a year later.

My recollection is that *somewhere* in the AA literature (perhaps in 'AA

Comes of Age') the source of the 50%/75% is revealed to be Bill 's

memory of what became of the individuals whose stories were published in the

1st edition of the Big Book.

When you get right down to it, talk of a success rate for people who 'really

try' AA is meaningless. Nobody who stays drunk is likely to stick around

long enough to 'really try', and you can always class the failures as people

who didn't try hard enough.

Claims like the one that 2/3 of the people who at first decide they don't

want the program eventually come back are easily refuted by the observation

that something like 2,000,000 people go through 'treatment' every year in

the USA, most of them being encouraged to go to AA, and yet AA's USA

membership seems to be levelling off at just over 1,000,000.

Indeed maybe things were different in 1955. AA was mostly a voluntary

program then, and kind of an 'outsider' thing as well, whereas now it is

basically just another agency of Big Brother.

I think that if I were ever going to go on TV to talk about AA I would want

to devote some serious time to putting facts, figures, and study references

on 3X5 cards and memorizing them.

--wally

Re: Peele on FOX-TV re Kishline

>Wally,

> He probably got it from the forword to the second edition bb which

claims a 75% success rate for those who " really tried " (50% right from the

get-go and 25% after some relapses) and an eventual return of some two

thirds of those who at first had decided that they didn't want the

>program. (Alcoholics Anonymous, p. xx, 2nd ed., 1955, reprinted in 3rd

ed.) Without knowing what percentage " really tried " one can nevertheless

deduce upper and lower bounds: somewhere between 67% and 91%.

> Who knows, maybe in 1955 this was true. (And of course maybe it was pure

hype.) If true, what happened? Have times changed or has aa changed?

> I have observed aa from the inside since 1978 (sober since '82), and my

feeling is that the preponderance of the aa program, the " unwritten "

portion-- i.e. all the folklore which floats about in meetings, a large part

of which probably originates in treatment facilities--has most

>definitely evolved (devolved?) over the years. I feel that I got sober " in

spite of aa " , and was able to go to aa for years by " taking what I could use

and ignoring the rest " , but the " higher power " ridiculosities and

sponsorship mania (the word sponsor does not occur in the first 164

>pages of the big book) that I hear these days would probably make it

impossible for me to get sober today if I had to do it again. As for times

having changed, well they surely have, but probably for the worse; to hope

that humankind has become less superstitious would be overly

>optimistic. The vast majority still insist upon being told what to

believe. And the anti-science bias has reached astounding proportions,

unless you like to count psychobabble as science.

>

>rwarner1@... wrote:

>

>> I was interviewd on the O'Reilly Factor and got ambushed. When I stated

that AA success rates are only about 5%, he said he didn't believe me and

the next week, when I couldn't respond to him, he declared some ridiculous

number like 65%. (I don't remember the exact figure he cited)

>> ++++++++++++

>>

>> >Just now found this announcement on www.peele.net, which also contains

some

>> >fresh commentary on the incident.

>> >

>> > " Stanton is scheduled to appear on " The O'Reilly Factor " to discuss the

>> >Audrey Kishline affair at 8:00 (ET), Thursday, July 6 (repeated at 11:00

PM)

>> >on the Fox News cable channel. "

>> >

>> >-- wally

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

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

>> >Attach an entire folder of files to one email message?

>> >Yes! With ezAttach from FilePool.com

>> >http://click./1/6079/2/_/4324/_/962816475/

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

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>

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

>> Where do sports heroes like Jeter, Mia Hamm,

>> Vince and Peyton Manning hang out? Where else?

>> Click now and find ‘em all here!

>> http://click./1/6211/2/_/4324/_/962824110/

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

>

>

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

>Where do sports heroes like Jeter, Mia Hamm,

>Vince and Peyton Manning hang out? Where else?

>Click now and find ‘em all here!

>http://click./1/6211/2/_/4324/_/962838403/

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

I've changed my opinion on this issue just recently. It's inline with yours

now. I'm sad to say it took me so long to come to that conclusion though.

Ironically it was an AA apologist that convinced me. Took a whole lot of

convincing to I'm a little embarrassed about that.

Re: Peele on FOX-TV re Kishline

I think AA has changed. I can't tell you the number of times I have heard

people say (who were around pre-treatment-hysteria) that treatment has

ruined AA.

---

Kayleigh

Zz

zZ

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

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

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

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

[Guest guest]

Hi " wm " ,

The " really tried " clause makes all of 's claims meaningless,

even assuming his undoubtedly biased (he was human, wasnt he?)

assesment of the figures was right. In modern times, ppl consier

anyone who fails to not have " really tried " and they effectively

claim

100%.

Back to the 5 % figure, I emphasise again that this is the AA

annual *retention* fugure, not the abstinence figure, and as some

ares

still drinking at this point, the actual abstinence figure will be

even lower. It is perfectly possible that more ppl recover who have

left than stay in, and in the case of moderate drinking, this is

pretty well certain to be the case. Its by no means unlikely that the

largest proportion of successes are those who leave and moderate.

I saw somethng recently suggesting that 90% of ppl dont in fact go

back after their very first meeting and are very likely missed from

any surveys, so of total enquirers, even as a retention figure 5%

could be a considerable exagerration.

P.

>

> > I was interviewd on the O'Reilly Factor and got ambushed. When I

stated that AA success rates are only about 5%, he said he didn't

believe me and the next week, when I couldn't respond to him, he

declared some ridiculous number like 65%. (I don't remember the exact

figure he cited)

> > ++++++++++++

> >

> > >Just now found this announcement on www.peele.net, which also

contains some

> > >fresh commentary on the incident.

> > >

> > > " Stanton is scheduled to appear on " The O'Reilly Factor " to

discuss the

> > >Audrey Kishline affair at 8:00 (ET), Thursday, July 6 (repeated

at 11:00 PM)

> > >on the Fox News cable channel. "

> > >

> > >-- wally

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

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

---

> > >Attach an entire folder of files to one email message?

> > >Yes! With ezAttach from FilePool.com

> > >http://click./1/6079/2/_/4324/_/962816475/

> >

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

---

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> > Where do sports heroes like Jeter, Mia Hamm,

> > Vince and Peyton Manning hang out? Where else?

> > Click now and find `em all here!

> > http://click./1/6211/2/_/4324/_/962824110/

> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--