Guest guest Posted January 8, 2001 Report Share Posted January 8, 2001 > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. NO problem with this. Hoever it sticks in the craw a bit when RR supporters complain abt 12-steppers making money, especially as the generic product is " shareware " . P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2001 Report Share Posted January 8, 2001 > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. NO problem with this. Hoever it sticks in the craw a bit when RR supporters complain abt 12-steppers making money, especially as the generic product is " shareware " . P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2001 Report Share Posted January 8, 2001 > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. NO problem with this. Hoever it sticks in the craw a bit when RR supporters complain abt 12-steppers making money, especially as the generic product is " shareware " . P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 i totally agree. why do we feel they should be free and not for profit, because AA supposedly isn't? why does anyone think that to be true? because of how they present themselves how do they present themselves? wilson often said aa wasn't invented, that it was god given, you keep what you got by giving it away, the groups always say they get by on donations only, maybe they do, but bill sure didnt. bill wrote AA material, and by all right should make money off them, which he did in the hundred of thousands of dollars (in 1960's money). enough for him and his wife to live comfortably. he didnt GIVE anything away. AA was a for profit enterprise for bill wilson. wilson made money off of royalties from all aa books sold. he left those to his wife and mistress in his will. AA wasn't any freer than RR is, if you want a BB you have to buy it. sure, sometimes a sponsor will give you a freebie, but someone , somewhere , paid for that book. it was not free. outside of USA, BB are sold for $40! 90% of all treatment personnel (i cant call them professionals) are or have been in AA. so they make money off their beliefs, actually, people pay them money for their beliefs. they aren't giving it away. and they do so in direct competition and expense of other programs. AA is not free. > Someone wrote, " You don't have to be a moron to believe profiteering > is a bad thing. " Shouldn't that have read, " You don't have to be a > rocket scientist to believe profiteering is a bad thing " ? > > Anyway, the theory seems to be that profiteering is a bad thing, and I > can't agree. Everyone in this country either draws a salary from > profits, draws a salary from taxes and income and profits, or lives > from profits. Most independent business people do not make exorbitant > profits. To say a business has multimillions per year in revenues > doesn't mean that the owner makes that much, or that he really makes > very much at all. > > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 i totally agree. why do we feel they should be free and not for profit, because AA supposedly isn't? why does anyone think that to be true? because of how they present themselves how do they present themselves? wilson often said aa wasn't invented, that it was god given, you keep what you got by giving it away, the groups always say they get by on donations only, maybe they do, but bill sure didnt. bill wrote AA material, and by all right should make money off them, which he did in the hundred of thousands of dollars (in 1960's money). enough for him and his wife to live comfortably. he didnt GIVE anything away. AA was a for profit enterprise for bill wilson. wilson made money off of royalties from all aa books sold. he left those to his wife and mistress in his will. AA wasn't any freer than RR is, if you want a BB you have to buy it. sure, sometimes a sponsor will give you a freebie, but someone , somewhere , paid for that book. it was not free. outside of USA, BB are sold for $40! 90% of all treatment personnel (i cant call them professionals) are or have been in AA. so they make money off their beliefs, actually, people pay them money for their beliefs. they aren't giving it away. and they do so in direct competition and expense of other programs. AA is not free. > Someone wrote, " You don't have to be a moron to believe profiteering > is a bad thing. " Shouldn't that have read, " You don't have to be a > rocket scientist to believe profiteering is a bad thing " ? > > Anyway, the theory seems to be that profiteering is a bad thing, and I > can't agree. Everyone in this country either draws a salary from > profits, draws a salary from taxes and income and profits, or lives > from profits. Most independent business people do not make exorbitant > profits. To say a business has multimillions per year in revenues > doesn't mean that the owner makes that much, or that he really makes > very much at all. > > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 i totally agree. why do we feel they should be free and not for profit, because AA supposedly isn't? why does anyone think that to be true? because of how they present themselves how do they present themselves? wilson often said aa wasn't invented, that it was god given, you keep what you got by giving it away, the groups always say they get by on donations only, maybe they do, but bill sure didnt. bill wrote AA material, and by all right should make money off them, which he did in the hundred of thousands of dollars (in 1960's money). enough for him and his wife to live comfortably. he didnt GIVE anything away. AA was a for profit enterprise for bill wilson. wilson made money off of royalties from all aa books sold. he left those to his wife and mistress in his will. AA wasn't any freer than RR is, if you want a BB you have to buy it. sure, sometimes a sponsor will give you a freebie, but someone , somewhere , paid for that book. it was not free. outside of USA, BB are sold for $40! 90% of all treatment personnel (i cant call them professionals) are or have been in AA. so they make money off their beliefs, actually, people pay them money for their beliefs. they aren't giving it away. and they do so in direct competition and expense of other programs. AA is not free. > Someone wrote, " You don't have to be a moron to believe profiteering > is a bad thing. " Shouldn't that have read, " You don't have to be a > rocket scientist to believe profiteering is a bad thing " ? > > Anyway, the theory seems to be that profiteering is a bad thing, and I > can't agree. Everyone in this country either draws a salary from > profits, draws a salary from taxes and income and profits, or lives > from profits. Most independent business people do not make exorbitant > profits. To say a business has multimillions per year in revenues > doesn't mean that the owner makes that much, or that he really makes > very much at all. > > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 Kayleigh S wrote: > Someone wrote, " You don't have to be a moron to believe profiteering > is a bad thing. " Shouldn't that have read, " You don't have to be a > rocket scientist to believe profiteering is a bad thing " ? Perhaps the question of weather or not " profit " is good or bad misses a more pertinent point, is a for profit organization the best way to deliver resources to those with addiction problems? I have not made up my mind on this, seeing both advantages and disadvantages. > Anyway, the theory seems to be that profiteering is a bad thing, and I > can't agree. Everyone in this country either draws a salary from > profits, draws a salary from taxes and income and profits, or lives > from profits. Most independent business people do not make exorbitant > profits. To say a business has multimillions per year in revenues > doesn't mean that the owner makes that much, or that he really makes > very much at all. > > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I would point out that he has now added financial self interest to the myriad of reasons he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not reasonable to speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? Keep in mind that a products viability in the market place is not always determined by it's quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much any American made cars-- need I say more?) I have also seen some attacks on JT's personality passed of as legitimate criticism of RR, resorting to ad hominem argument is not really helpful to good debate. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 Kayleigh S wrote: > Someone wrote, " You don't have to be a moron to believe profiteering > is a bad thing. " Shouldn't that have read, " You don't have to be a > rocket scientist to believe profiteering is a bad thing " ? Perhaps the question of weather or not " profit " is good or bad misses a more pertinent point, is a for profit organization the best way to deliver resources to those with addiction problems? I have not made up my mind on this, seeing both advantages and disadvantages. > Anyway, the theory seems to be that profiteering is a bad thing, and I > can't agree. Everyone in this country either draws a salary from > profits, draws a salary from taxes and income and profits, or lives > from profits. Most independent business people do not make exorbitant > profits. To say a business has multimillions per year in revenues > doesn't mean that the owner makes that much, or that he really makes > very much at all. > > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I would point out that he has now added financial self interest to the myriad of reasons he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not reasonable to speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? Keep in mind that a products viability in the market place is not always determined by it's quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much any American made cars-- need I say more?) I have also seen some attacks on JT's personality passed of as legitimate criticism of RR, resorting to ad hominem argument is not really helpful to good debate. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 Kayleigh S wrote: > Someone wrote, " You don't have to be a moron to believe profiteering > is a bad thing. " Shouldn't that have read, " You don't have to be a > rocket scientist to believe profiteering is a bad thing " ? Perhaps the question of weather or not " profit " is good or bad misses a more pertinent point, is a for profit organization the best way to deliver resources to those with addiction problems? I have not made up my mind on this, seeing both advantages and disadvantages. > Anyway, the theory seems to be that profiteering is a bad thing, and I > can't agree. Everyone in this country either draws a salary from > profits, draws a salary from taxes and income and profits, or lives > from profits. Most independent business people do not make exorbitant > profits. To say a business has multimillions per year in revenues > doesn't mean that the owner makes that much, or that he really makes > very much at all. > > So if Jack Trimpey has a product people will buy, I say more power to > him. And if they don't want to buy it, then he'll have to figure out > another way to make a living. But I don't object to his wanting to > charge for it. While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I would point out that he has now added financial self interest to the myriad of reasons he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not reasonable to speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? Keep in mind that a products viability in the market place is not always determined by it's quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much any American made cars-- need I say more?) I have also seen some attacks on JT's personality passed of as legitimate criticism of RR, resorting to ad hominem argument is not really helpful to good debate. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 > Perhaps the question of weather or not " profit " is good or bad misses a more > pertinent point, is a for profit organization the best way to deliver resources > to those with addiction problems? I have not made up my mind on this, seeing > both advantages and disadvantages. That's a good question. I think another question on many people's minds is, why should I care what happens to drug addicts, alcoholics, drunk drivers, etc.? Yesterday on Talk of the Nation they were discussing Prison Diaries, I think it's a show on PBS or a book or something. Anyway, someone called and with refreshing honesty asked why he should care about someone in prison. And the best reply (in my opinion) was, you should care because it could happen to you someday. > While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I would > point out that he has now added financial self interest to the myriad of reasons > he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not reasonable to > speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? Keep in mind that a > products viability in the market place is not always determined by it's > quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much any American made cars-- need I > say more?) Don't kid yourself, people in the non-profit world make decisions on the base of financial self interest too. I think people who have strong beliefs can't help incorporating those beliefs into their working life, whether for or non profit. In the POLITICAL thread Larry and Dave are discussing this, the relative ethical merits of " free enterprise " versus " grant driven " research. It's a pretty good thread so far. Since most of my work and educational experience is in the field of research, and specifically grant-driven research, I'm well aware of the pressures on non-profit researchers. I like working in a non-profit environment. I like having a bottom line that is not solely financial. But I do NOT like being around people who pretend to be motivated by something other than self-interest. They tend to be self-righteous martyrs, and they bring out my inner self-righteous martyr. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 > Perhaps the question of weather or not " profit " is good or bad misses a more > pertinent point, is a for profit organization the best way to deliver resources > to those with addiction problems? I have not made up my mind on this, seeing > both advantages and disadvantages. That's a good question. I think another question on many people's minds is, why should I care what happens to drug addicts, alcoholics, drunk drivers, etc.? Yesterday on Talk of the Nation they were discussing Prison Diaries, I think it's a show on PBS or a book or something. Anyway, someone called and with refreshing honesty asked why he should care about someone in prison. And the best reply (in my opinion) was, you should care because it could happen to you someday. > While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I would > point out that he has now added financial self interest to the myriad of reasons > he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not reasonable to > speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? Keep in mind that a > products viability in the market place is not always determined by it's > quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much any American made cars-- need I > say more?) Don't kid yourself, people in the non-profit world make decisions on the base of financial self interest too. I think people who have strong beliefs can't help incorporating those beliefs into their working life, whether for or non profit. In the POLITICAL thread Larry and Dave are discussing this, the relative ethical merits of " free enterprise " versus " grant driven " research. It's a pretty good thread so far. Since most of my work and educational experience is in the field of research, and specifically grant-driven research, I'm well aware of the pressures on non-profit researchers. I like working in a non-profit environment. I like having a bottom line that is not solely financial. But I do NOT like being around people who pretend to be motivated by something other than self-interest. They tend to be self-righteous martyrs, and they bring out my inner self-righteous martyr. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 some interesting info on bill & lois wison wills (he gave 10% of his book royalties to his mistress) and AAWS litigation http://www.gso.org/aaws/heirs.htm http://www.gso.org/aaws/jesse.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 Judith Stillwater wrote: > > > While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I > would point out that he has now added >financial self interest to the myriad > of reasons he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not > >reasonable to speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? > Keep in mind that a products >viability in the market place is not always > determined by it's quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much >any > American made cars-- need I say more?) > > Don't kid yourself, people in the non-profit world make decisions on the base > of financial self interest too. I think people who have strong beliefs can't > help incorporating those beliefs into their working life, whether for or non > profit. I do not believe I said that financial self interest as a motivation is limited to those working for profit making ventures. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2001 Report Share Posted January 9, 2001 Judith Stillwater wrote: > > > While I too have no objections to Jack selling AVRT as a product, I > would point out that he has now added >financial self interest to the myriad > of reasons he has for developing and promoting his product. Is it not > >reasonable to speculate that this may affect the end product in some way? > Keep in mind that a products >viability in the market place is not always > determined by it's quality. (VHS, Microsoft Windows, Pretty much >any > American made cars-- need I say more?) > > Don't kid yourself, people in the non-profit world make decisions on the base > of financial self interest too. I think people who have strong beliefs can't > help incorporating those beliefs into their working life, whether for or non > profit. I do not believe I said that financial self interest as a motivation is limited to those working for profit making ventures. Peace, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 In a message dated 1/9/01 2:54:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << why do we feel they should be free and not for profit, because AA supposedly isn't? why does anyone think that to be true? because of how they present themselves >> Okay. Everytime you post a message here (and am I assuming that doing so here is helpful? I find it so) you must pay $5.00 a post. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 In a message dated 1/9/01 3:36:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, Stigmata@... writes: << I have also seen some attacks on JT's personality passed of as legitimate criticism of RR, resorting to ad hominem argument is not really helpful to good debate. >> Someone asked whether or not he was difficult to get along with. Leave us separate out answers to specifics such as this without it fallaciously spilling over into RR. But then RR is Trimpey. Does making a profit affect outcome?. I have to agree with 's above analysis. Just for a moment, take a look at your favorite HMO. Medicine is ruined. There no longer is medicine. Patients and employees alike are totally screwed. No one wants to commit to going to medical school anymore and we will see a shortage of doctors. I know to some there will be sighs of relief and perhaps understandably so in some respects, but the point is you cannot mix medicine and profit in the schema of managed care. I am not saying making a profit under any circumstances is AWFUL. In helping others it helps to have humane systems that manage incomes for those who deliver services. Most self-help movements (AA is NOT an example) that are pure of motive do enormous good. It is only human nature that when one can profit from a specific service offered, corners are going to be cut by some, and the quality of those services will suffer. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 > quality of those services will suffer. P. Piper, dont you know I've held the copyright for ending one's posts with " P. " for quite some time now? P! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 > quality of those services will suffer. P. Piper, dont you know I've held the copyright for ending one's posts with " P. " for quite some time now? P! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 In a message dated 1/11/01 1:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, watts_pete@... writes: << > quality of those services will suffer. P. Piper, dont you know I've held the copyright for ending one's posts with " P. " for quite some time now? P! >> <<gives P. one of those Eastern, if you meet the Buddah on the Road Kill It books, and chants divest thyself of ego ego ego. Is there no nook unturned (that was a mixed metaphor???) when it comes to property rights?? Ok, P. deal. From now on if I abbreviate (oh those extra strokes) it will be Pcub. kkkkk? Flies low and buzzes P. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 In a message dated 1/11/01 1:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, watts_pete@... writes: << > quality of those services will suffer. P. Piper, dont you know I've held the copyright for ending one's posts with " P. " for quite some time now? P! >> <<gives P. one of those Eastern, if you meet the Buddah on the Road Kill It books, and chants divest thyself of ego ego ego. Is there no nook unturned (that was a mixed metaphor???) when it comes to property rights?? Ok, P. deal. From now on if I abbreviate (oh those extra strokes) it will be Pcub. kkkkk? Flies low and buzzes P. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2001 Report Share Posted January 11, 2001 In a message dated 1/11/01 1:07:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, watts_pete@... writes: << > quality of those services will suffer. P. Piper, dont you know I've held the copyright for ending one's posts with " P. " for quite some time now? P! >> <<gives P. one of those Eastern, if you meet the Buddah on the Road Kill It books, and chants divest thyself of ego ego ego. Is there no nook unturned (that was a mixed metaphor???) when it comes to property rights?? Ok, P. deal. From now on if I abbreviate (oh those extra strokes) it will be Pcub. kkkkk? Flies low and buzzes P. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 > kkkkk? Flies low and buzzes P. :) Are you trying to tell us you have a private pilots licence? <stentorian tone> Have you been PROFITEERING again?? LOL. Have a Nice Day... Mack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 > kkkkk? Flies low and buzzes P. :) Are you trying to tell us you have a private pilots licence? <stentorian tone> Have you been PROFITEERING again?? LOL. Have a Nice Day... Mack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2001 Report Share Posted January 12, 2001 > kkkkk? Flies low and buzzes P. :) Are you trying to tell us you have a private pilots licence? <stentorian tone> Have you been PROFITEERING again?? LOL. Have a Nice Day... Mack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.