Guest guest Posted November 21, 2000 Report Share Posted November 21, 2000 i haven't been reading this list s regularly as i have in past, so i must have missed the increase in steppism here that you write of. i generally think the intro is well written and fine as is. i think anyway you write it, steppers will come in as they feel the need, regardless. if its strongly negative they will come to fight, if its not strong enough they will come in by mistake thinking its another step group, and of course there will be a few people who are not sure of what they believe in AA and are testing the waters and their critical thinking in here. it took me over a year before i had cleared the 12-step dogma from my mind, and i was in AA only for about a year. even when i was in AA, i was apologizing for some of their behavior even as i was being abused. if we are going to be a place fro people to be critical thinking for first time, we should expect that their will be a variety of experience that people had in AA which they will bring in here, and they may or may not have had all of the same negative types of experience as i ,but perhaps others i haven't. i think part of critical thinking is testing to see if what you have been taught holds water and with stands scrutiny. if someone comes in here and denies such and such is true , or harmful, because thats what they have been taught to think, they will certainly hear a counter point of view from people on this list which will challenge their thinking to break out of the box. if its a troll, well , thats another story. if you want to amend the intro, i suggest: " The focus of discussion is on sharing experience with and information on the step groups and the harm they cause " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 I suppose it would be out of the question to just start canceling accounts huh? emmm.. How about switching to moderating the list? hehe I'll volunteer to do the honors. Of course you should be advised there will probably be three or four people you wouldn't hear from again ;0} Heck most people you wouldn't even need to bother moderating at all just let there stuff go right on through without even checking. > >Ken Ragge > >P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe >something added to the welcome message or description that would better >draw the lines? How about " AA-bonics not spoken here " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Hi I've had a long day, but I read Ken's mail before I left my house this morning and I have given it some thoughts in short periods during my day. I cant say I've reached a conclusion on what to mean about it, but there has been several thoughts through the day. Therefore, all I can contribute with at this moment are some stray remarks. First of all, when the list owner is writing ATTENTION EVERYONE in capital letters, I think it ought to be taken seriously. Secondly, when I read the intro carefully, I don't think there is much discrepancy with the intro and the kind of mails that's on the list. I think the difference between now and earlier is, that some of us have been in heated arguments earlier about pro AA statements, but it's a nofunner to engage in a copy of a discussion you already have won twice or thrice. The lists 'natural' resistance to 12 step thinking is lowered because some of the list veterans think it's boring. It's not a fair game to argue against defenders of powerlessness, actually it's no game at all. This leads, with the force of logic, to my third point. I think the intro should be changed unless someone thinks it's a good deed to help people with their dependency of XA. An alternative could be to create another list, which goes further than help people recover from recovery. At least this have been my plan. I'm still very happy about of a lot of the information and remarks from persons on the list, but I've lost my heart in it. My focus of interest have changed, but a lot of nostalgic memories keep me hanging on. Sporadically. What really struck me in Ken's mail was this: " As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to freedom in the Western world today. " I would really like to explore this statement. Get into heated arguments about it, discuss it in details and let the waters divide. I'm not sure I agree or not, but I would like to find out. But as I've expressed before on the subject of " Shame " . The basis of democracy is the individual, and the basis of fascism is the group. The " Citizen " is an endangered species, and the " Group " is growing. Therefore I could only thrive in a group of individuals. Best Bjørn Ken wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > acceptance in the meetings. > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > used) and to be done away with. > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > even more into group indoctrination. > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > Ken Ragge > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > draw the lines? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 ----- Original Message ----- > Hello everyone, > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. I see a greater problem, namely increasing demands for complete conformity of opinion about the groups. > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > acceptance in the meetings. > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > used) and to be done away with. It would be wonderful indeed if we lived in a world where the Step groups were the biggest threat to our freedom. I don't think we do. We live in a world where, any day now, some random dictator or crank could appear on our TV screens saying " I hold in my hand a vial containing a newly engineered virus which, if I release it, will kill 95% of the world's human population. Give me Europe, or most of you will die... " One could cite, as threats to liberty, any number of other technological developments and social trends (War on Drugs, religious fundamentalism, corporate hegemony...) One could go on and on and on. In an ocean of threats, AA is one little bubble on a small wave. Of course I would never deny that AA and 12-step 'treatment' is often a complete disaster for an individual caught up in it. > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > even more into group indoctrination. > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. I must have missed something. I've seen posts from people who still go to meetings to keep up social contacts and/or because they find the support and fellowship comforting somehow. But who is claiming that the Steps themselves are effective? --wally > > Ken Ragge > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > draw the lines? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 The type of dialogue that is concerning people here recently is OK in my mind. The list gave the AA apologists a little more leeway than usual; then the list called them on it; and here we are. I think it's appropriate that as this list becomes more established and respected that it not be too concerned about periods of more tolerance for steppers to dig themsleves in before exposing them and allowing them to wise up or shut up. There are various scenarios about how a person finding this list will evolve and end up leaving or sticking around with a somewhat stable sympathetic position. I think the key is that when recovery group attendees join this list they are in an unstable condition. They see over time how this list, even though it can be buffeted around a little, has developed a bedrock foundation of high integrity. When we allow steppers leeway before we deal them out, we are providing example for others lurking and trying to figure out how to deal out steppers in their lives. This is useful dialogue, even though it is just a part of the importance of this list. Dave Trippel ATTENTION EVERYONE > Hello everyone, > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > acceptance in the meetings. > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > used) and to be done away with. > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > even more into group indoctrination. > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > Ken Ragge > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > draw the lines? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Re: ATTENTION EVERYONE > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > I see a greater problem, namely increasing demands for complete conformity > of opinion about the groups. > I don't see this as about conformity of opinion, I see this is about INTEGRITY OF POSITION based on facts about step groups that is fundamental here. People that don't believe attending 12 step meetings perpetuates the monstrous AA/Treatment cartel can easily be defined as steppers. Someone picketing or protesting in front of an AA meetingplace on publicly owned property, for example, would be a different story. I can easily dream of a day that would occur and would not call those meeting frequenters steppers. > > > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > > acceptance in the meetings. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > > used) and to be done away with. > > It would be wonderful indeed if we lived in a world where the Step groups > were the biggest threat to our freedom. I don't think we do. We live in a > world where, any day now, some random dictator or crank could appear on our > TV screens saying " I hold in my hand a vial containing a newly engineered > virus which, if I release it, will kill 95% of the world's human population. > Give me Europe, or most of you will die... " One could cite, as threats to > liberty, any number of other technological developments and social trends > (War on Drugs, religious fundamentalism, corporate hegemony...) One could go > on and on and on. In an ocean of threats, AA is one little bubble on a small > wave. > > Of course I would never deny that AA and 12-step 'treatment' is often a > complete disaster for an individual caught up in it. > AA may be a necessary leg of the War on Drugs, AA may be to religious fundamentalism as AIDS is to the flu, AA may be in bed with gaint corporations, as well as Govt. and Higher Education. AA is not a bubble, it is repeated tsunamis that can't be seen until they hit shore again and again and again, killing, injuring, destroying people's lives with BLIND CARELESSNESS - THE GROUP COMES FIRST! > > > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > > even more into group indoctrination. > > > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > I must have missed something. I've seen posts from people who still go to > meetings to keep up social contacts and/or because they find the support and > fellowship comforting somehow. But who is claiming that the Steps themselves > are effective? > I repeat, people that don't believe attending 12 step meetings perpetuates the monstrous AA/Treatment cartel can easily be defined as steppers. Dave Trippel > --wally > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > > draw the lines? > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Re: ATTENTION EVERYONE > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > I see a greater problem, namely increasing demands for complete conformity > of opinion about the groups. > I don't see this as about conformity of opinion, I see this is about INTEGRITY OF POSITION based on facts about step groups that is fundamental here. People that don't believe attending 12 step meetings perpetuates the monstrous AA/Treatment cartel can easily be defined as steppers. Someone picketing or protesting in front of an AA meetingplace on publicly owned property, for example, would be a different story. I can easily dream of a day that would occur and would not call those meeting frequenters steppers. > > > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > > acceptance in the meetings. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > > used) and to be done away with. > > It would be wonderful indeed if we lived in a world where the Step groups > were the biggest threat to our freedom. I don't think we do. We live in a > world where, any day now, some random dictator or crank could appear on our > TV screens saying " I hold in my hand a vial containing a newly engineered > virus which, if I release it, will kill 95% of the world's human population. > Give me Europe, or most of you will die... " One could cite, as threats to > liberty, any number of other technological developments and social trends > (War on Drugs, religious fundamentalism, corporate hegemony...) One could go > on and on and on. In an ocean of threats, AA is one little bubble on a small > wave. > > Of course I would never deny that AA and 12-step 'treatment' is often a > complete disaster for an individual caught up in it. > AA may be a necessary leg of the War on Drugs, AA may be to religious fundamentalism as AIDS is to the flu, AA may be in bed with gaint corporations, as well as Govt. and Higher Education. AA is not a bubble, it is repeated tsunamis that can't be seen until they hit shore again and again and again, killing, injuring, destroying people's lives with BLIND CARELESSNESS - THE GROUP COMES FIRST! > > > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > > even more into group indoctrination. > > > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > I must have missed something. I've seen posts from people who still go to > meetings to keep up social contacts and/or because they find the support and > fellowship comforting somehow. But who is claiming that the Steps themselves > are effective? > I repeat, people that don't believe attending 12 step meetings perpetuates the monstrous AA/Treatment cartel can easily be defined as steppers. Dave Trippel > --wally > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > > draw the lines? > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Bjørn Herring wrote: > Hi > > I've had a long day, but I read Ken's mail before I left my house this > > morning and I have given it some thoughts in short periods during my > day. > > I cant say I've reached a conclusion on what to mean about it, but > there has > been several thoughts through the day. Therefore, all I can contribute > with > at this moment are some stray remarks. > > First of all, when the list owner is writing ATTENTION EVERYONE in > capital > letters, I think it ought to be taken seriously. > > Secondly, when I read the intro carefully, I don't think there is much > > discrepancy with the intro and the kind of mails that's on the list. > I think the difference between now and earlier is, that some of us > have been > in heated arguments earlier about pro AA statements, but it's a > nofunner to > engage in a copy of a discussion you already have won twice or thrice. > > The lists 'natural' resistance to 12 step thinking is lowered because > some > of the list veterans think it's boring. It's not a fair game to argue > against defenders of powerlessness, actually it's no game at all. > Bjørn, I think you've hit the nail right on the head for me with this. It is the general exhaustion and boredom of arguing the same, simple arguments over and over and over again. I tired of it years ago. Since the inception of the list, I've been telling myself that it isn't good for me to post because as list manager . . . There may be some truth in that but the boredom, the repetition of no-brainer arguments where there is no challenge whatsoever was also a big part of it. Now that " everyone else " is getting bored with it too, it is leaving an opening for, to use " Voyager " terminology, Borg nanoprobes. > > This leads, with the force of logic, to my third point. I think the > intro > should be changed unless someone thinks it's a good deed to help > people with > their dependency of XA. > An alternative could be to create another list, which goes further > than help > people recover from recovery. At least this have been my plan. > You know you can count on me as your first subscriber. There should be _a lot_ of different lists for discussion from different perspectives. And you idea sounds outstanding to me. > > I'm still very happy about of a lot of the information and remarks > from > persons on the list, but I've lost my heart in it. > > My focus of interest have changed, but a lot of nostalgic memories > keep me > hanging on. Sporadically. > > What really struck me in Ken's mail was this: > > " As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > freedom in the Western world today. " > > I would really like to explore this statement. Get into heated > arguments > about it, discuss it in details and let the waters divide. I'm not > sure I > agree or not, but I would like to find out. > I expect to respond to Wally's post tonight. If so, please feel free to jump right in on either side. <G> > > But as I've expressed before on the subject of " Shame " . The basis of > democracy is the individual, and the basis of fascism is the group. > The > " Citizen " is an endangered species, and the " Group " is growing. > > Therefore I could only thrive in a group of individuals. > There's treatment for that in America nowadays. Ken > > Best > > Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 wally wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > I see a greater problem, namely increasing demands for complete conformity > of opinion about the groups. > Wally, I don't think it is an issue of conformity. In a private e-mail on this subject I made up a little parody of what I see happening: New list member: " I'm questioning whether AA is perfect or not but the problem with you because you won't keep it simple and allow your disease to speak. You must admit that it really works if you work it. " Old list member: " #$(* & %(#* & stepper! " New list member: " Well, if you have to be full of hate to be here . . . " > > > > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > > acceptance in the meetings. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > > used) and to be done away with. > > It would be wonderful indeed if we lived in a world where the Step groups > were the biggest threat to our freedom. I don't think we do. We live in a > world where, any day now, some random dictator or crank could appear on our > TV screens saying " I hold in my hand a vial containing a newly engineered > virus which, if I release it, will kill 95% of the world's human population. > Give me Europe, or most of you will die... " One could cite, as threats to > liberty, any number of other technological developments and social trends > (War on Drugs, religious fundamentalism, corporate hegemony...) One could go > on and on and on. In an ocean of threats, AA is one little bubble on a small > wave. So what is your argument here, that one shouldn't categorically reject a theology that works hand-in-hand with the state to make people _herd animals_ (read fascists) because there are bad people out there who could potentially do some terrible things? Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? When we are talking about the step groups/state, we are talking about a government enforcing not just behavior, but what is acceptable thought and emotion. > > Of course I would never deny that AA and 12-step 'treatment' is often a > complete disaster for an individual caught up in it. And when we are talking about " an individual caught up in it " we are talking about one to two million " an individual " 's who are directly coerced by the state, not even those who become caught up in it through being lied to and manipulated. If someone (times millions) comes to believe the pre-Reformation " Of myself I am nothing . . . " in a democratic society, what becomes of it? " Of myself I am nothing . . . " could just as well be completed with " without the herd. " > > > > > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > > even more into group indoctrination. > > > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > I must have missed something. I've seen posts from people who still go to > meetings to keep up social contacts and/or because they find the support and > fellowship comforting somehow. But who is claiming that the Steps themselves > are effective? While I have difficulty understanding how support has come to mean being around people who use thought reform techniques to convince others that they are diseased and their thoughts and feelings are disease symptoms and without constant war against oneself a person is doomed. However, I will grant you that someone with a foot outside of AA is often best off keeping the other foot in for a while. This is not until they find outside " support, " but simply find friends and a bit of a social life. When AA has convinced someone to terminate important non-grouper friendships and sometimes even separated the new convert from a family that won't become groupers, they _need_ time to build on the outside before " going out in the 'cold' " . My reference to the Steps above should have been step ideology. I think my concern can be summed up with the parody in my response to Bjørn's post. Ken Ragge > > > --wally > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > > draw the lines? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2000 Report Share Posted November 22, 2000 Hi Dave, I tend to agree with your sentiments expressed below. I remember joining this list and many people didn't agree with anything I said. Some people thought I should be thrown off the list because I was too much pro-AA (and too obnoxious). Many people put words in my mouth and assumed there were certain thoughts in my head. And the one guy who I thought was most accomodating, besides , to this 12-s-f newbie was the same guy who now says it is too much work and too much of an annoyance to put up with these constant, boring arguments with steppers about why XA is bad. I am not as well read or as well educated about the workings of the human mind as many here, but I came to a conclusion a while back that people gain knowledge in one of two ways... they discover something (we had an argument recently in the Einstein thread about the nature of discovery) or they are taught something (someone else discovers, then shares). In this world, being taught is much more common (and easier) than discovering. Perhaps I have discovered some things based on the knowledge that others have shared with me and certainly there are many duplicate discoveries, but I would not have made those discoveries without that knowledge that I acquired from people here, and tis very likely I would not have discovered what those people taught me on my own. I think the one guy who accomodated me (besides ) and did not kick me off his list may have noticed I was an asshole (aren't most steppers though?) but he also had the wisdom to realize that I was seeking the knowledge he (and others here) already have. And he let me stay, and he (and many others) continued to share what they know, and I picked it up. Now, to put an end to that sharing of knowledge with people who are obviously seeking it would be a bad move. To tell people this is a place to recover from XA, but you can't come here unless you are recovered from XA seems pretty ludicrous to me. The arguments may become boring after years of hearing them, it may very well be plowed ground to many here. But if no one is willing to argue, to share the knowledge they have found and spread that knowledge to those who search for it, the knowledge becomes useless and AA/steppism will prevail. That's not what we want. Maybe I misread something, but this is something we need to keep on fighting about (we've only just begun), and not give up on, and not shun others who seek out the truth about the steps, no matter how deluded they happen to be when they are first subscribed to this list. I do believe it is easier to impart the knowledge we share with steppers who subscribe to this list of their own accord than to impart this knowledge to full blown steppers who don't question AA. Ignoring steppers on this list, if one can, seems like an OK thing to do, as they can just keep reading all the material that gets presented here, and then no argument is needed, they can figure it out for themselves. In Usenet, the common solution for ridding a group of a troll is to ignore him. If the stepper is a troll, he will not have any fun if his steppism goes unanswered. If he is really trying to learn the truth and discard the XA bullshit, the material presented here will become harder and harder for him to refute - sooner or later he will have an intellectual re-awakening. ATTENTION EVERYONE > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > > acceptance in the meetings. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > > used) and to be done away with. > > > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > > even more into group indoctrination. > > > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > > draw the lines? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 > How about " AA-bonics not spoken here " ? " AA-bonics " wins my best new word prize for y2k. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 Re: ATTENTION EVERYONE > wally wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > This list has a serious problem that is only getting worse and not > > > better. It seems we have a growing number of grouper apologists and > > > " internal reformers " who, it seems, operating at least half-way on their > > > grouper indoctrination, are defending the groups. > > > > I see a greater problem, namely increasing demands for complete conformity > > of opinion about the groups. > > > > Wally, > > I don't think it is an issue of conformity. In a private e-mail on this subject > I made up a little parody of what I see happening: > > New list member: " I'm questioning whether AA is perfect or not but the > problem with you because you won't keep it simple and allow your > disease to speak. You must admit that it really works if you work it. " > > Old list member: " #$(* & %(#* & stepper! " > > New list member: " Well, if you have to be full of hate to be here . . . " > I find it very discouraging when something like this happens, and New List Member turns out to have been an author whose 12-step-debunking book was featured as " Book of the Month " on Stanton Peele's web site. > > > > > > > > Certainly, fifteen years ago when I was questioning the groups, I would > > > have gotten a _very_ defensive response toward the groups if I ever had > > > heard any criticism. That is understandable. Moreover, it is perfectly > > > understandable that some will bring many of their AA beliefs (like that > > > AA actually helps people stay sober, that there is " in recovery " vs. > > > " not in recovery " instead of just quitting or moderating drinking, that > > > there is a disease at work, that a group of some sort is necessary) and, > > > moreover, the knee-jerk praise for AA that most of us learned to win > > > acceptance in the meetings. > > > > > > As far as I'm concerned, the Step groups are the biggest threat to > > > freedom in the Western world today. Between coercion and members hiding > > > behind " Anonymity, " millions are being pushed and mislead into adopting > > > a Dark Ages belief system where a person is " Powerless, " and all > > > elements of self not aligned with " something bigger than oneself " are > > > the dark forces of evil (of course, it is " disease " language that is > > > used) and to be done away with. > > > > It would be wonderful indeed if we lived in a world where the Step groups > > were the biggest threat to our freedom. I don't think we do. We live in a > > world where, any day now, some random dictator or crank could appear on our > > TV screens saying " I hold in my hand a vial containing a newly engineered > > virus which, if I release it, will kill 95% of the world's human population. > > Give me Europe, or most of you will die... " One could cite, as threats to > > liberty, any number of other technological developments and social trends > > (War on Drugs, religious fundamentalism, corporate hegemony...) One could go > > on and on and on. In an ocean of threats, AA is one little bubble on a small > > wave. > > So what is your argument here, that one shouldn't categorically reject a > theology that works hand-in-hand with the state to make people _herd animals_ > (read fascists) because there are bad people out there who could potentially do > some terrible things? No, my argument is that if you try to tell people that the sky is falling they won't pay attention. >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? One example: The United States of America. -- wally >When we > are talking about the step groups/state, we are talking about a government > enforcing not just behavior, but what is acceptable thought and emotion. > > > > > Of course I would never deny that AA and 12-step 'treatment' is often a > > complete disaster for an individual caught up in it. > > And when we are talking about " an individual caught up in it " we are talking > about one to two million " an individual " 's who are directly coerced by the > state, not even those who become caught up in it through being lied to and > manipulated. > > If someone (times millions) comes to believe the pre-Reformation " Of myself I am > nothing . . . " in a democratic society, what becomes of it? > > " Of myself I am nothing . . . " could just as well be completed with " without the > herd. " > > > > > > > > > > > All this talk of " AA haters " turns my stomach. I'll tell you what I do > > > hate. I hate convincing people they are " Powerless " and can't manage > > > their own lives but must turn them over. I hate convincing people their > > > their own normal and natural emotional responses to abnormal situations > > > are disease symptoms. I hate intergroups going to courts and prisons to > > > get compulsory AA while apologists decry their Powerlessness in stopping > > > coercion. I hate the forming of front groups like NCADD, ASAM and the > > > childrens lobbying group in order to further change our system to coerce > > > even more into group indoctrination. > > > > > > One question for the AA apologists here. Show me _one_ piece of > > > scientific evidence that the 12-Steps are an effective treatment for > > > _anything_ except the disease of not being a Buchmanite. > > > > I must have missed something. I've seen posts from people who still go to > > meetings to keep up social contacts and/or because they find the support and > > fellowship comforting somehow. But who is claiming that the Steps themselves > > are effective? > > While I have difficulty understanding how support has come to mean being around > people who use thought reform techniques to convince others that they are > diseased and their thoughts and feelings are disease symptoms and without > constant war against oneself a person is doomed. > > However, I will grant you that someone with a foot outside of AA is often best > off keeping the other foot in for a while. This is not until they find outside > " support, " but simply find friends and a bit of a social life. When AA has > convinced someone to terminate important non-grouper friendships and sometimes > even separated the new convert from a family that won't become groupers, they > _need_ time to build on the outside before " going out in the 'cold' " . > > My reference to the Steps above should have been step ideology. > > I think my concern can be summed up with the parody in my response to Bjørn's > post. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > --wally > > > > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > P.S. Kind of got lost, but any suggestions for the list, maybe > > > something added to the welcome message or description that would better > > > draw the lines? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? > > One example: The United States of America. On the contrary, steppism is the quintessentail American Way, you can have any higher power you like so long as it's God, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition as we ethnically cleanse these Injuns what got here first! It almost took us into Armageddon against the " dirty, Godless " (from a 50s propoganda film) Communists too. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 wally wrote: > > I find it very discouraging when something like this happens, and New List > Member turns out to have been an author whose 12-step-debunking book was > featured as " Book of the Month " on Stanton Peele's web site. > Wally, You've got me _really_ curious. Who was this? Ken wrote: So what is your argument here, that one shouldn't categorically reject a theology that works hand-in-hand with the state to make people _herd animals_ (read fascists) because there are bad people out there who could potentially do some terrible things? wally wrote: No, my argument is that if you try to tell people that the sky is falling they won't pay attention. Certainly, there is a point of tactful diplomacy. However, " the ends justify the means " and " adapting the truth to the hearers' need' make me feel a bit queasy. Ken wrote: > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? > > One example: The United States of America. > Now this is an excellent point for debate. However, I'm not sure which side I would take or if I'd take both. Certainly, I see us as a warrior culture and it is fundamental to a warrior culture to have the warriors willing to turn themselves over to " something bigger than themselves. " Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 " Joe B. " wrote: > Thursday, November 23, 2000, 6:33:28 AM, you wrote: > > > And he let me > > stay, and he (and many others) continued to share what they know, and I > > picked it up. Now, to put an end to that sharing of knowledge with people > > who are obviously seeking it would be a bad move. To tell people this is a > > place to recover from XA, but you can't come here unless you are recovered > > from XA seems pretty ludicrous to me. > > The arguments may become boring after years of hearing them, it may very > > well be plowed ground to many here. But if no one is willing to argue, to > > share the knowledge they have found and spread that knowledge to those who > > search for it, the knowledge becomes useless and AA/steppism will prevail. > > <snipped> > > People can be lazy and expect things to be laid out for them. I would > think many people subscribe to this list without having read up > anything on the subject first and in that situation they feel list > members have some obligation to prove their point. This is what leads > to the exhausting prospect of explaining things from scratch over and > over. I think maybe that is the real problem. > > Here's an idea. On some lists (on other topics altogether) there is a > strong suggestion to " go and read the FAQ " before asking questions on > the list that have been asked and answered many times already. There > is a recognition that those who have the answers will not be prepared > to endlessly restate them to every new subscriber. The FAQ file would > be available as a page on a web site- in some cases where need be it > can be quite a long file. I have seen this done for example with > photographic lists where there are endless questions about what lens > type mounts on what body type and in what year was the mount changed > and what adaptors are available etc etc etc. It can be deeply boring > to answer those kind of questions more than two or three times, yet > people will continue to need this information, over and over . > > Obviously arguing about the pathology of Step lore is a little > different, but why not pick the most common questions or arguments > -like for example " You're all so full of anger here (so you must be > wrong) " and the corresponding answers or counter-arguments, and ask > people to read and reflect on them first? At least that way people > wouldn't be reinventing the wheel so often, needing to explain it all > from scratch to every incredulous new subscriber. Think of it as > energy conservation. > > Joe B. Joe, What a great idea. I'm a little embarassed that I didn't think of the obvious before. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 I second Coolguy's views 100%. We don't turn away from children who need to learn -- we don't say to them, " Well, your brother knows how to read, why don't you? " Adults are no different, there is a learning curve, and anyone who has been exposed to AA has been discouraged from criticizing and may easily become paranoid about expressing his/her views freely. So it's very important to welcome them unless they prove to be intractable trolls. > Hi Dave, > I tend to agree with your sentiments expressed below. I remember joining > this list and many people didn't agree with anything I said. Some people > thought I should be thrown off the list because I was too much pro-AA (and > too obnoxious). Many people put words in my mouth and assumed there were > certain thoughts in my head. And the one guy who I thought was most > accomodating, besides , to this 12-s-f newbie was the same guy who now > says it is too much work and too much of an annoyance to put up with these > constant, boring arguments with steppers about why XA is bad. > I am not as well read or as well educated about the workings of the human > mind as many here, but I came to a conclusion a while back that people gain > knowledge in one of two ways... they discover something (we had an argument > recently in the Einstein thread about the nature of discovery) or they are > taught something (someone else discovers, then shares). In this world, > being taught is much more common (and easier) than discovering. Perhaps I > have discovered some things based on the knowledge that others have shared > with me and certainly there are many duplicate discoveries, but I would not > have made those discoveries without that knowledge that I acquired from > people here, and tis very likely I would not have discovered what those > people taught me on my own. I think the one guy who accomodated me (besides > ) and did not kick me off his list may have noticed I was an asshole > (aren't most steppers though?) but he also had the wisdom to realize that I > was seeking the knowledge he (and others here) already have. And he let me > stay, and he (and many others) continued to share what they know, and I > picked it up. Now, to put an end to that sharing of knowledge with people > who are obviously seeking it would be a bad move. To tell people this is a > place to recover from XA, but you can't come here unless you are recovered > from XA seems pretty ludicrous to me. > The arguments may become boring after years of hearing them, it may very > well be plowed ground to many here. But if no one is willing to argue, to > share the knowledge they have found and spread that knowledge to those who > search for it, the knowledge becomes useless and AA/steppism will prevail. > That's not what we want. Maybe I misread something, but this is something > we need to keep on fighting about (we've only just begun), and not give up > on, and not shun others who seek out the truth about the steps, no matter > how deluded they happen to be when they are first subscribed to this list. > I do believe it is easier to impart the knowledge we share with steppers > who subscribe to this list of their own accord than to impart this knowledge > to full blown steppers who don't question AA. Ignoring steppers on this > list, if one can, seems like an OK thing to do, as they can just keep > reading all the material that gets presented here, and then no argument is > needed, they can figure it out for themselves. In Usenet, the common > solution for ridding a group of a troll is to ignore him. If the stepper is > a troll, he will not have any fun if his steppism goes unanswered. If he is > really trying to learn the truth and discard the XA bullshit, the material > presented here will become harder and harder for him to refute - sooner or > later he will have an intellectual re-awakening. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 I hear all this past tense lingo, " ...turns out to _have been_... " " Who _was_ this? " What's that all about, you make it sound like he's dead. I just got his book in the mail today (I ordered it from Bibliofind after he mentioned it here) Selling Serenity, Life Among the Recovery Stars Upton Books 1999 This is from the back inside cover under his pic. Meacham graduated with a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Eckerd College and was employed as an associate editor at Health Communications, Inc. for six years. Through his editorial work at HCI and through his own involvement in the recovery process, the author has followed the recovery movement through its evolution from grass-roots self-help to a multimillion dollar industry. He has written extensively on the subjects of alcoholism and abuse - both physical and emotional - as a journalist for the magazine <Changes> and the <US Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence>. Mr Meacham currently works as a freelance writer and graphic artist in St. sburg, FL. Contact Information If your thoughts have been stirred by any of the issues I have tried to address from addiction and recovery to the drug war and the treatment industry; the business of self-help, the politics of healthcare; or any number of issues, I would welcome your responses. You can write me at: PO Box 11855, St sburg, FL 33731 endquote Dave Trippel Re: ATTENTION EVERYONE > wally wrote: > > > > > I find it very discouraging when something like this happens, and New List > > Member turns out to have been an author whose 12-step-debunking book was > > featured as " Book of the Month " on Stanton Peele's web site. > > > > Wally, > > You've got me _really_ curious. Who was this? > > Ken wrote: > > So what is your argument here, that one shouldn't categorically reject a > theology that works hand-in-hand with the state to make people _herd animals_ > (read fascists) because there are bad people out there who could potentially do > some terrible things? > > wally wrote: > > No, my argument is that if you try to tell people that the sky is falling > they won't pay attention. > > Certainly, there is a point of tactful diplomacy. However, " the ends justify > the means " and " adapting the truth to the hearers' need' make me feel a bit > queasy. > > Ken wrote: > > > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? > > > > One example: The United States of America. > > > > Now this is an excellent point for debate. However, I'm not sure which side > I would take or if I'd take both. Certainly, I see us as a warrior culture and > it is fundamental to a warrior culture to have the warriors willing to turn > themselves over to " something bigger than themselves. " > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2000 Report Share Posted November 24, 2000 At 06:59 PM 11/24/00 -0600, Dave Trippel wrote: >I hear all this past tense lingo, > " ...turns out to _have been_... " > " Who _was_ this? " >What's that all about, you make it sound like he's dead. Not to speak for the person who wrote those words, but I think this was worded that way because Meacham, if I've followed the list correctly, unsubscribed. >I just got his book in the mail today (I ordered it from Bibliofind after he >mentioned it here) >Selling Serenity, Life Among the Recovery Stars >Upton Books >1999 > >This is from the back inside cover under his pic. >He has written extensively on the subjects of alcoholism and abuse - both >physical and emotional - as a journalist for the magazine <Changes> and the ><US Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence>. Mr Meacham currently works as >a freelance writer and graphic artist in St. sburg, FL. I wonder if he's ever gone to SOS meetings - as I recall from the SOS mailing list, there were many meetings in the Tampa/St. Pete area. I know many here feel SOS to be nothing but part of the 'recovery group disorder', but it did help me make the transition out of AA - it might have been too big a shock to have left AA and 'recovery' meetings cold turkey. >endquote > >Dave Trippel There's more good stuff from him on the Amazon webpage for the book: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0897777085> There's also a very positive review there by someone with some very bad experiences in ACOA and related groups. ----- http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 > > > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like > AAs? > > > > One example: The United States of America. > > On the contrary, steppism is the quintessentail American Way, you can > have any higher power you like so long as it's God, praise the Lord > and pass the ammunition as we ethnically cleanse these Injuns what got > here first! It almost took us into Armageddon against the " dirty, > Godless " (from a 50s propoganda film) Communists too. > > P. Pete, I can't help but chuckle at this. When the extermination of the Native Americans began we were all English here and subjects of the Queen. How many were killed prior to 1776, I don't know but even after that, until well after the Civil War, we were still mostly English. So one might say, " What the English and their colonists did to the Native Americans . . . " In any case, I promise not to bring this up again if you don't bring up what my ancestors did on the English and Irish coasts 800 years ago. Ken Ragge P.S. In all seriousness, in spite of the intentional exterminating that was done, I've read that the _real_ killer was diseases from the Old World for which people in the New World had no natural immunity, like measles. That has been given as an explanation as to why the Native Americans and Hawaiians fared so poorly vs. other peoples colonized by the Europeans like the Indians, Chinese and Africans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 > > > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like > AAs? > > > > One example: The United States of America. > > On the contrary, steppism is the quintessentail American Way, you can > have any higher power you like so long as it's God, praise the Lord > and pass the ammunition as we ethnically cleanse these Injuns what got > here first! It almost took us into Armageddon against the " dirty, > Godless " (from a 50s propoganda film) Communists too. > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 ----- Original Message ----- [snip] > Pete, > > I can't help but chuckle at this. When the extermination of the > Native Americans began we were all English here and subjects of the > Queen. How many were killed prior to 1776, I don't know but even after > that, until well after the Civil War, we were still mostly English. So > one might say, " What the English and their colonists did to the Native > Americans . . . " > > In any case, I promise not to bring this up again if you don't bring > up what my ancestors did on the English and Irish coasts 800 years > ago. > > Ken Ragge > > P.S. In all seriousness, in spite of the intentional exterminating > that was done, I've read that the _real_ killer was diseases from the > Old World for which people in the New World had no natural immunity, > like measles. That has been given as an explanation as to why the > Native Americans and Hawaiians fared so poorly vs. other peoples > colonized by the Europeans like the Indians, Chinese and Africans. > Now and then the colonists may have given this 'real killer' a helping hand. Lord Amherst remains notorious for allegedly distributing smallpox-infected blankets to the Native Americans. To this day there is periodic agitation in Amherst (Massachusetts) to change the name of the town and/or the college located there for that reason. Here's a link to info on Amherst and the blankets: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html You can't really blame disease for what happened to the Indians, though. The European colonists also encountered some nasty bugs (e. g. malaria). The overriding factor is that the population that controls the use of the land can usually overcome any local biological hazards. But to move back slightly toward on-topic-ness, I maintain that Amherst was absolutely not inspired by the 12 Steps of AA when he conducted germ warfare against the Injuns. And the idea that what Attila the Hun, Lord Amherst, and Harry Truman had in common was that they were all " steppers " strikes me as being completely nuts. --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 Ken, <lol> And it all pales in comparison to what the spanish did. Unlike the UK, we gave back our only colony, one that we inherited from the brits and spanish--the two cruelest bastards the world has ever known. BTW, are you a viking or a norman? I'm norman myself. Yes, it was disease, not the wars, that wiped out the native americans. Jim > Pete, > > I can't help but chuckle at this. When the extermination of the > Native Americans began we were all English here and subjects of the > Queen. How many were killed prior to 1776, I don't know but even after > that, until well after the Civil War, we were still mostly English. So > one might say, " What the English and their colonists did to the Native > Americans . . . " > > In any case, I promise not to bring this up again if you don't bring > up what my ancestors did on the English and Irish coasts 800 years > ago. > > Ken Ragge > > P.S. In all seriousness, in spite of the intentional exterminating > that was done, I've read that the _real_ killer was diseases from the > Old World for which people in the New World had no natural immunity, > like measles. That has been given as an explanation as to why the > Native Americans and Hawaiians fared so poorly vs. other peoples > colonized by the Europeans like the Indians, Chinese and Africans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 ----- Original Message ----- > wally wrote: > > > > > I find it very discouraging when something like this happens, and New List > > Member turns out to have been an author whose 12-step-debunking book was > > featured as " Book of the Month " on Stanton Peele's web site. > > > > Wally, > > You've got me _really_ curious. Who was this? Meacham > > Ken wrote: > > So what is your argument here, that one shouldn't categorically reject a > theology that works hand-in-hand with the state to make people _herd animals_ > (read fascists) because there are bad people out there who could potentially do > some terrible things? > > wally wrote: > > No, my argument is that if you try to tell people that the sky is falling > they won't pay attention. > > Certainly, there is a point of tactful diplomacy. However, " the ends justify > the means " and " adapting the truth to the hearers' need' make me feel a bit > queasy. Evidently you and I disagree about whether or not the sky is, in fact, falling. Beyond that, I don't consider it devious at all to follow a rhetorical strategy that doesn't insist on presenting irrelevant truth. Example: if you're arguing in court that mandatory AA violates the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, basing your argument on a contention that steppism is the greatest threat to freedom facing the Western World would be inappropriate and counterproductive. > > Ken wrote: > > > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? > > > > One example: The United States of America. > > > > Now this is an excellent point for debate. However, I'm not sure which side > I would take or if I'd take both. Certainly, I see us as a warrior culture and > it is fundamental to a warrior culture to have the warriors willing to turn > themselves over to " something bigger than themselves. " But what does that have to do with AA? As a species we and our predecessors have been joining together in packs, tribes, or nations for millions of years. AA takes advantage of this tendency, and so does almost every other human institution. --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 wally wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > wally wrote: > > > > > > > > I find it very discouraging when something like this happens, and New > List > > > Member turns out to have been an author whose 12-step-debunking book was > > > featured as " Book of the Month " on Stanton Peele's web site. > > > > > > > Wally, > > > > You've got me _really_ curious. Who was this? > > Meacham > > > > > Ken wrote: > > > > So what is your argument here, that one shouldn't categorically reject a > > theology that works hand-in-hand with the state to make people _herd > animals_ > > (read fascists) because there are bad people out there who could > potentially do > > some terrible things? > > > > wally wrote: > > > > No, my argument is that if you try to tell people that the sky is falling > > they won't pay attention. > > > > Certainly, there is a point of tactful diplomacy. However, " the ends > justify > > the means " and " adapting the truth to the hearers' need' make me feel a > bit > > queasy. > > Evidently you and I disagree about whether or not the sky is, in fact, > falling. Beyond that, I don't consider it devious at all to follow a > rhetorical strategy that doesn't insist on presenting irrelevant truth. > > Example: if you're arguing in court that mandatory AA violates the > Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, basing your argument on a > contention that steppism is the greatest threat to freedom facing the > Western World would be inappropriate and counterproductive. > Wally, I definitely see your point. However, what about here? Are we all to couch are words in order to win over the hearts and minds of others? To a degree, of course. But where should the line be? Or should there even be one? Should this list operate as an AA newcomers meeting? When phrased that way, I think we all agree, of course not. > > > > Ken wrote: > > > > > >Can you give me an example of a group that slaughtered > > > > millions of people that _didn't_ have an ideology very much like AAs? > > > > > > One example: The United States of America. > > > > > > > Now this is an excellent point for debate. However, I'm not sure which > side > > I would take or if I'd take both. Certainly, I see us as a warrior culture > and > > it is fundamental to a warrior culture to have the warriors willing to > turn > > themselves over to " something bigger than themselves. " > > But what does that have to do with AA? As a species we and our predecessors > have been joining together in packs, tribes, or nations for millions of > years. AA takes advantage of this tendency, and so does almost every other > human institution. Our nature as social animals most certainly has been used (I think I like the word " subverted " better) for millenia. I side with Montagu who noted that the Western schoolboys (and I would presume from the main Eastern cultures) would indeed " naturally " react like the fictional characters in " Lord of the Flies. " However, there is a real case of Melanesian children who were shipwrecked and behaved quite differently. Yes, a culture that espouses " Love thy neighbor as thyself " and bands together to rape, loot and plunder the Other across the creek is historically much, much more successful. However, blind destructiveness, blind obedience and blind rage might not serve well in the age of nuclear and biological weapons. Ken Ragge > > --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2000 Report Share Posted November 25, 2000 Hi Bjorn, I know your name is common in scandinavia but it's one of my favorites. When I was a teenager my sports idol was Bjorn Borg. Now that's a viking! And: > Hi Jim > As I remember it, Normans were descendants from the Vikings. I used to know this history well but I forget much of it. See: http://www.realtime.com/~gunnora/timeline.htm I think the Normans were conqerors and the Vikings were best known as Raiders, but there was much mixing of peoples at the Super Bowl (very lame attempt at humor;-) The Normans conquered Ireland and England and parts of the mediteranian and originated in the place that still bears their name, Normandy. > Well, but anyway, from Ken's description I would guess his forefathers are > Vikings. > I've just seen a Danish TV feature about the Red. His son 'discovered' > America, and one of the contemporary persons traded both in Russia and New > Foundland. > For more than a thousand years ago one person could cover more than half of > the world in a lifetime, in open boats! Isn't that cool! I love watching documentaries about the Vikings. Yes, they were hanging out in Canada long before Columbus. But if you have ever been to Canada you know that Canada doesn't count;-)And they didn't like it,understandably, so they went back to Iceland. > Contrary Columbus, who didn't know where he had been at all, confusing the > indians with people from India, the Vikings new where they had been. But he started the gold and real estate rush. Columbus was a true American! > > Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Island are former Viking countries. I would > guess from Ken's name, that his ancestors came from Sweden, but then, the > Swedes did not plunder the British Isles. The Swedes took parts of Russia ....and turned them into indoor tennis courts. :-) Jim > and could sail a short cut the whole way down to Miklagaard ( aka > Konstantinopel aka Istanbul). The Vikings were, in spite of their bad > reputation, great merchants and organizers. > > Raping British nuns was only a leisure time activity. > > :-) > > Bjørn 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.