Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Duaine Met wrote: > Hi All: > > Duaine M here: > > In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go (no > meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I think all > of the different kinds of groups combined. ??? > > I could be wrong? > > It should be up to each of us what we want to use for our > recovery. > Duaine, Right on, but that is not the " recovery movement's " way of looking at things. Without any hard evidence that their groups work better than any other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the bandwagon and compete, " It is not right that you coerce people to their group. You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine. " Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Duaine Met wrote: > Hi All: > > Duaine M here: > > In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go (no > meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I think all > of the different kinds of groups combined. ??? > > I could be wrong? > > It should be up to each of us what we want to use for our > recovery. > Duaine, Right on, but that is not the " recovery movement's " way of looking at things. Without any hard evidence that their groups work better than any other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the bandwagon and compete, " It is not right that you coerce people to their group. You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine. " Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/11/01 3:33:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@... writes: > > > >> The discouragement of criticism has come from both you and Mona. > > That is another of your lies, Ken Ragge. Mona, I'm not searching through the archives, but you have made statements to the effect that once one criticizes the religion part, there is little point in further criticism. > What I have objected to are your > blatant falsehoods and hysterical accusations that LSR and SOS are > exactly > like AA without god. I've never said exactly they are very much like AA in that they are very much like AA without God and hold dearly to Devil Drink. The focus is on " alcohol (an inanimate substance) does this " or that, not on " I did this " or " I did that. " It has nothing much to do with abstinence. > Since I myself disagree with certain aspects of LSR, > and am always open to serious and constructive discussion of real or > perceived deficiencies in it, you are again revealed as a liar. I know 30-year AA people who disagree with some things in AA. So what? > > > You have greatly disappointed me. You are not what your reputation > led me to > expect. You appear to be mindless and neurotic in your hatred of XA, > to the > point where anyone who shares anything at all in common with it, or > who stops > short of unbridled castigation, is the enemy, and no better than a > Stepper. > Well, I didn't accept purge mentalities in XA, and I equally reject it > from > you. I adhere to no one's orthodoxy, and that includes your fevered > brand. > Who cares? You have a right to believe what you want and say what you want. I'm not the one who defends coercion to ideological (as opposed to religious) groups. > > As soon as I send this I'm unsubscribing. Life is too short for > anything as > unproductive as your (and it really is your) list. No it isn't my list. I find it odd that the RR people and others can get in some very harsh disagreements over various issues (including criticism of RR) and they don't " If you don't like my opinions, I'm taking my ball and going home. " Seems to make my point about the similarity to AA intolerance of criticism. Just one more point. I'm curious on how 30-40 percent of members " owe their lives to AA " and _don't_ seriously steer group dynamics. Ken Ragge > > > Anyone wishing to contact me in the future will be able to do so > through > unhooked.com. I am moving to Dallas this coming Thursday, and as soon > as I > have another email address it will be linked to my name on the online > meeting > schedule there. > > Some of you I have greatly enjoyed, and hope to hear from again. > > --Mona-- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/11/01 3:33:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@... writes: > > > >> The discouragement of criticism has come from both you and Mona. > > That is another of your lies, Ken Ragge. Mona, I'm not searching through the archives, but you have made statements to the effect that once one criticizes the religion part, there is little point in further criticism. > What I have objected to are your > blatant falsehoods and hysterical accusations that LSR and SOS are > exactly > like AA without god. I've never said exactly they are very much like AA in that they are very much like AA without God and hold dearly to Devil Drink. The focus is on " alcohol (an inanimate substance) does this " or that, not on " I did this " or " I did that. " It has nothing much to do with abstinence. > Since I myself disagree with certain aspects of LSR, > and am always open to serious and constructive discussion of real or > perceived deficiencies in it, you are again revealed as a liar. I know 30-year AA people who disagree with some things in AA. So what? > > > You have greatly disappointed me. You are not what your reputation > led me to > expect. You appear to be mindless and neurotic in your hatred of XA, > to the > point where anyone who shares anything at all in common with it, or > who stops > short of unbridled castigation, is the enemy, and no better than a > Stepper. > Well, I didn't accept purge mentalities in XA, and I equally reject it > from > you. I adhere to no one's orthodoxy, and that includes your fevered > brand. > Who cares? You have a right to believe what you want and say what you want. I'm not the one who defends coercion to ideological (as opposed to religious) groups. > > As soon as I send this I'm unsubscribing. Life is too short for > anything as > unproductive as your (and it really is your) list. No it isn't my list. I find it odd that the RR people and others can get in some very harsh disagreements over various issues (including criticism of RR) and they don't " If you don't like my opinions, I'm taking my ball and going home. " Seems to make my point about the similarity to AA intolerance of criticism. Just one more point. I'm curious on how 30-40 percent of members " owe their lives to AA " and _don't_ seriously steer group dynamics. Ken Ragge > > > Anyone wishing to contact me in the future will be able to do so > through > unhooked.com. I am moving to Dallas this coming Thursday, and as soon > as I > have another email address it will be linked to my name on the online > meeting > schedule there. > > Some of you I have greatly enjoyed, and hope to hear from again. > > --Mona-- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Re: Good Bye Duaine Met wrote:> Hi All:>> Duaine M here:>> In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go (no> meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I think all> of the different kinds of groups combined. ???>> I could be wrong?>> It should be up to each of us what we want to use for our> recovery.>Duaine,Right on, but that is not the "recovery movement's" way of looking atthings. Without any hard evidence that their groups work better thanany other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the bandwagonand compete, "It is not right that you coerce people to their group.You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine." Ken Duaine M here: Ken? Ken? What are you thinking?? We add more choices and this is wrong???? The only thing that would be left is what was before, AA or nothing. Is that what you want?? Sure more people get and stay sober with no group. So what. Shouldn't we care about all of us. Is that a dirty word --Care -- Careing-- Where are you in all this??? Do you support living a sober life?? Do you reach out your hand and give encouragement?? In SOS I give encouragement. I also let every one know that we are not the only way--We are not the best way--More people recover without any group. Tell me Ken is that being coerced?? I also go to Texas Prisons and Jails. Many people I talk with tell me their not sure they want to contunue with SOS when they get out. I tell them it dosn't matter. Do whats right for them. Without SOS who else would tell them that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Re: Good Bye Duaine Met wrote:> Hi All:>> Duaine M here:>> In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go (no> meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I think all> of the different kinds of groups combined. ???>> I could be wrong?>> It should be up to each of us what we want to use for our> recovery.>Duaine,Right on, but that is not the "recovery movement's" way of looking atthings. Without any hard evidence that their groups work better thanany other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the bandwagonand compete, "It is not right that you coerce people to their group.You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine." Ken Duaine M here: Ken? Ken? What are you thinking?? We add more choices and this is wrong???? The only thing that would be left is what was before, AA or nothing. Is that what you want?? Sure more people get and stay sober with no group. So what. Shouldn't we care about all of us. Is that a dirty word --Care -- Careing-- Where are you in all this??? Do you support living a sober life?? Do you reach out your hand and give encouragement?? In SOS I give encouragement. I also let every one know that we are not the only way--We are not the best way--More people recover without any group. Tell me Ken is that being coerced?? I also go to Texas Prisons and Jails. Many people I talk with tell me their not sure they want to contunue with SOS when they get out. I tell them it dosn't matter. Do whats right for them. Without SOS who else would tell them that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Re: Good Bye Duaine Met wrote:> Hi All:>> Duaine M here:>> In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go (no> meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I think all> of the different kinds of groups combined. ???>> I could be wrong?>> It should be up to each of us what we want to use for our> recovery.>Duaine,Right on, but that is not the "recovery movement's" way of looking atthings. Without any hard evidence that their groups work better thanany other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the bandwagonand compete, "It is not right that you coerce people to their group.You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine." Ken Duaine M here: Ken? Ken? What are you thinking?? We add more choices and this is wrong???? The only thing that would be left is what was before, AA or nothing. Is that what you want?? Sure more people get and stay sober with no group. So what. Shouldn't we care about all of us. Is that a dirty word --Care -- Careing-- Where are you in all this??? Do you support living a sober life?? Do you reach out your hand and give encouragement?? In SOS I give encouragement. I also let every one know that we are not the only way--We are not the best way--More people recover without any group. Tell me Ken is that being coerced?? I also go to Texas Prisons and Jails. Many people I talk with tell me their not sure they want to contunue with SOS when they get out. I tell them it dosn't matter. Do whats right for them. Without SOS who else would tell them that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > P.S. To above. > > I don't doubt the sincerity of those in LSR/SOS who had a coffee pot and > resentment and started a new meeting. I do question how far removed > they are from the meetings they left even if they've made some changes > in language, completely wiping out the religious and keeping the AA > science and alcohol as Devil Drink. I can understand the attraction of > genetics and " physiological differences. " It confers innocence on > repeated bad behavior while drunk. Just stop drinking, which one wants > to do anyway, and one not only has that benefit, but all bad behavior > can be ascribed to " it, " the disease, Devil Drink, genes, however it is > termed. Perhaps that is where much of the need to proseletyze comes > from. It is just easier to believe something if you can convince someone else of it. So these groups proselytize, since they are not based on things that can be proven, but on things that must be believed. Anything that requires belief will be proselytized, to make it more believable to the proselytes and the originator of the belief (unless he is knowingly deceiving them only for his own gain, in which case the proselytes proselytize to help confirm to themselves their own beliefs, while the originator is pushing his own agenda for power/money/etc). They believe alcohol is Devil Drink (and a million other assumptions) because it suits them and since they have a false belief, they must convince others of it to continue believing it. Or to keep up the game, playing the charade, maintaining their reality. Ultimately a way to avoid the truth. Its funny that we humans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide the truth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who try to show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?) flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > P.S. To above. > > I don't doubt the sincerity of those in LSR/SOS who had a coffee pot and > resentment and started a new meeting. I do question how far removed > they are from the meetings they left even if they've made some changes > in language, completely wiping out the religious and keeping the AA > science and alcohol as Devil Drink. I can understand the attraction of > genetics and " physiological differences. " It confers innocence on > repeated bad behavior while drunk. Just stop drinking, which one wants > to do anyway, and one not only has that benefit, but all bad behavior > can be ascribed to " it, " the disease, Devil Drink, genes, however it is > termed. Perhaps that is where much of the need to proseletyze comes > from. It is just easier to believe something if you can convince someone else of it. So these groups proselytize, since they are not based on things that can be proven, but on things that must be believed. Anything that requires belief will be proselytized, to make it more believable to the proselytes and the originator of the belief (unless he is knowingly deceiving them only for his own gain, in which case the proselytes proselytize to help confirm to themselves their own beliefs, while the originator is pushing his own agenda for power/money/etc). They believe alcohol is Devil Drink (and a million other assumptions) because it suits them and since they have a false belief, they must convince others of it to continue believing it. Or to keep up the game, playing the charade, maintaining their reality. Ultimately a way to avoid the truth. Its funny that we humans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide the truth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who try to show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?) flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 > P.S. To above. > > I don't doubt the sincerity of those in LSR/SOS who had a coffee pot and > resentment and started a new meeting. I do question how far removed > they are from the meetings they left even if they've made some changes > in language, completely wiping out the religious and keeping the AA > science and alcohol as Devil Drink. I can understand the attraction of > genetics and " physiological differences. " It confers innocence on > repeated bad behavior while drunk. Just stop drinking, which one wants > to do anyway, and one not only has that benefit, but all bad behavior > can be ascribed to " it, " the disease, Devil Drink, genes, however it is > termed. Perhaps that is where much of the need to proseletyze comes > from. It is just easier to believe something if you can convince someone else of it. So these groups proselytize, since they are not based on things that can be proven, but on things that must be believed. Anything that requires belief will be proselytized, to make it more believable to the proselytes and the originator of the belief (unless he is knowingly deceiving them only for his own gain, in which case the proselytes proselytize to help confirm to themselves their own beliefs, while the originator is pushing his own agenda for power/money/etc). They believe alcohol is Devil Drink (and a million other assumptions) because it suits them and since they have a false belief, they must convince others of it to continue believing it. Or to keep up the game, playing the charade, maintaining their reality. Ultimately a way to avoid the truth. Its funny that we humans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide the truth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who try to show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?) flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Re: Good Bye Its funny that wehumans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide thetruth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who tryto show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?)flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! Duaine M here: We Humans??? We hide the truth?? If you beleve this (Cool Guy) what are you hideing?? Where are you in all this?? Is this list about recovery?? I would realy like to know. If this is a place to hang and get high, I'm out. May be you could be up front and let some one who isn't a (Cool Guy) know where he stands?? The Dude form Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Re: Good Bye Its funny that wehumans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide thetruth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who tryto show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?)flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! Duaine M here: We Humans??? We hide the truth?? If you beleve this (Cool Guy) what are you hideing?? Where are you in all this?? Is this list about recovery?? I would realy like to know. If this is a place to hang and get high, I'm out. May be you could be up front and let some one who isn't a (Cool Guy) know where he stands?? The Dude form Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Re: Good Bye Its funny that wehumans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide thetruth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who tryto show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?)flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! Duaine M here: We Humans??? We hide the truth?? If you beleve this (Cool Guy) what are you hideing?? Where are you in all this?? Is this list about recovery?? I would realy like to know. If this is a place to hang and get high, I'm out. May be you could be up front and let some one who isn't a (Cool Guy) know where he stands?? The Dude form Dallas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Well what have we here... two people I generally agree with on most things having a very exciting argument! Cool. > Who cares? You have a right to believe what you want and say what you > want. I'm not the one who defends coercion to ideological (as opposed > to religious) groups. Oddly enough I am siding with you here, Ken. I disagree with coercion at just about every level. Especially as a punishment for a crime. I think " giving " something to someone who has commited a crime is a silly thing to do. I think a violator of law should be punished in traditional ways... either jail or fine, until someone thinks of something better. If they choose, after enduring their punishment, to do something that will help them better themselves then that is wonderful - but it should remain their own choice and their own responsibility. Not the state's. Certainly there are plenty of " charities " (far too many, IMO) that are willing to " lend a hand " (AA comes to mind) to people who are struggling or are troubled. I do not agree with mixing charity and state, which is done to a ridiculous extent already. And coercing (and funding) XA (or other treatment/program/group/etc) is a form of charity (though an unwanted one in most cases). In order to " give " any of this type of " help " the state has to take from someone else. I don't like the thought of taking from people who obey laws to give to those who don't. This is not too hard to comprehend, is it? Further, sometimes people who are coerced into treatment (12 step or other) are forced to pay (therefore nullifying my seperation of charity and state argument) for their own treatment. This is wrong in that the person has lost his choice of how to spend his own money, or he has lost control of his own property. The purpose of law is not to employ treatment centre workers and jailers, but to motivate justice, by punishing those who do unjust things. It is correct for law to collect fines for punitive damages or reparations, and in that way the state can take away a person's choice of how to spend his money. However, using law to force a person to spend money on a service or good, without choice, is wrong. Now you will argue that he has a choice... he can go to jail as an alternative. But, that is wrong, too. Again, the justice system is not an employment system... it isn't meant for making meaningless jobs. This all comes down to my opinion, that the justice system would better serve us all if it were downsized and that real punishments for real crimes were reenacted (in a lot of cases they still exist) and the laws about fake crimes be removed, and the punishments that don't work (just about everything besides fines and jail) be removed as well. So, I think it is wrong to even offer such a choice. Even if you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice. > > > > > As soon as I send this I'm unsubscribing. Life is too short for > > anything as > > unproductive as your (and it really is your) list. > > No it isn't my list. I find it odd that the RR people and others can > get in some very harsh disagreements over various issues (including > criticism of RR) and they don't " If you don't like my opinions, I'm > taking my ball and going home. " Seems to make my point about the > similarity to AA intolerance of criticism. > > Just one more point. I'm curious on how 30-40 percent of members " owe > their lives to AA " and _don't_ seriously steer group dynamics. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > Anyone wishing to contact me in the future will be able to do so > > through > > unhooked.com. I am moving to Dallas this coming Thursday, and as soon > > as I > > have another email address it will be linked to my name on the online > > meeting > > schedule there. > > > > Some of you I have greatly enjoyed, and hope to hear from again. > > > > --Mona-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Well what have we here... two people I generally agree with on most things having a very exciting argument! Cool. > Who cares? You have a right to believe what you want and say what you > want. I'm not the one who defends coercion to ideological (as opposed > to religious) groups. Oddly enough I am siding with you here, Ken. I disagree with coercion at just about every level. Especially as a punishment for a crime. I think " giving " something to someone who has commited a crime is a silly thing to do. I think a violator of law should be punished in traditional ways... either jail or fine, until someone thinks of something better. If they choose, after enduring their punishment, to do something that will help them better themselves then that is wonderful - but it should remain their own choice and their own responsibility. Not the state's. Certainly there are plenty of " charities " (far too many, IMO) that are willing to " lend a hand " (AA comes to mind) to people who are struggling or are troubled. I do not agree with mixing charity and state, which is done to a ridiculous extent already. And coercing (and funding) XA (or other treatment/program/group/etc) is a form of charity (though an unwanted one in most cases). In order to " give " any of this type of " help " the state has to take from someone else. I don't like the thought of taking from people who obey laws to give to those who don't. This is not too hard to comprehend, is it? Further, sometimes people who are coerced into treatment (12 step or other) are forced to pay (therefore nullifying my seperation of charity and state argument) for their own treatment. This is wrong in that the person has lost his choice of how to spend his own money, or he has lost control of his own property. The purpose of law is not to employ treatment centre workers and jailers, but to motivate justice, by punishing those who do unjust things. It is correct for law to collect fines for punitive damages or reparations, and in that way the state can take away a person's choice of how to spend his money. However, using law to force a person to spend money on a service or good, without choice, is wrong. Now you will argue that he has a choice... he can go to jail as an alternative. But, that is wrong, too. Again, the justice system is not an employment system... it isn't meant for making meaningless jobs. This all comes down to my opinion, that the justice system would better serve us all if it were downsized and that real punishments for real crimes were reenacted (in a lot of cases they still exist) and the laws about fake crimes be removed, and the punishments that don't work (just about everything besides fines and jail) be removed as well. So, I think it is wrong to even offer such a choice. Even if you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice. > > > > > As soon as I send this I'm unsubscribing. Life is too short for > > anything as > > unproductive as your (and it really is your) list. > > No it isn't my list. I find it odd that the RR people and others can > get in some very harsh disagreements over various issues (including > criticism of RR) and they don't " If you don't like my opinions, I'm > taking my ball and going home. " Seems to make my point about the > similarity to AA intolerance of criticism. > > Just one more point. I'm curious on how 30-40 percent of members " owe > their lives to AA " and _don't_ seriously steer group dynamics. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > Anyone wishing to contact me in the future will be able to do so > > through > > unhooked.com. I am moving to Dallas this coming Thursday, and as soon > > as I > > have another email address it will be linked to my name on the online > > meeting > > schedule there. > > > > Some of you I have greatly enjoyed, and hope to hear from again. > > > > --Mona-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Well what have we here... two people I generally agree with on most things having a very exciting argument! Cool. > Who cares? You have a right to believe what you want and say what you > want. I'm not the one who defends coercion to ideological (as opposed > to religious) groups. Oddly enough I am siding with you here, Ken. I disagree with coercion at just about every level. Especially as a punishment for a crime. I think " giving " something to someone who has commited a crime is a silly thing to do. I think a violator of law should be punished in traditional ways... either jail or fine, until someone thinks of something better. If they choose, after enduring their punishment, to do something that will help them better themselves then that is wonderful - but it should remain their own choice and their own responsibility. Not the state's. Certainly there are plenty of " charities " (far too many, IMO) that are willing to " lend a hand " (AA comes to mind) to people who are struggling or are troubled. I do not agree with mixing charity and state, which is done to a ridiculous extent already. And coercing (and funding) XA (or other treatment/program/group/etc) is a form of charity (though an unwanted one in most cases). In order to " give " any of this type of " help " the state has to take from someone else. I don't like the thought of taking from people who obey laws to give to those who don't. This is not too hard to comprehend, is it? Further, sometimes people who are coerced into treatment (12 step or other) are forced to pay (therefore nullifying my seperation of charity and state argument) for their own treatment. This is wrong in that the person has lost his choice of how to spend his own money, or he has lost control of his own property. The purpose of law is not to employ treatment centre workers and jailers, but to motivate justice, by punishing those who do unjust things. It is correct for law to collect fines for punitive damages or reparations, and in that way the state can take away a person's choice of how to spend his money. However, using law to force a person to spend money on a service or good, without choice, is wrong. Now you will argue that he has a choice... he can go to jail as an alternative. But, that is wrong, too. Again, the justice system is not an employment system... it isn't meant for making meaningless jobs. This all comes down to my opinion, that the justice system would better serve us all if it were downsized and that real punishments for real crimes were reenacted (in a lot of cases they still exist) and the laws about fake crimes be removed, and the punishments that don't work (just about everything besides fines and jail) be removed as well. So, I think it is wrong to even offer such a choice. Even if you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice. > > > > > As soon as I send this I'm unsubscribing. Life is too short for > > anything as > > unproductive as your (and it really is your) list. > > No it isn't my list. I find it odd that the RR people and others can > get in some very harsh disagreements over various issues (including > criticism of RR) and they don't " If you don't like my opinions, I'm > taking my ball and going home. " Seems to make my point about the > similarity to AA intolerance of criticism. > > Just one more point. I'm curious on how 30-40 percent of members " owe > their lives to AA " and _don't_ seriously steer group dynamics. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > Anyone wishing to contact me in the future will be able to do so > > through > > unhooked.com. I am moving to Dallas this coming Thursday, and as soon > > as I > > have another email address it will be linked to my name on the online > > meeting > > schedule there. > > > > Some of you I have greatly enjoyed, and hope to hear from again. > > > > --Mona-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 cool guy wrote: > > > P.S. To above. > > > > I don't doubt the sincerity of those in LSR/SOS who had a coffee > pot and > > resentment and started a new meeting. I do question how far > removed > > they are from the meetings they left even if they've made some > changes > > in language, completely wiping out the religious and keeping the AA > > science and alcohol as Devil Drink. I can understand the > attraction of > > genetics and " physiological differences. " It confers innocence on > > repeated bad behavior while drunk. Just stop drinking, which one > wants > > to do anyway, and one not only has that benefit, but all bad > behavior > > can be ascribed to " it, " the disease, Devil Drink, genes, however > it is > > termed. Perhaps that is where much of the need to proseletyze > comes > > from. > > It is just easier to believe something if you can convince > someone else of it. So these groups proselytize, since they are not > based on things that can be proven, but on things that must be > believed. Anything that requires belief will be proselytized, to > make it more believable to the proselytes and the originator of the > belief (unless he is knowingly deceiving them only for his own gain, > in which case the proselytes proselytize to help confirm to > themselves their own beliefs, while the originator is pushing his > own agenda for power/money/etc). > They believe alcohol is Devil Drink (and a million other > assumptions) because it suits them and since they have a false > belief, they must convince others of it to continue believing it. > Or to keep up the game, playing the charade, maintaining their > reality. Ultimately a way to avoid the truth. Its funny that we > humans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide the > truth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who try > to show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?) > flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! > Coolguy, I think you are right on here. The only thing, is that in many ways I'm sympathetic to their position. I was once a " true believer " in AA and it took a lot of time and a lot of research to question and change beliefs that I had picked up in the groups and/or in the media without ever questioning them. The step groups, as other groups that are commonly referred to as cults or destructive cults generally go after people when they are at a trouble point in their lives. After the group influences have been adopted, it is very difficult, often very painful, to challenge the very beliefs which were used as manipulation and as escape from an intolerable situation to start with. Moreover, so much is adopted unawares, where the influences are so subtle not only are the influences not noticed but but the adoption of ideas as the truth one bases one life on is done without serious questioning. It is not surprising that they come out of their experience thinking they got away scot free because there were sticking points on some ideas. Might sound trivial and I suppose it is, but years after I left AA, my e-mail name was Ken R. and my address book is _still_ organized by first name rather than the pre-AA last name. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 cool guy wrote: > > > P.S. To above. > > > > I don't doubt the sincerity of those in LSR/SOS who had a coffee > pot and > > resentment and started a new meeting. I do question how far > removed > > they are from the meetings they left even if they've made some > changes > > in language, completely wiping out the religious and keeping the AA > > science and alcohol as Devil Drink. I can understand the > attraction of > > genetics and " physiological differences. " It confers innocence on > > repeated bad behavior while drunk. Just stop drinking, which one > wants > > to do anyway, and one not only has that benefit, but all bad > behavior > > can be ascribed to " it, " the disease, Devil Drink, genes, however > it is > > termed. Perhaps that is where much of the need to proseletyze > comes > > from. > > It is just easier to believe something if you can convince > someone else of it. So these groups proselytize, since they are not > based on things that can be proven, but on things that must be > believed. Anything that requires belief will be proselytized, to > make it more believable to the proselytes and the originator of the > belief (unless he is knowingly deceiving them only for his own gain, > in which case the proselytes proselytize to help confirm to > themselves their own beliefs, while the originator is pushing his > own agenda for power/money/etc). > They believe alcohol is Devil Drink (and a million other > assumptions) because it suits them and since they have a false > belief, they must convince others of it to continue believing it. > Or to keep up the game, playing the charade, maintaining their > reality. Ultimately a way to avoid the truth. Its funny that we > humans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide the > truth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who try > to show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?) > flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! > Coolguy, I think you are right on here. The only thing, is that in many ways I'm sympathetic to their position. I was once a " true believer " in AA and it took a lot of time and a lot of research to question and change beliefs that I had picked up in the groups and/or in the media without ever questioning them. The step groups, as other groups that are commonly referred to as cults or destructive cults generally go after people when they are at a trouble point in their lives. After the group influences have been adopted, it is very difficult, often very painful, to challenge the very beliefs which were used as manipulation and as escape from an intolerable situation to start with. Moreover, so much is adopted unawares, where the influences are so subtle not only are the influences not noticed but but the adoption of ideas as the truth one bases one life on is done without serious questioning. It is not surprising that they come out of their experience thinking they got away scot free because there were sticking points on some ideas. Might sound trivial and I suppose it is, but years after I left AA, my e-mail name was Ken R. and my address book is _still_ organized by first name rather than the pre-AA last name. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 cool guy wrote: > > > P.S. To above. > > > > I don't doubt the sincerity of those in LSR/SOS who had a coffee > pot and > > resentment and started a new meeting. I do question how far > removed > > they are from the meetings they left even if they've made some > changes > > in language, completely wiping out the religious and keeping the AA > > science and alcohol as Devil Drink. I can understand the > attraction of > > genetics and " physiological differences. " It confers innocence on > > repeated bad behavior while drunk. Just stop drinking, which one > wants > > to do anyway, and one not only has that benefit, but all bad > behavior > > can be ascribed to " it, " the disease, Devil Drink, genes, however > it is > > termed. Perhaps that is where much of the need to proseletyze > comes > > from. > > It is just easier to believe something if you can convince > someone else of it. So these groups proselytize, since they are not > based on things that can be proven, but on things that must be > believed. Anything that requires belief will be proselytized, to > make it more believable to the proselytes and the originator of the > belief (unless he is knowingly deceiving them only for his own gain, > in which case the proselytes proselytize to help confirm to > themselves their own beliefs, while the originator is pushing his > own agenda for power/money/etc). > They believe alcohol is Devil Drink (and a million other > assumptions) because it suits them and since they have a false > belief, they must convince others of it to continue believing it. > Or to keep up the game, playing the charade, maintaining their > reality. Ultimately a way to avoid the truth. Its funny that we > humans would want to do that, but we do so often. And we hide the > truth from others and deceive them on top of it. And people who try > to show you the truth get ran into the ground... and people (Mona?) > flee from the truth... silly people. Thank you Ken! > Coolguy, I think you are right on here. The only thing, is that in many ways I'm sympathetic to their position. I was once a " true believer " in AA and it took a lot of time and a lot of research to question and change beliefs that I had picked up in the groups and/or in the media without ever questioning them. The step groups, as other groups that are commonly referred to as cults or destructive cults generally go after people when they are at a trouble point in their lives. After the group influences have been adopted, it is very difficult, often very painful, to challenge the very beliefs which were used as manipulation and as escape from an intolerable situation to start with. Moreover, so much is adopted unawares, where the influences are so subtle not only are the influences not noticed but but the adoption of ideas as the truth one bases one life on is done without serious questioning. It is not surprising that they come out of their experience thinking they got away scot free because there were sticking points on some ideas. Might sound trivial and I suppose it is, but years after I left AA, my e-mail name was Ken R. and my address book is _still_ organized by first name rather than the pre-AA last name. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 you conspiratorial asshole. groundless, baseless assertion willfully ignorant your narrow minded You are being willfully perverse > and malicious in distorting and outrightly lying > Yes, I am calling you a malicious liar Steve Steve, Nice words! Are you a little threatened? netty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 you conspiratorial asshole. groundless, baseless assertion willfully ignorant your narrow minded You are being willfully perverse > and malicious in distorting and outrightly lying > Yes, I am calling you a malicious liar Steve Steve, Nice words! Are you a little threatened? netty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 you conspiratorial asshole. groundless, baseless assertion willfully ignorant your narrow minded You are being willfully perverse > and malicious in distorting and outrightly lying > Yes, I am calling you a malicious liar Steve Steve, Nice words! Are you a little threatened? netty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Duaine Met wrote: > > > Re: Good Bye > > > Duaine Met wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > Duaine M here: > > > > In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go > (no > > meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I > think all > > of the different kinds of groups combined. ??? > > > > I could be wrong? > > > > It should be up to each of us what we want to use for > our > > recovery. > > > > Duaine, > > Right on, but that is not the " recovery movement's " way of > looking at > things. Without any hard evidence that their groups work > better than > any other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the > bandwagon > and compete, > > " It is not right that you coerce people to their group. > You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine. " > > Ken > > Duaine M here: > > Ken? Ken? What are you thinking?? We add more choices and > this is wrong???? > > Duaine, First, let me put this in context. I still have (uncommented as the other links) links to LSR on my website and think it unlikely that I'll remove them unless attendance at meetings bears out what I've seen here on the net. > > The only thing that would be left is what was before, AA or > nothing. Is that what you want?? > > The idea that a group is necessary (or beneficial) to stop drinking/drugging has never been shown to be true. There is no methodologically sound research that show _any_ group is better than no group. If time allows I'll go into detail in another post. This " nothing " is as misleading as " stopping drinking alone. " One can only do so on a desert isle. Nobody does much of _anything_ alone. > > Sure more people get and stay sober with no group. So what. > > Shouldn't we care about all of us. > That is _exactly_ why I reference various groups for people who are convinced by 60 years of stepper propaganda that a group of people who have a common history of misbehavior is beneficial. Obsessed with alcohol? Sit around and obsess with others who are obsessed with alcohol. It really doesn't make sense to me. > > > Is that a dirty word --Care -- Careing-- > Where did that come from? If someone thinks differently about the best ways to resolve drinking problems, or to be helpful to others in resolving drinking problems, how does that mean they don't care or think caring is a dirty word? Moreover, I'd like to add the cliché " The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. " Do you think that the majority of groupers who are so intent on coercing people into the step groups don't care? Check out the following article on my old (should be put out of its misery) web site. http://www.cris.com/~kenr1/commonsense/12steps/helpers.shtml > > > Where are you in all this??? Do you support living a sober > life?? Do you reach out your hand and give encouragement?? > Again, I'll refer you to the above mentioned article. Sometimes being the " helper " is of more benefit to the helper than the poor wretch who needs saving. What would the helpers do without the wretches elevate, adore and praise them? Before you get defensive over this, I'm not talking about you. I don't know you. > In SOS I give encouragement. > And that is great. Nothing wrong with that. > > > I also let every one know that we are not the only way--We > are not the best way--More people recover without any group. > > Tell me Ken is that being coerced?? > > Doesn't sound like coerced to me. But if the coercion is done by others (e.g. in a courtroom or EAP), the coercion is there even if you aren't the one directly doing it. > > I also go to Texas Prisons and Jails. Many people I talk > with tell me their not sure they want to contunue with SOS > when they get out. I tell them it dosn't matter. Do whats > right for them. > > Without SOS who else would tell them that??? > Probably SMART or RR. But the point is, when the government (and in the immediately above case jailors) are picking " recovery groups " what is to stop them from saying to you " You can't come in any more because you are telling them they don't have to go to meetings after prison. They have to go to meetings because that is the only way we can keep track of them. " Think about the land case where land AA took a stand against slip-signing. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Duaine Met wrote: > > > Re: Good Bye > > > Duaine Met wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > Duaine M here: > > > > In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go > (no > > meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I > think all > > of the different kinds of groups combined. ??? > > > > I could be wrong? > > > > It should be up to each of us what we want to use for > our > > recovery. > > > > Duaine, > > Right on, but that is not the " recovery movement's " way of > looking at > things. Without any hard evidence that their groups work > better than > any other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the > bandwagon > and compete, > > " It is not right that you coerce people to their group. > You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine. " > > Ken > > Duaine M here: > > Ken? Ken? What are you thinking?? We add more choices and > this is wrong???? > > Duaine, First, let me put this in context. I still have (uncommented as the other links) links to LSR on my website and think it unlikely that I'll remove them unless attendance at meetings bears out what I've seen here on the net. > > The only thing that would be left is what was before, AA or > nothing. Is that what you want?? > > The idea that a group is necessary (or beneficial) to stop drinking/drugging has never been shown to be true. There is no methodologically sound research that show _any_ group is better than no group. If time allows I'll go into detail in another post. This " nothing " is as misleading as " stopping drinking alone. " One can only do so on a desert isle. Nobody does much of _anything_ alone. > > Sure more people get and stay sober with no group. So what. > > Shouldn't we care about all of us. > That is _exactly_ why I reference various groups for people who are convinced by 60 years of stepper propaganda that a group of people who have a common history of misbehavior is beneficial. Obsessed with alcohol? Sit around and obsess with others who are obsessed with alcohol. It really doesn't make sense to me. > > > Is that a dirty word --Care -- Careing-- > Where did that come from? If someone thinks differently about the best ways to resolve drinking problems, or to be helpful to others in resolving drinking problems, how does that mean they don't care or think caring is a dirty word? Moreover, I'd like to add the cliché " The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. " Do you think that the majority of groupers who are so intent on coercing people into the step groups don't care? Check out the following article on my old (should be put out of its misery) web site. http://www.cris.com/~kenr1/commonsense/12steps/helpers.shtml > > > Where are you in all this??? Do you support living a sober > life?? Do you reach out your hand and give encouragement?? > Again, I'll refer you to the above mentioned article. Sometimes being the " helper " is of more benefit to the helper than the poor wretch who needs saving. What would the helpers do without the wretches elevate, adore and praise them? Before you get defensive over this, I'm not talking about you. I don't know you. > In SOS I give encouragement. > And that is great. Nothing wrong with that. > > > I also let every one know that we are not the only way--We > are not the best way--More people recover without any group. > > Tell me Ken is that being coerced?? > > Doesn't sound like coerced to me. But if the coercion is done by others (e.g. in a courtroom or EAP), the coercion is there even if you aren't the one directly doing it. > > I also go to Texas Prisons and Jails. Many people I talk > with tell me their not sure they want to contunue with SOS > when they get out. I tell them it dosn't matter. Do whats > right for them. > > Without SOS who else would tell them that??? > Probably SMART or RR. But the point is, when the government (and in the immediately above case jailors) are picking " recovery groups " what is to stop them from saying to you " You can't come in any more because you are telling them they don't have to go to meetings after prison. They have to go to meetings because that is the only way we can keep track of them. " Think about the land case where land AA took a stand against slip-signing. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Duaine Met wrote: > > > Re: Good Bye > > > Duaine Met wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > Duaine M here: > > > > In reply to what works best? I think as far as %es go > (no > > meeting of any kind) works for more people than, I > think all > > of the different kinds of groups combined. ??? > > > > I could be wrong? > > > > It should be up to each of us what we want to use for > our > > recovery. > > > > Duaine, > > Right on, but that is not the " recovery movement's " way of > looking at > things. Without any hard evidence that their groups work > better than > any other group or nothing, they seem to mostly join on the > bandwagon > and compete, > > " It is not right that you coerce people to their group. > You must allow them the choice to be coerced into mine. " > > Ken > > Duaine M here: > > Ken? Ken? What are you thinking?? We add more choices and > this is wrong???? > > Duaine, First, let me put this in context. I still have (uncommented as the other links) links to LSR on my website and think it unlikely that I'll remove them unless attendance at meetings bears out what I've seen here on the net. > > The only thing that would be left is what was before, AA or > nothing. Is that what you want?? > > The idea that a group is necessary (or beneficial) to stop drinking/drugging has never been shown to be true. There is no methodologically sound research that show _any_ group is better than no group. If time allows I'll go into detail in another post. This " nothing " is as misleading as " stopping drinking alone. " One can only do so on a desert isle. Nobody does much of _anything_ alone. > > Sure more people get and stay sober with no group. So what. > > Shouldn't we care about all of us. > That is _exactly_ why I reference various groups for people who are convinced by 60 years of stepper propaganda that a group of people who have a common history of misbehavior is beneficial. Obsessed with alcohol? Sit around and obsess with others who are obsessed with alcohol. It really doesn't make sense to me. > > > Is that a dirty word --Care -- Careing-- > Where did that come from? If someone thinks differently about the best ways to resolve drinking problems, or to be helpful to others in resolving drinking problems, how does that mean they don't care or think caring is a dirty word? Moreover, I'd like to add the cliché " The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. " Do you think that the majority of groupers who are so intent on coercing people into the step groups don't care? Check out the following article on my old (should be put out of its misery) web site. http://www.cris.com/~kenr1/commonsense/12steps/helpers.shtml > > > Where are you in all this??? Do you support living a sober > life?? Do you reach out your hand and give encouragement?? > Again, I'll refer you to the above mentioned article. Sometimes being the " helper " is of more benefit to the helper than the poor wretch who needs saving. What would the helpers do without the wretches elevate, adore and praise them? Before you get defensive over this, I'm not talking about you. I don't know you. > In SOS I give encouragement. > And that is great. Nothing wrong with that. > > > I also let every one know that we are not the only way--We > are not the best way--More people recover without any group. > > Tell me Ken is that being coerced?? > > Doesn't sound like coerced to me. But if the coercion is done by others (e.g. in a courtroom or EAP), the coercion is there even if you aren't the one directly doing it. > > I also go to Texas Prisons and Jails. Many people I talk > with tell me their not sure they want to contunue with SOS > when they get out. I tell them it dosn't matter. Do whats > right for them. > > Without SOS who else would tell them that??? > Probably SMART or RR. But the point is, when the government (and in the immediately above case jailors) are picking " recovery groups " what is to stop them from saying to you " You can't come in any more because you are telling them they don't have to go to meetings after prison. They have to go to meetings because that is the only way we can keep track of them. " Think about the land case where land AA took a stand against slip-signing. Ken Ragge 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.