Moderated: Why do people insist AA is not religious?/Efficacy of AA & other treatment programs

[Hallo Alfie]

Edited by LashL:

Moderated thread.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

From the article you failed to read: “Dr. Mark Willenbring, director of treatment and recovery research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The institute is the nation's leading authority on alcoholism and the major provider of funds for alcohol research.” The study was called NESARC. Also from the article you failed to read: “The project surveyed 43,000 people 18 and older in 2001 and 2002, and again in 2004 and 2005, with the results released in increments beginning in 2006.”

Please provide conclusions, it is not my job to do your research.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Gaoled means jailed.

I know what I mean and need no correction from you on the English language.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gaol

Noun 1. gaol - a correctional institution used to detain persons who are in the lawful custody of the government (either accused persons awaiting trial or convicted persons serving a sentence)

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Alfie thinks that the people who started Stinkin' Thinkin' should be put in jail. For criticizing AA.

Not for criticizing AA. For actively promoting hate against a select group of people. That is called bigotry.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

What kind of harm are they causing that society needs to be protected from?

Inciting violence, actively promoting bullying, bigotry etc. You know? All the things that stinkin' thinkin' revel in.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Do you think Trey Parker and Matt Stone deserve to go to jail too?

They are not a hate group.
And if one took them seriously as a true and accurate source of information then more fool them.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

(The title of the episode is "Bloody Mary, and it is hilarious, watching it might give anyone watching some much needed comedic relief on this subject)

I thought it was hilarious too.
I didn't take their episode on AGW too seriously either.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

I’d like to see the context on this one. Please provide a link.

You posted there for more than a year. Try your bookmark bar.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

I find it hard to believe this person didn’t have much more valid reasons to leave AA.

She had multiple "last" straws. It just struck me that someone offended by decaf may personalize other things that are not actually about her. I don't have to dig hard to find absurdities on "Stinkin' Thinkin" or similar threads. It's like stealing candy from a baby.

About the death threat:

An anonymous blogger on the site repeatedly posted messages about "X" (by full name) saying he was a "dictator" and that everyone in his group had a number tattooed on their wrists. The blogger said "X" should be registered as a sex offender and that people were dead as a direct result of his actions. The posts promised "he will soon experience KARMA." Does the anonymous blogger report this murderous predator to the police? No. He/she would rather post it on a site where it won't be challenged.

"X" sent an email asking the blogmistress to remove the comments. It included her home address. Her claim: "Mr. (last name redacted by me, but not by her) opened his email to me by letting me know that he knows where I live, made a demand and threatened to sue. Seeing my home address, I understood it as an attempt to intimidate me."

Brilliant, that. Of course it was an attempt to intimidate her - into removing the comments. He said "Please." He used no foul language. I strongly suspect that "X" sent a PDF of a business letter that included the address. There's nothing abusive in the letter; just a short, sweet request for redress. Then she gets a hangup call, allegedly from "X." Could be; I imagine he was angry that the comments weren't removed. Instead, in spite, she posts a blog entry inviting him to kiss her ass.

A few days later someone far from "X" posts a comment: "Thank you for supplying the information to arrest (redacted). You have dealt the Mexican Drug Cartel a major headache." That's the death threat.

Now: In this story, who has been wronged? Whose name has been dragged through the mud by an anonymous poster? Who might also interpret the "karma" comment as a threat? Who tried politely to get the comments removed? Who does the blogmistress purposefully insult and slander by his full name yet again in her "explanation"?

Who makes herself the victim?

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Now this one I really need to see for myself.

Some posters thought Brian's experiment was a terrible idea. Others told him to go for it, under certain parameters - that it would be empowering. I wasn't fair. I'm sorry.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by qayak

Actually, no one has posted any positives, yourself included. This thread is discussing the fact that the negatives seem to far out number the positives of AA and Bill.

WHAT?? This is a whopper.

Originally Posted by qayak

That is the crux of the whole thread. If AA has no effect on alcoholic rates, is run like a religion, and allows sexual abuse of female members, then there are no positives.

Sexual abuse of male members would be OK?

Run like a religion? Really this makes no sense. You long ago concluded 1M people who think it helps them are kidding themselves.

And per effectiveness - you've thrown around lots of stats so tell me again: Where does the 5 percent effectiveness rate come from? I keep asking; no one can present the evidence. And were you the ibogaine guy? Just ain't happening, is it?

Originally Posted by qayak

Now you're claiming 13 Stepping doesn't happen at AA meetings anymore?

Just another sentence that you started that got away from you. No antecedent before the "it," or something like that. You said something about Bill, then switched the topic of the sentence without adequate warning. Here's a trick: Try seeing if you can write multiple sentences that are a) clear and b) factually correct.

Originally Posted by qayak

How do you know? AA has never tried.

How do I know AA can't confer perfect protection against what might happen outside of AA meetings? Because no one can. This idea that we can make things perfectly "safe" is a mirage. Look, you talk about the poor vulnerable possibly homeless females in AA. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that being strung out and living on the streets isn't "safe" either.

Originally Posted by qayak

It would seem that we have managed to all but eradicate that kind of behaviour in many other social situations, what is so special about AA that it can't be done there?

Oh. My. God. You really believe that? We have all but eradicated such behaviors elsewhere? I don't know what you're using for evidence. But I know it's futile to ask.

Originally Posted by qayak

AA and its meetings are not a free society. AA is an organization and the meetings are governed by mob rule.

"AA is an organization"? Well that's pretty damning right there.

AA has no coercive power. Go or don't go. Stay in the meeting you're in, or not. There will be occasional votes on things, like how to manage the coffee fund. This "mob rule" is just another anti-AA meme and guess what?

You know it.

[Joey McGee]

Edited by LashL:

Moderated thread.

Quote:

Not for criticizing AA. For actively promoting hate against a select group of people. That is called bigotry.

Promoting hate against people and criticizing religious cults are two different things. Scientology says the exact same things against all of their critics. No one is buying their arguments either. Atheists are called a hate group. JREF is called a hate group. It's an attempt to smear, end the conversation and thought-stop people.

Edited by LashL:

Moderated thread.

[Minoosh]

Quote:

I have seen one poor guy who was having trouble stopping drinking due to his head being wrecked over his sponsor (who was a woman stringing him along sexually).

This sounds like a bad idea. Why would he pick such a sponsor?

AA is a convenient scapegoat. It won't fight back. Et voila - detractors can now blame someone else for their own poor choices.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Inciting violence, actively promoting bullying, bigotry etc. You know? All the things that stinkin' thinkin' revel in.

Where is the evidence of this incitement of violence and why did you make this claim without providing it?

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It wasn't a measure over time; it was a snapshot. Going by Orange's analysis, and Bamberger who's not in love with AA, it was a frequency distribution and diving 5 by 19 was appropriate.

*snippage*

It's true they were approaching from a pro-AA perspective (which they did not try to hide), but I believe they interpreted the newcomer data honestly. It you want to attack Bill W.'s honesty, have at it. Attacking the honesty of the report authors, especially that they cooked the books, seems totally out of line.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Exactly, which is why I want to find alternative references for the 5 percent efficacy claim. This paper clarifies that 19 percent of first-year respondents were in their first month and 5 percent were in their 12th month.

It's an analysis of how a flawed statistic emerged. You believe the paper "does nothing" besides support your prior belief. No, it also shows where the 5 percent statistic originated, which is doing "something" besides reinforcing your prior belief.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I can't picture what you're talking about. So I'll try to communicate what I'm picturing.

The given frequency distributions come from averaging out several AA "snapshots" (triennial surveys). Because the frequency distribution seems fairly consistent, I will assume that trends are consistent and make some longitudinal extrapolations.

*snippage of mathage*

Originally Posted by Minoosh

And per effectiveness - you've thrown around lots of stats so tell me again: Where does the 5 percent effectiveness rate come from? I keep asking; no one can present the evidence. And were you the ibogaine guy? Just ain't happening, is it?

Minoosh, you seem to be thinking that you're hitching your wagon to a team of Clydesdales when they're nothing but two broken hobby horses.

The study you're spending a ton of time trying to explain does not, in any way, support the conclusions they themselves claim. The paper in question first says that the 5% 'success rate' of AA is a myth. They try and back up this statement by looking only at membership attendance and then liberally applying assumptions that meeting attendance equals sobriety and 'success' in members' lives in general. There is a casual mention that the questionnaire that AA used asks a question or two about time sober, but nothing else is said about it and they continue on happily playing with numbers.

Also, the major thing that they are wildly blind of, is that the "...50%, 70%, 75%, 80% or 93% (take your pick) “success rate” it once reputedly enjoyed in the 1940s and 1950s..." that they're trying to refute are numbers that were initially put forth by Bill Wilson and the other early AAs and not detractors as is implied by the paper's authors. Direct quotes from the big book and other speeches and publications that show these numbers have already been linked to in this thread, so please do not ask me to post links as they have already been posted.

As to your befuddlement about where the 5% success rate came from, it's been explained to you and others in this thread. Simply put, it's the baseline spontaneous remission rate that is applied to alcoholics/addicts as a group. AA must show that their program has more of an impact than this and they have done so; except of course, that this effect is so far attributable to mere group attendance and not the AA program itself. (This last has been shown with studies done in areas other than AA.)

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Promoting hate against people and criticizing religious cults are two different things.

Indeed they are different, and Stinkin' Thinkin' is demonstrably in the former.

Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group and carries the hallmarks and prerequisites of a hate group.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Please provide conclusions, it is not my job to do your research.

This is rather amusing -- I thought one was supposed to arrive at one's own conclusions. Research and conclusions are two different things, Alfie. However, he's doing both. He's showing evidence to support his conclusions. You have been arguing against them for some time, which is fine.

I would wish that you'd supply much more evidence for your conclusions though. I would think you'd be happy to provide quotes or links to professional publications that a counselor would naturally have access to that the rest of us would perhaps not have.

Just as a little kickstart perhaps, here are the papers that I've researched, found, downloaded and read regarding the subject of alcoholism for this thread so that I may become better informed. I'm not an alcohol/drug counselor either; it makes me wonder why, during the last year and a half, you haven't done similar. Anyway, all or nearly all of them are published in peer-reviewed journals with proper citations and references.

As far as quick and dirty cites for this thread, hopefully there is enough information to follow up with in case anyone is interested in reading them. I'd be willing to share maybe up to three of these with a person who PMs me with the titles. I got them all through my school's access with EBSCOHost, so it shouldn't be a problem for me to pass on a few to interested parties.

The 12-Month Prevalence and Trends in DSM–IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
Bridget F. Grant, Ph.D., Ph.D., Deborah A. Dawson, Ph.D.,Frederick S. Stinson, Ph.D., S. Patricia Chou, Ph.D., Mary C. Dufour, M.D., M.P.H., Roger P. Pickering, M.S.

Acetaldehyde mediates alcohol activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system
M. Mel, P. Enrico, A. T. Peana and M. Diana
European Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 26, pp. 2824–2833, 2007 doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05887.x

Adolescent Satisfaction with Brief Motivational Enhancement for Alcohol Abuse
Maryam Kia-Keating, PhD, Sandra A. Brown, PhD, Marya T. Schulte, MS, Teresa K. Monreal, MA

Adolescent Depression, Alcohol and Drug Abuse
EVA Y . DEYKIN, DRPH , JANICE C. LEVY, MD, AND VICTORIA WELLS, MD, DRP H

Alcohol Consumption Primes Automatic Alcohol-Approach Associations
Suzan R. Farris and Brian D.
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 34: 703–711, 2008
ISSN: 0095-2990 print / 1097-9891 online DOI: 10.1080/00952990802308247

Alcohol Dependence, Withdrawal, and Relapse
Howard C. Becker, Ph.D.

The alcohol-preferring P rat and animal models of excessive alcohol drinking
doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2006.00029.x Richard L. Bell et al.

An Alternative Counseling Model for Alcohol Abuse in College: A Case Study
B. Grant Hayes, Jennifer Curry, Mark S. Freeman, and Tyson H. Kuch

Decreased Amygdala Activation during Risk Taking in Non-Dependent Habitual Alcohol Users: A Preliminary fMRI Study of the Stop Signal Task
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35:284–289, 2009
ISSN: 0095-2990 print/ 1097-9891 online DOI: 10.1080/00952990902968569

Efficacy and Safety of Aripiprazole in Alcohol Dependence
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse , 33: 393–401, 2007
ISSN: 0095-2990 print/1097-9891 online DOI: 10.1080/0095 2990701313 660

Bayes’ Theorem to estimate population prevalence from Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores
METHODS AND TECHNIQUES doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02574.x

Behavioral Therapy Across the Spectrum
Katie Witkiewitz, Ph.D., and G. Alan Marlatt, Ph.D.
(FROM THE ABSTRACT TO CLARIFY: These behavioral therapy techniques, which can provide effective treatment a cross the spectrum of severity of alcohol abuse disorders, include facilitated self-change, individual therapies, couples and family approaches, and contingency management. New methods of delivery and successful adjuncts to existing behavioral treatments also have been introduced, including computerized cognitive–behavioral treatments, Web-based guided self-change, and mindfulness-based approaches.)

Binge drinking and depressive symptoms: a 5-year population-based cohort study
RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02577.x

The CAGE Questionnaire for Alcohol Misuse: A Review of Reliability and Validity Studies
Shayesta Dhalla, MD, MHSc, Jacek A. Kopec, MD, PhD
Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
REVIEW ARTICLE

Childhood and adolescent predictors of early and middle adulthood alcohol use and problem drinking: the Columbia County Longitudinal Study
RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02175.x

Comparing Treatments of Alcoholism on Craving and Biochemical Measures of Alcohol Consumptions
Felice Nava. M.D., Ph.D.; Stefania Premi, M.D.; Ezio Manzato, M.D. & Alfio Lucchini, M.D.

The Employee Stress and Alcohol Project: The Development of a Computer-Based Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program for Employees
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 27:2 May 2000

A Developmental Perspective on Underage Alcohol Use
Ann S. Masten, Ph.D.; Vivian B. Faden, Ph.D.; Robert A. Zucker, Ph.D.; and Linda P. Spear, Ph.D.

Evaluating a selective prevention programme for binge drinking among young adolescents: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Lammers et al. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:126 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/126

Adolescent risk factors for adult alcohol use and abuse: stability and change of predictive value across early and middle adulthood
RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02178.x

Early childhood predictors of early substance use and substance use disorders: prospective study
Mohammad R. Hayatbakhsh, Abdullah A. Mamun, Jake M. Najman, Michael J. O’Callaghan, William Bor, Rosa Alati
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2008; 42:720-731

Reducing potential mental health issues and alcohol abuse through an early prevention model for victims of peer harassment
Melissa A. Faith , Kenya T. Malcolm and Rebecca A. Newgent,
Work 31 (2008) 327–335 IOS Press

Tests of the elaborated intrusion theory of craving and desire: Features of alcohol craving during treatment for an alcohol disorder
David J. Kavanagh, Jon May and Jackie Andrade DOI:10.1348/014466508X387071

The Use of Emerging Technologies in Alcohol Treatment
John A. Cunningham, Ph.D., Kypros Kypri, Ph.D., and Jim McCambridge, Ph.D.

Are there empirically supported and clinically useful subtypes of alcohol dependence?
Victor M. Hesselbrock & Michie N. Hesselbrock
Society for the Study of Addiction (Suppl. 1), 97 – 103

European Union scientific production on alcohol and drug misuse (1976-2000)
Xavier Sanchez-Carbonell , Elena Guardiola % Ana Belles & Marta Beranuy
doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01135.x

Genetic factors influencing alcohol dependence
RD Mayfield, RA Harris and MA Schuckit
British Journal of Pharmacology (2008) 154, 275–287 www.brjpharmacol.org

Genetic Research: Who Is At Risk for Alcoholism?
Tatiana Foroud, Ph.D.; Howard J. Edenberg, Ph.D.; and John C. Crabbe, Ph.D.

Estimating the effect of help-seeking on achieving recovery from alcohol dependence
doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01433.x

Substance Abuse Is a Disease of the Human Brain: Focus on Alcohol
Raymond Anton

Measuring Liability for Substance Use Disorder among College Students: Implications for Screening and Early Intervention
The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35:233–241, 2009
ISSN: 0095-2990 print/ 1097-9891 online DOI: 10.1080/00952990903005957

Risk, resilience , and natural recovery: a model of recovery from alcohol abuse for Alaska Natives
RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02057.x

Neurobiology of Alcohol Dependence Focus on Motivational Mechanisms
Nicholas W. Gilpin, Ph.D., and George F. Koob, Ph.D.

NIAAA: Advancing Alcohol Research for 40 Years
Kenneth R. Warren, Ph.D., and Brenda G. Hewitt

Performance Measures for Alcohol and Other Drug Services
Deborah W. Garnick, Sc.D., Constance M. Horgan, Sc.D., and Mady Chalk, Ph.D.
Alcohol Research & Health Vol. 29, No. 1, 2006

Quote:

Not for criticizing AA. For actively promoting hate against a select group of people. That is called bigotry.
Inciting violence, actively promoting bullying, bigotry etc. You know? All the things that stinkin' thinkin' revel in.

Inciting violence is a very serious charge and has specific legal requirements in order to rise to the level of a crime. I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you've read that indicates incitement to violence by people posting on websites.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

WHAT?? This is a whopper.

Yeah, it's a whopping big truth.

Quote:

Sexual abuse of male members would be OK?

No. You seem to have a problem with logic. That I mention only the abuse of female members is because I am not aware of any abuse of male members and not because I condone the abuse of male members. Or perhaps this is just another way for you to avoid the actual issue under discussion yet again.

Quote:

Run like a religion? Really this makes no sense. You long ago concluded 1M people who think it helps them are kidding themselves.

Yes, run exactly like a religion/cult. No evidence, no reason, no testing.

Quote:

And per effectiveness - you've thrown around lots of stats so tell me again: Where does the 5 percent effectiveness rate come from?

From AA's own claims and it was gone over ad nauseum earlier in the thread. You need to read the links and thread before claiming people haven't provided the things you ask for.

Quote:

And were you the ibogaine guy? Just ain't happening, is it?

As mentioned before, an ibogain study is going on right now in British Columbia. We'll both have to wait for the results. How's AA's study on their effectiveness going?

Quote:

Just another sentence that you started that got away from you. No antecedent before the "it," or something like that. You said something about Bill, then switched the topic of the sentence without adequate warning. Here's a trick: Try seeing if you can write multiple sentences that are a) clear and b) factually correct.

You need to re-read what actually happened. You stated that Bill's little peccadilloes had been known for decades. I wondered why if it had been known for decades that Bill was 13 Stepping women why the practice of 13 Stepping women was still rampant in AA. One would think something would have been done about it. That's a lot of harm to a lot of women that you don't seem to give one hoot about, you only seem to care about preserving Bill's sainthood within AA.

Quote:

How do I know AA can't confer perfect protection against what might happen outside of AA meetings?

How did you come up with the idea that the protection needs to be "perfect?" I just asked if AA had done "anything" to protect people from abuse. It hasn't and then you come up with the absurd idea that they do nothing because they can only do something if it leads to perfect protection.

Quote:

Because no one can. This idea that we can make things perfectly "safe" is a mirage. Look, you talk about the poor vulnerable possibly homeless females in AA. I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that being strung out and living on the streets isn't "safe" either.

Yeah, there's justification for it. "That woman is living an already risky lifestyle so let's bring her to a meeting so the local sickos can have a go at her!"

[causeandeffect]

[quote=Minoosh;7801543]About the death threat:

Quote:

An anonymous blogger on the site repeatedly posted messages about "X"

You make it sound as if this person was a regular blogger and left repeated posts on ST. That is not true. It was a hit and run comment on one if many sites.

Quote:

(by full name)

Wrong again. It was a nick name and last initial.

Quote:

saying he was a "dictator" and that everyone in his group had a number tattooed on their wrists.

Wrong again. They had SG tattooed on their wrists which stands for Sponsorship Group.

Quote:

The blogger said "X" should be registered as a sex offender and that people were dead as a direct result of his actions.

You conveniently left out this:

“Dictator X and his disciples have been ruining the lives of young women since at least 2000. To call what they do “13th Stepping” would be a compliment. Imagine a group of people with no medical or psyciatric training that tell people how and why they need to stop taking necessary medication! It’s a disgrace. People have suffered and in some cases are dead as a direct result of this groups actions!”
His group was already known about. Do you think such actions should be covered up? It would appear so, but I suspect AA cultwatch would have to disagree with you on this. This is the kind of behavior they are concerned with preventing.

Quote:

Does the anonymous blogger report this murderous predator to the police? No. He/she would rather post it on a site where it won't be challenged.

I suppose that you have evidence that this anonymous “blogger” didn’t report this to the police. I’m sure you will be able to provide a link to this evidence.

Quote:

"X" sent an email asking the blogmistress to remove the comments. It included her home address. Her claim: "Mr. (last name redacted by me, but not by her) opened his email to me by letting me know that he knows where I live, made a demand and threatened to sue. Seeing my home address, I understood it as an attempt to intimidate me."

Yes, including her address and calling her was an attempt to intimidate. Had he asked politely without the intimidation, she would have removed that obscure reference to him.

Quote:

I strongly suspect that "X" sent a PDF of a business letter that included the address.

Now why in the world would a PDF of a business letter have her home address and not his? Why are you misrepresenting this whole situation? It really doesn’t look good for your argument, you know.

Quote:

There's nothing abusive in the letter; just a short, sweet request for redress.

No it was a short, sweet threat and there really wasn’t anything sweet about it.

Quote:

Then she gets a hangup call, allegedly from "X."

Allegedly? It was a call from the same number listed in the email.

Quote:

Could be; I imagine he was angry that the comments weren't removed.

Why would the comment be? He had never asked her to remove it before this threat. And it was one single comment on a thread that wasn’t even active at the time. It barely got noticed.

Quote:

Instead, in spite, she posts a blog entry inviting him to kiss her ass.

Yes, she did. Is she somehow obligated to give in to intimidation?

Quote:

A few days later someone far from "X" posts a comment: "Thank you for supplying the information to arrest (redacted). You have dealt the Mexican Drug Cartel a major headache." That's the death threat.

Funny how that person far from “X” was in a hotel in Miami just a couple days later, and funny how the FBI found there was someone checked into the same hotel, and that “someone far from ‘X” just happened to have the exact same name as “X”, now isn’t it? And posting that she helped to bust a drug cartel most certainly is a death threat, if their friends find out about it. So is posting that known felons are pedophiles with her full name and address.

Quote:

Now: In this story, who has been wronged? Whose name has been dragged through the mud by an anonymous poster? Who might also interpret the "karma" comment as a threat? Who tried politely to get the comments removed? Who does the blogmistress purposefully insult and slander by his full name yet again in her "explanation"?

Oh, poor, poor X, who it seems has done things worse than 13th stepping, and has caused deaths by telling people to get off their doctor prescribed medications. He should just get a pass in life, because, you know, he’s just as flawed as anyone else.

Quote:

Who makes herself the victim?

Yeah, that’s a shame. But who got himself investigated by the FBI?
There was also this chilling disclaimer from his website, among other frightening things. If you combine this with the fact that he also practices hypnosis, it’s a recipe for sexual abuse.
'
“Some women can't differentiate their vaginal opening with their anal opening.”

http://highcolonic.org/

http://www.quackometer.net/?url=http...Fservices.html

His company was given 9 out of 10 quacks on the quackometer

Quote:

Some posters thought Brian's experiment was a terrible idea. Others told him to go for it, under certain parameters - that it would be empowering. I wasn't fair. I'm sorry.

You still haven’t provided a link to substantiate this accusation, and you can’t because it’s not there. Empowerment to us is knowing we can choose to not drink or drug without the use of a religious cult. There was no advocating the use of drugs. Why would anyone stoop to this level to protect any organization if it wasn’t a cult?

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

[edit=LashL]Please provide conclusions, it is not my job to do your research.

You have been spoon fed far too much alfie. You need to read for a change.

Quote:

Inciting violence,

Evidence please.

Quote:

actively promoting bullying

Evidence please.

[quote] bigotry etc Evidence please.

Actually, it's so obvious the bigotry in calling others a hate group just because they hold opinions and beliefs different from you. No one is blindly trashing all AA members, although some members have brought the criticism on themselves. Most of those you call a hate group openly admit that most AA members are nice. Others members are not good people and deserve to be exposed. We simply believe superstitious faith healing is damaging to people in innumerable ways and many times the damage is to nice people even when they don't recognize it themselves. The damage is really apparent to outside observers.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

About the death threat...

Minoosh I think you should read the entire story, take some time to think about what you're saying here, and then try again. You're making a very serious mistake here. It so outrageous that I'm not outraged, I'm just sad.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Minoosh, you seem to be thinking that you're hitching your wagon to a team of Clydesdales when they're nothing but two broken hobby horses.

I'm hitching my argument to mathematics.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

The paper in question first says that the 5% 'success rate' of AA is a myth. They try and back up this statement by looking only at membership attendance and then liberally applying assumptions that meeting attendance equals sobriety and 'success' in members' lives in general.

No. They clarify that the figure was never an indication of success.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

There is a casual mention that the questionnaire that AA used asks a question or two about time sober, but nothing else is said about it and they continue on happily playing with numbers.

Nothing else is said because the paper's purpose is to debunk the 5 percent success rate myth. "Playing with numbers," yah, it's called statistics.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Also, the major thing that they are wildly blind of ... they're trying to refute are numbers that were initially put forth by Bill Wilson and the other early AAs and not detractors

"Wildly blind"? Did you miss this sentence? "The assertion of a 50-75 percent success rate in AA is derived from various AA literature sources ..." The assertion of a 5 percent success rate is a later artifact, used by many sources.

Quote:

Can you tell me: Where does the 5 percent "success rate" come from as is implied by the paper's authors.

They don't "imply"; they state explicitly where it came from: widespread misreading of a frequency distribution graph that averaged 5 triennial surveys and could roughly indicate the rate of retention.

Quote:

As to your befuddlement about where the 5% success rate came from, it's been explained to you and others in this thread.

Malarkey. The 5 percent figure for AA persistently seems based on thin air. In the case of "spontaneous remission," posters here don't agree on what the term even means. You seem to think that this number included people who were in AA; the person who posted it in 2010 specifically stated these people did not attend AA.

Is AA more helpful than doing nothing? Intuitively I believe doing something is more helpful than doing nothing, especially if you've concluded alcohol is a problem in your life and spontaneous remission has not so far occurred. But, that is just intuition; I may be wrong.

AA is helpful to some people and not to others. Some people may find it was once helpful to them, and no longer is; some who find it's not helpful now may find it helpful in the future.

Maybe it was helpful to someone who would have attended other types of abstinence support, but found AA more convenient. Maybe giving it a one-month trial is more helpful than going once. Maybe it's more helpful to people choosing it rather than those forced into it. Maybe it's more helpful if you work the steps, or if you share, or if you volunteer to clean the bathroom. Is AA "treatment"? An adjunct to treatment? Does it work best with group therapy? One-on-one therapy? Yoga? Cardio? B vitamins? These are all questions of clinical interest; but you are an individual.

In the U.S., 1 million people clearly believe it has helped them; take that at face value; it's of limited value as evidence. Be aware that the vast variations among those million people and the myriad ways people do AA make it difficult to quantify the benefits, if any, of AA.

As indicated by the titles of the research articles Norseman has posted - and thank you for that - there is a lot of variation among alcohol and drug abusers. My hearty recommendation to most people having difficulty stopping or moderating on their own - who want to stop - is to attend at least a few meetings.

If you're feeling fragile, take a friend, or attend a women's meeting (if you're a woman) or a men's meeting or an LGBT meeting if you're queer/transgendered or a Spanish-speaking meeting if you want or an agnostic meeting if it fits and you can find one. Do what you can to increase your own comfort and perceived safety and maximize the chance that you'll find a good fit.

This may be a minority opinion, but as far as I'm concerned you can even have a couple of drinks first. You would not be the first person to attend a meeting in an altered state. But don't get snot-slinging drunk until after the meeting (if at all). It makes you vulnerable and perhaps more likely to be disruptive.

If you really hate it you don't ever have to go again. But the skeptical thing is to check it out for yourself. I don't think they'll be able to brainwash you in a single sitting. Within reason, and within your comfort level, explore different groups and formats. I love(d) speaker meetings - better than cable - and not so much Big Book study. Another low-key alternative is to read a couple of issues of The Grapevine. It will give you an idea of both variety and core principles.

And do as many other things as you realistically can to support abstinence. That means you perhaps will never be able to identify a single deciding factor if you succeed at abstaining. But I believe you'll boost your own chances, whether or not AA ultimately becomes a part of your life.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Indeed they are different, and Stinkin' Thinkin' is demonstrably in the former.

Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group and carries the hallmarks and prerequisites of a hate group.

So why is it so hard for you to present a reasoned argument or evidence to support this conclusion?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Where is the evidence of this incitement of violence and why did you make this claim without providing it?

I have no desire to rejoin the ST thread - the hatred is sickening. I recall many discussions that included comments like "following around AA members and repaying them for their crimes" (or words to that effect). These things were allowed to pass without moderation.

I also curious why you don't hold the same evidentiary standards for ST. You will happily repeat accusations of "rape" without a shred of evidence except for the comments of some anonymous poster.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

This is rather amusing -- I thought one was supposed to arrive at one's own conclusions.

I wanted the conclusions (a summary if you like) of the studies' findings. Is that too much to ask?

And to be honest, I don't recall seeing the cited studies (or recall the name at any rate).

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I would wish that you'd supply much more evidence for your conclusions though.

Which conclusions would they be exactly?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Inciting violence is a very serious charge and has specific legal requirements in order to rise to the level of a crime. I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you've read that indicates incitement to violence by people posting on websites.

Legal definitions aside (and I admit to not knowing the requirements and exact definitions), the accusations fit snuggly with my understanding.

As I said above, I have no desire to revisit ST. But perhaps you could take a quick browse through their thought provoking threads - a few minutes of your time will give you a good insight I believe.

Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group.

[Loss Leader]

Don't mean to interrupt the discussion, but having no experience with addiction in my family, I had to go look up the term "13th Stepping." Not only does it appear to be commonly understood, it even has its own T-shirt.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Don't mean to interrupt the discussion, but having no experience with addiction in my family, I had to go look up the term "13th Stepping." Not only does it appear to be commonly understood, it even has its own T-shirt.

I don't find this funny. 13th stepping is not synonymous with sex, it is a term used for taking advantage of vulnerable people. I'm not shocked, blaming the victim and making sociopathy seem normal is what cults are best at.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

You have been spoon fed far too much alfie. You need to read for a change.

I think I can safely assume you have nothing to give me.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Actually, it's so obvious the bigotry in calling others a hate group just because they hold opinions and beliefs different from you.

No it's a hate group because it matches the p[rerequisites fior a hate group. It has nothing to do with differing opinions

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

No one is blindly trashing all AA members,

Sure they are, The entire forum is dedicated to "muckraking" 12 step groups. That suggests to me all the members. Indeed the members are disparagingly referred to as 12-steppers.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Most of those you call a hate group openly admit that most AA members are nice.

And yet they are blind to the factors that make it a hate group. Quite the conundrum isn't it?

Here's a definition of a hate group:

A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate groups have a "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

I think we can safely say that ST meets the criterion, namely:

- The primary purposes is to promote animosity, malice and hostility etc.
- Against a designated sector of society that differs from their own.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I don't find this funny. 13th stepping is not synonymous with sex, it is a term used for taking advantage of vulnerable people. I'm not shocked, blaming the victim and making sociopathy seem normal is what cults are best at.

Well, I was only pointing out that I found the very existence of a t-shirt on the subject to be surprising. I found another one (only viewable in the search result here) that appears more empowering to women.

However, I did think the joke was funny. In my mind, it doesn't make light of a serious problem so much as it calls attention to the problem itself. I understand your point, though. A shirt that said, "Sometimes I rape myself,| wouldn't be very funny to me at all. Rape, to me, isn't really a topic one should joke about.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by qayak

That's a lot of harm to a lot of women that you don't seem to give one hoot about, you only seem to care about preserving Bill's sainthood within AA.

I'm protective of women and men in the fellowship. This image of serial predators doing "a lot of harm to a lot of women" has lately picked up steam on the thread. You've pointed out that a million positive anecdotes don't prove anyone has been helped by AA; yet anecdotes of abuse are not only accepted as truth but pumped up as proof of systematic outrages perpetrated by the drop-in center for drunks, which moreover stem from or are informed by the personality of Bill Wilson.

I'm not saying I disbelieve these women. Personal safety is something women should keep always in mind. Men as well. At my first NA meeting (God, 20-some years ago now) some junkie needed a ride home. I volunteered. People observing the exchange took me aside and warned me in general about giving rides to strangers. This guy didn't intimidate me; I dropped him off without incident. The point was well-taken, though; we see these drunks who clean up nice and forget that they wouldn't be in "the rooms" if they were poster children for mental health. It is certainly appropriate to be on guard at AA.

And I've said several times this topic should be discussed at a national level. AAWS, I assume, can make recommendations. But it's just a fact that the real safety-enhancement measures will take place on a local level - people pulling a newcomer aside and saying, "Remember, these people are sick."

The only reason I defend Bill Wilson is because he's being attacked with negative anecdotes cherry-picked from biographies to make him look bad. Positive anecdotes from the same sources are ignored. I have no interest in preserving his "sainthood"; but, I admit, I do have an interest in preserving his humanity. This instinct runs wide and deep with me; I've spent a lot of my life making sure news accounts were fair and accurate and (as space or pixels permit) complete.

Can we at least agree Bill W. is dead? And that a generation and more has dealt with "13th-stepping" in a context that, as time goes by, has less and less to do with the complex, grandiose and extremely needy personality of one William G. Wilson?

That may be too much to ask, I know.

BTW what is that green man in your avatar? Something about the scale of JREF avatars obliterates meaning for me. Norseman is a picture of a dude, I get that. I'm a blank space, I get that. Other people change theirs to suit their latest convictions. But I don't know what your little green man is.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I have no desire to rejoin the ST thread - the hatred is sickening.

Isn't that what psychics say about not visiting the JREF? In any case, that's not an excuse for not providing evidence of a claim that they are inciting violence.

Quote:

I recall many discussions that included comments like "following around AA members and repaying them for their crimes" (or words to that effect).

I don't believe you or your interpretations. Seeing as humans are often biased about such things, could you provide evidence for this?

I assume some people will complain about giving page rank to someone they disagree with. Use a link shortener with a nofollow option then. Example

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

In any case, that's not an excuse for not providing evidence of a claim that they are inciting violence.

I might have a look later today if I can be bothered and have the time.

However my definition of a hate group remains accurate, why no comment on that?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I don't believe you or your interpretations. Seeing as humans are often biased about such things, could you provide evidence for this?

Because humans are biased about such things, I will as soon as you can provide evidence for:
- the serial rape charges you (and your hate group friends) throw around with reckless abandon.
- the claims of other science based treatments, their modalities and their efficacy results.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

I assume some people will complain about giving page rank to someone they disagree with. Use a link shortener with a nofollow option then. Example

I have no idea what this means or what you are talking about.

In the meantime, Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group by definition in spite of any lack of evidence provided by me (thus far) about inciting others to violence.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

You make it sound as if this person was a regular blogger and left repeated posts on ST. That is not true. It was a hit and run comment on one if many sites.

"I": "A few of these comments appeared here (using the full last name) buried in the discussion section of random posts, and they were not on my radar. "These," "they." Plural

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Wrong again. It was a nick name and last initial.

"I": "A few of these comments appeared here (using the full last name)
"These," "they." Plural. The full last name. Unless she's changed her story again. And, in mentioning the group by name, the poster was ID'ing the guy. That's actionable. Don't take my word for it; check out libel laws.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Wrong again (sic [added by Minoosh]). They had SG tattooed on their wrists which stands for Sponsorship Group.

I'm sorry if I erred. Do you have evidence of the tattoos or are you relying on the anonymous poster?

Quote:

“Dictator X and his disciples ... (snip of standard anti-AA memes)

Yeah, I left out that boilerplate. In libel/slander law, repeating the allegations may make the repeater liable. It's nothing to do with "covering up"; simple journalistic prudence.

Quote:

I suppose that you have evidence that this anonymous “blogger” didn’t report this to the police. I’m sure you will be able to provide a link to this evidence.

Since the comment gives credit to the message board for providing to evidence to arrest "X," I deduced that earlier that evidence had not been forthcoming. I could be wrong.

Quote:

Yes, including her address and calling her was an attempt to intimidate. Had he asked politely without the intimidation, she would have removed that obscure reference to him.

References. She would have done the right thing but she didn't like his tone. So she escalated.

Quote:

Now why in the world would a PDF of a business letter have her home address and not his?

Far all I know it did have his and she didn't mention that. But, there are valid reasons to include the address. You're establishing it's the "I" in question; if it's not, the receiver will correct it; if it is, you've established where the complaint can be served.

Quote:

No it was a short, sweet threat and there really wasn’t anything sweet about it.

"Please," remove this slander. It's not true. If you don't, I shall sue." Quite appropriate and to the point. She may have preferred, "Oh, pardon me, so sorry you've victimized me, but perhaps you could remove the lies against me facilitated by your blog?"

Quote:

And it was one single comment on a thread that wasn’t even active at the time. It barely got noticed.

If true - and "I" tells a different story - that may help in court. "I only slandered him a little bit, though I did later give his first and last name and repeated the allegations for the sake of clarity."

Quote:

Is she somehow obligated to give in to intimidation?

A responsible editor feels obligated to respond quickly to allegations of slander. The "threat" of litigation is standard practice in slander cases. Perhaps he saw no point in appealing to her better nature.

Quote:

Funny how that person far from “X” was in a hotel in Miami just a couple days later, and funny how the FBI found there was someone checked into the same hotel, and that “someone far from ‘X” just happened to have the exact same name as “X”, now isn’t it?

Sorry, I missed that. Funny how he didn't cover his tracks better, instead leaving a trail leading directly to him. He could have recruited someone to do it for him. Anyway, I'm sure that's convenient for law enforcement.

Quote:

Oh, poor, poor X, who it seems has done things worse than 13th stepping, and has caused deaths by telling people to get off their doctor prescribed medications. He should just get a pass in life, because, you know, he’s just as flawed as anyone else.

And your source? Anonymous hit-and-run cut-and-paste jobs?

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

- the serial rape charges you (and your hate group friends) throw around with reckless abandon.

People abusing the vulnerability of their new members suffering from serious addiction and emotional problems that the cult claims to have the answers for, while technically not always rape, is still disgusting. The teenagers at midtown were abused. While the police couldn't find anything to press charges with, it was still wrong. But people defend AA by saying "They were of age". It's repulsive.

Quote:

- the claims of other science based treatments, their modalities and their efficacy results.

You still don't get it, the claim was that AA doesn't want to integrate anything else, it operates as a closed system. People in meetings constantly will say stuff like "it's ok to get outside help" because they claimed to have the answers for so bloody long. Or like the guy from Harvard in the Penn and Teller episode said

"I hope that we are moving towards a day when AA will assume it's rightful place as one of a number of treatment approaches and that people will stop saying that it is the correct approach or the one approach, people will stop prescribing it from the courts"

So that's settled.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naltrex...hol_dependence

The main use of naltrexone is for the treatment of alcohol dependence. After publication of the first two randomized, controlled trials in 1992, a number of studies have confirmed its efficacy in reducing frequency and severity of relapse to drinking.[4] The multi-center COMBINE study has recently proven the usefulness of naltrexone in an ordinary, primary care setting, without adjunct psychotherapy.[5].

Why aren't people looking for answers for alcoholism given this information by Alcoholics Anonymous? Why do they not use it as one of their tools? Because it's a faith healing cult.

Quote:

I have no idea what this means or what you are talking about.

Why didn't you google the terms "page rank" and "nofollow" then?

Quote:

In the meantime, Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group by definition in spite of any lack of evidence provided by me (thus far) about inciting others to violence.

There's no difference between ST and a blog that criticizes Scientology except for whose side you are on. The fact that you never give any examples of what is so wrong with them is illustrative.

[Joey McGee]

Also, The Journal for Addictions Nursing study that has been posted in this thread half a dozen times shows that rape and 13th stepping is a problem in AA.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I might have a look later today if I can be bothered and have the time.

You might be bothered to provide evidence for your claim that people incited violence. How many times have you lectured people about providing evidence in this thread so far? How many times have you bragged about your ability to do this for your arguments while on this forum? When it comes to something extremely seriously like this, the fact that you haven't done this yet, and casually declare that you might do it, is illustrative.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

BTW what is that green man in your avatar? Something about the scale of JREF avatars obliterates meaning for me. Norseman is a picture of a dude, I get that. I'm a blank space, I get that. Other people change theirs to suit their latest convictions. But I don't know what your little green man is.

Mine avatar is the dude off the cover of Canadian rock band April Wine's 1976 album "The Whole World's Goin' Crazy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who...oin'_Crazy

Seemed appropriate for some of the discussions here.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Minoosh I think you should read the entire story, take some time to think about what you're saying here, and then try again. You're making a very serious mistake here. It so outrageous that I'm not outraged, I'm just sad.

Someone pointed out something I missed, after realizing it I went through the passage in question and acknowledged I'd missed it.

If you find factual errors in my synopsis I'll do what I can to fix them. If it's an error of interpretation, I'll look at the entry and revise it if possible. But, nothing you've said in your post gives me a clue about what I'm getting wrong. I'd like to hear what you have to say, especially in concrete terms without a lot of loaded words/phrases like "lame," "pathetic," "hilarious," "outrageous," "stupid," "sick," etc. You might want to look at my response to C&E; it's possible I fixed something you object to.

We obviously probably won't agree on the reliability of such sites as Orange and Stinkin' Thinkin." I do not agree with another poster that ST is a "hate group," but neither do I respect it as a source of balanced information.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I wanted the conclusions (a summary if you like) of the studies' findings. Is that too much to ask?

Sure. The studies I presented for you all have summaries on the first page succinctly stating their conclusions and how they arrived at them.

Quote:

And to be honest, I don't recall seeing the cited studies (or recall the name at any rate).

Alright.

Quote:

Which conclusions would they be exactly?

To be clear: you're now saying that you've never put forth any conclusions in this thread regarding alcohol/alcoholism/AA or expect me to go and find them? Then what?

Are you backing away from your claim that AA had a 15% success rate, then?

Quote:

Legal definitions aside (and I admit to not knowing the requirements and exact definitions), the accusations fit snuggly with my understanding.

"Legal definitions aside"? Why should they be left aside?

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I might have a look later today if I can be bothered and have the time.

However my definition of a hate group remains accurate, why no comment on that?

Your definition may be accurate, but you have yet to show evidence as to why anyone should come to the same conclusions as you regarding the website's members.

Being in a hate group is not, in and of itself, a crime by the way. If you think that a member of ST has committed a hate crime, then I'd be glad to provide links to you to inform the FBI of that. I guarantee you that they'd be interested in arresting and prosecuting perpetrators of hate crimes.

Quote:

Because humans are biased about such things, I will as soon as you can provide evidence for:
- the serial rape charges you (and your hate group friends) throw around with reckless abandon.
- the claims of other science based treatments, their modalities and their efficacy results.

I have searched out and read thirty four (more, actually) papers which I provided information for you above. What have you done, exactly, counselor? I've even politely offered to share what I've found for others to read as conveniently as possible. Ignored as I suspected they would be. So Alfie, go read up on it.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more amazed I am that a professional counselor who deals with addiction such as yourself doesn't even show an inkling of professional interest in these things. Or if you do, you certainly hide it well from the members of this forum.

Besides, Alfie, why would it matter to you if AA wasn't successful at promoting sobriety better than 5%? You're warmly ensconced in AA; you found your wife in AA; you have lifelong friends in AA. Having non-AA alternatives that work better (are more successful at maintaining long-term sobriety) wouldn't harm you nor anyone you know. Yet -- knowing something 'better' could definitely help the clients you treat. So why not show more of an effort in this thread in finding those ways?

Read the papers, Alfie. Let's all hash over them together. See if they stand up to scrutiny.

Quote:

I have no idea what this means or what you are talking about.

In the meantime, Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group by definition in spite of any lack of evidence provided by me (thus far) about inciting others to violence.

So you're now backing away from your claim that ST members incite others to violence? Just so we're all clear on this.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

, while technically not always rape,

... it is not rape.

Great! You admit to slander of the innocent. I feel like we are getting somewhere

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

You still don't get it, (irrelevant snipped)

Actually it is you who don't get it: You have said on numerous occasions that there are other treatments you support/recommend (owtte). What are they, what are their modalities and what are their efficacy rates?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Why didn't you google the terms "page rank" and "nofollow" then?

What for?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

There's no difference between ST and a blog that criticizes Scientology except for whose side you are on.

I wouldn't know about those sites having never visited them. If there is no difference then they would qualify as a hate group too under the FBI definitions wouldn't they.

In the meantime, Stinkin' Thinkin' is a hate group.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Are you backing away from your claim that AA had a 15% success rate, then?

Not at all, I don't need to back away because I never claimed it.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

I have searched out and read thirty four (more, actually) papers which I provided information for you above. What have you done, exactly, counselor? I've even politely offered to share what I've found for others to read as conveniently as possible. Ignored as I suspected they would be. So Alfie, go read up on it.

There are 34 of them as you say, just how quickly do you think I can find them and read them?

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Besides, Alfie, why would it matter to you if AA wasn't successful at promoting sobriety better than 5%?

It wouldn't matter one bit to me.

Originally Posted by The Norseman

So you're now backing away from your claim that ST members incite others to violence? Just so we're all clear on this.

OK. Simply for the sake of me not having to visit that disgusting site again, I withdraw the comment around inciting violence. The rest stands as does my accurate assertion that Stinkin' Thinkin' is nothing more than a hate group.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

You posted there for more than a year. Try your bookmark bar.

So you make a claim, someone asks you to back it up, and you say "Go find it yourself." Illustrative.

Quote:

About the death threat:

An anonymous blogger. on the site

you meant commenter on an old article.

Quote:

and that people were dead as a direct result of his actions. The posts promised "he will soon experience KARMA." Does the anonymous blogger report this murderous predator to the police? No. He/she would rather post it on a site where it won't be challenged.

Sponsors have been telling their sponsors to go off their medications for many years with many suicides being the result as has been discussed in this thread at length. People who tell others to avoid cancer therapy and "go natural" aren't charged with causing deaths but it's clear their advice leads to avoidable deaths every day. If a sponsor tells a sponsee that they won't sponsor them as long as they are on "drugs" and the sponsee stops taking them, goes crazy from withdrawal and kills themselves soon after, did they cause that death legally? Maybe not, but anyone with a brain knows that without that quack faith healer's intervention there's a very good chance that wouldn't have happened. I'm not defending the poster's actions spamming the internet with these claims, but it's what's behind their anger.

Quote:

"X" sent an email asking the blogmistress to remove the comments. It included her home address. Her claim: "Mr. (last name redacted by me, but not by her) opened his email to me by letting me know that he knows where I live, made a demand and threatened to sue. Seeing my home address, I understood it as an attempt to intimidate me."

Brilliant, that. Of course it was an attempt to intimidate her - into removing the comments. He said "Please." He used no foul language. I strongly suspect that "X" sent a PDF of a business letter that included the address. There's nothing abusive in the letter; just a short, sweet request for redress.

This is an extremely serious error in judgment. Just because someone says "please" doesn't excuse them saying also, "I know where you live." when you don't know that person and they obviously had to do a certain degree of stalking to find that information. Seeing as this person later tried to get them killed, you're apologizing for the actions of a very disturbed person here. There's also reason to believe they were the same person who called into that radio show days later with the most disgusting remarks I have ever heard. All for what? Why are you doing this? All to defend someone just because they happen to belong to the same religious cult that you do?

Quote:

I'd like to hear what you have to say, especially in concrete terms without a lot of loaded words/phrases like "lame," "pathetic," "hilarious," "outrageous," "stupid," "sick," etc.

You want to avoid having your feelings hurt or sensibilities offended by my opinions? There's an ignore feature here. Maybe you should try explaining to me why those adjectives were inappropriate in the context in which they were used.

Quote:

" I do not agree with another poster that ST is a "hate group,"

This I appreciate you saying.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

... it is not rape.

Great! You admit to slander of the innocent.

Quote me slandering the innocent or withdraw the comment.

Quote:

OK. Simply for the sake of me not having to visit that disgusting site again, I withdraw the comment around inciting violence. The rest stands as does my accurate assertion that Stinkin' Thinkin' is nothing more than a hate group.

How about apologizing to the people you accused of inciting violence?

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

....

We simply believe superstitious faith healing is damaging to people in innumerable ways and many times the damage is to nice people even when they don't recognize it themselves.

That currently is your recognized right. Keep doing what you're doing and with any luck that will change.

Quote:

The damage is really apparent to outside observers.

Sorry. The clamor at stinkinthinkin and orange papers doesn't cut it for most US people in AA or not.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Your definition may be accurate, but you have yet to show evidence as to why anyone should come to the same conclusions as you regarding the website's members.

Exactly.

[causeandeffect]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

"These," "they." Plural. The full last name.

I’m so sorry, my bad. It looks as if she may have found more of these cut and pastes after she closed the blog. And the cut and paste example shown doesn't have the last name, only a last initial.

Quote:

Since the comment gives credit to the message board for providing to evidence to arrest "X," I deduced that earlier that evidence had not been forthcoming. I could be wrong.

I assume you don’t mean the same “X”. Perhaps “Y” would be more appropriate. The comment gave credit to Ilse for providing information that led to the arrest of members of a Mexican drug cartel, which are different people than “X”. You see what “X” actually did was go to Miami Beach, rent a room in a very lavish hotel, and using their internet service he made a post claiming Ilse had provided information to arrest the Mexican drug cartel. He also made a post, which included her full name and home address, claiming a recently arrested gang member in her area to be a pedophile. (You would have to have seen the original thread to know this about the local gang member) It’s an attempt to manipulate others to do his violence for him.


Which begs the question: If the hit-and-run post was libelous and “X” was truly innocent, why didn’t he simply sue? Especially when there could be money in it for him. Why travel to Miami, rent a lavish room, (I traced the IP to a very expensive hotel, it was gorgeous) and attempt to get a Mexican drug cartel to do a “hit” on her? And why try to get gang members local to her to do his dirty work for him?


I don’t know about you, but if anybody said anything bad about me, whether it was true or not, I would never, ever even so much as think about having that person killed. In fact, I’m being libeled right now on this very thread, but I’m having no murderous or even vengeful thoughts whatsoever.


And did you catch the part where on Monica was speaking to a man whose sister in AA had committed suicide, and someone from the same area code called and claimed to have had sexual relations with her dead body? Although area code coming from his locality is clearly circumstantial, whoever did it was a real, um, um, I’m having a hard time to come up with a polite word here.


As for the source, there was someone on another site who lived in the area in NJ and verified that the Sponsorship Group was a very destructive group and that people from other meetings discouraged membership in that particular group. I know, I know, you'll just insinuate they are liars too.

Quote:

Some posters thought Brian's experiment was a terrible idea. Others told him to go for it, under certain parameters - that it would be empowering. I wasn't fair. I'm sorry.

I’m still interested in this claim. Are you absolutely certain this person who was encouraged to use drugs was named Brian? What kind of drugs? Do you remember what the thread was? Did this occur more than a year ago? As you may know, the site is huge and would be difficult for me to find this reference by just using a bookmark.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

So you make a claim, someone asks you to back it up, and you say "Go find it yourself." Illustrative.

Multiple requests in a single post saying could you please provide a link when the commenter knew where it came from is disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

...you meant commenter on an old article.

"I" says someone "is leaving" comments on forums and never mentions the age of the articles. As for "blogging" and "commenting," I see the difference, but the "blogger" is facilitating the comments. Responsibility kicks in at some point.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Sponsors have been telling their sponsors to go off their medications for many years with many suicides being the result as has been discussed in this thread at length.

"Many" suicides as the direct result of sponsors telling sponsees to go off their medications. Do you have statistics? I see anecdotes. Grief involves anger and grieving a suicide must involve a boatload of it. I believe the anger sometimes latches on to a proxy target. If the anecdotes appear on forums devoted to trashing AA, I take them with a grain of salt. I'm not saying it's never happened.

BTW I'm not real keen on the sponsor system. It wasn't part of the original program. You need feedback to work certain parts of the program, but relying on one person has drawbacks. Maybe I will elaborate in another post.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

This is an extremely serious error in judgment. Just because someone says "please" doesn't excuse them saying also, "I know where you live." when you don't know that person and they obviously had to do a certain degree of stalking to find that information.

Joey, why is it "obvious" there was a degree of "stalking"? A degree of "research," sure. Would most people call Net searches "stalking"? In any event, "I" is not absolved from an ethical duty to disown slander just because he indicated he knew her address. It sounds like they both engaged in power plays, but I wasn't there.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Seeing as this person later tried to get them killed, you're apologizing for the actions of a very disturbed person here.

You have just convicted him of suborning homicide, based on one side of the story. I find it weird that Mr. "X" would travel far from home, check into a hotel in his own name and (apparently) use the hotel's computer to make a threat. It could have happened that way, but I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Why are you doing this? All to defend someone just because they happen to belong to the same religious cult that you do?

Joey, that is a heckuva good question. If this were a typical forum I wouldn't bother trying to use logic. But it is a site devoted to critical thinking, where people are called on fallacious reasoning and asked to present evidence other than anecdotes. This is not supposed to be a place where people insult each other, cherry pick evidence, assume facts not in evidence, engage in ad homs, etc. Or where terms like "many," "countless" or "numerous" are immune from challenge.

For decades I had a career largely devoted to clear thinking, clear writing, fairness, accuracy and context. I was happy to find this forum. It satisfies my need to think, write and learn. On this thread, the fallacies really bothered me and countering them has become a compulsion. AA doesn't need me to defend it and soon I will move on.

Joey, I suspect I'll always be grateful to you. The discussions help me see how deeply I grieve not only my career but my sobriety. I want to be back in "my" AA, a generally kind, supportive, nonjudgmental space. There I can help protect actual newcomers from swine, and they can help me get back to the abstinence and structure I'm beginning to crave far more than drugs.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

People in meetings constantly will say stuff like "it's ok to get outside help" because they claimed to have the answers for so bloody long.

It sounds like people in meetings are working to counter cure-all perceptions, which might have been fostered in AA, by explicitly saying, "It's OK to get outside help." They can't change the past, correct? So they get slammed for changing the present?

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Why aren't people looking for answers for alcoholism given this information by Alcoholics Anonymous? Why do they not use it as one of their tools? Because it's a faith healing cult.

If naltrexone turns out to be the magic bullet you think it is, believe me, word will get around. Pharmaceutical reps will be out pushing it to doctors like you wouldn't believe. They'll start advertising it on TV. Problem drinkers will snap it up. There's no need for AA to peddle pills; the drug industry's got it covered.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Which begs the question: If the hit-and-run post was posts were libelous and “X” was truly innocent, why didn’t he simply sue?

As they say, ftfy.

Don't know why he didn't just sue. Maybe he thought she might remove the comments? Didn't have money for a lawyer but wanted it to sound like he did?

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Why travel to Miami, rent a lavish room, (I traced the IP to a very expensive hotel, it was gorgeous) and attempt to get a Mexican drug cartel to do a “hit” on her? And why try to get gang members local to her to do his dirty work for him?

C&E, I'll eat crow when I see the indictment. BTW I thought it was the FBI that traced it to the hotel. I hope you can't trace mine, and that your ability to trace is linked to your affiliation with ST. Are you threatening me by implying you can ? Because I should tell you, my IP address is misleading.

I'm not really too afraid of the ST crowd because they seem to covet their victimhood too much to take action. But I may be wrong, and it would suck to be the recipient of that much venom.

Oh - and since you're an ST insider, I'm just curious: Do you know if the first email from "X" was a PDF attachment? Did an actual letter ever arrive by post? If he was serious about suing, he should have sent the letter registered mail, return receipt requested.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Although area code coming from his locality is clearly circumstantial, whoever did it was a real, um, um, I’m having a hard time to come up with a polite word here.

How about "sick"?

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

As for the source, there was someone on another site who ... verified that the... Group was a very destructive group and that people from other meetings discouraged membership in that particular group. I know, I know, you'll just insinuate they are liars too.

I have no problem admitting I don't know squat about the truth of the allegations on either side. The thing is, I don't have firsthand experience of the group's alleged transgressions. I do have firsthand experience of the ST mind-set. To me these people seem obsessed with blaming AA for their problems. From suicide to decaf. From where I sit (and maybe you can trace me!) it's just bizarre. Let's say, I'm not so much insinuating they are liars; I'm saying that I don't trust their perceptions.

Quote:

I’m still interested in this claim. Are you absolutely certain this person who was encouraged to use drugs was named Brian? What kind of drugs? Do you remember what the thread was? Did this occur more than a year ago? As you may know, the site is huge and would be difficult for me to find this reference by just using a bookmark.

I'd look it up but I'm out of green soap and Brillo pads. It's really not hard to find but I don't want to go there. The poster - who I will call "Brian" - was a 25-year-old who had been six years clean & sober after some crash-and-burn experience with cocaine as a teenager. He decided he wanted to be able to drink with "the guys." At least one poster advised that he should place specific parameters around the drinking. Brian at one point replied words to this effect ... "but why would there be a safe amount for alcohol but not for other drugs?" He mentioned his mom worked in the rehab he'd attended. And he was either out of touch with his mother or feared he'd become out of touch with his mother if she found he'd been drinking. So, the specific drug was alcohol and he wondered if the implication that there was a "safe" level for alcohol might mean there was a "safe" level for other drugs as well. As I recall he seemed pretty convinced he couldn't use cocaine. Maybe there are enough search terms in there to find it; you're good at tracing things.

Besides, I'm a bit worried that you are trying to get me to surf to the site so you can pick up my IP address. This is just all starting to sound too threatening. You actually saw the Miami hotel, so not only are you a computer wiz but you've got funds to travel. Or maybe you just looked at images on the Net. Wow, this is beginning to really creep me out

I really wondered about something you didn't respond to, which is why a guy who was having trouble quitting drinking would pick a female sponsor who was stringing him along sexually. It seemed like another example of blaming AA for individuals' bad judgment. But it could have happened, and it's one of my issues with sponsorship. Your judgment sucks, but you're supposed to pick the right sponsor. I'd prefer a team of mentors, myself.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

Which begs the question: If the hit-and-run post was libelous and “X” was truly innocent, why didn’t he simply sue? Especially when there could be money in it for him. Why travel to Miami, rent a lavish room, (I traced the IP to a very expensive hotel, it was gorgeous) and attempt to get a Mexican drug cartel to do a “hit” on her? And why try to get gang members local to her to do his dirty work for him?

I'm condoning nothing but if one throws enough dirt, some is bound to come back.

Hate attracts hate.

Originally Posted by causeandeffect

I don’t know about you, but if anybody said anything bad about me, whether it was true or not, I would never, ever even so much as think about having that person killed. In fact, I’m being libeled right now on this very thread, but I’m having no murderous or even vengeful thoughts whatsoever.

How are you being libeled exactly?

Originally Posted by Minoosh

"Many" suicides as the direct result of sponsors telling sponsees to go off their medications. Do you have statistics? I see anecdotes. Grief involves anger and grieving a suicide must involve a boatload of it. I believe the anger sometimes latches on to a proxy target. If the anecdotes appear on forums devoted to trashing AA, I take them with a grain of salt. I'm not saying it's never happened.

I just want to concur with everything is this paragraph. True and correct.