Date: Tue, March 6, 2012 9:05 pm (answered 8 March 2012) Hi Mr. Orange, I came across your website a while back while researching some of the AA traditions. I visit it from time to time and rummage through some of the links and letters. I myself am a member of AA — However I am not writing to you for the reason of defending AA, or changing anyones beliefs. I have no interest in that — The website is very well researched and often quite factual — but much of the writing (please do not take offense) does have a sway to it as being a matter of opinion rather than experience. Obviously it has a feeling of "personal agenda" — So my question (as the subject line is titled "curious" in this email) is this: Why have you put such an extensive effort into this website? I tried to project answers for little while tonight before writing this email — I imagined perhaps that you lost someone close to you, or maybe you yourself were a member — but even then, I could not even imagine putting even half of the amount of effort into something. For instance, I had a 2 family members who were murdered some years back, and a book came out which was tasteless and detailed the murder in a public forum — Then — a radio show aired which joked and mocked their brutal murders — I was completely twisted with anger — beyond belief — I wrote letters, left scathing book reviews, considered contracting killers lol (which would not have helped my sobriety) — even contacted a few lawyers — but after a few months I no longer had the fuel to keep at it. I find your dedication to this quite interesting, almost fascinating — You may actually be far more dedicated than the actual members. I am most interested to learn why. It is a rather odd hobby, you must admit. But perhaps it is just a hobby- My apologies if your personal bio is already on the site and I did not see it. I am very curious to hear of your experience. I do have one crit for you — Perhaps a re-design is in order soon to break down some of those links into a simpler format :)
Sincerely,
Hello xTinA,
Thank you for the question. Yes, there is already a biography on the web site, but it is distributed here and
there in bits and pieces, and not easy to find.
So here you go:
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[The next letter from Xtina is here.]
Date: Wed, March 7, 2012 9:47 am (answered 8 March 2012) Orange, Just a couple/few random thoughts I had while re-reading your back letters. You know, the letters actually compose a more reader friendly way of digesting information. When I say "reader friendly", I mean friendly to those who shy away from walls of text, and for better or worse, that seems to be most folks. Also, as you've pointed out, nothing you say could possibly illustrate the true Serenity of steppism as wonderfully as the heinous e-mails you get.
Hello Taylor,
Thanks for the letter. And yes, I just couldn't make up that stuff.
Anyhow, there were actually two things in particular I wanted to mention and share my thoughts on if you don't mind. Although, I fear I won't quit when I should. I think it's interesting, and perhaps misinformed, that so many people seem to believe that writing for, and updating this website is the pinnacle of your existence. And that is must be an absolute joy for you. I hope you'll forgive me armchair psychology, but I believe that this assumption has it's basis in the fact that most of those people would tear out their own teeth for a chance at the kind of attention, good or bad, that you garner. I am not asking you to disclose anything here, mind you. But if it were me running the Orange Papers, I would be tired. It wouldn't be a joy, it would be a burden to bear, made tolerable only by the e-mails from people who say I'd helped them. In my mind, this is a much more realistic scenario. And the fact that it could be termed a "labor of love", or perhaps a "noble burden", makes me wonder why so many Steppists can't understand your purpose? Is "service" not of great importance to all who wish to achieve sobriety? Why, it's almost as if they're confused by something that's not self-serving.
You are quite right. It's just a job. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
The thrill was gone a long time ago.
And it is service, especially a service to the sick people and the coerced people who need to know the truth.
And it is not an absolute joy. What is an absolute joy is taking care of those cute little
fluff-ball goslings. That is what tickles the cockles of my heart. I'd really rather be doing that,
and I love it when the weather allows me to get out to the wetlands and feed the geese, like I
did the day before yesterday.
I'm kind of hoping to find some more orphans this year.
Now I have mixed feelings about that: The best thing that can happen is that no little goslings
get orphaned. The second best is that I find the little orphans before they die.
Something else I see come up often, and I felt this same way at one point, is people accepting that AA is a cult, but not understanding what it's ultimate purpose is. You've done a much better job of addressing the various non-monetary factors involved, and also done an admirable job of explaining how some of those aims are much more dangerous than simply wanting money. However, it's my opinion, that not unlike any given organism, organizations also have an inherent desire to propagate themselves. It's like a virus, in this sense. It may have no greater purpose than simply continued existence, and trying to infect more people when it has the resources. It's the frog and the scorpion. It's simply their nature. -Taylor
Yes, you have described the problem precisely. Institutions have a strong self-preservation instinct.
They have to, or they die out. The ones that have survived for a while are good at survival and reproduction.
It's no different than basic biology in that sense.
And some of them really do resemble viruses, don't they?
And often, the institution forgets or even betrays its original purpose, just to go on existing.
Witness the Catholic Church covering up and permitting criminal child abuse for centuries.
And torturing and burning girls as witches in the Middle Ages.
And burning astronomers as heretics, and suppressing new knowledge for centuries,
and preventing advances in medicine.
I know that wasn't their original mission, but that's where they ended up.
Similarly, A.A. did not start off intending to exploit and victimize alcoholics
and misinform them about alcohol abuse, but that is where they have ended up.
They have sunk to
suing A.A. members and committing perjury
in order to preserve their illegal income.
Now I know that Bill Wilson intended to make a bundle of money off of the alcoholics, and loved being worshipped as
a prophet, but I think it's fair to say that most of the early A.A. members were idealists and religious believers
who thought that they were creating a great new thing. Alas Babylon.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters294.html#Hetu-Ahin ]
Date: Wed, March 7, 2012 4:19 pm (answered 15 March 2012) Dear Organe, What's lunatic about this version of the twelve steps without 'God?
Hello again, "Hetu-Ahin"
Now this is interesting. You send me 12 steps of your own creation, and try to imply that they
have something to do with a religious organization called "Alcoholics Anonymous" that declares in
its holy book that God is the only answer.
Obviously, what you have sent here is not the official "council-approved" A.A. theology.
And this is not what people get indoctrinated with when they are sent to A.A.
Nevertheless, let's look at your steps.
Cheers, Hatu-Ahim
Date: Wed, March 7, 2012 5:55 pm (answered 15 March 2012) Dear Orange, You wrote: "By the way, yes, A.A. is very crazy in the USA. In spite of their jabber about Freedom of Religion, you would start a civil war with your secular talk if you did it in American A.A. meetings. Remove God from the Program? No way in Hell."
That depends on which meetings in the US you go to. Go to any of the
substantial number listed here and you would be welcome: A.A. has token agnostics like how racist corporations have token Negroes. While tradition 3 is not respected by Toronto Intergroup, it is in the US, and the Toronto agnostics have not been delisted from New York. The story of the atheist and agnostic A.A. meetings getting delisted from the A.A. meeting schedules by the religious bigots is here: http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters241.html#John_McC According to my non-believing friends on the AAAA sites, the reception of nonbelievers in nonagnostic AA groups varies from group to group. Civil war threatens only in some of them.
Cheers,
Again, every group that discriminates against atheists or agnostics proves that A.A. is a hypocritical
cult religion, not a cure for alcohol abuse. There is a big gap between theory and practice.
And claiming that only some groups are nasty to the agnostics and atheists is standard alcoholic
minimization and denial.
You really should read chapter four of the Big Book — We Agnostics —
again, and see how Bill Wilson teaches that all of those nasty agnostics and atheists need to
get converted to his beliefs:
So, you only think that you are an agnostic or an atheist. You will eventually learn that
you aren't. You are merely
"confused about
certain theological terms that you don't understand".
So cheer up. After a while, you will get converted to Bill's beliefs,
and you will learn that Bill Wilson is right about everything after all.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters294.html#Andrew_S ]
Date: Wed, March 7, 2012 7:48 pm (answered 15 March 2012) AO, You want to have it both ways. If AA is indeed a religious organization that is being illegally foisted upon criminals by the government, then it deserves the same social and moral deference that other religions receive.
Hello Andrew,
A.A. gets such deference, precisely because it is a religion.
A.A.W.S. and the General Service Board and The Grapevine
are registered non-profits.
Do you see A.A. paying taxes? They don't.
Do you see any laws restricting what A.A. can preach? There aren't any that I know of.
A.A. can even advocate treating a deadly disease with the practices of an old cult religion.
Legally, A.A. gets all of the benefits of a religion.
Because A.A. is a religion, it is illegal to sentence
people to A.A., and it's illegal to sell A.A. as a cure for alcohol abuse.
I personally assume that it is better to fight anemia with iron pills than with prayer, but the Christian Scientists think otherwise. I am certain they are wrong, but as a citizen of a civilized society that celebrates free religion, I don't have the right to interfere. I can criticize, but mostly I have to assume that the people involved have consulted their conscience and have found a way of life that works for them.
I agree with the first part: If some goofy church wants to substitute prayer for iron pills,
there isn't much that we can do about it. Although there is a fine line there:
If some parents are killing their children by depriving them of iron, then the parents can be sent to prison.
Here in Portland, we have a goofy church called The Followers of Christ Church that does not believe
in doctors or medical care. They only believe in faith healing — lots of prayer. They will not take their children
to a doctor when the children are sick. As you can imagine, they kill a kid every
so often. The district attorney has gotten fed up and prosecuted some parents, who were convicted of
manslaughter, and the father got years in prison and the mother got probation (so that she could
care for the surviving children). Now, the state is prosecuting yet another pair of parents because they
did it again. Now obviously, those parents have crossed a line between freedom of religion and murder.
You second line, with the phrase "found a way of life that works for them" is without basis.
Obviously, that "way of life" isn't working for The Followers of Christ Church.
I am not preaching defeat. I am preaching objective, detached acceptance of other people's spiritual beliefs, no matter how poorly-founded, irrational or nonsensical. What does that mean? Anybody can believe any silly thing? Anybody can do anything if he believes in it? That has nothing to do with the practical problem of helping sick people to quit drugs and alcohol. If alcoholics are free people with normal intellects, they can handle the humbug and superstition of AA. 95% of them do, and never return to the rooms after a year. Most people can sniff out bullshit, and AA is a prime example of bullshit. Why should people have to "handle the humbug and superstition of AA"? Better to just walk away from it, and use something else that actually works, rather than raises the death rate in alcoholics. AA is on the legal side of fraud, along with multi-level marketing, get rich quick real estate speculation, penny stocks, unnecessary vitamin supplements and bottled water (in the USA tap water is generally as safe and tasty as bottled water). If someone attends, and they find they like it, and believes in their own conscience that they need it, we do not know enough about their personal life to contradict them.
You are right that A.A. is on the ragged edge of legality, and it's a scam.
Your second line is another lame attempt to push acceptance of cult religions as a medical treatment.
What you are advocating is having mentally-ill people choosing cult religion because "they
find they like it", and "believe they need it".
With that argument, you could sell anything from voodoo to cannibalism.
As I have said before, I agree with your empirical evidence. I just don't agree with your hostile tone or the idea that AA is a deliberate fraud executed by criminal masterminds. Really, AA exemplifies the same sort of social cohesion and wishful thinking that you see in religion, business, education and sports. Not a deliberate fraud? Americans spend $20 billion per year on the "recovery industry", and that money just accidentally falls into the pockets of con artists who sell cult religion as a quack medical treatment? The crooks are just fantastically lucky, and never conspired to get the money? Baloney. The "doing" mind thinks as the basketball player goes to the line: I am the world's best basketball player and I never miss a free throw. The "training" mind thinks during the practice session: I miss 42% of my free throws thus I need to practice them more. Is this schizophrenia? Doublethink? Self-delusion? I would argue that lies like this keep us sane and productive. Our capacity to lie to ourselves has been linked to our capacity to be happy. The important thing is to be able to recognize untruths like this as only having a limited practicality and to assess them on flexible, common sense criteria. What is self-esteem but the lie that I am unique and important? Patriotism is the lie that we are special because of what country we are born in. Hope is the lie that things will work out for the best (the biggest lie of all).
This is nonsense.
What does thinking about basketball have to do with "our capacity to lie to ourselves"?
Then you argue that lies are a good thing. No, I'm not buying that for a minute.
Now you aren't the only one to come up with that line. Other people have argued
that A.A. was "a useful lie."
This doctor refuted the arguments: check out:
The Useful Lie, William L. Playfair, M.D.
Some people are so lonely, and so without social peers, that AA has a positive effect on them. Can we agree on that statement, AO? Perhaps they're one out of twenty, but they're out there. AA gives them a little flicker of hope that they can help other people stay sober. Yes, that hope is as remote as us seeing our favorite childhood pet in heaven. Again, you are assuming "a positive effect" without any basis. What Dr. George E. Vaillant found was that A.A. caused an increase in the death rate of alcoholics. So what tests did you do to establish what positive effects come from A.A. meetings? How did you decide that the positive effects outweigh the negative effects? How did you measure those things? We have a guy named "Still Dave" (as in "I'm still Dave") who is a veteran with alcoholic dementia. In an ideal world he would have somewhere else to go. He doesn't speak. Doesn't interact in the meeting. Probably, he should be institutionalized. This might be his only opportunity to interact with people as peers and equals, not as a case for a social worker. He's fallen through the cracks and the three meetings he attends daily provide him with a comforting layer of socialization and routine. Most of us can take care of ourselves, I'm worried about Still Dave and what he would do without his daily meetings. In a perfect world, he would have adequate health care, social opportunities and meaning in his life. In our foolish, imperfect world he has AA. Cheers Andrew
Get real. We can't end A.A.'s racket, or poor Still Dave won't have anyplace to go?
Now that is really a pathetic argument.
We don't need a world-wide cult religion deceiving sick people by the millions just
so that Dave has some place to go and sit.
Oh well, have a good day anyway.
== Orange
Date: Thu, March 8, 2012 12:30 pm (answered 15 March 2012) Richard B. here again. It warmed my heart this morning to see you sticking it to that arch-pseud Gregory Bateson. He and A.A.'s defenders were made for each other. Here's additional confirmation from a high-quality source.
The reviewer's judgment on the book overall: "pretentious and muddled." Sad to think that this bird was peddling his wares in Academia for year after year and getting them to pay for it. I don't know about you, but every time I come across the word "epistemology" in any of its forms I get very suspicious.
Best
Hi again, Richard,
Thanks for the input. That confirms my suspicions. And it leads me to one more question:
I wonder whether that guy is just intellectually lazy and dishonest, or does he suffer from
some strange kind of brain damage? His thinking is so goofy, and the misuse of words is so extreme and so odd,
that I wonder if he isn't exhibiting the signs of a strange neurological disorder.
(And he obviously has a history of alcohol abuse, and that kills lots of brain cells.)
I get this creepy feeling that "Something does not compute".
Oh well, have a good day.
== Orange
[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters294.html#John_H ]
Date: Fri, March 9, 2012 5:54 pm (answered 15 March 2012) Hello Terrance, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. My name is John H. and I live in Shelbyville, Tennessee. I am not an alcoholic but I love the program of AA. I am an active Al-Anon member and at one point recorded AA speakers at a local speaker meeting for nearly five years until I burned out.
Hello again John,
Thanks for the letter.
I encountered Jack Kennedy at a meeting in Tullahoma Tennessee where he ranted about Bill Wilson and his character defects. Most in the audience, including me, (at the time) knew nothing of Bill's infidelities even though his ego was legend. After he finished his two hour harangue I went up and shook his hand and asked if I had detected a resentment or two. He immediately denied any resentment against Bill. He had gotten sober in AA. He claimed to be a professional investigative journalist throughout his talk. I only heard later that he lived in Franklin, Tennessee. He had talked the guy with him into buying new recording equipment so that they could sell the CD's. I think he sold about four CDs that night. I know the guy who was with him but only run into him at recovery events. I'll have to ask for more Jack K details if I'm fortunate enough to see him again. My wife's sponsor bought one of the CDs and I think it ended up here but that would require a search. My wife has been in and out of AA for years but in 2004, after nineteen years of attending meetings on and off she finally did something others in AA do. She got a sponsor and worked the steps. Today she's going on 8 years of good sobriety and is very active. Similarly I'm very active in local and online Al-Anon.
It is good that she is not committing suicide by bottle. Very good.
There is, of course, no reason to believe that her getting a sponsor and
"working the Steps" caused her to quit drinking. To think so would be
assuming a cause-and-effect relationship
where none exists. The usual cause of such sobriety is that she finally decided to really get sober,
because she wanted to, so she did.
She did it by just not drinking any more alcohol.
She got a grip on herself and changed her behavior. My congratulations to her. I
know that changing old long-established bad habits, like addictions, is really difficult.
And then she also wasted a lot of her spare time doing the practices of an old cult
religion from the nineteen-thirties because somebody deceived her and fooled her into believing
that the cult religion routine was good for something.
My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007. I found myself spending time in hospitals while she underwent surgery and chemo. Many hospitals now have WiFi for those of us who wait while someone else gets treatment. One day while looking at Youtube videos I came across Penn and Teller's "That's Bullshit". I now have a much greater appreciation for BS. One of the videos begins with Penn (I think he's the one who talks" taking AA on. He starts by saying something like, "Hello my name is Penn and I haven't had a drink in 46 years. In fact I'm 46 years old and I've never had any alcohol". After that he launched in to a tirade about AA. That's when the BS began. When he said he had never had alcohol my immediate thought was, "Why do you have an opinion?" I figured he was just mouthing someone else's agenda.
That is the logical fallacy called
Spurious Delegitimization of Evidence or Criticism.
You don't have to be a member of a group to have an informed opinion of the group.
Remember that you are not a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, either.
I was never a member of the K.K.K. or the Communist Party or the Nazi Party, but I have strong opinions on them, too.
And I know some things. I'm not just forming opinions out of ignorance.
Also, I'm not a Catholic, but I have strong opinions on many Church doctrines and practices, and the
historical track record of the Church, ranging from child abuse to burning girls as witches.
The Penn & Teller criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous is quite accurate.
Proclaiming that doing the guilt-inducing practices of an old cult religion from the
nineteen-thirties will make people quit drinking alcohol is bullshit.
Back to Jack's presentation. I was a bit taken aback by his revelations however I started doing my own investigation, mostly on the internet of course. It turns out that Bill's infidelities were widely known in the General Service Office. Part of my information also comes from your web site in that I learned that one of the reason's Tom P broke from AA and founded AAA was his disenchantment with the remaining founder. Bill's lack of sainthood is also discussed on the AA History Lover's (Yahoo) email list so Jack's revelations were really nothing new for many people who had gotten sober in AA and remained that way in the program (Steps). Yes, being a sexual predator is just one of Bill Wilson's many crimes. What it finally came down to for me was a couple of theories, probably not worth mentioned but I will. I think that if Dr. Bob had lived another ten years the movement probably would have split up. I also think that the extremely flawed Bill Wilson was a visionary. AA stories are full of mentions of people who carried a good message but couldn't stay sober. They talked the talk as did Bill. Jack K said Bill begged for a drink on his deathbed. I think that's false but it's not important to me. If he did, so what? I think the flaws of Bill Wilson will prevent him ever becoming the "Jesus" of AA. Many naive members of AA worship Bill but I've not been able to find anything in his writings or audio files where he suggested he be worshiped.
Your idea that Bill and Bob would have split the organization is interesting.
There is no evidence that I've seen, but that's an interesting idea.
Clarence Snyder certainly would have split A.A. if he could have.
About Bill Wilson's demands for a couple of shots of whiskey on his deathbed,
that comes from the log book of the male nurse who
tended to Bill Wilson at the end.
That log book is in the A.A. historical archives.
The story is documented in Susan Cheever's biography of Bill Wilson
My Name Is Bill; Bill Wilson — His Life And The Creation Of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Ms. Cheever was allowed access to the secret locked and sealed A.A. historical archives because
she could be trusted to not reveal anything really bad.
We discussed that more
Now the real question for me is, "Did Bill Wilson drink at other times?"
Some people have written to me and said that Bill Wilson never got much more than a year of sobriety.
The other A.A. members covered up his relapses in order to save the legend and
perpetuate the fairy tale story of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Maybe that is one of the secrets that the A.A. headquarters is keeping hidden in the
locked and sealed historical archives.
Before he died, Bill Wilson made a long, rambling set of audio tapes where he told his story.
(Those tapes are part of what is hidden in the locked and sealed archives.)
Bill's admirers used those tapes for two favorable biographies of Bill Wilson, Robert Thomsen's Bill W.,
and the Hazelden foundation produced an "autobiography" called
Bill W., My First 40 Years. They finished with this cryptic line:
Remember, that "autobiography" was written by Hazelden staff
members, using
a set of autobiographical tape recordings
that Bill Wilson made before
his death. So just what are they hiding in the sealed A.A. archives?
What else is on those tapes?
I am eager to hear those "future historical revelations".
And that isn't even counting
Bill's tripping on LSD for a couple of years.
Now personally, I don't regard taking LSD to be the same thing as drinking alcohol.
They are different drugs, with different effects. But a lot of people regard taking LSD as losing your sober time.
For any movement to become a cult there must be an object of worship, a master list of members, dues and some sort of loyalty requirement. I've been observing and studying AA as a non-alcoholic (former heavy drinker) for twelve years and I see none of the above. Looking up the word "cult" at Dictionary dot com produces about four meanings none of which seem universal to AA.
Sorry, nope. That is not a list of requirements for a cult, even though A.A. has most of those things.
The only one that is obviously missing is the "master list of members". But such a list is just not needed.
Now, for a real list of cult characteristics, see
The Cult Test.
By the way, I hung out with another cult for a while. They were named "Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism".
They had no dues, and no official membership list, and you just went to meetings and chanted "Nam-Myoho-Renge_Kyo"
seven days a week. You chanted for world peace, and you chanted for money, and for a new car, and for a new job,
and for a new apartment, and for whatever else you wanted. Just chant. All of the time.
Get out your wish list and chant. That is the answer to everything.
They were of course stoned crazy. But they still had no dues and no official membership list.
And you didn't have to sign a loyalty oath, either.
Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism actually resembled A.A. in a lot of ways: They claimed to have a panacea, crazy as it was: just chant.
They went to meetings all of the time, even seven days a week (just like 90 meetings in 90 days).
They had some crazy beliefs that came from an old cult religion.
They had no rational or logical explanation for how chanting
would achieve all of those things and give me everything I wanted; they just insisted that "It works. Try it."
They claimed that they were very open-minded and ecumenical, and you could belong any other
church or religion while you chanted.
At the same time, I was taught that the Pope was one of the ugliest and most evil men on Earth.
And they went recruiting every day, asking people, "Would you like to go to a Buddhist meeting?", not explaining
that Nichiren Shoshu was not really Buddhism, it was a chanting cult.
About the definition of a cult:
Cult
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, 1993.)
A.A. matches all of those items, especially number 8.
Likewise,
Cult
(Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1993.)
Again, A.A. matches several of those descriptions, and especially matches definition 5.
AA says it doesn't hold the patent on sobering up drunks and that drunks have gotten sober in all sorts of ways. AA just happened on a solution that worked for many who wanted to become sober and stay that way. One thing seems evident to me is that the only person who can bring about any type of recovery in an addicted person is that addicted person himself. Through a series of events in the 1930s this was revealed to several people and it took off from there. Tens of thousands of people have achieved some form of sobriety in AA and the Twelve Steps have propagated to other venues.
Actually, no. A.A. did not "just happen on a
solution that worked for many". A.A. has never worked. Bill Wilson lied.
Look here.
I strongly agree that "the only person who can bring about
any type of recovery in an addicted person is that addicted person himself."
And that is why A.A. is not only useless, but harmful.
Instead of teaching people how to get a grip and fix their own lives, A.A. teaches that
alcoholics are "powerless over alcohol", and cannot recover without a
"group" saving them, and that they must "surrender" and expect
"Higher Power" to remove their shortcomings and defects of character.
The only thing that was revealed to several people in the nineteen-thirties was the fact
that
Dr. Frank Buchman could live in luxury
by selling a pro-Nazi cult religion to the suckers.
Bill Wilson liked the look of that so much that he got in on it too, and he never had to
work a straight job again, either.
He got a house in the country, and a Cadillac car, and a ton of money, just for writing books that
sold Frank Buchman's cult religion to drunkards.
Now you are claiming that "tens of thousands" of people have achieved sobriety in A.A.?
But A.A. claims that it has two million members. By those numbers, only about
one in a hundred A.A. members is really sober.
Furthermore, you are ignoring spontaneous remission. Alcohol addiction has about
a five percent per year spontaneous remission rate,
so out of two million alcoholics, you should get 100,000 people just sobering themselves
up each year, without any 12-Step nonsense.
A.A. doesn't get to claim the credit for them.
Those are the people who would have sobered themselves up anyway. And they often get sober in spite of
A.A. teachings, not because of them.
I haven't had much time to go back to your web site. I work long
days, even at 67. I am in the radio communications business and service
police departments and do work for broadcasters. Some of the work I do can
be seen on Youtube. Ah, radio. That's nice. I spent my career in various aspects of electronics too. I'm not sure why I wrote so much. I guess I just felt like it. Who would have thought that one of the most important classes I ever would take would be typing. I may be an Al-Anon member but tomorrow morning I'll be at the same place I've been for the last eight months. I'll be at a men's AA meeting in Tullahoma, Tennessee. Tomorrow afternoon I'll be working with a flight instructor taking a biannual flight review. I will also try my best to live my life tomorrow by the principles embodied in a set of twelve suggestions that somehow sprang from the mind of an out-of-work stock speculator in 1938. John
Actually, John, those "twelve suggestions" sprang from the mind of
a renegade Lutheran minister from Pennsylvania
who raved about
how much he liked Adolf Hitler.
(Oh, and
Bill Wilson was not a stock speculator.
He didn't have the money required to speculate in stocks.
Bill Wilson was a Wall Street hustler who sometimes recommended
stocks to speculators, and sometimes participated in stock swindles.)
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Last updated 2 June 2015. |