|
Date: Tue, November 26, 2013 4:32 am (answered 27 November 2013) Dear Orange, have you read this new book of Stephen King? It is a lot about his own(?) AA experience. I really would like to know what you think about it. I also would like to write about my opinions about this book and Stephen King, who is a good writer and intelligent man — unfortunately I can't. My English is so poor! Thank you for your good work! Sibylle
Hello Sibylle,
Danke für die Briefe. Ich habe das Buch nicht gelesen. Ich muss das machen.
Das is noch ein mehr.
(Okay, for the non-bilingual readers, I said, "Thank you for the letter. I haven't read that book.
I must do that. That's one more (for the list of things to do).")
That should be interesting. (Ich denke dass wird interesant sein.)
Oh, und vielleicht du kanst auf Deutsch screiben, und wir können es übersetzen.
(Oh, and perhaps you could write in German, and we could translate it.)
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Mon, November 25, 2013 5:37 pm (answered 27 November 2013) Hi Orange, I've been reacquainting myself with the content on your website for the first time since I stumbled across it during my own research into the idea of addiction several years ago. I'm impressed with your research and, coupled with other sources I've come across that examine AA from different perspectives, it's been quite educational. I was reading the correspondence between you and Mr. Meacham and I noticed this passage:
I know that part of the cause of that phenomenon is that people filter the incoming information stream constantly, and they tend to hear and see just what they wish to hear and see. Once they buy a particular viewpoint like that, they will tend to just see and hear things that support that viewpoint, so they will become more and more convinced of its correctness (so they become even quicker to reject and ignore contradictory information...). Another writer submitted the term "Apophenia", but there is another term which is appropriate: Confirmation Bias. It's an extremely common psychological phenomenon that is often taken into account out of necessity whenever particular kinds of studies are conducted.
Here is some more information, courtesy of Wikipedia: It is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect, which has often come to mind during my research of AA (particularly in relation to members whom you refer to as "old-timers", and sponsors). More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Thanks for your diligence in maintaining the site and making this information as easily-available as possible. Cheers, Alexander
Hello Alexander,
Thanks for the letter and the compliments. And thanks for the additional information.
More to learn. And yes, that certainly makes sense.
It says:
And also:
I especially hear that last one: "Oh God! I'll die without A.A.! (So it must be true.)"
I'm reminded of the Simon and Garfunkle song "The Boxer",
We ran into the idea of the Dunning-Kruger effect before, when someone came up with a study that
showed that the more incompetent people were in a particular area, the more that they mistakenly
believed that they were quite good at it:
And thus completely incompetent 12-Step counselors are quite convinced that
they are doing a good job of counseling people to quit drugs and alcohol (by introducing
the clients to the 12-Step cult religion), while really getting nearly a 100% failure rate.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone. I'm thankful that there are as many of us as there are,
free and unaddicted and alive and healthy, in spite of everything. So have a good day and enjoy your feast.
Date: Wed, November 27, 2013 3:29 pm (answered 27 November 2013) Orange, I'm going to quote you quite a bit on these four 30- minute programs, even when it comes to the heresies. What do you want me to tell the audience about your "religious affiliation". I will word it exactly the way you want it said OR I can tell them that you don't disclose it OR that you have none. If you want me to reveal that you're an atheist, I will make the point that it's a shame that an atheist is aware of AA's heresies but pastors who host their meetings are not. Churches need to be publicly shamed for not looking into what AA teaches before renting to them. Thanks Orange.
Hello Jim,
I'm not an atheist, not at all. I was asked the same question many years
ago, and gave this answer:
A hippie. Sorry if that sounds flippant, but that's really the most honest
answer I can give. I can't be an agnostic or an atheist because I got blasted
into other dimensions too many times, and saw too much.
I can't say that I ever saw God, but I definitely saw the possibility.
My personal religion is an amalgum of goodies stolen from all of the major
religions of the world.
If you want a label, the word "mystic" seems as appropriate as anything.
Either mystic, or "mystically-inclined". There is more to this universe
than meets the eye. I also like the way that Baba Ram Dass put it,
"The physical universe is only a small part of the whole Cosmos."
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Wed, November 27, 2013 4:49 pm (answered 27 November 2013) Orange, Would it be fair to tell the viewers that I am quoting a man called Orange who is not even a Christian, and yet he sees how AA's teachings are heresies as far as Christianity goes? This is not in any way a put-down of you for not being a Christian. My purpose is to shame the pastors for being so careless as to allow AA to deceive them. I will let you know the link, channel and time as soon as I find out. Thanks for the encouragement and being fair-minded towards me.
Jim B.
Hi again, Jim,
Wow, the wording is really tricky, isn't it?
Have a good day now, and a happy Thanksgiving.
== Orange (or Terrance, whichever you prefer)
Date: Wed, November 27, 2013 12:50 pm (answered 29 November 2013) Hi Orange, I do not mind if you post this one: What I am saying on the forum is tied into the anti-AA issue by showing that biblical Christianity should not be seen as a deceitful and dangerous option like these programs are. Some OPF members are trying to shut out all options that are NOT secular. This should be addressed on the forum since these same members are complaining about AA doing the same thing — shutting out all options that are not in agreement with their disease/treatment, 12-step view. Research has not shown biblical Christianity to cause more relapses and binges, so why ban it as an option? So I am for all options that have not been proven to be harmful, "secular" or "religious".
Hello again, Jim,
Yes, you sure have stirred up a hornet's nest, haven't you? I wish and hope that everybody can just
cool off a little bit.
You did provoke quite a reaction when you posted an article about "Is Atheism Dangerous?"
Many atheists have thought out their positions very carefully, and they know
full well what horrors the Roman Christian Church gave us in the Middle Ages,
and they find attacks on their philosophy just as offensive as a sweeping
attack on religion or Christianity. Imagine if someone posted articles like,
Now, about attacks on atheism, some religious believers have very negative ideas about the human
race, and they believe that people will not do good, or do the right things, unless they are afraid
of being punished by an angry God.
So atheists can commit any crime they want because they are not afraid of a God coming after them to punish
them. The truth is that people have built-in ethics and morals, and they tend to do what is good
for other people just because that is their nature.
I am reminded of herding animals. They probably do not believe in God, or believe
that there is a God-given set of morals, because they don't have the brains
to think such abstract thoughts. And yet, they do things like caring for injured
herd members, and defending them, and even giving them food, without any thought of
Heavenly rewards or punishments.
Yes, I know that TV shows like Criminal Minds will show you the worst perverts
that the human race has to offer, but thankfully, most people are not like that.
Yes, of course I think about guys like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
The human race always produces a few of them, but most of them never get
political power. I think that one task that we have is to refine our political
systems so that the creeps don't get power. So far, we aren't doing very well
on that account: Vladimir Putin, Bashir al Assad, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden
and Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein... Lot of creeps getting too much power.
We the human race must do better.
Now, in defense of Christianity, there has actually been very little of it taught,
in recovery, or out of recovery.
Too much of what passes for Christianity is really just Fascism in disguise.
Don't think for yourself, just believe and obey. And hate the "others".
Like in the nineteen-sixties, vicious, murdering, church-bombing racism was passed off as Christianity.
The KKK pretended to be a Christian organization. (That's why they burned crosses in people's front lawns.
Actually, personally, I don't get the connection between crosses and racism, other than the fact that
some KKK members were so deluded that they thought they were defending white Christian purity.)
Real Christian recovery has not been tested much, that I know of, so there may not be any reliable
numbers for what the actual success rate of "Christian recovery" really is.
12-Step "recovery" has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, so those numbers are not applicable.
(And if they were, that would be bad, because the 12-Step numbers show massive, consistent, failure.)
Before we can draw any conclusions about the Christian recovery rate, we have to get some reliable tests
of Christian recovery. But before we can do that, we have to find some actual Christian recovery.
I quite agree with your last line,
"So I am for all options that have not been
proven to be harmful, 'secular' or 'religious'."
I've never criticized the Catholic programs like Calix or St. Vincent de Paul, because they
are honest and up front about what they are: religious programs that try to use Jesus for recovery.
A.A. and N.A. and the other 12-Step ilk are the only ones that I know of who try to maintain
that they aren't religious while they simultaneously declare that God is the only answer.
Alas, I don't have any numbers from Calix or St. Vincent de Paul that reveal what their success rate
is. I suspect that it's about the same as everybody else is getting, because if it were better, they
would be proudly saying so.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Wed, November 27, 2013 5:18 pm (answered 29 November 2013) Orange, Did you know that you can sponsor this anti-AA TV program for free and that it will air in Portland for free? The Portland area has about a million viewers if I remember correctly. A few years back, I was on the air exposing AA with a pastor. It only air once I think, but you can get it to air once or twice a week with very little effort. Just google "Portland Oregon community access television" and the info should come up. Jim
Hi again, Jim,
Now there is an interesting thought. I shall have to check that out.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Tue, November 26, 2013 3:18 pm (answered 29 November 2013) Hello Orange, jimbattle has flooded the forum with controversial and anti atheist nonsense.
Hello Donald,
Yes, he has, hasn't he? That's one of the things about a forum: Everybody gets to say his
piece. And may the best ideas win out.
That's why they call it "the free marketplace of ideas".
It would be kind of boring if everybody just said the same things all of the time, and always
agreed with each other.
Still, I hope people can cool off and mellow out, just a little bit.
And try to respect or understand each other's viewpoints.
(Although I realize that peace between the religious believers and atheists is about as
likely as peace between the Israelis and Palestinians...)
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Tue, October 22, 2013 2:34 pm (answered 29 November 2013) I thought you'd be interested to see that the Department of Justice is (finally) getting the message that it's illegal to use government money to force people to go to 12 step meetings. See the attached, which was issued in June, 2013. Mona
Attachments:
Hello again, Mona,
Thank you for the information. That is very informative.
There is so much twisty legal language in this document.
I can see many ways in which the 12-Step facilities get around it.
For example, page 5 says:
The fox must guard the henhouse, and certify that he isn't grabbing chicken dinners.
But at the
government-funded "outpatient treatment program" that I went to, the crazy child-raping
Stepper counselor ordered us to "Go to at least three meetings a week, and get a sponsor." In other
words, participate in the 12-Step religion.
So while they say that they aren't coercing people to participate in the 12-Step religion, they pressure
people to do just that. And the list of meetings that they gave me contained only 12-Step meetings.
Then, the next sentence says:
At my treatment center, they just didn't call it a 12-Step program. They said that it was secular.
"Secular", not religious, where everybody just happens to be a Stepper.
But when the same corporation owns both the treatment center and the housing for the patients while
they participate in the "treatment program", the patients sure as hell had better be fully
"in compliance with the program", or else they quickly become homeless.
Any resistance to the program is interpreted as being "in denial", and refusing to
"work a strong program", so out they go.
And the final sentence in that paragraph is a caution without a consequence:
Well of course the patients (or "clients", as they were called) are
susceptible to pressure. That's how the cult recruiting racket works.
In the next paragraph, the DOJ writers approve of SMART, SOS, Rational Recovery,
and Lifering as secular programs.
That is encouraging. And least their hearts are in the right place.
The last line is gold:
I'll add that to
my file of links.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Thu, November 21, 2013 8:26 am (answered 30 November 2013) Check out this video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7MXuVvrWo&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sent from my iPhone
Hello Sherwood,
Thanks for the link. That's good satire. Subtle, dry, wry, British humor has a
wonderful way of devastating human stupidity.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Well, the Orange Papers total hits for the month of November went over 6 million, by a healthy margin:
6,322,227, which totally broke the previous record of 4,190,614 hits in a month,
set just a month earlier.
That was a 50% increase in traffic in just one month. And
the Bob Beaman thing
happened: the record never stood at 5 million hits a month. We skipped right over it.
You can see the numbers at:
http://www.orange-papers.info/webstats
Date: Wed, November 27, 2013 6:46 pm (answered 5 December 2013) Hi Orange, I've always seen "Not a Christian" as being all inclusive when it comes to possibilities. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that you are not anti-Christian. If you were, I would have been verbally reprimanded by now or banned. I will go with "Ecumenical" and "not exclusively Christian in [his] philosophy." Thank you for giving me something to work with.
Hello again, Jim,
Thanks for the thanks.
I'm use too accustomed to calling you Orange now. So I'm gonna stick with that. Thank for the choice though. Jim Okay.
Date: Sat, November 30, 2013 1:58 pm (answered 5 December 2013) Hi Orange, I started a poll with the question "Would you like for Jim B to leave the Orange Papers Forum?" and some said they saw "Jim is a troll" next to the YES button but now it's gone. Does someone besides you have that kind of control of the forum? BTW, the recording went well. I will let you know when they are going to air and stream on the internet as soon as I find out. Jim B
Hello Jim,
I just learned that someone has gained the ability to edit other people's posts on the forum.
That should not be the case.
Other people have been complaining that their posts got changed too.
My best guess is that I accidentally clicked on the wrong checkbox when I authorized someone
as a new member, and gave him administrator powers, rather than normal user privileges.
Now I have to find him and stop that.
Unfortunately, it isn't easy because the forum software doesn't have much in the way of
tools for searching for users by characteristics like privileges. I will have to brute force
check all new registrations for the last few months, and it's thousands. But I'll get on it.
Date: Sat, November 30, 2013 4:56 pm (answered 5 December 2013) Hi Orange, Could you give a guestimate of how many people go to the forum each day and how many have joined? Even if you can say something like "Over 10,000" or something like that. I would like to be able to at least say that thousands of people from around the world are members OR log on each day. Thanks. Jim B
Happily, the total hits on the Orange Papers just set a new record of 6 million hits in the month
of November. Actually, 6,322,227. That total is 50% higher than just the previous month.
So yes, more and more people are reading the Orange Papers all of the time.
Now that is just the count of hits. A "hit" is any access. Like if someone
downloads a web page with 10 graphics or pictures on it, that counts as 11 hits: 1 for the web page
itself, and 1 for each of the graphics. So that isn't the same thing as a count of pages viewed,
or visitors, but it gives a fair idea of the activity that is happening.
Now one number that the web statistics give me that is meaningful is: the average number of
visits per day was 10,467 in November.
And the average number of pages that they looked at each day was 132,658.
The total number of visits in November was 314,037, and the total number of pages viewed was 3,979,761.
You can see the web statistics at:
http://www.orange-papers.info/webstats
The actual number of members is really hard to figure. There are currently at least
25,000 registrations,
but over 90% of them are spammers that I need to clean out of there.
The "spam-bots" just hammer the web site and try to get in to post
advertisements for all kinds of junk and scams. They create thousands of fake
registrations, trying to get the ability to post their garbage.
But I'm managing to keep them out.
There might be 2000 or 3000 valid users registered.
And then there are some people who registered and posted a few messages a year or
two ago, and then haven't been active since. So it's hard to say how many active
members there are.
And then of course there are the people who just read the forum, but never registered or posted.
Date: Sun, December 1, 2013 6:05 pm (answered 5 December 2013) I just uploaded the TV program again without the water mark. Now that you can get a good look at my face you'll probably wish that the water mark was back up. lol Here is the link to part three AA Is Dangerous! (Part 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYA2CdU1Gsg&feature;=youtu.be
Okay, yes, I saw part 3, and now I have to see parts 1 and 2.
Your video is quite good, and makes a bunch of valid points.
I was surprised
by all of the compliments. Thank you. I never thought that the web page on
What's Not Good About A.A.?
would become the outline for a video.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Mon, November 25, 2013 1:28 pm (answered 7 December 2013) Hi Orange. I have to object to the letter by antidenial about me as posted in your letters section. What she said makes it sound like I was the one being homophobic and nothing could be further from the truth. It borders on libel on a site that gets millions of hits per month. Antidenial's letter also makes it sound like I might be anti-Christian. That's not true either. I also welcome all perspectives on AA, atheists and religious views alike. In fact, I initially defended Jim when he was being attacked for being a Christian. And I remained neutral about his plans until I knew more about them.
It was Jim Battle who was bashing, not only LGBT, but interfaith marriages, Buddhists (also in another post), certain churches and bashing other Christians he views as evildoers because they practice tolerance, saying they are lower than gang members who will kill you. He is talking about threatening the churches, exposing them as "evildoers", and even talks about suing them. The list goes on and on. This is offensive to good "Love Thy Neighbor" type of Christians. He's not going to get many friends like that. A spirit of cooperation would go a lot further than making the kinds of "demands" he's talking about. In fact, his approach could make people all the more defensive of AA. Here's his post. Please note the timestamp of 11/20. The original post was on 11/13, as you can clearly see by the timestamps of the responses. And he was editing it for days. The original version specified the people he didn't think should be welcome in churches AT ALL, which he later changed to "members". You can see this when Pennywise quoted him just below.
I simply object to Battle setting himself up as our leader while refusing to share more about his belief system, when that system could be used to discredit him, and by association, discredit us. That's what my signature is about. There are others who feel this way, and they are in the majority, which is obvious if you read the thread. I also feel others who didn't see his original unedited, post should know what exactly they are aligning themselves with and not run blindly into this thing. I'd also like to add that Battle is anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology, as well. It's a 12 page long thread, but if you read it, it will be clear that we were objecting to Battle's bigotry and simply stating that we weren't going to follow him. Here's my first comment on that particular thread regarding the matter. (Please note that my disclaimer wasn't added until much later. And Brett asked to be added to it.)
Here's where antidenial started with her personal attacks immediately after.
If you scroll down a bit you can also see that Avo tried to capture what Battle said by copy and paste, but this was only AFTER and BECAUSE we were aware that he repeatedly edited his original comment. Here's Ben quoting Battle's attacks on churches
Then they had the nerve to accuse us of being intolerant and calling us bigots because we didn't want to tolerate Jim's hate. Nice reversal of reality. There's a load of projection going on here.
Here's more.
Here's where antidenial made this about being anti-Christian,
rather than anti-hate, which has become a main theme for them:
The members of the forum repeatedly expressed that Battle has the right to his
beliefs and to express them on the forum and elsewhere, but
that we equally have the right to know what his positions are, and to not
follow him based on our objections to those beliefs. Here's only one of many posts
stating such: The tactics they plan to use against churches were also objected to:
And here's Avogadno stating her objections as a Christian:
Battle's feeling that his hateful attitudes should remain unquestioned is a huge red flag. He wants a blind and unconditional following. His attitudes and other religious bigots he aligns himself with can be researched by anybody, just as people did on that thread, and can easily be used to discredit the cause of exposing AA. In other words, someone like Battle can do this movement great harm. This isn't about Christianity or any other religion; it's specifically about hate-mongering forms of religion in general and it's a really bad idea to align yourself with hate-mongering. Another problem I have is that Battle is speaking in a public arena and linking back to the Orange papers, which links to the forum, which links to the rest of us personally. I have every right to distance myself from whatever I'm offended by and that's the reason for my signature. And it also reflects that the majority of the members of the forum feel the same way, as they expressed themselves on that thread and others. The funny thing here is that I have REPEATEDLY asked antidenial why she still hasn't featured Battle and his bus on HER website. She has never answered that question. It would appear that even Battle's number 1 defender and cheerleader wants to keep a degree of separation from him, while attacking us for openly stating we don't support him. She wants this to all play out on your forum and not hers; even though she could delete any comments she wants to. The claims that we are trying to silence anybody is patently absurd when you actually read the thread. Nobody is trying to stop them from what they are planning to do, either. And you should know personally that I've never called to have Battle or antidenial banned. Since antidenial's letter has been published on your site, with no supporting evidence of her accusations, I hope that you will publish this one, since I have supported my claims. I have only written this in response since I found her letter on your site. I deserve the right to defend myself. And I have the right to defend myself from being lumped in with Battle. I also hope that you will not publish my previous letter to you, as it was a private "heads up" to let you know what was really happening on the forum, after having seen your post supporting Battle.
Thank you,
Hello again, causeandeffect,
I'm sorry to hear about the bitter disagreements that are going on.
I am still hoping that we can find some common ground with the religious believers.
If we change the campaign against the 12-Step cult into a fight against religion, we will lose.
I lived in the South for a while, in Arkansas and North Carolina, in the heart of the
Bible Belt, and there are as many churches as bars there, and we will get nowhere by
trying to push a purely atheistic viewpoint on those people. Not gonna happen.
That is a big chunk of the country, which we don't want to ignore or lose.
Steppers often try to frame the arguement as faith versus atheism.
But that isn't what the disagreement is about. It's about a hocus-pocus quack cure being foisted
on sick people.
And it's about a heretical anti-Christian philosophy being pushed by rehab centers and drug and
alcohol courts.
Now that last item is where we can have common cause with standard-brand American churches.
You objected to Jim Battle's editing his previous posts. That might be a good thing:
That shows that he is capable of
hearing and responding to criticism, and changing his stance. Another name for that
is "learning". That opens the door to finding some common ground in the middle.
Have a good day now, and a Merry Christmas.
== Orange
Date: Fri, December 5, 2013 (answered 7 December 2013)
Dealing With Toronto's Mayor Two — Enabling, Denial, Disease and Blah, Blah, Blah... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-peter-ferentzy/dealing-with-torontos-may_b_4376711.html
Peter Ferentzy, PhD
Hello again, Peter,
Thank you for the article. You make a bunch of good points.
You apologized for repetition, but I'll still repeat it again:
Yes, and I'll add:
Thus, rehab is usually just a very expensive vacation in an abusive resort.
Yes.
The disease concept of alcoholism is historically ancient. Dr. Benjamin
Rush published the first edition of An inquiry into the effects of
ardent spirits upon the human body and mind about 1785, where he
designated addiction to spirits as a "disease of the will".
There was a counterpart in Britain: the Edinburgh physician Thomas
Trotter wrote in his doctoral dissertation, An essay, medical,
philosophical and chemical on drunkenness, submitted in 1788 and
published version in 1804, that "In medical language, I consider
drunkennes to be a disease..." He also wrote that "the habit of
drunkennes is a disease of the mind".
Now mind you, just because those doctors believed that alcohol abuse
was a disease does not make it so. Contemporary doctors had such
primitive ideas of medicine that they bled old George Washington to
death to get rid of "bad humors".
And then "denial":
Yes. Denial is a survival mechanism that has little to do with addiction.
Tell people that they have cancer, and they will often go into denial:
"Oh that can't be true. Run the tests again. There must be a mistake."
In fact, denial is also one of the five classic stages of death:
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
This should be printed in foot-tall letters of gold:
Hmm ... I would counter that most of the rehab options are rooted in
"magic", that they help only a little and, unlike some, I am happy
to spell it out: bullshit!
Indeed. The whole idea of the 12-Step program is that a "Higher Power" or some "God"
will save you if you confess your sins and surrender. That is pure magical thinking.
A.A. is not a "self-help group", it's an "elf-help group" where an
invisible magical being will supposedly save you. If all else fails, call on Cinderella's
Fairy Godmother.
And then,
Yes, it's very much worth noting. They do a lot of harm by their refusal to do any harm reduction.
And their stance is certainly moralistic: You are either a pure virgin or a hopeless sinner.
There is no inbetween. Purity is the only answer. That is extremist thinking:
The Either/Or Technique — Bifurcation — the Excluded Middle.
Not coincidentally, the Demand for Purity was one of
Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Conditions
for Thought Reform
— i.e. "brainwashing", and the demand for purity is also
a common cult characteristic.
Funny how that Puritan demon just won't lie down and die.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Last updated 17 January 2015. |
