Re: (Nate) Afraid Anonamous

[Guest guest]

Re: (Nate) Afraid Anonamous

> sparkydawg69@... wrote:

> >

> > Hey All,

> >

> > Who today would believe that the earth is flat? Seems ridiculous

> > doesn't it?

> > Well, the earth is absolutely flat is some places. Can we extrapolate

> > an

> > entire scientific theory regarding gravity, space, time or anything

> > else

> > beyond the accidental nature of recurring randomness? Nah. So XA is

> > not 100%

> > wrong. Neither is the bibble(sic), Bush(or is it BUSCH), my

> > mother,

> > any three year old child, scrathch off ticket, or horse with the

> > ability(trained) to count.

> >

> > We have to look at the origin of XA, it's intent, it's method of

> > achieving

> > it's intended purpose, and the actual result. In the end, the result

> > in

> > itself alone states the value of all preceeding values.

> >

> > nuff fer now

> >

> > Steve

> >

>

> Steve,

>

> Actually, not enough has been said. For the origin of XA and it's

> intent, take a look at: http://www.aakills.com/books/revealed.htm . For

> a glimpse of the techniques used in meetings to achieve their ends, take

> a look at: http://www.aakills.com/books/meetings.htm .

>

> And what are the results? From Harvard psychiatrist, alcoholism

> researcher and AA board member's own research, only about 5% manage to

> remain abstinent in AA and the sizeable chunk of those who would have

> moderated are totally obliterated. He found it worse that no treatment

> whatsoever, as has every methodologically sound study of AA.

>

> Of course, the intent is getting people to live in accordance with God's

> plan, God being defined as God as the Oxford Groupers understood Him.

Ah, so. So this must be where Nate was getting the idea that AA is not

100% wrong. Since it works for approximately 5% of those who are exposed to

it, it must be at most 95% wrong. Well, I guess I could agree with that.

Still, I think its far more detrimental than the " only wrong 95% of the

time " numbers exhibit.

[Guest guest]

coolguy wrote:

>

> Re: (Nate) Afraid Anonamous

>

> > sparkydawg69@... wrote:

> > >

> > > Hey All,

> > >

> > > Who today would believe that the earth is flat? Seems ridiculous

> > > doesn't it?

> > > Well, the earth is absolutely flat is some places. Can we extrapolate

> > > an

> > > entire scientific theory regarding gravity, space, time or anything

> > > else

> > > beyond the accidental nature of recurring randomness? Nah. So XA is

> > > not 100%

> > > wrong. Neither is the bibble(sic), Bush(or is it BUSCH), my

> > > mother,

> > > any three year old child, scrathch off ticket, or horse with the

> > > ability(trained) to count.

> > >

> > > We have to look at the origin of XA, it's intent, it's method of

> > > achieving

> > > it's intended purpose, and the actual result. In the end, the result

> > > in

> > > itself alone states the value of all preceeding values.

> > >

> > > nuff fer now

> > >

> > > Steve

> > >

> >

> > Steve,

> >

> > Actually, not enough has been said. For the origin of XA and it's

> > intent, take a look at: http://www.aakills.com/books/revealed.htm . For

> > a glimpse of the techniques used in meetings to achieve their ends, take

> > a look at: http://www.aakills.com/books/meetings.htm .

> >

> > And what are the results? From Harvard psychiatrist, alcoholism

> > researcher and AA board member's own research, only about 5% manage to

> > remain abstinent in AA and the sizeable chunk of those who would have

> > moderated are totally obliterated. He found it worse that no treatment

> > whatsoever, as has every methodologically sound study of AA.

> >

> > Of course, the intent is getting people to live in accordance with God's

> > plan, God being defined as God as the Oxford Groupers understood Him.

>

> Ah, so. So this must be where Nate was getting the idea that AA is not

> 100% wrong. Since it works for approximately 5% of those who are exposed to

> it, it must be at most 95% wrong. Well, I guess I could agree with that.

> Still, I think its far more detrimental than the " only wrong 95% of the

> time " numbers exhibit.

>

Steve,

Actually, if that is what he is using, it would be a logical conclusion

that AA is 1200% wrong because no treatment has a 70% recovery rate.

Ken