Posts to the A.A. Thread on Rick Ross' Web Site
|
by A. Orange and others
I saw such obviously wrong statements being made that I just had to jump in. After a few posts, Rick Ross started deleting my messages, especially when I questioned his credentials and knowledge of A.A., and pointed out that he had the same number of degrees and certifications as I have == none. But I have at least attended lots of A.A. meetings, and have been through the 12-Step "treatment" mill. And then I noticed that Rick Ross banned a poster named Barabara who was doing a good job of criticizing A.A.. And some of James G.'s posts are missing too. That is not a debate. I don't know what you call it. Maybe the Russian version of "Pravda" ("truth"). That is not a fair and honest debate. I am an American, and I believe in Freedom of Speech. I believe in the Free Marketplace of Ideas, where you allow everybody to go to the public square and get up on their soap box and say their piece. And the crowd, in turn, is free to kibbitz and criticize and make rebuttals. It's both great entertainment and a good way to hash out the issues. I do not and will not censor my critics, even when they call me stupid, heartless, and a sack of motherfuckers, which several have done. Here are the deleted posts, and some continuing posts:
I sent that message to Rick Ross twice. It never saw the light of day. On the other hand, this message was approved and posted:
When James G. protested the censorship, his message was censored too:
Now when I search for either of those messages on pages 22 or 23 of that thread, I don't see either. Apparently, Ross deleted both of them. Then he posted a message about how he had deleted messages that "broke the rules of the web site", like "flaming and preaching... anti-military war protestors, various political types, racists, self-promotional efforts and advertisers." I don't quite see where questioning Rick Ross's knowledge of A.A. and experience with A.A., and his anti-cult credentials, fits into that "rule". Oh well, have a good day anyway. ![]()
More to come... ![]()
Okay, I think that about covers it, for starters. I recognize the similarity between my rules and Rick Ross's. But I won't delete messages just because they criticize me or say things that I don't like, or question my knowledge and credentials. Have a good day. ![]()
Orange, I was reading your posts about rick ross so I had to get my 3 and a half cents in. I wrote a post on the AA thread on his site as follows:
This is all he posted:
Just a question so he could answer. Not only censorship but misrepresentation! Editing the blogs to suit his beliefs. How can he censor my words when I didn't break any rules? Then he's locking down the topic. So post my question, answer it with a bunch of lies and then lock it down. some forum. He answered like I figured that an expert is someone recognized by the court. Of course someone who has been "recognized" in the way he has. Rick Ross has no credentials not even a degree but he is recognized by the courts as an expert. hell they need some expert. Is that the same court that sends people to AA illegally? (Um, unfortunately, it looks like it.)
I wont post his answer anyone can look it up on the forum. Bloozman Hi again, Bloozman, Well, I put your letter up on my site without censorship. Thanks for the letter, and have a good day.
Oh, by the way, if you haven't read the Wikipedia entry for Rick Ross, do so.
It's an eye-opener. == Orange
* orange@orange-papers.org * * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking * * http://www.Orange-Papers.org/ * ** The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less ** qualified that person is to assess anyone's skill in that space, ** including their own. When one fails to recognise that he or ** she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that ** they have performed well. As a result, the incompetent will ** tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities. ** == "Unskilled and Unaware of It", Alan Bellows, March 25, 2006 ** http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=406 ![]()
Hi Emma, Thanks for the letters. Yes, for some odd reason he just seems determined to ignore all evidence that there might be something wrong with Alcoholics Anonymous. Strange, very strange. And I have to agree that "complaints from families" is an absurd standard to use for deciding whether something is a cult. That's like there are no cults except for the groups that haunt college campuses and prey on the students, and when the parents complain, it becomes a cult. But then again, Rick Ross used to be a paid "deprogrammer", paid by the parents who complained. Maybe that has colored his judgement. "If there are no complaining parents, then there is no pay, so there is no cult." Oh well, have a good day anyway. == Orange
* orange@orange-papers.org * * AA and Recovery Cult Debunking * * http://www.Orange-Papers.org/ * ** People who will not work for what is right ** Are little better than those who are doing wrong. ![]()
![]()
Oh well, have a good day anyway. ![]()
Here we go again, one more time: Rick Ross again claims that A.A. is not a cult, and won't listen to any evidence to the contrary: http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-letters354.html#Emma_C ![]()
Last updated 22 May 2013. |
Copyright ยฉ 2016, A. Orange

You won two out of a possible four flames award level.
