From: CG
Subject: Defending Orange
To: Agent.Green
Received: Monday, January 23, 2012
Dear Agent Green,
I know that some of Orange's documents contain extreme wording, and that he comes across very strongly, but how can you be so critical of him when you admit that you've never been part of AA yourself? Yes, I did see that you've been part of Al-Anon and CoDa. Orange's website gives hope and a place to vent and share our stories for those of us who have been harmed in serious ways by AA true believers. I wrote to Orange and my story is now on his site. To summarize, I was forced into AA by my true believing mother when I was a teenager, and I had not ever taken a drink and still never have in my entire life. My experience with AA and treatment centers that are essentially run by 12 step fellowships ruined my teenage years and a big part of my early 20s. I appreciate your trying to bring a bit of balance to the debate, but in doing so you are negating the experiences of all those who have suffered so greatly because of AA's cult-like tendencies. I know that
not every AA group may behave in a cult-like manner. Orange himself acknowledges that some people do have good experiences in AA. But here's the problem with that: so many people who have good experiences with any cult will say, "I see that some people aren't having a good experience, but it can't be all bad because my experience has been so good." They will continue to say this, even as their own experience turns bad, and they will not even notice the turn because in the past "everything was just fine." It's true that individual bad experiences of AA aren't enough to prove it's a cult, but good experiences of AA aren't enough to prove that it's an honorable organization that helps people. There are all kinds of people whose lives have been changed for the worse because of AA, and our experiences need to be honored. And no, we didn't just leave because the program didn't work for us: we left because the program tried to control our minds, our thoughts,
and our intellect in every way. We left because freedom from addiction doesn't mean developing a new addiction to a cult-like group. And personally, I left because I was never an alcoholic to begin with.
>>CG:
Thanks for your email. Sorry to hear of your bad experiences of AA, as I acknowledge on my site, not all AA members are well meaning.
My objection to Orange Papers is not that it contains extreme wording, nor is my objection that Agent Orange comes across very strongly. I criticize Orange Papers because of its falsified information. If Agent Orange's opinion of AA holds up, then why does he need to lie in his descriptions of research on AA?
Regards
Agent Green.
From: CC
Subject: The discussion with A. Orange
To: Agent.Green
Received: Sunday, September 11, 2011
Dear Agent G.-
I am a professional woman, and have come to a point in my life where I have
decided to quit drinking. I have been researching different paths toward
that goal including AA, SOS, SMART, etc. I stumbled across The Orange
Papers during this research. I always check the sources credentials and and
bibliography to corroborate the validity of the argument. Through this
ancillary research I found your paper rebutting Orange.
After reading the long debate, I must say, you are the one who seems to have
a chip on their shoulders. You Organges arguments display a "vicious" bias,
I am unable to see the malevolence in his arguments or papers. You, on the
other hand, continually personally attach this man, commenting on the
sarcasm in his responses, claiming he hasn't read the material he is
quoting, etc but it is your sarcasm and the chip displayed so prominently on
your shoulder that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I have a bachelors
degree in history and science, Orange won the debate hands down.
Your not even an alcoholic. I will not attend meetings in which dissenting
opinions are not allowed.
Thank you for helping me with this decision, I will not be attending AA.
You are probably good many people on the fence, but not in the way you
think.
>>CC:
Thanks for your email. When you checked Agent Orange's bibliography, did you read any of the actual material he quotes from? If you do, you'll find that Orange's conclusions and those of the researchers he references don't concur in the way that Orange would have us believe. That is bias.
Regards
Agent Green.
From: Ryan
Subject: Triennial Survey graph
To: Agent.Green
Received: Saturday, August 20, 2011
Hello,
I'm an addict who just started attending meetings. I found the Orange Papers..and then your website. I looked at the frequency distribution graph from the study and really don't understand it. I am trying to wrap my head around how there are 26% still attending after one year. Can you please explain how that figure is derived? I tried google and couldn't find any help. Thanks a lot,
Ryan
Hi Ryan, thanks for your email.
Re the Triennial survey. The graph is not as complicated as Orange makes out.
Imagine an AA meeting of a hundred alcoholics, all of them in their first year of sobriety. A survey guy walks in and asks who is in their first month of sobriety, 19 people stick up their hands. He then asks how many are sober more than a month but less than two (ie in their 2nd month), 13 people raise their hands. He then ask who has been sober more than two months but less then three (ie their 3rd month), 10 alcoholics stick up their hands. The survey guy keeps asking: people in your fourth month raise your hands... fifth month... sixth etc. He keeps going until he reaches 12th month, for which 5 people raise their hands. He writes down all the data like this:
1st month: 19
2nd: 13
3rd: 10
4th: 9
5th: 8
6th: 7
7th: 7
8th: 6
9th: 6
10th: 6
11th: 6
12th: 5
Now he goes away and writes those down as percentages:
19%, 13%, 10%, 9%, 8%, 7%, 7%, 6%, 6%, 6%, 6%, 5%
Then he draws a graph. That is the graph that Orange gets so worked up about.
The survey guy then goes to another AA meeting of 100 alcoholics. A strange meeting at which the same number of newcomers come in every month, and everyone that has ever joined has never left. He asks his questions again, but this time he gets these results:
8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%, 8.3%
Why are the figures in the first (normal) meeting so different from this strange meeting?!
The answer is that in the normal meeting, some people stop going after a while (some go out drinking again, some don't like AA, some think they're not alcoholics etc). So, at any time, in the normal meeting, there are more people in their first month of sobriety than in their second, more in their second than in their third, more in their third than in their fourth, and so on.
That is the attrition and it can be calculated by the difference between the first and twelfth month attendance figures. So between 19 people and 5 people. The percentage difference is found by dividing 5 by 19 and multiplying by a hundred. Which is 26.3% and is the percentage of people remaining of the 100% who started going to AA a year earlier.
That is my simplified version of how the surveys were done for purposes of explanation. In reality they were made via questionnaires handed out in many meetings, the data then averaged out (and rounded up, that being the reason the percentages in the graph don't add up to 100%, but rather 103%).
Orange looked at the graph, saw 5% under the 12th month and said: '95% of people who go to AA leave within a year!', which I hope you can see from my explanation is not what the graph says!
Orange's position would be forgivable if he had simply made a mistake, but as you can see by reading the letters on OP, he has had his error explained to him many times, but won't budge or change his website because writing negative things about AA is very important to him for some reason. Also, his 5% misreading from the graph also dovetails conveniently with his 5% misinterpretation from Vaillant's text 'The Natural History of Alcoholism' but that's another issue!.
Best regardsFrom: BC
Subject: Hello Agent Green. Agent Orange almost killed me
To: Agent.Green
Received: Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Hello,
Thank you for writing a rebuttal to the Orange Papers, it provided me with some much needed relief.
Allow me to explain the subject header. I'm a 27-year old male, and I'm also a severe alcoholic (and drug addict). In March 2006 I was submitted to the emergency room after attempting to quit alcohol cold turkey after a year and a half vodka binge. Needless to say, the withdrawal almost killed me and I had to be medically treated. After detox, I joined AA, where I rapidly began to get my life back together over the course of just six months. However, I started feeling alienated with the program toward the end of the sixth month and began expressing doubts. Questioning some of the obvious rigidity demonstrated by some of the more zealous members, alongside other things that didn't sit well with me, I began to research AA. That's when I came across the Orange Papers.
The website was initially extremely convincing. I was aware of the alleged 95% dropout rate but never read any material that expounded upon it. As I delved further, I found myself in the grip of what I call in retrospect an extreme case of confirmation bias - what were minor annoyances or concerns I had with Alcoholics Anonymous were now being fanned into blind hate and disgust. Agent Orange spared no detail in weaving his anti-AA propaganda, emphasizing the dogma exhibited by some of the more fanatical 12-steppers and old-timers. In retrospect, I realize these people are indeed in the minority and, although irritating, I was never under any obligation to believe or go by what they say. But being in a fragile state of mind, possibly due to having just spent almost my entire adult life intoxicated with only half a year of sobriety under way, I was easily manipulated by everything I read on the site. It just seemed to come together so well. This had to be the truth - I was in the grip of a dangerous, "thought-stopping" cult, and those AA zealots no longer seemed just irritating - they were now poisonous to my individuality, my freedom... my very well-being!
With a new sense of confidence I decided to leave AA after seven months of recovery and subscribe to Agent Orange's "well-researched" method of applying intelligence and will power. After all, it made sense. I have an I.Q. of 134 and if my past and present dedication to fitness and nutrition were any indication, my will power was quite good. The last thing I needed, I decided, was a damn religious cult brainwashing me into accepting powerless and a loss of will power. And since I didn't even feel like drinking anymore, I knew, at the time, that Agent Orange was a true liberator, and I could trust his resources, his facts, his viewpoints.
Long story short. A few months later I began taking a benzodiazepine drug to combat my long-term anxiety. I made the decision based on new-found beliefs regarding will power, and how alcoholism/addiction are not life-long conditions, and the justification that Xanax was not alcohol, and I was an alcoholic, and since a doctor said it was okay... you see Agent Green, I actually had any one of a thousand good reasons to start taking this drug. None of them really make any sense. And the whole time I knew I wasn't being too smart. But you know what? It doesn't matter. I needed a reason to feel better. I needed a reason to succumb to or otherwise suppress the weird obsession that began around the time I left AA. Or maybe it started before AA, and I was just looking for a reason to distance myself from what was obviously, SIMPLY, WORKING QUITE WELL FOR ME so I could appease some subconscious desire to use again.
Here's the easiest, simplest explanation: when I was attending meetings, working my steps, talking with a sponsor and active in the fellowship, I didn't think to drink, let alone use drugs, and as a result I never did. When I left the program, however, I began feeling empty, obsessive, anxious, bored and cynical, tempted thoughts of intoxication constantly and eventually said "to hell with it" and got on a fast-acting tranquilizer drug that acts similarly to alcohol.
Within two months, and without even really noticing, my prescriptions were running low before the refill date. A few months later and I decided it would be a grand idea to have a few pain pills every now and then, on top of the sedatives. And around a year after leaving AA, alcohol found its way back in, and I was drinking again, along with nursing a serious prescription pill habit, even though I had sworn off alcohol once and for all and had no intention to return to the drug that had wrecked my life, sent me to hospitals and detox wards and nearly killed me.
From December 2007 to September 2010 I overdosed several times, became homeless, went in and out of jail, mental hospitals and emergency rooms. I lost my friends and loved ones... people I had managed to win the affections of back during my short time in AA, damaged my health forever, racked up a criminal record, destroyed my work history, credit and became completely destitute and hopeless. In AA I had put together a car, a savings of 12,000 dollars in the bank, and means of financial independence and steady employment. This became so distance by June 2009 that I despaired of ever having them again.
The whole time while I was using... I nurtured the deep, newfound hate I had of AA after reading Agent Orange's hateful papers. It convinced me I was not powerless over substances, that AA literature was a lie and the disease model of alcoholism was indeed a 12-step conspiracy. After nearly three years of exercising all my intelligence and self-will to overcome alcohol and drug addiction... I managed to make my way back into the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous. I now have just over sixty days of clean time, the longest I've had since the months following my initial leave from the program.
So in the end, it wasn't AA that convinced me I really am an alcoholic and a drug addict and that AA's disease model does indeed apply to me. They never even really tried hard to convince me of that fact. Instead, it was Agent Orange, who succeeded in convincing me that Step One is a lie. He succeeded, and as a result, I threw the philosophy out the window. The results? I ruined my life, and I nearly died. For what? Because I allowed myself to be duped by a viciously biased, well-written website? For the first time in my life, I became a victim of propaganda. Meaningless, dangerous, spiteful propaganda.
What was it all for? I know now that had I stayed in AA I would never have lost any of those things. I will always have my criticisms of AA. Yes, I can give SOME credit to the things he brings up, but I now know that there is nothing in life, that transcends criticism to some degree, and conversely, there is nothing good in life without its raging detractors who happen to hate it so much they wish the entire world hated it with them, to the point of fabricating details, twisting truths and mixing truths with lies, cherry-picking information, making grand exaggerations to support their cause and wrapping it all up with many wonderful neat, ambiguous quotes that make what they're saying sound real smart and true.
Maybe they truly believe they're doing wonderful things. Or maybe they need their misery validated. Maybe it's both. All I really know, however, are two things: (1) I am an alcoholic and I am thankful for AA and (2) never again will I be so easily manipulated. Agent Orange will call that ironic. Of course he would.
Thank you again.
BC
Hi BC, What a wonderful letter you wrote, very inspiring. Your experience is exactly that which I feared Orange Papers may cause and the reason I had for setting up my site. As you explained, despite being based on out of context quotes, ignored data, and distortion of the facts, the volume of material on OPs and the style of AO's writing is convincing, particularly to people who are just starting out getting to grips with living a life without booze, and all the anxiety that goes with that. Your letter is so well written and genuine I think it will be very helpful to other readers. I hope your sobriety is going well, all the best. Warm regards Agent Green.
From: JD
Subject: Re: Thanks for rebutting the crazy Orange paper person
To: Agent.Green
Received: Saturday, October 16, 2010
Hi,
I have been sober by the grace of God, and the fellowship of AA for over 19 1/2 years, and I'm happy to see you bring balance to this debate, which is no debate at all. The orange paper person fails to recognize that there is a free flow of ideas at the AA meetings; that personal experiences may, often foolishly, run counter to AA ideas. The exception to the rule seems to be the norm. There are few widely accepted notions in AA, more like basic advice for anyone attempting to overcome a drinking problem; Don't Drink, Read the big book (Alcoholics Anonymous), Call your Sponsor, Go to Meetings, and Pray. From what I have seen, those who speak from the heart out of their own experience will find acceptance regardless of any adherence to any real or imagined AA dogma.
AA is not a cult because it has no opinions on outside issues; has no dues or fees, accepts no outside money; and as never had a charismatic leader.
The Disease of Alcoholism, in AA, is a self diagnosis. The disease concept is not a cop out, but an education on the complex nature of my condition, and call to take responsibility for it.
The 2 major anti AA camps are first, a fringe group of psychologists who think AA relies too much on "God"; they recognize the psychological aspect of the disease and would like treatment to be focused on changing behavior through emotional and mental discovery. Our experience has shown us that self discovery will only occur if we first stay sober. Would these fringe psychologists deprive their patients of faith in God simply because they may think such beliefs are primitive or unnecessary? Not if we were paying customers. Second, a fringe group of religious people think AA should have a particular brand of religion. They are zealots who are more concerned about saving a soul, than saving a life. I would remind those religious people, that Jesus said, "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two" Matt. 5:41 NKJ; he didn't add, make sure they are on board with all your religious beliefs first. Newly sober AA members with religious beliefs need to recognize that they were not living up to them.
Sincerely,
JD.
www.christmasseals.net/aa_is_not_a_cult.htm
>>JD:Thanks for taking the time to write to me, I appreciate your support.
Very well done on being sober for 19 1/2 years, that is a great achievement.
Best regards
Agent Green.
From: Bob
Subject: Good on Ya...
To: Agent.Green
Received: Saturday, October 16, 2010
Hello Agent Green,
Just a note of appreciation for the beginnings of your web site. One doubts that you will be able to match the zeal and obsessive energy that agent orange has put into his, but hope springs eternal. I reflected one time on the the day when he might just wake-up to the irony that despite all his deeply held convictions, his research into AA and works against it might very well be the things that helped him to stay sober...So in a sense AA worked for him...
By way of self disclosure I am at present a chip carrying,Kool-aide drinking, member in good standing of the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. In my present incarnation I have 4.5 years of "sobriety." I found AA Some 25 years ago and was a poster boy, graduated, and then drank again. I love drinking... Horrible things do not happen every time I drink. If I could drink w/out consequence I would. My delimma, and one shared by many like myself, is that I am an alcoholic and left to my own devices I will eventually drink again. I am not proud of it, but facts are stubborn things.
I don't feel AA is for everybody, and neither does AA as expressed in its literature. The narrative that agent orange espouses blurs many of the lines and takes a lot out of
context. While I agree that Bill Wilson was no saint and that the Big Book was initially a get rich quick scheme, those human failings are openly aknowledged in AA's
literature and to me represent the beauty of the program..allowing the group, not to rule us, but to share our struggles and temper our natures. The whole deal is a
conundrum wrapped in an enigma with a chewy tastey paradox for a center. AA embraces the paradox and confines itself to the matter living a sober life.
Any who ...I have obsessively researched and studied alcoholism and the history of AA my own self and perhaps simply reached different conclusions. I am grateful to Agent
Orange because he gave me many tangents and rabbit holes to fall down that kept me occupied and keep my eyes open to this day. This is just a quick note to encourage you
in your work (I would make a paypal donation if I were able...Suggestion if you do that ..keep open books, just a thought..)and to say stay anonymous so that you don't open
yourself up to being a lightening rod for controversy....
Cheers, and thanks, Bob D.
>>Bob:You're right, AA is not for everyone, but as Vaillant shows us, attendance is associated with increased chance of recovery, and worth giving a genuine go. I'm glad it's working for you.
I don't have time, nor do I think it worthwhile expanding green-papers much beyond its current size. I've certainly no intention of countering every point Orange makes on his site although, judging by his misrepresentation of Vaillant and the Triennial data, I'm sure there is plenty more wrong on orange-papers! Perhaps you might publish some of your research and the different conclusions you came to to those of Agent Orange?
I noticed that Agent Orange uses his website to take money through PayPal, not sure why. I get 3 years hosting for less than $150 and that is my only cost. I really don't think that it's necessary, nor appropriate to charge, it's best to remain a labour of love.
Well done for your success with staying sober.
Best regards
Agent Green.
From: Alan
Subject: Well done
To: Agent.Green
Received: Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thanks for the site and I agree with you that Agent Orange seems to be on some sort of witch hunt for AA. Still, his fascination with the 12 steps, AA and the Big Book seem to have kept him sober for years it seem so, I guess the promises come true in their own way to each of us. I wonder what he would have used if he had not found them and had something wonderful to focus on like this.
Live and Let Live.
Alan
>>Alan:You make an interesting point that Agent Orange has transferred his addiction from drinking to orange-papers.org, guess only he can answer whether that is true or not (although he may struggle to do it honestly!).
My objection to orange-papers.org, (and the main reason I made my website), is that by his obsessive anti-AA stance, and by wilfully distorting facts and figures, Orange may be turning away desperate people whom AA might be able to help.
Yes, live and let live, but speak out against dishonesty.
Best regards
Agent Green.
From: BB
Subject: The 5% lie about AA attendance
To: Agent.Green
Received: May 7, 2010
Hello Agent Green
I am surprised to see you still have not caught on to one of the biggest lies of all being perpetuated by the likes of Agent Orange and Jack Trimpey - namely, the twisting of the original AA triennial report.
Look at the graph in the orginal report. Here is a copy of the original document. The actual graph is on page 12.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3264243/Comments-on-AAs-Triennial-Surveys
Where does the line start? The averages of all the triennial results is at the bottom of the graph. The line does not start at 100%. Now for that 5% to represent a 95% dorp in attendance, where do you think the line would have to start? Do you see the gigantic error? IF THE CHART REPRESENTED 95% LEAVING by the end of the first year, the line would have to start at 100%
It actually starts at 19% (averaged value given at the bottom by month)
So lets do the caluculation
In their 1st Month - 19%
In their 12th Month - 5%
5/19 x 100 = 26%
THATS 26% remaining, not 5%
Do I have your attention yet? IF nothing else, please point this out on your page instead of perpetuating the 5% myth. It's just the inability of people to read the damned graph! All the numbers represent are the lenght of sobriety of people in the meeting with less than one year.
Notice that things begin to level off by around 6 months? Gee, could it be that once the intitial slipping and sliding is over that people start to acheive stable sobriety?
So what else do we need to include to understand that other factors need to be taken into acount and not simply accepting that AA fails in 76% of cases (as AO and JT would have us believe)?
1. Newcomers go, only to come back week, months or years later. There's no shortage of people who check out a few meetings and decide AA is not for them, or that they really don't have THAT BAD of a problem . . .
2. People newly in sobriety are often encouraged to try and attend 90 meetings in 90 days. Do you think that might skew the count?
Really, as an AA member, I think that given we have now shown that 26% remain a year, we have a reason to be encouraged. Even if, in the end, the people who conducted the research are not trained researchers who should know to consider the other factors that would further skew the results! Who knows, that number might really be well over 30% when everything is factored in!
And thank you for correcting me where I have been mislead by another area of Orange Papers' propaganda - I've updated this site accordingly.
Best Regards,
Agent.Green
From: McGowdog
Subject: A.A.
To: Agent.Green
Received: Tuesday, February 16, 2010
I stumbled onto your site as I was wasting some time on that Stinkin'
Thinkin' site.
I've decided to not post there anymore... at least for a while. It's a
waste of time.
I wanted to thank you for your page and what you've done to debunk Orange
and an objective look at A.A.
I am an alcoholic and have been sober for 6 years and counting and I use
A.A. for that.
Thanks again for taking the time.
McGowdog
>>McGowdog:
No problem, thanks for your support.
Regards,
Agent.Green