Bill W.
This story is as important to me as any of the gospels in the bible.
Bill W and Dr. Bob were just drunks who wanted to get sober helping other drunks get sober.
end of story . Now it's still the same drunks get sober helping other drunks
This story is a most dispicably sanitised version of the AA myth. Where does it deal with bills hurrendous ego (as anything other than a passing joke), his lsd use, his 13th stepping, his long term depression that he suffered up until Dr Bob died, the full extent of his drinking (do you really expect me to believe that the worst thing he did was make a bit of a fool of himself at a few parties and got the dts?). This film is propaganda for the AA believers. In fact, if it had delved even slightly deeply into the truth, AA members would have een up in arms. Was the director or writer a 12 stepper? That is the only reason I can see as to why they didnt tell the altogether more interesting story of Bills recovery.....
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I dont know about studies,I guess I'm just not that complicated. AA works for me. Bill said it,I believe it,that settles it. I couldnt have done it without AA and a good Detox. I tell everyone that comes into the program that I couldnt have done it without both.
shareThat would be entirely reasonable, but no doubt you tell people that they need to do pretty much the same as you do (as bill did). This is really bad advice, as AA does not work. It does about 20 times more harm than good (a measurable statistic).
Anyway, 2 questions:
1: Do you really think that it's a good idea to follow the advice of a man who was quite clearly SICK? The catalougue of wrongs commited by Bill W in the AA name goes on and on. In terms of working a good program, Bill was a loser. Why do you believe what he says?
2: How would you have felt if they had depicted the truth about Bill? Do you not think that this would have undermimed AA? Why did the director shy away from the facts, which would have made a much more interesting story?
[deleted]
The orange papers (google it) is a very good place to start to find out all sorts of information about Bill W that won't always be in the AA history books. It details information on his affairs (after sobriety, with AA newcomers), his financial irregularities with regards to AA funds and funding, his speech at Dr Bobs funeral, where he finally admits the appaling success rate of early AA, his LSD use (during "sobriety"!!) and his claims that he could talk to the dead. All sorts of things....
It is meticulously well researched, and not for the faint of heart. Puts a whole new light on the man that many call a saint....
I have read the Orange Papers. The author, Secret Agent Orange, quotes his own questionable research, makes dogmatic statements based on entirely totally subjective interpretation, and will not reveal his (or her) name. Good entertainment for the conspiracy theorist, but hardly research.
Also, while I do not wish to engage in a tit-for-tat regarding all of the nonsense Secret Agent Orange has dreamed up, I will offer up two points of fact: LSD was experimented with by doctors as a treatment for staying sober until they realized the problems with it (ie. it didn't work) and anyone who has read Lois Wilson's biography will know that Bill had affairs WHEN HE WAS DRINKING - never after.
Keep coming back.
The orange papers could only ever be subjective, as could the writings of bill w. However, to call into question the quality of the research is rather silly. The bibliography from that site runs into several pages alone. It is probably the most comprehensive description of AA that I have ever seen, and certainly fits in with my own (rather extensive) experiences of AA. However, to answer (and prove incorrect) some of your points....
It's a fact that bill w used LSD in his "sobriety". Its in AA approved literature. Why he thought that he would make a good test subject for an experimental cure for alcoholism decades after he stopped drinking is beyond me, but he choose to use LSD, and that is a FACT.
AS for 13th stepping, read this extract from Lois Wilsons private secretarys biography of bill.....
As the AA office staff expanded in the 1940s, Bill seemed to take an active part in its recruitment efforts. One longtime AA member told me that at first she didn't know why in 1946 Bill hired her and another young woman AA member. "Neither of us could type or take dictation," she told me. Then, one night soon after they were hired, Bill took both women to an AA meeting. He sat between them and, all during the meeting, he had a hand on one leg of each of the women.
There was also a young woman Bill had begun an affair with whom he subsequently hired for the AA office. She worked at the office from about 1948-1950. She seems to have been very much like Bill's mother, a strong-willed, stubborn woman who was very insistent about having her way. Because everyone knew she was Bill's mistress, she expected to get it. Apparently, she did not appreciate the extent to which AA is a democracy. Bill's recommendation might have gotten her the job, but her behavior became so disruptive that in 1950 the AA trustees told Bill that she could no longer work there.
While Bill often seemed to feel free to take advantage of whatever opportunities were available to him as AA's head man, a number of people who were close to him told me that there were times when he was painfully aware of the threat his philandering posed to everything he had worked for. Barry Leach, a longtime AA member who was a close friend of Bill's for more than twenty-five years, Jack Norris, and Nell Wing all said that Bill had let them know how badly he felt about his unfaithfulness to Lois. That he nevertheless was seemingly unable to control himself filled him with despair and self-loathing at times and left him feeling unworthy to lead AA.
Bill W., A Biography of Alcoholics Anonymous Co-Founder Bill Wilson, Francis Hartigan, pages 172-173.
Hi Stephen. Keep coming back.
shareUhh, no I dont think I will "keep coming back". I have put a stop to the meetings, after nearly 2 years of slavish participation. Its taken me a while to "deprogram" myself, and I have no desire to end up like a brainwashed moron again (like you are)....
But, instead of mindlessly quoting boring (and irrelevant) cliches, why not try answering some of the valid points that I made? Is it because you are a brain-washed cult follower, and it is "bad form" to question the ultimate wisdom of Bill W? Or are you just too thick to come up with anything worth saying?
[deleted]
Very good question, and one that I will give my opinion on, but not before a quick point. I would not say that AA appeals to problem drinkers who are "truly out of control". AA seems to appeal more to middle class drinkers with a medium sized alcohol problem. It often quite appeals to people who dont really have any sort of an alcohol problem whatsoever (like the many very young people who seemed to have joined at 14 and stuff - how could you know that you are an alcoholic at that age?). A lot of AA members seem to have joined just because they feel the need to belong to something. When do you ever see the real hard core street bums in meetings? Very rarely, in my not inconsiderable experience....
But anyways, does atheism have a place in an AA meeting? Aethiests, in my experience, whilst never (or rarely) completely cast out (trad 3 etc), are often marginalised in the program. Because they cannot complete the 12 steps (only step 1, which would leave anyone feeling a bit messed up, if they had nothing to follow it on with), they are often told, or at least have it implied, that they are not fully recovering, that they are "dry drunks". This, and I know this from experience, is detrimental to the ego. It leaves the person resenting those who have had this marvelous "spiritual awakening" (especially when such people don't seem to have had a very significant drink or drug problem). An aethiest in AA may be grudgingly accepted, but he or she will constantly be justifying him or her self, and will face constant pressure to believe in something (even if that thing is not called God, but a rock or the group or something else, as long as it can be called a "higher power")
So, can this be useful to the aethiest? Well, the thing is, I dont believe that the aethiest is ever at any disadvantage to the believer. Whatever one thinks, it is, in my opinion, down to will power. Attending AA is just a display of that will, and for all my gripes with AA, it is very good at offering unconditional support to anyone who shows that will power. I just question the quality of that support.....
As far as I'm concerned it is usually
flawed individuals who come up with
some of the best ideas. I notice
that you don't have any dirt on Dr
Bob. Could it be that he really
lived the program? Lots of people
do and find a solution in the Steps.
If you don't that's fine, not everyone
does. The fact is that those two
men came up with something remarkable
that has helped millions into recovery.
Focusing on the flaws of one of them
only makes you appear bitter and
resentful. I don't know why that is
but you do present that. I'm sorry
you feel so much anger towards AA.
And BTW, I am an atheist with 19
years of recovery and I have worked
all 12 Steps. You can split hairs
all day about the wording but the
spiritual principles behind each Step
is what I learned and try to live
each day. I do hope you find whatever
it is you need and learn to respect
that others have found a path in AA.
Did you notice that this post was not about Dr. Bob? However, Dr Bob certainly was no saint. What about him (during sobriety) using AA number 4 to break up his daughters marraige, encouraging her to marry someone who constantly relapsed and made his daughters life a misery. She even wrote a book on the subject. Could it really be that he didn't exactly "live the program"?
I'm very happy for people that think they find a solution in the steps. More power to them. What I dont like is that they constantly push it on everyone else, telling people that the only way to get sober is to work the program, and when that is proven false through example, telling people that they will have terrible sobriety if they don't work the steps. You may or may not do this, but others do, and it happens a lot. If you deny this, then you must be going into meetings with your eyes closed.
The fact is that the 12 steps have hurt as many people as they have supposedly helped. The horror stories are numerous. The relapse rate is 100% (when you factor out the natural remission rate of alcoholism) and the death rate is very high.
I personally feel as though the 12 steps have infringed upon my life in a very negative and unwanted fashion. Am I not allowed to be bitter about that? Are Jews not allowed to be bitter about Hitler? I am glad that I present that because I am. People do not walk around in a cloud of permanent serenity and forgiveness; poeple have resentments, including the 12 steppers. You must have noticed that before?
I can indeed split hairs about the wording of each step, and I will. Step 2 encourages you to believe that something with a mystically ordained power over your life ("god", or a rock that functions as "god") will remove your alcoholism. This is a pretty funny view for any aethiest. I think you may need to go back and rework your steps, as you may not have read the book quite right. You are of course welcome to work your own bastardised version of them, but that is not AA. AA lays down quite a specific plan to do them in the Big Book. I would be interested to hear your version. Have you improved upon the Big Book way?
I have found what I need, and sincerely hope that others in AA learn to respect that their are other forms of recovery than their own. Forcing religion upon people, under threat of "death by alcoholism" simply isn't working for me though....
[deleted]
You don't like AA? Well, good luck with that.
We will all still be here when you realize that you can't do it alone.
No one ever said Bill, Dr. Bob or ANY AA member was a saint. LOLOL
Cult following? That just cracks me up.
As a graduate student studying alcoholism and drug addiction, I am interested in these "research studies" that provide such "overwhelming evidence" that AA does not work. I was under the impression that AA, and its members, adhered the guidelines of AA that prohibit participation in research studies. As well, since anonymity is so key, many members will not participate nor lend themselves for research. I would, of course, draw into question the reliability of those who have participated in these studies that stephenress has mentioned. It is easy to skew the results of studies when all you look at are those who have failed (very poor validity there). I doubt AA is the sole reason, since alcoholism and addiction are such complicated illnesses with many facets. Again, as I have been working for over a year on addiction and alcoholism in my thesis, I would really like to know who performed these studies and where they are available. They would be an interesting addition to my work.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
Copy and paste that URL into your browser. Everything that you need to know about the true effectiveness of AA.
There is nothing in the traditions of AA to suggest that people should not participate in a study (as long as their anonymity is preserved). Indeed, one of the studies was carried out by A "Class A non alcoholic" member of the AA world service board, Dr George Valliant. This study showed that AA treatment was no more effective than no treatment, and also had a worse death rate.
Yes, they would be a very interesting addition to your work.
Why on earth would looking at those who had failed be a poor way of validating an alcohol recovery program? If you subtract this number from the number attempting to get sober/clean, you get the success rate. If you then compare this success rate with that of the "natural spontaneous remission rate", you get an even more accurate picture of how effective treatment is....
Please do let me know what you think....
Well, I can do it alone, and have for the past year. And most people do (around 70%). So stick that in ya pipe and smoke it....
And many people do say that Bill and Bob are saints. Sad but true. The fact is that Bill was a dangerous "guru" type who foistered balony psychobable mixed with religion and claimed it was a cure for alcoholism. Why would you take the word of an acid dropping 13 stepper? Especially in relation to a problem as serious as alcoholism?
Yes, it is a cult. When you can define to me what a cult is, and then argue against on technical grounds, I may enter into that conversation with you....
From the Orange Papers:
When one of those people who is going to quit drinking anyway, or who did already just quit, walks into an A.A. meeting, A.A. is happy to take all of the credit for that success story, while disavowing any responsibility for all of those other people who walk in, are disgusted by what they see, and walk right back out, and relapse. That is grossly dishonest.
That is silliest thing I have ever read. And completely untrue.
Hmm, great debate tactics. Why is it silly? What leads you to believe that it is untrue?
Is it not customary for people to say that their sobriety is not their work, but the result of the program? And when people do relapse, do they not say "well, he just wasn't working the program right"?
I have seen examples of this many times. I have never heard someone say that AA is nothing to do with their sibriety. I have never heard anyone in AA look at a relapser and say "we did that". It is absolutely true.
Anyways, just as an experiment, I went to an AA message board, and posed the question "Who in AA gets the credit for an individuals sobriety" Here are a few quotes:
Paul in CA said: A.A. is responsible for my relationship with that higher power deal. I did a lot of work, but I got back much more than I put in. Thus, most of the credit is due to the steps, the fellowship, and this higher power of mine.
Chas from Maryland said: I tried every thing I could on my own to quit drinking... to no avail... I am sober in spite of myself!! And if I ever forget that I will begin to try to manage my life... Which will most assuredly get me drunk!!
When I went to an NA message board and asked "is NA responsible for my friends relapse, even though she had worked a program and done everything suggested?" I was told the following:
Miley101 from New York: Narcotics Anonymous doesn't let anyone down, if your friend was practicing a first step and had let go of her reservations, she would not have used. She had a choice, I'm sorry to hear that your friend used, Na does not work by magic, and noone forces anyone to stay clean, if she blames, NA that's ok, we can take it, and NA will still be there if she decides to come back...
You see, 12 steppers are more than happy to act in this way. If you are anything to go by, they probably don't even notice the contradiction....
So your question "Who in AA gets the credit for an individuals sobriety"
I can only speak for my own sobriety:
1) My higher power (doesn't matter what that is, it just is)
2) Me. I work hard and remember that I do have a choice and I choose
not to drink today. Could I stop there? Sure. But I know that won't
work for me (having tried it before).
3) My sponsor. Talking about the things I used to drink over helps
me make better choices and not making the same mistakes I made for years--
(aka step work.)
4) My home group. Going to meeting there regularly keeps me accountable and
I get support and the chance to support others. It also keeps me from
isolating.
Please remember recovery programs are tools. You can choose to use them or not.
Hmm, so you speak for yourself? Then why on earth are you trying to argue for the whole of AA?
So, if you only give AA part of the credit (also giving credit to the AA higher power and your sponsor) then isn't it you that is the freak? Seeing as the general consensus in AA is that self management will get you back drinking? Surely the powerless concept gets rid of the idea that you can do anything to get yourself sober?
Either you don't understand the program very well, or you just dont care about it. Either way, we are not talking about you, we are talking about AA as a whole....
Ok, Stephen. Let me ask you a question.
Please tell me about your experience that causes you to hate A.A. so much?
I dont actually "hate" AA. Hate is a very strong word. I find their theology to be very flawed and full of contradictions, I find the way in which they recruit new members to be quite dispicable and dishonest, and I believe them to be a cult. More than hating the organisation, I would just genuinely like to expose it for what it is, especially to some of the nicer members, so that they can move on with their lives, and drug treatment/self help in the US can grow and expand.
My experience? Well, not a lot to it to be honest. I went to NA for around 18 months (doing my fair share of AA in that time), and heard and saw all sorts of stuff which didn't quite feel right. When I came across the orange papers, everything slotted into place. The more I learned about AA et al, the more I felt that something needed to be done. I also find it a useful part of the deprogramming experience to constantly remind myself that it is all a load of lies, and part of this is discussing it with people like yourself. Hope that makes sense....
You find their theology to be flawed? Meaning?
Recruit new members? I've been going to A.A. for years (with continuous sobriety) and have never recruited anyone. I don't go out looking for drunks. How is it "dispicable and dishonest"? And are you basing this on experience or something that happened to you or something you read somewhere. I am pretty well versed on the big book, traditions and even the concepts.
I also qualify for N.A. and after going to a few meetings decided that I preferred A.A. The N.A. meetings I went to spent a lot more time reading at the beginning of meetings (and I don't mean the preamble, how it works or meetings that are designated big book or step meetings) and seemed pretty militant. I have heard of other N.A. meetings that are different and maybe one day I will try them again. I have also been to a couple of A.A. meetings I didn't care for because of the way they were run. But that was the individual group, not A.A. issues.
Funny you should say a load of lies, that is how I felt reading the Orange Papers.
Can I ask....what are you doing for your recovery now?
Thanks Stephen,
Bridget
Well, the idea that an alcoholic is powerless is clearly not true. Many people can and do get sober on their own. This means that everything that follows is a lie. The idea that God would remove someones alcohlism is just unproveable. The idea that one can never stop attending meetings is not true. Alcohlolism is not a disease. These things, and more if I could be bothered to think about it, are all part of the flwaed theology.
AA can and does recruit new members, as well as lying to people who attend their first meetings about the processes involved (you don't have to believe anything, this is only one of many ways, no one here will pressure you into doing stuff you dont want to do), so that people will stick around long enough to be brainwashed. They also go to drying out houses, rehabs, prisons, courts, even hospitals (anywhere that they will find people desperate enough to jump on to the first person offering a "solution") and recruit through these places. I've first hand experienced the deceptive recruitment (12 stepping to you) standard in all meetings, and I've actually been on 12 step missions into prisons, done PI talks to treatment professionals and known many people who have been to 12 step rehab. The big book provides a whole chapter on this, called "working with others", if I remember correctly. Even if it didn't, the big book is not AA as such, AA is many peoples different interpretations of the big book, that traditions and other lit. Seeing as the big book contradicts itself so much, these interpretations can be wildly at odds with each other. That is what AA is today....
AA and NA are almost exactly the same. Any distinctions between the 2 are entirely superficial.
As for my own personaly recovery, atm I don't do a lot. I work with drug addicts, I make sure I don't have that first hit, and I have developed other healthier interests. I guess its been quite a few years since I last used, and lets face it, you can let addiction rule your life long after it needs to. I have moved on. Is my own personal recoevry relevant to this discussion?
You may say that hate is a strong word, but hate AA you do.
It's been around almost 71 years (as of June 10, 2006) has over 100,000 groups (those that have registered with GSO) all over the world.
There will always be detractors. But there are a lot (a LOT)of people who have been helped by it. If rational recovery works for you, wonderful. Just do what works for you but please don't trash talk something or promote untruths about something that has helped so many people just because you don't believe in it.
Is your own personal recovery relevant? I think so. I work with drug addicts, I make sure I don't have that first hit, and I have developed other healthier interests.
That's pretty much what AA suggests, isn't it?
I dont hate AA. I think it's a quite dangerous organisation, which is hurting millions. I hate the belief system which surrounds it, but I do not hate any of the people involved. Many of them are lovely, if entirely misguided. A few are very nasty, and really need to examine their own behaviour. But I don't have the energy to spend my life hating an organisation. I simply wish to promote the truth....
The thing is, 95% of people who go to AA relapse, so really that is a ratio of 19 to 1 of people hurt and people helped. So if AA has helped a lot of people, it has hurt a LOT more.
I can say what I like about AA. I most certainly do not speak untruths about it. Which particular untruth would you be referring to there? Oh, there aren't any that I have said. Sorry.....
Um, no my own personal recovery is not relevant. We are not discussing my treatment plan (which, incidentally, I don't claim is the only way) we are discussing the AA one. AA suggests a lot more than what I put. It suggests going to meetings for the rest of your life, finding a sponsor, working the 12 steps.
The powerless doctrine of AA would imply that I am personally incapable of making sure that I don't have the first hit - it would be out of my control. Healthy interests?
AA's idea of a healthy interest is service and daily meetings. I consider that to be unhealthy participation in a cult religion.
What I do is about a million miles away from what AA does.....
[deleted]
look just cos 5% recover through doing nothing and an additional 5% recover through AA you cant say that AA doesnt do anything.
(presumably you are prepared to admit that the 5% who do nothing cant POSSIBLY be the same 5% who do AA, since that would be an obvious contradiction???)
so if AA only works for 5% then ....so what?? it works for 5%, surely that's a good thing???
why would any on ewaste time trying to warn people away from a possible solution? could it be that what really pisses you off is the implication that (because you 'tried' AA & it didnt work) you have been dishonest with yourself?
No, thats some seriously strange logic. If you subtract 5% from 5%, that is 0%. That means that AA is completely ineffective. Basically, all the people that get clean or sober would have anyway. That is not AA working, that is 5% of people getting clean and sober on their own, and AA taking the credit for it.
Now, if AA were a benign little group that just hid away in church basements, doing no harm, then I wouldn't bother wasting my time. But seeing as AA has been shown to, amongst other things, increase death rates, make relapses worse and increase healthcare costs, I think it's an organisation which should be exposed for the fraud that it is. I also object to the lies which the recovery group movement permeates about addiction, to the courtcard system, to the use of 12 step "treatment centres" (which are basically just brainwashing camps run by 12 steppers with counselling diplomas) and to a lot of other things that I experienced in NA/AA.
I certainly do get annoyed with the implication that I am being "dishonest" with myself. Wouldn't you? Having been around the rooms for 18 months, I understand the general mindset that 12steppers have. Because I have rejected everything that they stand for, i must be being dishonest, living my life on a non-spiritual basis, and basically be an all round bad egg. This, as I am sure you can imagine, frustrates me no end. When people who have got it SO wrong look down on you and pity or patronise you, you do very much feel the need to confront them with their own inadequacies (or in this case, the inadequacies of their beloved "fellowship").
Again, I state that NA didn't need to work for me. I went after having been off of smack for 1 year. I was clean already. I am still clean. I don't think I should be classified as an NA success or failure. I fight my own battles, thanks very much (without wishing to deny the support that was offered and sometimes received from my family, friends, professionals and, yes, even 12 steppers).
wow, you have completely missed the point i made....will fully or just through inertia.
the logic is simple, i'll explain once more and thats all.
if 5% of people get well by DOING NOTHING then that CANNOT BE THE SAME 5% of people who get well DOING THE 12 steps can it?? BECAUSE DOING THE 12 STEPS IS THE OPPOSITE OF DOING NOTHING
unless you are going to backtrack on what youve said, the two 5% groups are mutually exclusive - they have to be because you wouldnt be able to say that THOSE 5% who get well DOING NOTHING actually got well DOING NOTHING, because doing the 12 steps = DOINMG SOMETHING..geddit?????!!!
if you are going to come back and say that people do the 12 steps and recover, but they would have got well ANYWAY, well that is clearly an utterly illogical and unprovable argument, which can only really be based on your lack of viable evidence for yor arguments.
-------
One other thing though....AA and NA works for a very particuar TYPE of addict......which you dont seem to be, cos you say your just fine without it. well whats your problem then? are you bitter because you arent the type of person who needs AA/NA?
if so, well thats a slightly odd kind of position to be in, dont you think?
---------
<><><>All this crap does unfortunately detract from the very good point you made though, that this film IS indeed a whitewash, i would tend to agree that i woul dhope that we can all accept the reality that Bill W was deeply flawed, and probly never worked the 12 steps anything LIKE as hard as many who lived since, but all the same, it actually DOES work.<><><>
"if you are going to come back and say that people do the 12 steps and recover, but they would have got well ANYWAY, well that is clearly an utterly illogical and unprovable argument, which can only really be based on your lack of viable evidence for yor arguments."
Will ignore what you wrote before that. It doesn't seem relevant. This is exactly what I meant in my previous post. And no, it's not "unprovable". I have evidence. Dr. George Valliant, a non-alcoholic AAWS board member did a study, which resulted in the statistics that I sited above (ie, that 5% get sober, with or without AAs "help"). His conclusion, and I quote, was "Not only had we failed to alter the natural history of alcoholism, but our death rate of three percent a year was appalling." Basically, what this means is that it if someone makes a concious decision to get sober, they stand a 5% chance of succeeding, in or out of AA. AA makes no difference. It DOESN'T WORK.
Am interested to hear about this particular type of addict that you mention. Please explain this type if addict, and all other types. And how do you ascertain who conforms to this type? And why does NA, AA treatment centres, courts etc etc claim that AA is effective for everyone who may (or may not, in some cases) have a problem with alcohol? Please clarify your position.....
Strange how people keep trying to psychoanalyse me over the internet. Really, you don't know me, at all, so there is no way that you can have this magical insight into my charecter which would explain "why I am so bitter". I have done my best to explain why I spend my time writing this stuff. I should reiterate that I actually have quite a full life apart from this, and this takes up maybe 2 hours a week.
Don't you think it's a slightly odd position to be corresponding over the internet with someone so bitter?
AM glad that you see the film as a white wash. Wouldn't you have loved to see the dark side of Bill?
But, leading on from this, now that we have agreed that Bill was such a flawed charecter, I would like to ask why you take your cues from him and his writing? I mean, would you have him as your sponsor (the acid droppin, 13th stepping, spirit talking to fraudster)? Why take the words of a hypocrite so seriously?
This movie was a TV movie, and not really about all the ins and outs of Bill Wilson. It was about the formation of AA. I agree that it was a sanitised version. As most TV movies are, but don't confuse the discussion about the merits, or lack of them, of this movie with the merits, or lack of them, of Bill Wilson. Also could you please define 13th stepping?
shareI agree that is could have been a much more compelling movie if it had included all those things; none of it is a secret, but the movie is only an hour and a half long, so they chose to focus on what they chose to focus on.
share