Make your own free website on Tripod.com
The Addiction Recovery Information Distribution (ARID) Site

About ARID
ARID Media

RECOVER NOW!

Articles
Options
Links
Activism
Books
Mailbag
Old News


PGP Public Key
E-mail The ARID Site


Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!


Get Firefox!


Get Thunderbird!


OpenOffice.org


Caveat Emptor

Donald Lee (a.k.a. RationalDL), Part 2

The Saga Continues...

Nearly six months later, Donald Lee wrote back. What's to follow are more accusations and evasions of reality that prove beyond a reasonable doubt the lack of credibility of Lee.

I was planning on doing a six-month anniversary for his page when I noticed that my pages rank higher on Google than his. That means that when someone searches for his name, much less the topic of "gangstalking", my pages are the first to come up. The update would have been a mere blurb on the previous page...until he saw the results.

Starting off deliberately vague as always, his first message arrived:

"What exactly did you asceratin from the darker side of the anti gangstalking site?"
--Donald Lee, E-mail, February 27, 2006 (available here)

And thus, he initiated the thread of discussion. Since he provided no reference as to what he was referring to I responded in kind (note his new E-mail address):

Outgoing E-mail:

From:

ARID Site <thearidsite@juno.com>

To:

dlleelee@yahoo.com

Date:

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:40:20 -0500

Subject:

Re: the darker side of gangstalking
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:36:59 -0800 (PST) don lee writes:

> What exactly did you asceratin from the darker side of
> the anti gangstalking site?

Which anti-gangstalking site? There are a handful of them so you'd
have to be specific. Are you obliquely referring to yours?

As for what I found out that's covered here:

http://www.thearidsite.org/AR051124.HTM#Gangstalking

Be well and live well one LIFETIME at a time!

dr.bomb, Ph.D. AVRT(tm) \_____________________________
Editor of The ARID Site * http://www.thearidsite.org *
<The Addiction Recovery Information Distribution Site>
PGP keys at: <http://www.thearidsite.org/ARIDPGPK.TXT>
** Addiction counseling and groups are total frauds **

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBRARu3rw9MOKEeRC8EQJ0/QCfZxT0oAr2pDYFShzomx+uR81MrsUAnjYR
5LamKaBP+0CcevQ8z38nJSFx
=j9Ah
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Off he went to read my findings. Then, aghast in what he read, proceeded to claim that he agrees and disagrees with what I wrote. It would have been nice if he stated what he disagreed with so that some useful discussion would proceed. He can't. Indeed, that ambivalence is the hallmark of an apologist for Buchmanism as he went about claiming that I "slandered" the "victims" (he never mentions the merits, of course). He also proved his lack of credibility by also making another Twelve-Step "claim to truth":

"You are a clever guy. Someone musthave read your article and seen my name. As usual I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some. I was taken by surprise by seeing my name in print, and all the merits of the victims completely trashed."
...
"The numbered sequence 1-through 12 has a ring of logic, the keading of a person from a God as we understood him, to a God as we understand him is another point of logical thought."
--Donald Lee, E-mail, February 28, 2006 (available here)

A ring of logic? In the Twelve Steps? And this is logical thought from a person who claims to be rational? My goodness! I just had to respond in kind as well as present the unanswered questions again:

Outgoing E-mail:

From:

ARID Site <thearidsite@juno.com>

To:

dlleelee@yahoo.com

Date:

Wed, 1 Mar 2006 09:23:25 -0500

Subject:

Re: the darker side of gangstalking
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:07:38 -0800 (PST) don lee writes:

> You are a clever guy. Someone musthave read your
> article and seen my name. As usual I agree with some
> of what you say and disagree with some. I was taken by
> surprise by seeing my name in print, and all the
> merits of the victims completely trashed.

I happy you read it. Many other people also read the pages at The
ARID Site too. Now if you can cite where I'm wrong then I'll gladly
research more and issue a retraction. Please bear in mind that
Occam's Razor is in effect.

You have to understand that you are responsible for what you wrote.
Once it was out in the open the veracity of your claims would be
tested. Your claims failed that test.

There are no victims of "gangstalking" simply because there is no
conclusive empirical evidence. Of course that lack of evidence IS
evidence, right? Typical circular reasoning.

Your claims are akin to a bunch of people swearing that the sky is
purple with pink polka dots and that none who believe that truth are
"in" on the vast gangstalking conspiracy. No matter how many people
there are who make such a claim one can plainly see that the sky is
not that way.

> Many can't afford to purchase equipment which might
> prove the existence of their claims, and from some of
> the films which I have seen, they could be staged, or
> the victim might have walked in to what appeared to be
> a drug deal in progress, bit left me wondering.

Again, that's a cop out. Certainly they could pool there resources
which would be amazingly simple to do to buy and test the equipment.
Unfortunately, they choose to not apply Occam's Razor to the problem
and realize the truth: The burden of proof falls upon anyone who
makes the claims. If they can't back up their claims with actual
empirical evidence then their claims are a fantasy.

> As for your questions, I found it more productive to
> continue on with what I was doing rather than take a
> short class in AVRT.

Well, since you brought it up...

What is your plan concerning your future use of drugs and alcohol?
With the bad consequences you experienced from your use of those
substances, are you or are you not ever going to use them again?

> The numbered sequence 1-through 12 has a ring of
> logic, the keading of a person from a God as we
> understood him, to a God as we understand him is
> another point of logical thought.

Unfortunately, there is no logic to be found with the Twelve Steps.
You're confusing numerology for logic.

There is NO step within the Twelve Steps which states explicitly to
NEVER DRINK/USE. That's not logical. That's just more fantasy. What
that fantasy is promoted as a "truth" then it's a Big Lie. It's a
pro-addiction religious cult indoctrination program which uses the
desperation produced by addiction and the phobias induced by the cult
itself based in that desperation to convince people to "keep coming
back".

> As with most cults there are truths and half truths
> mixed together.

A cult NEVER lives up to its advertised promises. In A.A.'s case it
has never been an organization which teaches people to quit drinking.
Read pp. 77 of the book Alcoholics Anonymous for A.A.'s REAL purpose.

A sign of someone who is under cult influence is that the person
can't answer simple questions and chooses to not answer them and
become very agitated and defensive instead. So I'll post them again
at the end of this E-mail that you initiated.

> I hope to be able to put some of it together for the
> small access cable network.

P.T. Barnum, eat your heart out. I certainly hope more people don't
fall for the Big Lie. At least there is one voice out there in the
cyber wilderness to counter it.

> The phenomenon is real, how many suffer from it? It is
> anyone's guess!

It's as real as the disease mythology of addiction: Only true via
anecdote of the true believers, masquerading as "victims",
themselves. By saying that you don't know, that it's "anyone's
guess", proves that it's a myth.

> Like I said you are one sneaky guy.

Boy, you give me a lot of credit for hiding in plain sight by running
a public website where I exercise my precious freedom of speech. A
responsibility inherent in exercising that right is making sure that
what is published is factual. That's not sneaky. It's just a check to
balance the power of free speech within the free marketplace of ideas
to keep everyone honest.

Now, being that you initiated this, answer these questions:

1) What is your definition (not from a dictionary but your own idea)
of what Recovery and sobriety is? Is it a process or an event and
what constitutes a successful Recovery?

2) What is the truth and logic in the written words, throughout the
12-Steps?

3) What is your plan regarding your future use of drugs and/or
alcohol?

4) What specific instances within the media (radio, television and
film, including advertising) contain instances of the phrases "Geshe
Roache Lee" and "Shadow Willowist"? Provide citations documenting
this.

5) Regarding "gangstalking", can you mention specific names and
places regarding the participants in such an activity?

Be well and live well one LIFETIME at a time!

dr.bomb, Ph.D. AVRT(tm) \_____________________________
Editor of The ARID Site * http://www.thearidsite.org *
<The Addiction Recovery Information Distribution Site>
PGP keys at: <http://www.thearidsite.org/ARIDPGPK.TXT>
** Addiction counseling and groups are total frauds **

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBRAWt+bw9MOKEeRC8EQKKGQCguFbV1aJCrLbAj+MfPtZCqGAzrmUAnA3J
V7SmrIHoUYv0fGMDhLU56P9I
=Xniz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Will Lee answer the questions? Well, he'll answer one or two of them in piecemeal fashion as you'll see. Frankly, from what I've witnessed of Lee's replies and assertions, he's someone that even Albert Ellis would conclude as being completely irrational in his claims. In fact, while performing my replies I was doing some REBT on them in the back of my head and realized that REBT is a better debating tool than a tool to end addiction. And, for fans of Jack Trimpey, witness Lee's answer to the drinking/drugging question and see the gigantic loophole for further problematic recreational drug use.

Anyhow, notice the agitation my E-mail inspired within him as he continued to duck some very simple questions yet again:

"So far no evidence has been turned over to you. Ican't even verify the existence of all claims. If I can do any in NYC, I'll try to let someone know, publically."
...
"I'll answer the drinking question.
I am mildly affilliated with SMART Recovery. Which uses the REBT approach. By mildly I mean it is a place where I go when and if I feel the need, or even the need for non step sober.
I am also slightly familiar with The Trimpies points of view, and don't intend to use again.
"
--Donald Lee, E-mail, March 1, 2006 (available here)

Wow...all of those claims and he can't mention any of them? Not even a single web page? Again, Lee's all smoke and zero fire...though someone or something is burning here. I'm slightly familiar with that type of person too: I refer to such a person as an apologist for Buchmanism within the context of discussions on eradicating addiction.

With my doubt in his own credibility ever increasing I seized upon the weak points in his non-answers:

Outgoing E-mail:

From:

ARID Site <thearidsite@juno.com>

To:

dlleelee@yahoo.com

Date:

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:03:08 -0500

Subject:

Re: the darker side of gangstalking
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:44:29 -0800 (PST) don lee writes:
 
> So far no evidence has been turned over to you. Ican't
> even verify the existence of all claims. If I can do
> any in NYC, I'll try to let someone know, publicly.

You won't because you know there is no empirical evidence. I won't
hold my breath waiting for such nonsense because it is nonsense and
I'd die of asphyxia.

> I'll answer the drinking question.

I'd appreciate it if you'd answer the other questions as well:

1) What is your definition (not from a dictionary but your own idea)
of what Recovery and sobriety is? Is it a process or an event and
what constitutes a successful Recovery?

2) What is the truth and logic in the written words, throughout the
12-Steps?

4) What specific instances within the media (radio, television and
film, including advertising) contain instances of the phrases "Geshe
Roache Lee" and "Shadow Willowist"? Provide citations documenting
this.

> I am mildly affilliated with SMART Recovery. Which
> uses the REBT approach. By mildly I mean it is a place
> where I go when and if I feel the need, or even the
> need for non step sober.

In other words, in fear of your own healthy desire for drugged-up
debauchery you flee to mother group, in this case SMART, which is
nothing more than a group of apologists for A.A. The only difference
is that it's based in the rational-emotive Bill$h!t "therapy" of
secular humanism.

I'm not against such philosophies, by the way. Such indoctrination
into ANY philosophy which may go against one's own native beliefs is
certainly not to be labeled "treatment" or "aftercare", much less
"therapy" of any kind.

> I am also slightly familiar with The Trimpies points
> of view, and don't intend to use again.

Therefore, you intentionally leave open the opportunity that you will
use recreational drugs again. I believe such people who deliberately
do that are never to be trusted.

In fact ALL irresolute addicts of all stripes are NEVER to be
trusted. Not for advice, not for support. Especially those who even
breathe a word of the disease mythology and the dialect known as
Buchmanese and state nonsense such as, "There is some truth and logic
in the written words, throughout the 12 steps."

> Surgery has left me in a state where I will take a
> prescribed medication, as prescribed, when needed.

So you are in full control of your faculties. So you trust yourself
with doctor-prescribed medicine. Do you trust yourself to never use
recreational drugs again in this lifetime or not?

> I also will contimue to look into other alternatives
> to the 12 steps, which offer the public something
> other than all the attitudes which seem to surround
> step recovery, and which seem to pervade not only the
> social services systems and supportive service medical
> community, which has allowed and cooperated with the
> step groups to literally make the step groups the
> PREFERRED METHOD OF TREATMENT.

The is only one simple and bureaucracy-free alternative which have
been proven to work again and again: KNOCK IT OFF! It's what the
truly anonymous do with no muss or fuss. They quit with no shit and
that's it.

And yet here you are going to groups while bitching about the system
yet again. Can't you see that you support that very system by
engaging in groupism, an A.A. construct, through your attendance at
SMART, an A.A. apologetics organization which uses the ruse of
"choice" to whitewash the cult?

Again, there is no such thing as addiction treatment for addiction
has never been neither a psychological, genetic nor pathogenic
disease. It's just's a state of ambivalence which only the addict can
self-diagnose and no one else. Break through that ambivalence, as in
unconditionally sticking with your better judgement which says to
NEVER use, and one is "cured"!

Addiction treatment, counseling and groups are examples of organized
fraud across the board which promote further victimhood and
dependency by exploiting that ambivalence and thriving on the
desperation and indecision. As long as there are indecisive people
regarding their own addictions they will be exploited to "keep coming
back".

If I can get my P.O. to accept KNOCK IT OFF so can anyone else. It's
with that I've succeeded by taking the risk of imprisonment and won.
My advice to you is to drop the "victim" facade for I certainly don't
buy it and save your own ass for once in your life for there is no
"help" for you or any other irresolute addict.

> Education, the publics is one of the most important
> tools that alternative users can have or do.

Nah. They just need to quit. That's it.

dr.bomb, Ph.D. AVRT(tm) \_____________________________
Editor of The ARID Site * http://www.thearidsite.org *
<The Addiction Recovery Information Distribution Site>
PGP keys at: <http://www.thearidsite.org/ARIDPGPK.TXT>
** Addiction counseling and groups are total frauds **

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBRAjK7bw9MOKEeRC8EQLl8wCg3e6B+2qrSAg0UAACdB3cztc1bFEAoO50
rasPDWMu3kfJqCVNuEuFcp3C
=bh04
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Again, a well thought-out response. I simply lay down the law of common sense and nothing less. And, in response to someone who can retain such grace under pressure, Lee falls like a house of playing cards during an earthquake. What a mess!

"Are you a control freak? If I need definitions I will use a dictionary.
Have people called you ovrerbearing?
Your step work is noble, but don't bug people.
"
--Donald Lee, E-mail, March 5, 2006 (available here)

Control freak? As in never drinking or exposing charlatans? I'd rather have clear-headed judgment than drug-addled hangovers which interfere with rational thought. And yet again he repeats himself within his own frustration. He's being exposed for what he is and Lee just doesn't like it one bit. Poor thing.

As for the claim to "Step work" being performed I'm certainly not the one who claimed:

"There is some truth and logic in the written words, throughout the 12 steps."

...and...

"The numbered sequence 1-through 12 has a ring of logic, the keading of a person from a God as we understood him, to a God as we understand him is another point of logical thought."

If there is "Step work" being practiced here it would be a person who makes such claims. And, to narrow that down a little bit it sure as heck isn't me. I now have written proof via his own E-mails, published above.

Anyhow, I have the last word for the time being:

Outgoing E-mail:

From:

ARID Site <thearidsite@juno.com>

To:

dlleelee@yahoo.com

Date:

Sun, 5 Mar 2006 19:24:11 -0500

Subject:

Re: the darker side of gangstalking
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:43:48 -0800 (PST) don lee writes:
 
> Are you a control freak?  If I need definitions I will
> use a dictionary.

You give me far more credit than I deserve for me, like a master
puppeteer working a marionette, "making" you send me that initial
E-mail on Monday, February 27, 2006. If you won't take personal
responsibility for your actions then why should anyone trust you?

> Have people called you ovrerbearing?

Just persistent, especially when reasonably intelligent people who
claim to be "rational" can't answer very simple questions or back up
any claims which are made. Claims such as, "There is some truth and
logic in the written words, throughout the 12 steps."

All I ask is that you provide empirical verifiable evidence. I'll
hammer away with each reply I receive from you until you can answer
the questions:

1) What is your definition (not from a dictionary but your own idea)
of what Recovery and sobriety is? Is it a process or an event and
what constitutes a successful Recovery?

2) What is the truth and logic in the written words, throughout the
12-Steps?

4) What specific instances within the media (radio, television and
film, including advertising) contain instances of the phrases "Geshe
Roache Lee" and "Shadow Willowist"? Provide citations documenting
this.

Just like any addiction, you have the choice in quitting this at any
time by simply either answering the questions or not replying to this
message. The choice and the responsibility for your choice is yours
and yours alone.

> Your step work is noble, but don't bug people.

Heh heh heh...and who sent that initial E-mail on Monday, February
27, 2006? People write in and I respond in kind. No one put a gun to
your head and demanded that you start typing and send E-mail to me.
Heck, I'll wager that you got a wild hair, punched in your nick into
a search engine and noticed that there is actual criticism out there
concerning the movement you're engaged and trolling within. Then your
bubble burst.

You're only "bugged" because there's at least one person out there
holding someone else accountable to their own words. And thus you
feel the sting of not being able to back up your nonsensical empty
claims. So you avoid the questions like a good little cult member,
heavily immersed in recovery group participation and taking white-hot
offense at the idea of accountability. Poor thing.

Oh well. Good luck in school, be well and live well one LIFETIME at a
time.

dr.bomb, Ph.D. AVRT(tm) \_____________________________
Editor of The ARID Site * http://www.thearidsite.org *
<The Addiction Recovery Information Distribution Site>
PGP keys at: <http://www.thearidsite.org/ARIDPGPK.TXT>
** Addiction counseling and groups are total frauds **

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBRAuAsbw9MOKEeRC8EQK10gCg73MDpq1TCdIioUyoH2XOa/nh51gAoNQj
eu9SQW99wBHZpTf6ZwKmqbAA
=8wyy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The "Somewhat Answered" Questions

So far, at the time of this writing (2006/03/10), only a few questions have been answered by Lee. So, from all of the above, the following was compiled as a capsule of his statements in regards to those questions:

  1. What is your definition (not from a dictionary but your own idea) of what Recovery and sobriety is? Is it a process or an event and what constitutes a successful Recovery?
    (Unanswered.)

  2. What is the truth and logic in the written words, throughout the 12-Steps?
    "The numbered sequence 1-through 12 has a ring of logic, the keading of a person from a God as we understood him, to a God as we understand him is another point of logical thought."

  3. What is your plan regarding your future use of drugs and/or alcohol?
    "I am mildly affilliated with SMART Recovery. Which uses the REBT approach. By mildly I mean it is a place where I go when and if I feel the need, or even the need for non step sober.
    I am also slightly familiar with The Trimpies points of view, and don't intend to use again.
    "

  4. What specific instances within the media (radio, television and film, including advertising) contain instances of the phrases "Geshe Roache Lee" and "Shadow Willowist"? Provide citations documenting this.
    (Unanswered.)

  5. Regarding "gangstalking", can you mention specific names and places regarding the participants in such an activity?
    "So far no evidence has been turned over to you. Ican't even verify the existence of all claims. If I can do any in NYC, I'll try to let someone know, publicly."

I'm sure that in time he'd be able to provide adequate responses to the remaining two questions without being evasive. Then again, evasiveness is the hallmark of a Buchmanite. It took all of those E-mails just to get these few responses where he could've just come right out and answered them all in one. This time around he initiated this E-mail thread but wound up firing off more foot-bullets.

A picture of Donald Lee?Above everything else, what I find distressing is witnessing a predator in action, preying off newcomers who aren't hip to Buchmanism. He's a conniving troll, looking for a few "victims" in order to steer them through the backdoor of Buchmanism via the so-called "anti-gangstalking" movement. From what I've read and experienced in this brief altercation is that he has no real interest in actually liberating people out of the cult, much less ending his own substance addiction once and for all. "Mildly affiliated" and "slightly familiar" are evasive phrases which attempt to convey that he knows something but, in reality, knows very little. It's a thin coat of wool hiding the beastly wolf inside, scared shitless of being exposed further and ready to lash out at the right moment.

In all of his tirades he has yet to even back up ANY of his claims with solid, empirical evidence. I also sincerely doubt that he can come up with his own opinions. His answer to question 2 above reads exactly like a cult slogan. It doesn't contain an explanation but a rote knee-jerk response instead.

So I'll just state it here outright: Donald Lee is a Buchmanite. The evidence is overwhelming, and in his own words, no less. He has proven himself to never be trusted. If he were to claim himself to be a part of the authentic anti-addiction movement I'd immediately claim him as a liability and distance myself from him (the other spineless apologists out there would love him, of course).

NEWCOMERS BEWARE! If you see messages by Donald Lee a.k.a. RationalDL, keep all of the above in mind. I sincerely doubt that he'll cop to his recovery group movement affiliations so don't buy into his lies that he's trying to change the system in any way. If he makes a claim ask for the details that journalists ask for: The who, what, where, when, why and how. If you don't get a sufficient response then you'll realize that it's not a movement stalking others but a wolf stalking prey.

The Mystery Of "Geshe Roache Lee" Revealed (Somewhat)

(Update: 2006/03/12) While doing some link checking I found an ancient posting from an archived message board on a long-abandoned website known as "Still Waters" (presented below). What's interesting is that the "new" E-mail address of Lee isn't new at all so there's a good chance that it's his main E-mail address, confirmed by his recent E-mails presented here in Part 2. As for the rest, the reader can discover that on their own (I recommend starting with http://www.diamond-cutter.org for some insight into who Geshe Michael Roach is, since Lee mentions some affinity towards his work). At least this is some solid evidence proving where this paranoid myth of "Geshe Roache Lee" originated.

From "http://home.satx.rr.com/stillwaters/postings.htm", 2006/03/12
DON lEE
DLLEELEE@YAHOO.COM
November 29, 2000
i GREW UP ON SOME OF RAMPA'S WRITINGS. tODAY i SARTED TO STUDY WITH A STUDENT OF GESHE THARCHIN AN aMRICAN GESHE MICHAEL rOACH. fOR AWHILE MAHARISHI IN THE 60'S BUT RAMPA'S BOOKS ALWAYS SEEMED PRETTY WARM THEY DIDN'T PREACH. bUT GESHE ROACHE'S ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE IS PROBABLY THEBEGINNING OF A DIFFERENT KND OR WAY FOR ME. iNTERESTING TO FIND A FAN.

Back to Caveat Emptor: Donald Lee (a.k.a. RationalDL), Part 1

Back to the Caveat Emptor page.


Last Updated 2006/03/12: Added "The Mystery Of "Geshe Roache Lee" Revealed" section.
First posted 2006/03/10

(c)2003-2005 dr.bomb & The ARID Site - All Rights Reserved
Quotes are attributed to their appropriate sources.
E-mail policy: If I feel it's outrageous enough in an informative sense I'll publish it at my own discretion.

drunken cultists