On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:03:42 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> You sanctimonious shit, pretending to compassion for Julie, while
> keeping the flame wars going.

I caught up w/ a.r.a.a. after work. Then tonight I sat down and saw
that there were some 70+ new messages. It warmed the cockles of my
heart, because I knew it could only mean one thing: there was a big
group hug going on..

--
AB5DB9CC

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:eyJfc.148290$w54.1032551@attbi_s01...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:42:23 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > According to the Big Book, Ed 3 p58/59, the AA program is 12
simple
> > steps. In the words of one of the actual (probably more honest)
> > authors of those steps (Big Book Ed 3 p248) "a definite formula
which
> > some sixty of us agreed was the middle course for all alcoholics
who
> > wanted sobriety."
>
> Perhaps sixty agreed (and how many since?) to approve Bill's work,
but
> the steps remain the work of one man. Who is honest author you
refer
> to, if not Bill himself?
>

If you read the cited reference,
http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_personalstoriesI.cfm you will see
it was the author of "The Vicious Cycle" who happens to be a hero of
mine, Jim Burwell. An atheist at the time, Jim was not only the author
of the famous qualifier "As we understood Him" but also the first Big
Book sanctioned "thirteenth stepper" He only ever made one 12 step
call, then married the lady! Perhaps she never let him out again;-)

If you still believe Bill's work was unconditionally "approved" it may
help if you re-read that excerpt I posted some time ago.
http://blank.org/link/?q=1082092661 Incidentally, only a page or two
later in that book, Bill happily reveals that in at least the first
edition of the Big book, he edited personal stories *against* the
wishes of the authors

Jim also wrote "Evolution of Alcoholics Anonymous." I can email you a
..txt copy if you want it.

Bob

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:sCJfc.153420$JO3.92688@attbi_s04...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:03:42 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > You sanctimonious shit, pretending to compassion for Julie, while
> > keeping the flame wars going.
>
> I caught up w/ a.r.a.a. after work. Then tonight I sat down and saw
> that there were some 70+ new messages. It warmed the cockles of my
> heart, because I knew it could only mean one thing: there was a big
> group hug going on..
> > AB5DB9CC
>
I love that Ron!
Julie
>

It warmed the cockles of my
: heart, because I knew it could only mean one thing: there was a
big
: group hug going on..
:




--
rosie

http://airamericaradio.com/www/pub/globalDefault.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4709863/
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F35514208








"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:sCJfc.153420$JO3.92688@attbi_s04...
: On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:03:42 +1000, Robert McGregor
: <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
:
: > You sanctimonious shit, pretending to compassion for Julie,
while
: > keeping the flame wars going.
:
: I caught up w/ a.r.a.a. after work. Then tonight I sat down and
saw
: that there were some 70+ new messages. : --
: AB5DB9CC

:
: Right. But I was pointing out that you are contradicting what was
: professional, presumably qualified, opinion. Whether it was
correct
: opinion is a matter for conjecture.

for starters:
i ALWAYS suggest that folks go to a PSYCHIATRIST, not their family
(GP)physician for treatment of mental illness.

just like:

i ALWAYS suggest that folks go to a CARDIOLOGIST, not their family
(GP) physician for treatment of cardiac disease.
etc etc etc



:................... Spiritual malady is one area where pills are
completely
: useless, yet that malady can be confused with other issues.
However,
: pills may still be required to help overcome immediate concerns
whilst
: longer-term strategies are determined.



your long term strategy was to get through THE STEPS and the
depression would go away?
that is NOT clinical depression!
that is SITUATIONAL depression and does NOT need to be medicated.

of course folks are "depressed" "sad" "anxious" when they first
sober up and begin to "repair" their lives using THE STEPS.
its hard, intense work.

i have seen many folks who think that taking prozac etc, will ease
that burden, to no avail.
taking action, being of service, and continuing to do the next right
thing is generally the answer for them!
the SITUATIONAL depression lifts.........................PERIOD!

BM,
we are beating this same old discussion to
death...........................

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:d2Jfc.150677$K91.393776@attbi_s02...
: On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:06:57 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com>
wrote:

:
: In a past life, I did a lot of work w/ a very large hospital
(Brigham &
: Women's in Boston, if anyone cares).

i do...................what a great place that is!

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:13:56 -0500, "rosie"
<sorry@toomanymalcontents.com> wrote:

>i ALWAYS suggest that folks go to a PSYCHIATRIST, not their family
>(GP)physician for treatment of mental illness.

That option is unavailable in the UK unless it comes as a referral
from the GP (or unless you pay a small fortune to go private).

Yes, in the US I can see how the structure is different, therefore
where you can start from, or go to, is different.

> your long term strategy was to get through THE STEPS and the
>depression would go away?

I had no idea whether the Steps would resolve depression or not.

I still don't, although it can be useful to get out of self through
working with others, as the Steps prescribe.

>that is NOT clinical depression!
>that is SITUATIONAL depression and does NOT need to be medicated.

I'm unclear what qualification you have to qualify a brand of
depression.

>of course folks are "depressed" "sad" "anxious" when they first
>sober up and begin to "repair" their lives using THE STEPS.
>its hard, intense work.

Indeed. It's also not unique to people first sobering up.

--
Blue Moon

"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e772c5d632f781b1eba7298091cf725c@news.teranew s.com...

> Getting drunk was never the effect I desired, it was the effect I
> spent years trying to avoid.
>
> --

Seems to me that highlights the apparently irreconcilable difference
between the arguably dominant drug addict clique in AA, including
people who deliberately drank alcohol to get wasted, (hence the term,
drug of choice) and the real alcoholics described in the Big Book, who
tried all sorts of tricks to drink like normal people, but *not* get
drunk. Two of the three of my close friends still in AA simply cannot
comprehend the ambition of trying to drink without getting drunk.

An unnecessary complication for real alcoholics, apparently as a
result of that addict lobby, is the unqualified claim in that
opinionated pamphlet on NA issues "The AA member - Medications & other
Drugs"

"1. Remember that as a recovering alcoholic your automatic response
will be to turn to chemical relief for uncomfortable feelings and to
take more than the usual, prescribed amount. .... "

Having never wanted any where the drug dosage as my peers anyway, but
grown out of drug abuse long before I got sober, that theory
certainly does not apply to me, nor apparently to many other real
alcoholics I know.

Oh well, "AA has no opinion on outside issues" is merely more
demonstrably forked tongue AAspeak. If AA truly had no opinion,
Medical Doctors unaware of the difference between the AA program, and
the AA fellowship, but supposedly belonging to AA, would have no more
status than any other AA members, so there would be no pamphlet.

Anyway, after all is said and done, if I could drink like I could
drug, I would not be an alcoholic.

Bob