"Mias" <

| staamfa - If whatever way you reached whatever state you are in now, being
| sour, unhappy, criticizing, looking down, moaning, lying - is the only
one,
| I for one do not want that way if your demeanor is what I would be letting
| myself in for.

My goodness Mias. How quick to judge me based solely on what I submit, and
you disagree with, to this newsgroup.

|One reason why I stopped drinking was because I was acting
| like you and causing shit as far as I went....

LOL.

| Why don't you consider
| becoming happy about life and finding peace with your fellow men.

I'm quite happy about life in general don't mistake your disagreement with
what I have to say as the sign of an unhappy life. Far from it.

|I have a
| organisation that you might try, and that worked for me, that I could
advise
| you about. (If you do not like me now you should have seen me before!)

Like you? Dislike you? Whatever gave you that idea?

In article <fTiZa.308916$o86.211383@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> |You tell me.
>
> That wouldn't get us anywhere you would just refuse to accept it. The
> question was posed you figure you're going to answer it without a question?

LOL. The Stumped Paradox, in a nutshell.

In article <fTiZa.308916$o86.211383@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why does a supposedly non-religious organization have a chapter
> in it's doctrinal publication dedicated to agnostics?

Check the doctrinal publications of atheists.

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6ikZa.7259$Pa4.2751@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
|
| "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:fTiZa.308916$o86.211383@news1.central.cox.net ...
| >
| > "Moonraker" <
| > |
| > | "
| > | >
| > | > "Moonraker" <
| > | >
| > | > | I see. And you'll be able to cite chapter and verse of this
| > "doctrinal"
| > | > | publication along with your clear and unambiguous commentary,
| proving
| > | > said
| > | > | "lie" once and for all?
| > | >
| > | > But then do you really need me
| > | > to repost the Steps? They indicate a quite religious fellowship you
| > know.
| > |
| > | No, I don't know that.
| >
| > Sure you do you choose not to accept it.
| >
|
|
| I see. Now YOU know what I know

Sure I know what you see and choose to rationalize.

|and have unilaterally decided that I
| understand (or not) your position.

No not at all you have unilaterally decided not to cede the point no matter
how obvious it is. And it is obvious. How many times is God mentioned in
the steps Moon?

|Amazing. What color are my boxers?
| Let's see how clairvoyant you are.

Sorry, while you may keep your attention in that region that's rather not
fit topic for discussion here.

| > |What denomination are we talking about?
| >
| > The variety espoused in AA's doctrinal publication of course.
|
|
| WHAT "doctrinal publication"?

You already know. If you don't then rather than waste our time look up the
word doctrinal and you'll be able to figure it out quite handily. What AA
publication do most AA's have that discusses what AA is and supposedly does?
Stop asking qeustions you most likely already know the answers to.

|Variety of what?

Variety = Type=denomination in the context given. Are you having a
difficult time following along that you need so much clarification in
following the discussion?

|What ARE you babbling
| about?

I am discussing the truth of AA what are you trying to avoid by pretending
ignorance to what I'm discussing?

|
| >Exemplified
| > by it's very religious steps no less.
|
| No less than what?

no less than not.

| Exemplified how?

By the fact that they are religious.

| What's religious?

AA as exemplified by it's steps no less.

|
| How many times is God mentioned in
| > the steps Moon?
|
| Five, I think.. And your point is, what, exactly?

That indicates it's religious. Your point is, what, exactly?


| >
| > |Nobody's
| > | ever tried to baptize me or offer me communion.
| >
| > So if there is no baptisim or communion there is no religious activity?
|
| Only similarity I've ever seen between an AA meeting and a church service
is
| the collection plate.

That's not really saying much as from your previous statements it's fairly
evident your exposure to religious organizations is fairly limited.

|That what got yer knickers in a knot? The $27?

Course not people give money to stupid causes all the time. What should have
yours in a bunch is where all that money is going.

| I don't ever remember seeing anybody in an AA meeting wearing a backward's
| collar or a robe or fondling a crucifix.

Is that then the extent, in your mind, of religious activity? What a
limited view you subscribe to.

|I don't know about any religious
| trappings. Every religious service I've ever been to, one person talks,
| everybody else listens.

LOL and this doesn't happen in AA? Sure it does.

|What ARE you talking about?

The religious nature of AA as exemplified by the steps no less.

|What's religious about
| an AA meeting?

It's religious nature. The steps, the communal prayers, the confession of
sins, the reliance on a god for salvation...

|Is the Pope gonna show up?

AA's don't care too much for catholics has something to do with the
protestant majority probably.

|The Ayatolla Kock-a- mimi?

Don't know do you keep in touch with him?


| How
| > narrow minded you are.
|
| About what?

What constitutes religious. I understand why of course it allows you to
pretend AA isn't.

|That I don't blindly accept your nonsensical declarations?

That you choose to look he other way at AA's obvious religious nature.

|I'm
| really not sure just what point you are trying to make,

That AA is religious it's even exemplified by it's steps.

|except that I caught
| on to the idea that you have an abject hatred of AA.

You have caught yourself out for quite the fool then because I hold no such
hatred. Disgust sure, pity for it's members sure, hatred? life is too short
and AA isn't worth that kind of personal investment.

|I'm not sure even YOU
| know why, though.

You're right I have no clue why you feel the need to say things you can have
absolutely no clue about. I suspect that it's simply a self defense
mechanism on your part because I'm challenging you to look closer at the
truth of your organization and you really don't want to.

|
| >How many of the worlds religions don't have either?
| > I couldn't tell you but I'm willing to bet you the number that don't
| > outnumber the ones that do.
|
| I don't even know how many religions there ARE, or their customs.

I'm quite aware of that.

|.what
| does that have to do with anything?

You not knowing what constitutes the enirety of religious experience are in
no position to claim that AA does not fit into any of them. You claim AA is
not religious yet you freely admit you do not fully understand what
religious might constitute. Only a fool would claim that it mathches none
when he knows not what all of the possibilities are. And you my friend
have just admitted that you don't know what all of them are.

Follow how it applies to you now?

| >
| > | > Need more? How about the Chapter to Agnostics. Now why would a
| > | > non-religious book need a chapter to agnostics? hmmmm?
| > |
| > | I dunno?
| >
| > You do or you don't know?
|
| I said, "I dunno?"

Yes you did. So do you or don't you?

|Was that unclear?

Quite. I asked a question and you asked a question. Figure you'll answer
it?

|I didn't write the book, so I don't
| know what they were thinking at that time.

That's the beauty of it to learn that all you really have to do is read the
book and see to what religious places it takes you. I'm looking for your
opinion here. Why do you suppose AA a supposedly non-religious
organization's has in it's doctrinal publication a chapter to agnostics?
When you formulate your answer consider why it took you so long to come up
with a reason.

|Don't really care.

Then why bother participating in this discussion?

|
| >
| > |You tell me.
| >
| > That wouldn't get us anywhere you would just refuse to accept it.
|
| You haven't answered a single question in a straightforward manner, so how
| would you know if it would get you anywhere, or not?

Sure I have. Over and over in many instances. You just keep choosing to
ignore them or claim that you weren't answered though you have been.

| The
| > question was posed you figure you're going to answer it without a
| question?
|
| Huh?

Huh?

|Please try to include a noun and a verb in each sentence. It could
| make your babbling much more clear.

LOL Please try to include common sense in yours.

|
| > Why would a supposedly non-religious organization need a chapter
dedicated
| > to agnostics in its doctrinal publication?
|
|
| I dunno?

Why do you suppose AA a supposedly non-religious organization would have a
chapter to agnostics in it's doctrinal publication?

|Why would a textbook on psychology have a chapter on dementia?

Now you're answering a question with a question again. Concentrate and look
the question directly in the face then answer it clearly and concisely. In
other words A direct answer please.

|
| >
| > You don't get to hide from facts that make you uncomfortable if you
intend
| > to discuss this matter with me.
|
| Whenever you CAN present some facts,

Already done. You may peruse the steps at your leasure.

|maybe we'll see if they are
| uncomfortable, or not.

The manner of your previous responses indicates an air of extreme discomfort
on your part when dealing with this issue.

|And let's try to be sure they are FACTS, not some
| delusion or opinion or anti-AA rant, OK?

Sure no problem I'm sure we can agree that the steps are in fact part of the
program of AA can we not or at the least that they exist in it's doctrinal
publication. There you have your facts when do you figure you'll stop
denying them?


| > tsk tsk, such potty mouths you AAs that make it here typically are.
|
| More non-sequitir.

No, statement of fact concerning your potty mouthed response. You do seem
to have issues with the truth don't you? By the way you're dealing with
this issue you would rather not look at the facts instead prefering to
ignore them or blot them out as you only just blotted out the evidence of
your potty mouth. It doesn't make it go away you know? It stays as part of
the archives for this newsgroup for anyone to see. You are aware of that
aren't you?

|Verifiable facts, please.

You've been given them. Refusal to accept them or penchant for denying them
is not grounds to claim that they were never given.

| >
| > |You didn't answer a damn thing except
| > | to say you said it before.
| >
| > And I have said it before, and I have just given you two example.
|
| You did?

Read the exchange they're there. Usually right around the point where you
say you've never recieved them.

|Examples of what?

AA's obvious religious nature as exemplified by the steps.

|You made no points whatsoever that I saw.

Because you keep choosing not to see. Can't help that.

| WHERE are they?

Right where I put them, and you saw them, but chose to ignore them and claim
they were never given.

|
|
| This does
| > not constitute just "saying I said it before". You're being extremely
| > inaccurate. Some might even call it blatant lying. Try to stop that.
|
| Me, inaccurate?

Yes quite.

|Lying?

Some would charecterize what you are doing as lying, yes.

|Ummmmhuh. I suppose you can document those
| allegations, too?

Sure. Look to where you claimed I gave you no evidence. Each and every
time you've claimed that is just such documentation.

|I've merely asked you questions and pointed out that, so
| far, you've not answered a single point.

And in making that statement some would say you're lying or extremely
inaccurate. You have been answered. Refusing to acknowledge the answer or
inability to cope with or understand it is not justification to claim that
you have never recieved them.

|You keep telling me you have.
| Maybe THAT's the lie?

You quaulified it well enough. "maybe" You have recieved answers you're
simply unwilling to achnowledge them as answers. Not really my problem
though.

| > |Well, asshole, I don't know WHO you said it to.
| > | Twasn't me.
| >
| > My my. Such a potty mouth you are. I just said it to you. Look above
| it's
| > the bits you choose not to accept.
|
| You must be writing with invisible electrons, or something.

No the problem is with your eyesight and comprehension as you're asking
questions receiving answers responding to them and then claiming you've
never recievd answer to your questions. You seem a tad confused really.

|Just what point
| of yours have I not accepted?

Everything that's left over from what you have accepted.

|In fairness, the answer is "none",

Is this a surprise to you? Anyone following along can see the oviousness of
that statement. Glad you cought up. Now try and keep pace.

|because I
| haven't got the foggiest notion of what point(s) you are trying to make.

The obviousness of AA's religious nature as exemplified by the steps no
less. If you notice the answers are being repeated it's because you're
repeating yourself.

| Refusal to accept it is not grounds to
| > claim it was never given or that it isn't accurate or that it doesn't
| exist.
|
| What is the "IT" that you are referring to?

The evidence which I've provided that proves AA's obvious religious nature,
to whit the steps.

| > | I asked a serious question.
| >
| > Seeing your follow up I doubt very much it was a serious question. In
any
| > event you received a serious answer to "the question".
|
| Really?

Yes, and it grows with every response.

|All I saw was circular evasion.

Yes I saw it in your evasion of responding to the simple question of "Why do
you suppose AA, the supposedly religious program has a chapter to agnostics
in it's doctrinal publication? Since then you've been going around in
circles quacking out your questions that have obvious answers.

|"Your honor? Please instruct the
| witness to answer the question?"

You have received an answer to your questions. Your refusal to accept the
answer does not constitute never having receivd it. On the other hand when
do you figure that you'll get around to stopping evading that simple
question about the agnostics chapter in AA's, a supposedly non-religious
organization, doctrinal publication?

| > |Apparently you don't have an answer.
| >
| > You were given examples you simply choose to refuse to acknoledge them
as
| > examples much less as factual.
|
| Examples of what?

AA's distinctly religious nature as exemplified by the steps no less.

|Of course, anybody would refuse to acknowledge an
| invisible example.

You even manage to do so on tangible ones.

|You keep talking about giving answers....apparently
| there isn't one, just as I thought.

You also think AA isn't religious despite the unequivical evidence of the
steps. So go figure.

|
|
| Even as you avoided answering a very simple
| > question. Why does a supposedly non-religious organization have a
chapter
| > in it's doctrinal publication dedicated to agnostics? Do at least try
| not
| > to confuse that with not having recieved an answer.
|
| I didn't avoid the question. I said, "I dunno."

No you said "I dunno?" Which is a question not an answer.

|Could you please repost
| "your" answer, I missed it.

Which answer? I've given so many now.

| >
| > |You
| > | immediately jumped to a conclusion.
| >
| > I would say that's exactly what you're doing now.
| >
| Whenever you figure out what points you are trying to make,

You mean whenever you choose to acknowledge them of course.

|I may come to
| a conclusion.

Whom do you really think you're fooling here? You've already concluded.

|I may not. I may decide to discuss some of it with you, or I
| may just killfile you.

You're not discussing it with me now. You're simply ignoring everything you
don't care to see and claiming no answer was given. What's the significant
difference between that and not having a discussion at all? Other than that
way you wouldn't be wasting anybody's time.

| I got an idea....how about you writing a "position paper" on just what it
is
| that you think you are talking about and the points you want to discuss?

No need really. If you can't follow this discussion then I don't see how
you could follow an Essay.

| Oh, BTW...don't forget to mention the big AA "lie".

Which one?

|I still want to find
| out what THAT is.

There are a bunch of AA lies you'll have to clarify a bit more. Now I know
that's going to be a tad difficult for you here but I'm sure if you really
try you'll manage.

|Other than I have figured out that you hate AA,

You've figured out that AA isn't religious either so you've shown that your
powers of observation aren't too terribly keen there guy.

|I have
| no idea what you DO stand for.

You mean of course what we're discussing. Well we're discussing AA's
obvious religious nature as exemplified by the steps no less. Glad to bring
you back on track.

|Or, is hating AA the sum total of your
| being?

Is saying that yours?

|Fill me in.

AA is religious. Take a look at the steps it will come to you eventually.

|What is your pedigree?

Too large for this post.

> |Other than I have figured out that you hate AA,
>
> You've figured out that AA isn't religious either so you've shown that your
> powers of observation aren't too terribly keen there guy.

You've got him pegged correctly, Moonraker. He's many times explicitly
ranted out his diatribe. Now you've got him falling all over himself,
tumbling to try to sidestep your direct notice of it.

They have no conscience. Part of the world where I live there is thousands
of square miles, like Australia, without an AA group nearby. These bastards
do not think about someone trying to get help somewhere and then running
into this 'brainwashing research'. The authorities at whatever place of
incarceration this started as a joke, should do something.
It really pisses me of when people who have very little to contribute do not
care about perhaps taking away from some still suffering alcoholic. Perhaps
their life. Many of them started of in AA, are here because of AA and raves
against it now.
Mias
"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:J8lZa.112750$852.92820@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> Hi Mias..........I posted this earlier about Stumpy:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> "Mias....Trust me. You are beating a dead horse.....Stumpy wouldn't know
> the alcoholic ideology if it SMACKED him/her/it in the head.....No need
> to explain anything to him/her/it.....This individual is obsessed with
> shooting anything down remotely related to AA......and thrives/feeds on
> anyone that opposes....Narcissism remember? ;0) Needs the supply!
>
> People like that I would of SMACKED down in the street & took them for
> everything they had!!! He/She/It is a PUNK!
>
> You do what you feel is comfortable for you, and just remember, you
> don't have to explain yourself to anybody.....ESPECIALLY this BOZO!"
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I actually thought in my mind I was responding to "catsruleok" as I was
> typing. Sorry about that, didn't mean to sound preachy towards the end
> there...It's amazing that cats mentioned 8wks and that baboon went after
> him/her in his usual assholyness......
> But I still meant everything I said though..... ;0)

"catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:bh3chr$g08$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I have read many posts that rubbish AA, some from people who found it didn't work for them and
> others from those with no history of involvement with AA. As someone who gave up drinking just
over
> 8 weeks ago and hopes never to drink again, because it's not in my best interests to do so, I do
> not find such posts at all helpful.
>
> If you want to persuade people like me that any group you belong to can offer me more hope of
> staying off drink for ever than AA can, please use your posts on alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism
> to argue your case. I subscribe to this NG. It is not an AA group and I for one would welcome
info
> on any method that has proved to be able to keep people like me who need to stay off drink, off
> drink.
>
> AA tells me that I must do whatever it takes to stay sober. I take this to mean that I don't have
> to use only AA to achieve my goal And I don't. So, if you can continually prove to me that your
> methods work, then should all that I'm doing to stay sober fail me, I'll know where to turn.
>
> Hoping for the best.
>
> JB
>
Having closely followed this thread, I now realise that I was wrong to say that I don't find
posts from those who rubbish AA helpful. They sometimes are. But not in the way those who post such
messages might hope they will be. This thread has not convinced me that AA has nothing good to offer
me or anyone else who decides it's not in their best interest to carry on drinking, nor has it
presented a convincing case for why I should try any other approach. Happily , I can report that it
has been helpful to me in one way. Last night, as a result of being absorbed in it, I gave not a
thought to drinking. So, when I went to bed last night, I had under my belt yet another day of
sobriety. For this, I thank all who contributed.

JB

"Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message news:bh522u$as2$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> They have no conscience. Part of the world where I live there is thousands
> of square miles, like Australia, without an AA group nearby. These bastards
> do not think about someone trying to get help somewhere and then running
> into this 'brainwashing research'. The authorities at whatever place of
> incarceration this started as a joke, should do something.
> It really pisses me of when people who have very little to contribute do not
> care about perhaps taking away from some still suffering alcoholic. Perhaps
> their life. Many of them started of in AA, are here because of AA and raves
> against it now.
> Mias

Very many thanks for saying this. It's quite clear that people like Markus and Staamfa have neither
genuine love for nor desire to see any alcoholic do whatever it's right for them to do not to drink
again.

JB.

"catsruleok"
| Very many thanks for saying this. It's quite clear that people like
Markus and Staamfa have neither
| genuine love for nor desire to see any alcoholic do whatever it's right
for them to do not to drink
| again.

Ok I'll bite. How so?

Simply because you say so?

Don't confuse my unwillingness to sacrifice the truth about AA, to believe
as you do about AA, with a lack of compassion that's just plain foolish.

"Whaaaaa Saamfa doesn't agree with us so I just know he's a cold hearted
hateful bastid who wants people to die, even though he's the one who's
received death threats, and violent wishes, from steppers, I'm just going to
ignore that inconvenient little fact that tends to show it's the AA's he
deals with that are cold calculating and mean-spirited, in favor of crying
my inability to deal with the cold hard facts he's pointing out about AA
that I'm either incapable or unwilling to deal with. Whaaaaa"

"Mias" <

| They have no conscience.

Oh give it a rest already Mias.

|Part of the world where I live there is thousands
| of square miles, like Australia, without an AA group nearby.

Your point? Most of the world is exactly like that and still most problem
drinkers manage to recover on their own. Even in the states most people
recover on their own. AA grudgingly admits that most people who recover do
so without any need of AA to do so. It's the ones in meetings that seem to
have a particularly difficult time accomplishing what most problem drinkers
eventually do on thier own anyway. It's no wonder really what with everyone
constantly repeating the disease mantra in those rewms.

|These bastards
| do not think about someone trying to get help somewhere and then running
| into this 'brainwashing research'.

Oh so now we're bastards is it?

When you're not busy running your potty mouthed suck have you ever stopped
to think that those people might be in discomfort because people like you
erroneously, and contrary to the facts, taught them that there only hope of
success is with a program like AA? So once people like you have conned
people into believing that AA is an absolute necesisity, and in it's
absense, they harm themselves or others, are you willing to accept
culpability for their actions up to and including death? Of course not.
But you sure as heck are quick to try and lay culpability at someone elses
door when in conjunction with the facts they offer the truth that most
people recover just fine on their own without the need of dependenc on a
religious organization like AA.

Have you ever even stopped to consider that by passing on AA's erroneous
beleifs about alcohol dependence that it's you and your fellow AA's that are
doing far more harm than good?

| It really pisses me of when people who have very little to contribute do
not
| care about perhaps taking away from some still suffering alcoholic.

It causes me quite a considerable amount of concern that people who display
the ignorance you do influence other's into spreading the same AA hewy and
thereby ensnaring more people into it.

|Perhaps
| their life.

Have any idea of how many people have lost their lives as a result of AA?
How many husbands have beaten their wives to death coming off rebound where
some ignorant AA blithely quoted "the hat's off to you go out and try it
bs"? Or perhaps went out and tried it as suggested in an AA meeting then
drunk driving killed a car load of people? Or how about the number of
people AA killed by convincing them they had a diseae they had no control
over and even one drink would lead to an endless succession of drinks? Or
those depressed problem drinkers upon believing what AA teaches brought to
the point of depression where they take their own lives. What about them?
Do you accept culpability for them?

|Many of them started of in AA, are here because of AA

Close to 1.5 - 1.7 million people are coerced into AA meetings every year as
a direct result of actions taken by AA's. Either directly coercing people
into AA or convincing others to do it so yes many people find themselves in
AA and not by choice.