"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gK3La.2484$Im5.652@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Actually, JB, I didn't even realize there WAS a confusion. I saw your
> "catsruleok" sig and didn't pay much attention to the rest. I sure wasn't
> attempting to create any confusion.
>
I know you weren't :^)) Shall we move on now ?

JB

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:00:35 -0500, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpost@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > I just wish people
>> would stop endorsing ADs as some kind of solution to alcoholism, 'cos
>> they ain't.
>>
>> --
>> Blue Moon
>
>BM,
>i have answered your questions over and over.

No you haven't. If my newsreader missed it, I owe an apology, but
meanwhile I'd love to know ... just where and when did you answer "if
you have a chemical imbalance, how is that imbalance tested?" ?? Or,
where and when did you answer "if someone has drugs which address a
chemical imbalance, why is it that the imbalance is so much less
stable than those not on such drugs (to the extent that the balance
must undergo further correction with different drugs on a regular
basis)?"??

You really should either put up or shut up, but quit pretending you've
answered something when you haven't.

>however, you read what you want, and you believe what you want.

I'll not always read what I believe, that's for sure. If I did, I'd
be going round the twist with this newsgroup! But I do know I've not
seen you respond to any of those questions, despite your false claim
that you have.

>NO ONE has endorsed antidepressants as a solution to alcoholism, but you persist in repeating this fallacy.

Have you, or have you not, pushed the notion of people going to their
doctor for depression pills just days after they quit abusing a
depressant, yet when the subject of recovery arises you become more
wooly about what people should do?

--
Blue Moon