"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:_aVVb.264454$xy6.1335993@attbi_s02...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:15:54 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Are you pretending that after rejecting AA's description of the
"real
> > alcoholic" you did not pick and choose to suit your own purposes?
>
> No.
>
> Riddle me this: explain your transcontinental usenet diagnosis. You
> seem to know me better than I know myself. Your powers of
perception
> seem unreal.
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

That was no Usenet diagnosis.

Merely amusement at your rejection of AA's definition of real
alcoholism as a "pissing contest," then complaining about the program
written by AA for folk who *do* fit their definition.

http://blank.org/link/?q=1076373522


Bob

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:58:01 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> That was no Usenet diagnosis.
>
> Merely amusement at your rejection of AA's definition of real
> alcoholism as a "pissing contest," then complaining about the program
> written by AA for folk who *do* fit their definition.
>
> http://blank.org/link/?q=1076373522

OK. So I want to do AA's program, and I think in many ways they're full
of shit. That is ironic.

I still stand by my assertion that the BB's definition of 'real' is
premised on the notion that some people need spiritual salvation in
order to extricate themselves from their predicament. They say so
pretty directly. Some people just need medical attention, their lives
will crumble, and they'll die early - but they're not 'real'
alcoholics. No, the 'real' alcoholic, the one that AA can help, needs a
little salvation.

I can't help but see that as foolishness.

Of course, instead of bitching about AA, what I really probably should
do is find a different program. The problem is, AA has the market for
alcoholic recovery pretty locked up, at least in my neighborhood. So
the easier thing to do seems to be to shoehorn my idiosyncracies into
theirs. From what I can gather, I'm not alone.

So no, I don't accept the AA BB's definition of the 'real' alcoholic.
But I still think they can help me. Ironic, but true.

--
AB5DB9CC

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:q6XVb.265405$xy6.1341731@attbi_s02...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 10:58:01 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > That was no Usenet diagnosis.
> >
> > Merely amusement at your rejection of AA's definition of real
> > alcoholism as a "pissing contest," then complaining about the
program
> > written by AA for folk who *do* fit their definition.
> >
> > http://blank.org/link/?q=1076373522
>
> OK. So I want to do AA's program, and I think in many ways they're
full
> of shit. That is ironic.
>
> I still stand by my assertion that the BB's definition of 'real' is
> premised on the notion that some people need spiritual salvation in
> order to extricate themselves from their predicament. They say so
> pretty directly. Some people just need medical attention, their
lives
> will crumble, and they'll die early - but they're not 'real'
> alcoholics. No, the 'real' alcoholic, the one that AA can help,
needs a
> little salvation.
>
> I can't help but see that as foolishness.
>
> Of course, instead of bitching about AA, what I really probably
should
> do is find a different program. The problem is, AA has the market
for
> alcoholic recovery pretty locked up, at least in my neighborhood.
So
> the easier thing to do seems to be to shoehorn my idiosyncracies
into
> theirs. From what I can gather, I'm not alone.
>
> So no, I don't accept the AA BB's definition of the 'real'
alcoholic.
> But I still think they can help me. Ironic, but true.
>
> --

IMO that's a pleasant change here, an arguable but honest outcome.

Thanks

Bob