New reader!

[Jim S]

Hi,

I am from England, male and 30.

For the last 10 years I have always found it difficult to 'go to bed' as a
always get panicky. So as a result i foung drink as the answer to getting to
sleep(but it got more and more to get to sleep!). Eventually I went to the
doctor and admitted all and he put me on a counselling session over a few
months. The sessions helped a bit and ive been on buspirone and dothiepin,
with the occasional dose of diazepam(for the harder times).

Ive been through not drinking at all / drinking only at weekends/ drinking
throughout the week under the recommended units. But recently gone from bad
to worse with drinking as much as i can at nights as once I get the taste i
cant stop.

My question: Even though I find it very restrictive, is it best to stop all
together, or should i try only drinking on social occasions or just at
weekends????

I am so so determined to do something as I feel so out of control at the
moment. My life is happy other wise (good job, gorgeous partener etc), just
the drink is controlling my life and I want to get out of it :( :(

Any help would be so appreciated.

Jim

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:45:08 GMT, "Jim S" <jamie.simms1@virgin.net>
wrote:

>once I get the taste i cant stop.
>
>My question: Even though I find it very restrictive, is it best to stop all
>together, or should i try only drinking on social occasions or just at
>weekends????

Hi and welcome to the group. Didn't you just answer your own
question? If you can't take a drink without getting drunk, surely the
only way to not get drunk is to not drink.

--
Blue Moon

[rosie read and post]

"Jim S" <jamie.simms1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:ERVMc.860$TU5.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
: Hi,
:
: I am from England, male and 30.


welcome jim!~



:

: My question: Even though I find it very restrictive, is it best to
stop all
: together, or should i try only drinking on social occasions or
just at
: weekends????

if you can't control and enjoy your drinking, then STOPPING is the
only answer, right?

[H.P. Gawd]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:14:33 -0500, "rosie read and post"
<readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Jim S" <jamie.simms1@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:ERVMc.860$TU5.359@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>: Hi,
>:
>: I am from England, male and 30.
>
>
>welcome jim!~
>
>
>
>:
>
>: My question: Even though I find it very restrictive, is it best to
>stop all
>: together, or should i try only drinking on social occasions or
>just at
>: weekends????
>
>if you can't control and enjoy your drinking, then STOPPING is the
>only answer, right?

Wrong. Another answer is to learn to control the drinking.
And it's still not clear which of the two answers is the
easier one on whoever attempts it.

HP-G

[rosie read and post]

:
: Wrong. Another answer is to learn to control the drinking.
: And it's still not clear which of the two answers is the
: easier one on whoever attempts it.
:
: HP-G
:


wrong in YOUR opinion, right?
:)

i don't believe it a question of which is
EASIER.......................if it were easy, why would he be
posting here?

[H.P. Gawd]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:11:35 GMT, "rosie read and post"
<readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:

>
>:
>: Wrong. Another answer is to learn to control the drinking.
>: And it's still not clear which of the two answers is the
>: easier one on whoever attempts it.
>:
>
>wrong in YOUR opinion, right?
>:)

No, it's not an opinion. It's a FACT. There are at least
two answers to the question. Which clearly means that your
statement that yours was the ONLY answer is wrong.

>i don't believe it a question of which is
>EASIER.......................

It's not only about "easier" to accomplish. The "easier"
is also about what is healthier, what works better in the
long term and what works better for most people.

Personally, I think that for all but a very small minority
of people (defined by yet unknown genetic factors) learning
to moderate is more reliable approach than going totally
abstinent. Seems to me that majority of AA-like anstinents
go through periodic cycles of self-destructive
sobriety-relapse-binge. Even after 10+ years of non-drinking.
Yes, that _is_ an opinion.

>if it were easy, why would he be posting here?

Nobody said it was easy. But the answer to your question
is: because obviously he does not know moderation option
even exists or he does not know how to approach it.

HP-G

[rosie read and post]

: Personally, I think that for all but a very small minority
: of people (defined by yet unknown genetic factors) learning
: to moderate is more reliable approach than going totally
: abstinent.


learning to moderate?
then we are NOT discussing alcoholics, imo.

[Kirk S.]

My own personal experience is that even though I may be able to moderate at
some times, at others I will not. Since I am not able to know before hand
which of those instances will result in lack of control, taking the first
drink is giving myself permission to not moderate.

Although there are many factors that contributed to my alcoholism, the
responsibility is mine. Why and how don't matter at this point.

The question I ask myself is:

"Do I really want to moderate?" For me, the answer is NO. When I drink, I
want to get absolutely plastered. I have been that way ever since I first
got drunk. If one is good, ten is better.

The only person that can really answer the question:

"Am I an alcoholic?" is the person asking it...

Kirk S.
"rosie read and post" <readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hC8Nc.54779$vN3.10025@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
> : Personally, I think that for all but a very small minority
> : of people (defined by yet unknown genetic factors) learning
> : to moderate is more reliable approach than going totally
> : abstinent.
>
>
> learning to moderate?
> then we are NOT discussing alcoholics, imo.
>
>

[John Droge]

"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message

because obviously he does not know moderation option
> even exists or he does not know how to approach it.
>
> HP-G
>
Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
units." do you not understand G-A?
Jim S knows moderation management, tried it through some form of counseling
that he said his doctor sent him to, (which undoubtedly gave him the
recommended units he could drink) and it did not work for him.
John

[Jim S]

Hi, thanks for all your replies,

Overall, I think its an idividual thing and your replies have sort of
confirmed this. Either way is incredibly hard!

Gone down from drinking the usual 30 units a night to about 15 over the the
last 2 days. Hopefully i will half this again over the next few days and
next week go to lower units and even have an occasional 'dry' night. I think
the weekends are the hardest with my mates though!

I have been told it can be very dangerous to stop drinking from high amounts
to nothing. Any views?

Thanks

[John Droge]

"Jim S" <jamie.simms1@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:IWdNc.222$sX1.146@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Hi, thanks for all your replies,
>
> Overall, I think its an idividual thing and your replies have sort of
> confirmed this. Either way is incredibly hard!
>
> Gone down from drinking the usual 30 units a night to about 15 over the
the
> last 2 days. Hopefully i will half this again over the next few days and
> next week go to lower units and even have an occasional 'dry' night. I
think
> the weekends are the hardest with my mates though!
>
> I have been told it can be very dangerous to stop drinking from high
amounts
> to nothing. Any views?
>
> Thanks
>
Thought you had said the controlled unit thing didn't work for you? If you
can in fact do it I for one envy you, wish I could. Yeah going from high
daily intake (e.g. 5 liters of wine a day) to zero can be hazardous to your
health.
Good Luck
John

[neuro equipoise]

On - Mon, Jul 26, 2004, 8:35pm (EDT+4) jamie.simms1@virgin.net
(Jim*S) wrote:

> Either way is incredibly hard!

You can't have it both ways, though. When you are an alcohol dependent
person, it means your body chemistry is altered to work with alcohol.
When you work on 'recovery' by abstaining, your body chemistry then
works to repair and rebuild, so that you can function without
alcohol...*but* when you are alcohol dependent, and don't abstain,
choosing to drink on special occasions, etc., you are trying to run two
opposing brain chemistry programs at the same time.

> I have been told it can be very dangerous to stop
> drinking from high amounts to nothing. Any
> views?

Your alcohol dependent chemistry would have no way to inhibit stress,
and even mild withdrawal causes brain damage.

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 21:13:57 -0500, H.P. Gawd
<hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:

>>: My question: Even though I find it very restrictive, is it best to
>>stop all
>>: together, or should i try only drinking on social occasions or
>>just at
>>: weekends????
>>
>>if you can't control and enjoy your drinking, then STOPPING is the
>>only answer, right?
>
>Wrong. Another answer is to learn to control the drinking.
>And it's still not clear which of the two answers is the
>easier one on whoever attempts it.

Didn't she say "if you can't control ... your drinking..."? If you
can't control your drinking, you can't control your drinking.

Maybe you can learn to control your drinking. If so, it would not be
correct to say "you can't control it", it would be more accurate to
say "you haven't learned to control it".

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:32:45 GMT, "rosie read and post"
<readandpost@yahooORhotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>: Personally, I think that for all but a very small minority
>: of people (defined by yet unknown genetic factors) learning
>: to moderate is more reliable approach than going totally
>: abstinent.
>
>
>learning to moderate?
>then we are NOT discussing alcoholics, imo.

The original poster made no mention of alcoholics.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:35:52 GMT, "Jim S" <jamie.simms1@virgin.net>
wrote:

>Overall, I think its an idividual thing and your replies have sort of
>confirmed this.

Not really. Those who cannot control their drinking are not
individually unique in that respect, but believing they are unique can
keep them from finding the means to resolve the problem. Others in
the same situation have found a solution.

>Gone down from drinking the usual 30 units a night to about 15 over the the
>last 2 days. Hopefully i will half this again over the next few days and
>next week go to lower units and even have an occasional 'dry' night. I think
>the weekends are the hardest with my mates though!
>
>I have been told it can be very dangerous to stop drinking from high amounts
>to nothing. Any views?

It can be. Have you tried quitting in the past?

--
Blue Moon

[H.P. Gawd]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:08:29 GMT, "John Droge" <jhdroge@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
>
> because obviously he does not know moderation option
>> even exists or he does not know how to approach it.
>>
>> HP-G
>>
>Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
>units." do you not understand G-A?

If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?

>Jim S knows moderation management, tried it through some form of counseling
>that he said his doctor sent him to, (which undoubtedly gave him the
>recommended units he could drink) and it did not work for him.

In the very same way one can say that AA did not work for
anyone who's ever replapsed.

HP-G

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:18:22 -0500, H.P. Gawd
<hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:

>>Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
>>units." do you not understand G-A?
>
>If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
>drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
>then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
>is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
>right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
>don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?

Incredibly easy for one who is not alcoholic.

In which case, I am puzzled as to why you are here.

>In the very same way one can say that AA did not work for
>anyone who's ever replapsed.

That's like saying medics fail if a cancer patient dies of cancer as a
result of doing nothing but walking into the doctor's surgery.

--
Blue Moon

[H.P. Gawd]

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:41:30 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:18:22 -0500, H.P. Gawd
><hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:
>
>>>Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
>>>units." do you not understand G-A?
>>
>>If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
>>drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
>>then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
>>is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
>>right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
>>don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?
>
>Incredibly easy for one who is not alcoholic.
>
>In which case, I am puzzled as to why you are here.

You are puzzled because you cannot read.
(Hint: the paragraph starts with "if").

>>In the very same way one can say that AA did not work for
>>anyone who's ever relapsed.
>
>That's like saying medics fail if a cancer patient dies of cancer as a
>result of doing nothing but walking into the doctor's surgery.

Nothing in common. Perhaps you shouldn't snip text that
contains clues of what the conversation is about.

HP-G

[John Droge]

"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news:s7ibg0pqo5asf70g5g965umtgj06sn1gc4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:08:29 GMT, "John Droge" <jhdroge@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
> >
> > because obviously he does not know moderation option
> >> even exists or he does not know how to approach it.
> >>
> >> HP-G
> >>
> >Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
> >units." do you not understand G-A?
>
> If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
> drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
> then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
> is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
> right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
> don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?
>
> >Jim S knows moderation management, tried it through some form of
counseling
> >that he said his doctor sent him to, (which undoubtedly gave him the
> >recommended units he could drink) and it did not work for him.
>
> In the very same way one can say that AA did not work for
> anyone who's ever replapsed.
>
> HP-G
>
This is a non sequitur reply --again. The subject in question was whether
Jim S knows about moderation management and if he knows the approach to it,
not about his learning skills.
John

[H.P. Gawd]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:09:47 GMT, "John Droge" <jhdroge@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>
>This is a non sequitur reply --again.

You should have stopped and signed right here...

> The subject in question was whether
>Jim S knows about moderation management and if he knows the approach to it,
>not about his learning skills.

Questions like

"My question: Even though I find it very restrictive, is
it best to stop all together, or should i try only drinking
on social occasions or just at weekends????"

quite unequivocally demonstrate that the person asking
does not know about moderation options or does not
know the approach to it.

Now go ahead, object to the obvious like you always do.

HP-G

[JB]

"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news:s7ibg0pqo5asf70g5g965umtgj06sn1gc4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:08:29 GMT, "John Droge"
<jhdroge@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message

> If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
> drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
> then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
> is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
> right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
> don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?

Dear H-p Gawd/G-A,

In the 1930's many people didn't understand what makes an alcoholic
(ie someone who's alcohol-dependent) different from people who merely
abuse alcohol:

"How many times have people said to us: "I can take it or leave it
alone. Why can't he ?" "Why don't you drink like a gentleman or quit
? " "That fellow can't handle his liquor." "Why don't you try beer
and wine ?" "Lay off the hard stuff ? " " His will power must be weak
?" "He could stop if he wanted to ?" "The doctor told him that if he
ever drank again it would kill him but there he is
all lit up again."

Now these are commonplace observations on drinking which we hear all
the time. Back of them is a world of ignorance and misunderstanding".
(Alcoholics Anonymous, page 20).

Today, the same is true.

In the 1930's. three types of drinker and the ease with which they
could change their drinking habits were identified:

"Moderate drinkers have little trouble giving liquor entirely if they
have good reason for it. They can take it or leave it alone.

Then we have a certain types of hard drinker. He may have the habit
badly enough to gradually impair him physically and mentally. It may
cause him to die a few years before his time. If a sufficiently
strong reason - ill-health, falling in love, change of environment, or
the warning of a doctor - becomes operative - this man can also stop
or moderate, although he may find it difficult and troublesome and may
even need medical help.

But what about the real alcoholic ? He may start off as a moderate
drinker; he may or may not become a continuous hard drinker; but at
some stage of his drinking career, he begins to lose all control of
his liquor consumption, once he starts to
drink.............................. Opinions vary considerably as to
why the alcoholic reacts differently from normal people. We are not
sure why, once a certain point is reached, little can be done for him.
We cannot answer the riddle. We know that while the alcoholic keeps
away from drink ..................... he reacts much like other men.
We are equally positive that once he takes any alcohol whatsoever into
his system, something happens, both in the bodily and mental sense,
which makes it virtually impossible for him to stop...................
These observations would be academic and pointless if our friend never
took the first drink, thereby setting the whole terrible cycle in
motion. Therefore, the main problem of the alcoholic centres in his
mind, rather than his body " (Alcoholics Anonymous, pages 20 - 23)
"Whether such a person can quit upon a non-spiritual basis depends
upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose
whether he will drink or not" (Alcoholics Anonymous, page 34)

Arguably, today, the same is true.

Having read more than just AA literature, (eg:
http://www.hosppract.com/issues/1999/04/cekick.htm ), I find it
hard to believe that all who seek change their drinking habits
can/may/ should be able to do so by means of a one-fits-all solution.

ATB

JB

[Ron]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:38:35 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:

> In the 1930's many people didn't understand what makes an alcoholic
> (ie someone who's alcohol-dependent) different from people who merely
> abuse alcohol:

And the answer they came up with was to define alcoholism as a condition
who's cure was predicated on their particular program: a good healthy
dose of religion.

AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda. There's
not a shred of science behind it, at all. The closest to science AA
program comes is their attempt to falsely attribute the following quote
by William James ("the only radical remedy I know for dispomania is
religiomania"), who was a religious zealot, to Carl Jung.

The fact that some people who felt their condition was 'hopeless' found
refuge in AA, and got better, doesn't dispell the utter inanity of AA's
fraud. It simply provides ammunition to sophists and hacks who can then
'reason' that people who can quit drinking without AA weren't alcoholics
in the first place. No one with a brain will waste their time arguing
with such tautologies.

A lot of good people with good intentions seem to feel that if they
derive any benefit from hanging out with other drunks who are trying to
quit, that they must therefore buy the whole AA dogma kit and kaboodle,
and defend their bromidic sermons as if life itself depended on it. In
fact, they're told as much, it's part of the program.

Nonsense. Utter complete rubbish.

--
AB5DB9CC

[rosie read and post]

:
: The original poster made no mention of alcoholics.
:
: --
: Blue Moon


whoops, my mistake....................what made me think that we
were discussing alcoholism and not quilting?

[JB]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:XqrNc.170752$IQ4.31488@attbi_s02...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:38:35 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
> > In the 1930's many people didn't understand what makes an
alcoholic
> > (ie someone who's alcohol-dependent) different from people who
merely
> > abuse alcohol:
>
> And the answer they came up with was to define alcoholism as a
condition
> who's cure was predicated on their particular program: a good
healthy
> dose of religion.

Hi Ron,

Ten years ago, I started to read the BB. The appearance in it of the
word "God" was one reason why very soon after starting the book, I
closed it up and put it away on a shelf in a room that I rarely use.
Last summer, I took it out again. This time, my excuses for not
reading more than a few pages of it were: I didn't like the writing
style, didn't understand what it was getting it and, again, didn't
like the references to "God". When I put the book away this time,
it's resting place was on a table in a room I frequently use.

By posting regularly to this NG and going to AA meetings, I came to
wonder whether my objections to the book and prejudices against "God"
were acting as blinkers, thus preventing me from gaining a true
picture of what the book was about. Having taken off my blinkers and
by continuing to frequently revisit the book, I'm able to better
study its detail. I've no regrets about doing so not least because
what I've learnt has enabled me to move further away from wanting to
drink and also equipped me to deal with life.

> AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.
There's
> not a shred of science behind it, at all.

Why should that matter ? Probably, it doesn't to someone who finds
that being in the Fellowship of AA and working it's 12 Step progamme
is what enables them to overcome whatever their drinking problem is.
Maybe, it also doesn't matter to doctors who have tried in vain to
help a patient overcome a serious drinking problem and who
subsequently discover that their patient has found a solution by
non-medical/ non-scientific means.

<snip>

> The fact that some people who felt their condition was 'hopeless'
found
> refuge in AA, and got better, doesn't dispell the utter inanity of
AA's
> fraud. It simply provides ammunition to sophists and hacks who can
then
> 'reason' that people who can quit drinking without AA weren't
alcoholics
> in the first place.

No one with a brain will waste their time
arguing
.. with such tautologies.
>
Recently, I've come across a website on which a Professor working in
the field of medicine, described "symptoms" of "alcohol abuse" and
"alcohol dependence". If it's OK for such learned men to make such a
distinction, why should not others also do so?

> A lot of good people with good intentions seem to feel that if they
> derive any benefit from hanging out with other drunks who are trying
to
> quit, that they must therefore buy the whole AA dogma kit and
kaboodle,
> and defend their bromidic sermons as if life itself depended on it.
In
> fact, they're told as much, it's part of the program.
>

Certainly, AAers are encouraged to talk about themselves and what AA
has done for them. However, there may be danger in this. AAers who
claim to have worked its program who say things and behave in ways
that suggest that they haven't could be considered hypocrites and
their actions may be a bad advert for AA.

ATB

JB

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:25:49 -0500, H.P. Gawd
<hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:41:30 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:18:22 -0500, H.P. Gawd
>><hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
>>>>units." do you not understand G-A?
>>>
>>>If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
>>>drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
>>>then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
>>>is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
>>>right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
>>>don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?
>>
>>Incredibly easy for one who is not alcoholic.
>>
>>In which case, I am puzzled as to why you are here.
>
>You are puzzled because you cannot read.
>(Hint: the paragraph starts with "if").

I wasn't referring to your questioning whether learning moderation is
easy, I was referring to the remainder of the paragraph where you
allege abstinence to be easy.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:57:43 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:

>AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.

Do you know what AA's definition of alcoholism is?

--
Blue Moon

[H.P. Gawd]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:47:19 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:25:49 -0500, H.P. Gawd
><hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:41:30 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 22:18:22 -0500, H.P. Gawd
>>><hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Now what part of "...drinking throughout the week under the recommended
>>>>>units." do you not understand G-A?
>>>>
>>>>If in your opinion learning moderation after being through binge
>>>>drinking is as easy as "don't drink more than 14 units per week"
>>>>then I have even more wornderful news for you: Going abstinent
>>>>is incredibly easy. You just "don't drink anymore". Yes, that's
>>>>right. No therapies, no AA, no medication, no nothing. "Just
>>>>don't do it". Now, what part of it do you not understand?
>>>
>>>Incredibly easy for one who is not alcoholic.
>>>
>>>In which case, I am puzzled as to why you are here.
>>
>>You are puzzled because you cannot read.
>>(Hint: the paragraph starts with "if").
>
>I wasn't referring to your questioning whether learning moderation is
>easy, I was referring to the remainder of the paragraph where you
>allege abstinence to be easy.

Then you are even more dense than I thought.

HP-G

[H.P. Gawd]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:38:35 +0100, "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:

>Having read more than just AA literature, (eg:
>http://www.hosppract.com/issues/1999/04/cekick.htm ), I find it
>hard to believe that all who seek change their drinking habits
>can/may/ should be able to do so by means of a one-fits-all solution.

Wholeheartedly agreed. At least for now. Then again,
that's pretty much the situation with _anything_ in
medicine. Alcoholism waters are murkier than S. aureus
infections but even in the latter one size does not
fit all (although our knowledge is much more clear
which leads to the much more restricted range of options).

Which is not to say that we should not be looking for
new and better ways, nor that we shouldn't be comparing
existing approaches with regards to their efficacy.

HP-G

[Ron]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:50:00 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:57:43 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:
>
>>AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.
>
> Do you know what AA's definition of alcoholism is?

A hopeless affliction which only religiomania can cure.

--
AB5DB9CC

[JB]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:J7FNc.200850$XM6.3689@attbi_s53...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:50:00 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:57:43 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:
> >
> >>AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.
> >
> > Do you know what AA's definition of alcoholism is?
>
> A hopeless affliction which only religiomania can cure.
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

Maybe, what follows is nearer the mark:

We know that while the alcoholic keeps away from drink
...................... he reacts much like other men. We are equally
positive that once he takes any alcohol whatsoever into his system,
something happens, both in the bodily and mental sense, which makes it
virtually impossible for him to stop................... These
observations would be academic and pointless if our friend never
took the first drink, thereby setting the whole terrible cycle in
motion. Therefore, the main problem of the alcoholic centres in his
mind, rather than his body "
(Alcoholics Anonymous, pages 20 - 23)


Yesterday, I heard a lady who's admitted to being an alcoholic vividly
describe the mental obsession with alcohol that it's been suggested
drives alcoholics to want to drink.

This lady, who has not had a drink for a number of years, lives with a
partner who drinks. This past week she has been thinking a lot about
what he drinks and has been frequently opening the cupboard where he
keeps his booze . She began to obsess about the bottle of vodka she
found there (during her drinking days vodka had been her favourite
drink). Several times a day, she would go to the cupboard to check
that it was there. On one occasion, she marked the bottle in order to
know how much was in there. Each time she discovered that the level
remained the same, she puzzled over why her partner hadn't been
drinking and had thoughts about if the bottle had been hers, it would
have been quickly emptied. As the week progressed, this lady's
desire to drink the vodka grew stronger. On several occasions she
only opened the bottle and sniffed the content. It had no smell.
This puzzled her. Over time, she decided to put some of the liquid
onto her finger so that she could lick it off. It didn't taste like
vodka, She remained puzzled Eventually, she drank a glass of the
liquid. Only at that point was she able to accept what she had
thought when she first sniffed the
bottle's contents, namely that the vodka bottle contained only water.
She was mightily relieved but at the same deeply disturbed by how her
mind has behaved.

JB

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:XqrNc.170752$IQ4.31488@attbi_s02...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:38:35 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
> > In the 1930's many people didn't understand what makes an
alcoholic
> > (ie someone who's alcohol-dependent) different from people who
merely
> > abuse alcohol:
>
> And the answer they came up with was to define alcoholism as a
condition
> who's cure was predicated on their particular program: a good
healthy
> dose of religion.
>
> AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.

And despite, in your own judgement, being outside the AA criteria of
real alcoholism, Message-ID: yUdAb.435141$HS4.3431825@attbi_s01 you
were not at all self serving in availing yourself of their support?


>There's
> not a shred of science behind it, at all. The closest to science
AA
> program comes is their attempt to falsely attribute the following
quote
> by William James ("the only radical remedy I know for dispomania is
> religiomania"), who was a religious zealot, to Carl Jung.

Precisely where does AA attribute that quotation to Carl Jung?

>
> The fact that some people who felt their condition was 'hopeless'
found
> refuge in AA, and got better, doesn't dispell the utter inanity of
AA's
> fraud. It simply provides ammunition to sophists and hacks who can
then
> 'reason' that people who can quit drinking without AA weren't
alcoholics
> in the first place. No one with a brain will waste their time
arguing
> with such tautologies.
>
> A lot of good people with good intentions seem to feel that if they
> derive any benefit from hanging out with other drunks who are
trying to
> quit, that they must therefore buy the whole AA dogma kit and
kaboodle,
> and defend their bromidic sermons as if life itself depended on it.
In
> fact, they're told as much, it's part of the program.
>
> Nonsense. Utter complete rubbish.
>

Newsgroups: alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism
From: Ron <can@the.spam>

Message-ID: P29Gb.122309$8y1.386215@attbi_s52

>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:52:31 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> Until I had recovered from the mental insanity of a desire to
drink to
>> cure "feelings"...

>I heard a speaker at a recent AA meeting make a similar remark. It
>struck home.

>I can also identify with the 'spiritual awakening' thing that people
>talk about, although I'm not a spiritual person in any conventional
>sense of the word. I just knew, when I opened my eyes in the
hospital,
>that I had gone as far as I was going to go. I've only been sober a
>month, so I shouldn't be so cocky, I suppose. It really felt like a
>weight was lifted though.

You are now bulshitting AA, us, yourself, or what?
http://silkworth.net/bb/app2.html

Bob

[Ron]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:01:41 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message

Good to hear from you. I was beginning to worry you fell off your boat
or something.. ;) What's up down under?

>> And the answer they came up with was to define alcoholism as a
>> condition who's cure was predicated on their particular program: a
>> good healthy dose of religion.
>>
>> AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.

> And despite, in your own judgement, being outside the AA criteria of
> real alcoholism, Message-ID: yUdAb.435141$HS4.3431825@attbi_s01 you
> were not at all self serving in availing yourself of their support?

Absolutely. I never hit the lowest of lows, but I fell quite far
enough, thank you very much. I'm not looking to put myself on one side
or the other of some mythical delineation of 'real' alcoholism. The
whole concept is a farce, which only serves to further the interests of
AA dogmatists.

I bash the AA core principles, but I go to AA. Sure. There are two
AA's, there's the strict AA dogma, and there's the people in AA, or
somehow affiliated with AA (such as the people I meet in this forum).
Almost but not quite the distinction between the fellowship and the
program. I seem to find that very few people with an AA affiliation are
strict AA fundamentalists. Everyone takes what they can use and leaves
the rest. Most people conveniently sweep the religiomania bit under the
rug for example, even though Bill Wilson and others believed it was the
core of their program. Well and good. I find it ironic, though, when
people gut the entrails, hold up the husk, and proclaim themselves
disciples of the AA program.

>> The closest to science AA program comes is their attempt to falsely
>> attribute the following quote by William James ("the only radical
>> remedy I know for dispomania is religiomania"), who was a religious
>> zealot, to Carl Jung.

> Precisely where does AA attribute that quotation to Carl Jung?

My brief attempts to back up my assertion come up empty. I believe the
more correct statement would be to say that Bill Wilson believed that
the only cure for dipsomania was religiomania, a concept he claimed was
endorsed by Carl Jung. My bad.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/wilsonletter.html

>> I can also identify with the 'spiritual awakening' thing that people
>> talk about, although I'm not a spiritual person in any conventional
>> sense of the word. I just knew, when I opened my eyes in the
>> hospital, that I had gone as far as I was going to go. I've only
>> been sober a month, so I shouldn't be so cocky, I suppose. It really
>> felt like a weight was lifted though.

> You are now bulshitting AA, us, yourself, or what?
> http://silkworth.net/bb/app2.html

Me? Bullshit? Pshaw. But seriously, I think it's quite a stretch to
compare my colloquial use of the word 'spiritual' to describe an eye
opening experience, with the core values espoused by Bill Wilson's AA.

--
AB5DB9CC

[neuro equipoise]

On - Wed, Jul 28, 2004, 1:48pm (EDT+4) can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> I believe the more correct statement would be to
> say that Bill Wilson believed that the only cure for
> dipsomania was religiomania, a concept he
> claimed was endorsed by Carl Jung. My bad.

"The only radical remedy I know for dipsomania is religiomania," is a
saying I have heard quoted from some medical man.

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/james10.htm

[Ron]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:38:08 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
> "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> news:J7FNc.200850$XM6.3689@attbi_s53...
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:50:00 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:57:43 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >>AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.
>> >
>> > Do you know what AA's definition of alcoholism is?
>>
>> A hopeless affliction which only religiomania can cure.
>>
>> --
>> AB5DB9CC
>
> Maybe, what follows is nearer the mark:
>
> We know that while the alcoholic keeps away from drink
> ..................... he reacts much like other men. We are equally
> positive that once he takes any alcohol whatsoever into his system,
> something happens, both in the bodily and mental sense, which makes it
> virtually impossible for him to stop................... These
> observations would be academic and pointless if our friend never
> took the first drink, thereby setting the whole terrible cycle in
> motion. Therefore, the main problem of the alcoholic centres in his
> mind, rather than his body "

That's one description of the 'hopeless' part, but leaves out the
religiomania bit. Works for me, but I don't think it's a complete
depiction of Bill Wilson's core AA concept.

--
AB5DB9CC

[JB]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:jnONc.202881$Oq2.67716@attbi_s52...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:38:08 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> > news:J7FNc.200850$XM6.3689@attbi_s53...
> >> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:50:00 -0400, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:57:43 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.
> >> >
> >> > Do you know what AA's definition of alcoholism is?
> >>
> >> A hopeless affliction which only religiomania can cure.
> >>
> >> --
> >> AB5DB9CC
> >
> > Maybe, what follows is nearer the mark:
> >
> > We know that while the alcoholic keeps away from drink
> > ..................... he reacts much like other men. We are
equally
> > positive that once he takes any alcohol whatsoever into his
system,
> > something happens, both in the bodily and mental sense, which
makes it
> > virtually impossible for him to stop................... These
> > observations would be academic and pointless if our friend never
> > took the first drink, thereby setting the whole terrible cycle in
> > motion. Therefore, the main problem of the alcoholic centres in
his
> > mind, rather than his body "
>
> That's one description of the 'hopeless' part, but leaves out the
> religiomania bit. Works for me, but I don't think it's a complete
> depiction of Bill Wilson's core AA concept.
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

Your reply suggests to me that you're confusing what alcoholism is
(according to the BB) with ideas about it can be overcome.

JB

[Ron]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:51:30 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:

> Your reply suggests to me that you're confusing what alcoholism is
> (according to the BB) with ideas about it can be overcome.

What I think, and what I think Bill's AA thinks, are two different
things.

Bill's AA arbitrates a distinction between alcohol abuse and alcoholism
that is nonexistant. There is no line in sand, only degrees of
depravity. But Bill's AA must make this artificial distinction to
explain why AA, and only AA, will help the 'real' alcoholic.

"...... you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual
experience will conquer."

"At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we
were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that
we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else."

etc.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:19ONc.172155$a24.23453@attbi_s03...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:01:41 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
>
> Good to hear from you. I was beginning to worry you fell off your
boat
> or something.. ;) What's up down under?

Apart from my being much annoyed by relatively cold weather
apparantly adversely affecting an old back injury, things are much
the same here.

>
> >> And the answer they came up with was to define alcoholism as a
> >> condition who's cure was predicated on their particular program:
a
> >> good healthy dose of religion.
> >>
> >> AA's definition of alcoholism is pure self-serving propoganda.
>
> > And despite, in your own judgement, being outside the AA criteria
of
> > real alcoholism, Message-ID: yUdAb.435141$HS4.3431825@attbi_s01
you
> > were not at all self serving in availing yourself of their
support?
>
> Absolutely. I never hit the lowest of lows, but I fell quite far
> enough, thank you very much. I'm not looking to put myself on one
side
> or the other of some mythical delineation of 'real' alcoholism.
The
> whole concept is a farce, which only serves to further the
interests of
> AA dogmatists.

In my opinion, the demarcation between what drunken excess could be
resolved utilising available alternatives, and what could not be
resolved, was, and remains critical.

>
> I bash the AA core principles, but I go to AA. Sure. There are
two
> AA's, there's the strict AA dogma, and there's the people in AA, or
> somehow affiliated with AA (such as the people I meet in this
forum).
> Almost but not quite the distinction between the fellowship and the
> program. I seem to find that very few people with an AA
affiliation are
> strict AA fundamentalists. Everyone takes what they can use and
leaves
> the rest. Most people conveniently sweep the religiomania bit
under the
> rug for example, even though Bill Wilson and others believed it was
the
> core of their program. Well and good. I find it ironic, though,
when
> people gut the entrails, hold up the husk, and proclaim themselves
> disciples of the AA program.

I don't recall anyone proclaiming themself a disciple of the AA
program. Nevertheless, defining which is which of the entrails, and
the husk, have been debatable at least since Jim B the atheist
insisted on God being qualified "as we understood Him" in the Big
Book.

>
> >> The closest to science AA program comes is their attempt to
falsely
> >> attribute the following quote by William James ("the only
radical
> >> remedy I know for dispomania is religiomania"), who was a
religious
> >> zealot, to Carl Jung.
>
> > Precisely where does AA attribute that quotation to Carl Jung?
>
> My brief attempts to back up my assertion come up empty. I believe
the
> more correct statement would be to say that Bill Wilson believed
that
> the only cure for dipsomania was religiomania, a concept he claimed
was
> endorsed by Carl Jung. My bad.
>
> http://www.barefootsworld.net/wilsonletter.html

It did bring to mind the AA attribution to Herbert Spencer, which
despite painstaking research, has never been proven.
>
> >> I can also identify with the 'spiritual awakening' thing that
people
> >> talk about, although I'm not a spiritual person in any
conventional
> >> sense of the word. I just knew, when I opened my eyes in the
> >> hospital, that I had gone as far as I was going to go. I've
only
> >> been sober a month, so I shouldn't be so cocky, I suppose. It
really
> >> felt like a weight was lifted though.
>
> > You are now bulshitting AA, us, yourself, or what?
> > http://silkworth.net/bb/app2.html
>
> Me? Bullshit? Pshaw. But seriously, I think it's quite a stretch
to
> compare my colloquial use of the word 'spiritual' to describe an
eye
> opening experience, with the core values espoused by Bill Wilson's
AA.

Born in an era when folk regularly spoke of "being in good spirits"
"being in low spirits" and the "atmosphere" in a room, I don't feel
at all uncomfortable interchanging the words "spiritual experience"
and "psychic change" Rather, I strongly suspect Bill's much vaunted
"spiritual experience" was more due to Belladonna hallucination
http://tinyurl.com/67fpr prompted by visions of taking what he
learned from Ebby and creating a lucrative "Bill Wilson" pyramid
selling "alcoholism cure" dynasty, than any heavenly intervention. So
I don't believe it's a stretch, at all.

Bob

[JB]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:ydSNc.173516$a24.112080@attbi_s03...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:51:30 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
> > Your reply suggests to me that you're confusing what alcoholism is
> > (according to the BB) with ideas about it can be overcome.
>
> What I think, and what I think Bill's AA thinks, are two different
> things.
>
> Bill's AA arbitrates a distinction between alcohol abuse and
alcoholism
> that is nonexistant. There is no line in sand, only degrees of
> depravity. But Bill's AA must make this artificial distinction to
> explain why AA, and only AA, will help the 'real' alcoholic.

If "alcoholism" = "alcohol dependent then, "Bill's AA" is not alone
in making a distinction between "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol
dependent. Example:

"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
divides alcohol use into abuse and dependence (Table 1). The
distinction is useful because treatment modalities for abuse and
dependence differ slightly. Alcohol abuse is characterized by
continued use that negatively affects a person's life. Alcohol
dependence includes abuse plus the physiologic properties of tolerance
and withdrawal. Additionally, DSM-IV defines dependent patients as
those who expend increasing time to obtain, use, or recover from
alcohol (or other drugs)".

Table 1. DSM-IV Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence

Abuse

A. A maladaptive pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically
significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one or more of
the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
1. Recurrent alcohol use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role
obligations at work, school, or home
2. Recurrent alcohol use in situations in which it is physically
hazardous
3. Recurrent alcohol-related legal problems
4. Continued alcohol use despite having persistent or recurrent social
or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the
substance
B. The symptoms have never met the criteria for dependence

Dependence
A maladaptive pattern of use as above, manifested by three or more of
the following:
1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
a. A need for markedly increased amounts of alcohol to achieve
intoxication or desired effect
b. Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount
of alcohol
2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
a. Characteristic withdrawal syndrome for alcohol
b. Alcohol taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms
3. Alcohol taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was
intended
4. A persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to reduce or control
drinking
5. Much time is spent in activities necessary to obtain alcohol, use
alcohol, or recover from its effects
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are
given up or reduced because of drinking
7. Continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or
recurrent physical or psychological problem caused or exacerbated by
alcohol
(Source: http://www.hosppract.com/issues/1999/04/cekick.htm

>
> "...... you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual
> experience will conquer."

<snip>

> AB5DB9CC

Earlier this evening. I was reminded that it was Ebby Thatcher who put
the idea in Bill Wilson's mind that only a spiritual experience
could bring about recovery from alcoholism, Ebby told Bill this when
Bill was still drinking and Ebby had been sober for two months.
Ebby's views reflected the views of the Oxford Groups (he had attended
local meetings). Ebby also told Bill how to achieve the necessary
spiritual experience, namely, by following the Oxford Groups'
programme of action.

Later, Dr Silkworth, put the idea in Bill's head that alcoholism was a
illness of the mind and also an illness of the body.

[Ron]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:19 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:

> If "alcoholism" = "alcohol dependent then, "Bill's AA" is not alone
> in making a distinction between "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol
> dependent.

Those are convenient labels for various points along a continuum. I've
never disputed that some people's attraction to alcohol, physiological
and otherwise, can be truly debilitating and hard to beat. What I
adamantly oppose, as pure handwaving nonsense, is the notion that
alcoholism is a spiritual disease, only amenable to a spiritual
solution. Of course great changes must be wrought in someone's psyche,
if they have sunk so low. And truth be told, I'm not really all that
opposed to colloquial use of the word 'spiritual' either. But Bill
Wilson wasn't talking about mere psychology when he talks about
surrendering to a higher power, and only a sophist would argue
otherwise.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:tfXNc.205975$XM6.122876@attbi_s53...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:19 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
> > If "alcoholism" = "alcohol dependent then, "Bill's AA" is not
alone
> > in making a distinction between "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol
> > dependent.
>
> Those are convenient labels for various points along a continuum.

Of course, Ron never having passed it himself, the point of no return
could not possibly exist for anyone else either.

> I've
> never disputed that some people's attraction to alcohol,
physiological
> and otherwise, can be truly debilitating and hard to beat. What I
> adamantly oppose, as pure handwaving nonsense, is the notion that
> alcoholism is a spiritual disease, only amenable to a spiritual
> solution.

Alternatively, we could all surrender to Ron's handwaving nonsense.

>Of course great changes must be wrought in someone's psyche,
> if they have sunk so low. And truth be told, I'm not really all
that
> opposed to colloquial use of the word 'spiritual' either. But Bill
> Wilson wasn't talking about mere psychology when he talks about
> surrendering to a higher power, and only a sophist would argue
> otherwise.

While Ron is unclear as to precisely where Bill Wilson talked about
surrendering to a Higher Power, it appears that Ron, like all good
sophists, is competent to argue as to exactly what Bill Wilson was
thinking anyway.

Bob

[Ron]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:07:03 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Of course, Ron never having passed it himself, the point of no return
> could not possibly exist for anyone else either.

I'm glad you made it back.

But you are right, I never required religiomania to stop drinking. Did
you?

> While Ron is unclear as to precisely where Bill Wilson talked about
> surrendering to a Higher Power, it appears that Ron, like all good
> sophists, is competent to argue as to exactly what Bill Wilson was
> thinking anyway.

"When we saw others solve their problems by a simple reliance upon the
Spirit of the Universe, we had to stop doubting the power of God. Our
ideas did not work. But the God idea did."

Is that clear enough? There's lots more where that comes from, as you
know.

What am I saying that you disagree with? I have no problem whatever
with the notion that severing severe alcohol dependance can require
the kind of great psychic change you have written about. I don't see
you thumping any bibles, though.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:ooYNc.188007$JR4.59472@attbi_s54...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:07:03 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Of course, Ron never having passed it himself, the point of no
return
> > could not possibly exist for anyone else either.
>
> I'm glad you made it back.
>
> But you are right, I never required religiomania to stop drinking.
Did
> you?

None of the 12 steps I took neccessitated religiomania.

Nevertheless, in answer to your question, obsession is arguably an
expression of mania. I do admit to an obsession to recover that about
equalled, if not exceeded, my previous obsession to drink. I likened
my life at that time to a pendelum that had swung too far one way for
decades, and needed to swing equally the other way, in order to
eventually find centre on a semblence of balance.

>
> > While Ron is unclear as to precisely where Bill Wilson talked
about
> > surrendering to a Higher Power, it appears that Ron, like all
good
> > sophists, is competent to argue as to exactly what Bill Wilson
was
> > thinking anyway.
>
> "When we saw others solve their problems by a simple reliance upon
the
> Spirit of the Universe, we had to stop doubting the power of God.
Our
> ideas did not work. But the God idea did."
>
> Is that clear enough? There's lots more where that comes from, as
you
> know.

Ever tried telling someone actually with religiomania that a God
*idea* works?

Given Wilson was the mouthpiece of notions from devout theist to
atheist/agnostic, perhaps it does take more than a little knowledge
of AA doublespeak to recognise the ambiguity between "God" and "God
idea."

>
> What am I saying that you disagree with?

Probably what I disagree with the most is those of you amongst the
contingent in AA who have not passed that line into hopeless
alcoholism dogmatically negating a demarcation, and solution, that
obviously, and fortunately for you, exists outside of your collective
experience.

>I have no problem whatever
> with the notion that severing severe alcohol dependance can require
> the kind of great psychic change you have written about. I don't
see
> you thumping any bibles, though.

Amen, and praise the Lord for that!

Lord Bob(HP;-)

[Ron]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:26:47 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> news:ooYNc.188007$JR4.59472@attbi_s54...

>> "When we saw others solve their problems by a simple reliance upon
>> the Spirit of the Universe, we had to stop doubting the power of God.
>> Our ideas did not work. But the God idea did."

> Ever tried telling someone actually with religiomania that a God
> *idea* works?
>
> Given Wilson was the mouthpiece of notions from devout theist to
> atheist/agnostic, perhaps it does take more than a little knowledge
> of AA doublespeak to recognise the ambiguity between "God" and "God
> idea."

"We are not cured of alcoholism. What we have is a daily reprieve
contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition. Every day is a
day when we must carry the vision of God's will into all of our daily
activities."

....and I could keep going and going and going. I haven't found it so
easy to find examples of Bill promoting atheism or agnosticism.

>> What am I saying that you disagree with?

> Probably what I disagree with the most is those of you amongst the
> contingent in AA who have not passed that line into hopeless
> alcoholism dogmatically negating a demarcation, and solution, that
> obviously, and fortunately for you, exists outside of your collective
> experience.

Am I in AA? Hmm, suppose so. Yikes.

The only demarcation that I personally have expressed disagreement with
is the one distinguishing a certain class of hopeless alcoholic that
requires a religious cure.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:bo_Nc.49394$eM2.10711@attbi_s51...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:26:47 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> > news:ooYNc.188007$JR4.59472@attbi_s54...
>
> >> "When we saw others solve their problems by a simple reliance
upon
> >> the Spirit of the Universe, we had to stop doubting the power of
God.
> >> Our ideas did not work. But the God idea did."
>
> > Ever tried telling someone actually with religiomania that a God
> > *idea* works?
> >
> > Given Wilson was the mouthpiece of notions from devout theist to
> > atheist/agnostic, perhaps it does take more than a little
knowledge
> > of AA doublespeak to recognise the ambiguity between "God" and
"God
> > idea."
>
> "We are not cured of alcoholism. What we have is a daily reprieve
> contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition. Every day
is a
> day when we must carry the vision of God's will into all of our
daily
> activities."
>
> ...and I could keep going and going and going. I haven't found it
so
> easy to find examples of Bill promoting atheism or agnosticism.

I did not claim promotion of atheism/agnosticism, I claimed
ambiguity. However, with reference to this example, it seems we are
already agreed use of the word "spiritual" covers a multitude of
interpretations. That leaves us with "God's will" which, according to
http://tinyurl.com/42xvb is only found deep within us. As far as I'm
concerned, that is clearly distinct from any God in Heaven. If you
want, and are patient, you can hear what my very own HP in the the
heavens has to say about that particular dogma at
http://tinyurl.com/3w9me

>
> >> What am I saying that you disagree with?
>
> > Probably what I disagree with the most is those of you amongst
the
> > contingent in AA who have not passed that line into hopeless
> > alcoholism dogmatically negating a demarcation, and solution,
that
> > obviously, and fortunately for you, exists outside of your
collective
> > experience.
>
> Am I in AA? Hmm, suppose so. Yikes.
>
> The only demarcation that I personally have expressed disagreement
with
> is the one distinguishing a certain class of hopeless alcoholic
that
> requires a religious cure.

AA's "spiritual - not religious" emphasis aside, if you don't fit in
that class, and others claim they do, why on God(HP's;-) earth does
it bother you?

Bob

[H.P. Gawd]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:19 +0100, "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:

>If "alcoholism" = "alcohol dependent then, "Bill's AA" is not alone
>in making a distinction between "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol
>dependent. Example:
>
>"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
>divides alcohol use into abuse and dependence (Table 1). The
>distinction is useful because treatment modalities for abuse and
>dependence differ slightly. Alcohol abuse is characterized by
>continued use that negatively affects a person's life. Alcohol
>dependence includes abuse plus the physiologic properties of tolerance
>and withdrawal. Additionally, DSM-IV defines dependent patients as
>those who expend increasing time to obtain, use, or recover from
>alcohol (or other drugs)".
>
>Table 1. DSM-IV Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
>

Blah-blah. This proves that you can read but cannot think.
Abuse preceeds dependency. Not all abuse becomes dependency.

The names are abstract creations. To put something on paper
and to distinguish extremes from each other.

There are no distinct colors - there is a continuous transition
from one to another. Yet, names like "yellow" and "green"
are useful and descriptive. Which does not mean yellow
and green are fundamentally different things. (In fact,
neither exists outside your consciousness anyway).

HP-G

[Ron]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:22:26 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>> The only demarcation that I personally have expressed disagreement
>> with is the one distinguishing a certain class of hopeless alcoholic
>> that requires a religious cure.

> AA's "spiritual - not religious" emphasis aside, ...

"When first contacted, most alcoholics just wanted to find sobriety,
nothing else. They clung to their other defects, letting go only little
by little. They simply did not want to get "too good too soon." The
Oxford Groups' absolute concepts -- absolute purity, absolute honesty,
absolute unselfishness, and absolute love -- were frequently too much
for the drunks. These ideas had to be fed with teaspoons rather than by
buckets."

"To some people we need not, and probably should not emphasize the
spiritual feature on our first approach. We might prejudice them. At the
moment we are trying to put our lives in order. But this is not an end
in itself. Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum service
to God..."

> ...if you don't fit in that class, and others claim they do, why on
> God(HP's;-) earth does it bother you?

When I first struck with the blinding realization that I had a real
problem with drinking, I was very confused. "What's wrong with me?!"
was what I kept thinking. I felt desperate, and started feverishly
groping for answers. I was, for a time, really rather vulnerable;
susceptable to almost anything anyone had to say on the subject. I
certainly knew that *I* didn't know what the hell was going on; that my
views required radical change. I was such a flake that for a short
time, I seriously contemplated whether the 'allergy' theory of
alcoholism implied that spending lots of time in graineries and combines
might have something to do with it.

I've since gotten my bearings, but I'm sure my disorientation was not
unique. It bothers me that a program designed to help struggling
alcoholics would have ulterior motives. I think you would agree that
recovery from alcoholism does not require religion. But I'm quite
convinced that there are those who, given the opportunity to work with
someone impressionable, would not hesitate to proselytize them. It
bothers me, because I think we have quite enough religion on this planet
as it is.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:xz%Nc.206513$Oq2.150894@attbi_s52...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:22:26 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> The only demarcation that I personally have expressed
disagreement
> >> with is the one distinguishing a certain class of hopeless
alcoholic
> >> that requires a religious cure.
>
> > AA's "spiritual - not religious" emphasis aside, ...
>
> "When first contacted, most alcoholics just wanted to find
sobriety,
> nothing else. They clung to their other defects, letting go only
little
> by little. They simply did not want to get "too good too soon." The
> Oxford Groups' absolute concepts -- absolute purity, absolute
honesty,
> absolute unselfishness, and absolute love -- were frequently too
much
> for the drunks. These ideas had to be fed with teaspoons rather
than by
> buckets."

So they abandoned the four absolutes.

>
> "To some people we need not, and probably should not emphasize the
> spiritual feature on our first approach. We might prejudice them.
At the
> moment we are trying to put our lives in order. But this is not an
end
> in itself. Our real purpose is to fit ourselves to be of maximum
service
> to God..."

A God who can only be found deep within is certainly a new concept
for hopeless drunks who consistently failed at being true to
themselves, let alone true to those near and dear to them.

>
> > ...if you don't fit in that class, and others claim they do, why
on
> > God(HP's;-) earth does it bother you?
>
> When I first struck with the blinding realization that I had a real
> problem with drinking, I was very confused. "What's wrong with
me?!"
> was what I kept thinking. I felt desperate, and started feverishly
> groping for answers. I was, for a time, really rather vulnerable;
> susceptable to almost anything anyone had to say on the subject. I
> certainly knew that *I* didn't know what the hell was going on;
that my
> views required radical change. I was such a flake that for a short
> time, I seriously contemplated whether the 'allergy' theory of
> alcoholism implied that spending lots of time in graineries and
combines
> might have something to do with it.
>
> I've since gotten my bearings, but I'm sure my disorientation was
not
> unique. It bothers me that a program designed to help struggling
> alcoholics would have ulterior motives. I think you would agree
that
> recovery from alcoholism does not require religion. But I'm quite
> convinced that there are those who, given the opportunity to work
with
> someone impressionable, would not hesitate to proselytize them. It
> bothers me, because I think we have quite enough religion on this
planet
> as it is.
>

A written program, documented by and for *hopeless* rock bottom
alcoholics, has ulterior motives?

I think it's safe to say that people, irrespective of any AA
connection, or not, will always have ulterior motives.

It used to really bug me that druggies, along with mere problem
drinkers such as yourself, were overwhelming AA. These days I'm
merely amused at the irony of an alcoholic such as myself having
recovered, thus, with no desire to stop drinking, unqualified for AA
membership amongst those "problem" drinkers, and the druggies.

Bob

[JB]

"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news:s50hg05ndjclodo5dc39p9cqamnr0sctgo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:19 +0100, "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com>
wrote:
>
> >If "alcoholism" = "alcohol dependent then, "Bill's AA" is not
alone
> >in making a distinction between "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol
> >dependent. Example:
> >
> >"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)
> >divides alcohol use into abuse and dependence (Table 1). The
> >distinction is useful because treatment modalities for abuse and
> >dependence differ slightly. Alcohol abuse is characterized by
> >continued use that negatively affects a person's life. Alcohol
> >dependence includes abuse plus the physiologic properties of
tolerance
> >and withdrawal. Additionally, DSM-IV defines dependent patients as
> >those who expend increasing time to obtain, use, or recover from
> >alcohol (or other drugs)".
> >
> >Table 1. DSM-IV Criteria for Alcohol Abuse and Dependence
> >
>
> Blah-blah. This proves that you can read but cannot think.
> Abuse preceeds dependency.

You can prove your assertion ?

>Not all abuse becomes dependency.

I don't disagree.

>H-P Gawd

JB

[JB]

"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:ceaa3o$g9v$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

H-P-Gawd wrote:

> > Blah-blah. This proves that you can read but cannot think.
> > Abuse preceeds dependency.
>
> You can prove your assertion ?

Correction: You can prove your assertions ?

JB :^)

[JB]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:tfXNc.205975$XM6.122876@attbi_s53...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:42:19 +0100, JB <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
> > If "alcoholism" = "alcohol dependent then, "Bill's AA" is not
alone
> > in making a distinction between "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol
> > dependent.
>
> Those are convenient labels for various points along a continuum.
I've
> never disputed that some people's attraction to alcohol,
physiological
> and otherwise, can be truly debilitating and hard to beat. What I
> adamantly oppose, as pure handwaving nonsense, is the notion that
> alcoholism is a spiritual disease, only amenable to a spiritual
> solution. Of course great changes must be wrought in someone's
psyche,
> if they have sunk so low. And truth be told, I'm not really all
that
> opposed to colloquial use of the word 'spiritual' either. But Bill
> Wilson wasn't talking about mere psychology when he talks about
> surrendering to a higher power, and only a sophist would argue
> otherwise.
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

I've heard it said that wrangling over the content of the BB led to
concerns that it might never be published and therefore, it was
decided to let Bill W have a freer hand in determining what should go
in it.

At one time, Bill W found it difficult to accept the idea of "God" (ie
the God which the Oxford Groups worshipped). The idea that there was
a spiritual solution to alcoholism came to be more acceptable to him
partly as a result of it being suggested to him that he choose his own
God.

I've come to believe that when God appears in AA it is merely intended
as a reminder to individuals that in order to overcome their drinking
problem, firstly, their thinking about drinking needs to change ;
secondly, that they are not by themselves powerful enough to bring
about that change in thinking and, thirdly, no human can cause their
thinking to change. By this, I'm not saying that no-one can cause
others to think about things in a different way. I'm saying that if
someone's thinking changes, probably, it's not as a result of any
deliberate/conscious act or decision they've taken but rather, it's
resulted from something that's more powerful than any human being
could ever be.

JB

[H.P. Gawd]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:14:53 +0100, "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote:

>
>"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
>news:ceaa3o$g9v$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>H-P-Gawd wrote:
>
>> > Blah-blah. This proves that you can read but cannot think.
>> > Abuse preceeds dependency.
>>
>> You can prove your assertion ?
>
>Correction: You can prove your assertions ?

No. Experience shows that absolutely nothing
can be proved in this group. Not even things that
are universally accepted outside of this group.

Such as that GABA is not a protein, that alcohol
is not a mutagen and that research does lead
to improvements of peoples' every day life.

If these things were proven/proved to be unprovable,
everything else is futile.

From the text you snipped and your responses, the
correctness of both assertions is obvious. Offering
more proof would be waste of time. The second one
is not even an assertion, rather an axiom.

HP-G

[JB]

"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news:7g1ig0h1h888gkcis08gs1v982228tocug@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:14:53 +0100, "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> >news:ceaa3o$g9v$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >H-P-Gawd wrote:
> >
> >> > Blah-blah. This proves that you can read but cannot think.
> >> > Abuse preceeds dependency.
> >>
> >> You can prove your assertion ?
> >
> >Correction: You can prove your assertions ?
>
> No. Experience shows that absolutely nothing
> can be proved in this group. Not even things that
> are universally accepted outside of this group.

There's danger in making claims/asserting that something is
"universally accepted". Maybe you can think of a reason why this
might be so.

JB