A message to those who rubbish, AA

[catsruleok]

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

[Markus]

"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.

Posts that rubbish AA? I think if you read a little more carefully you will
see that most folks whom have spoken critically of AA, such as myself,
simply point out the lies that AA and it's minions will pass off as fact.
So in that regard, AA rubbishes itself. If you wish to be part of such an
organization then by all means, go for it.

Let me continue....

I know personally a gal who believes that the "purification" program of
narconon is the best thing since sliced bread. After printing out some
literature in opposition to it and giving it to her, she took it to the
"org" where they discounted it, and anything else written on the internet,
as lies. She chose to close her eyes--and mind--and throw the literature
away. She continues to tell anyone who will listen about how great Narconon
is. If it were not for people exposing this obvious fraud for what it is,
then who knows how many folks would be sucked in by this scam (even though
it appears the NY fire dept has most recently been).

There are folks out there who would say that narconon worked for a couple of
folks, so why not leave them alone? I ask: "What is wrong with pointing
out the truth?"

So you see, it isn't just about claiming one program is better than another
or something did or did not work. It is also about pointing out the rubbish
that AA tries to float onto society as being some profound truth.

> 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,

You "hope" to never drink again? Or do you "want" to never drink again? Are
you willing to make that commitment? Then do so. Simple as that. However,
it is understood some folks never learned how to use their own rational
facets in regards to defeating an addiction, and could use a small amount of
help training themselves to do so.

> I do not find such posts at all helpful.

Well, you have seen both the "glowing" posts in favor of AA, and you have
also been afforded a critical review. Something that wasn't as prevalent as
when I first got clean in '94.

> 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 am not going to try and persuade you to join any group. The idea In My
Opinion (IMO) is that the focus shouldn't be on joining any kind of group,
but rather to find the tools necessary for you to stay off of
drink--permanently--and without a learned and gained dependency upon a group
or program as a result.

> AA tells me that I must do whatever it takes to stay sober.

I'd say at this point you need to quit worrying about what some group has to
say about anything and start worrying about what YOUR true wants and desires
are in life and pursue such. You do have this power, all on your own.

Remember: Having an open mind doesn't also mean you have to abandon all that
you believe in, or that of which defines you as an autonomous human being.

However, try reading some of these groups:

http://www.rational.org/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi

http://forums.delphiforums.com/lifering/start

http://www.smartrecovery.org/

Feel free to ask any questions.

-Markus
--
remove 4u to reply

[stuart]

"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

Nicely put JB. As soon as anyone claims to have a direct line to the creator
of the universe, that person has the potential to cause great havoc with
others.
I attend AA and work the steps, but also I do a lot of other stuff which
exists outside the realm of AA completely and more in the vien of RR and
some other ideas.
Took me a long long time to get past some of the detriments in AA, mainly
some of the more zealous types in AA, to start understanding the program
enough that it worked. I highly recommend listening to the Joe and Charlie
series of tapes in their entirety.
And do lots of other healthy stuff with your life. Everything that helps, I
figure.

[Blue Moon]

Hi JB,

>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.

You're now treading the path here that I trod about 2 - 2 1/2 years
ago. I wish you success in getting any rational explanation about
"recovery" from any of those to whom your inquiry is directed. Even
proponents of rational recovery surprised me with their remarkable
lack of rationality.

In a way, such people had the opposite to their desired effect...
through offering no seemingly viable alternative to AA, they were
effectively passing the message that AA really was the way to go if
you don't want the bitter, twisted thinking that's portrayed. One
such AA antagonist was doing more AA 12th Step work than I possibly
could! Not sure he liked it much when I told him so, though.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:37:18 GMT, "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Posts that rubbish AA? I think if you read a little more carefully you will
>see that most folks whom have spoken critically of AA, such as myself,
>simply point out the lies that AA and it's minions will pass off as fact.

Yeah, they "rubbish" AA. I've seen none of the allegations of "lies"
about AA backed up by hard evidence, and that's not for want of
looking. Much of it is smoke-and-mirrors stuff. Some of it is
downright bullshit. Most is certainly based on personal opinion
passed off as general fact.

>I know personally a gal who believes that the "purification" program of
>narconon is the best thing since sliced bread. After printing out some
>literature in opposition to it and giving it to her, she took it to the
>"org" where they discounted it, and anything else written on the internet,
>as lies.

Perhaps they were right? Did you consider that? Or perhaps not.
This isn't narconon, and there's only your word here for what was
said/done. As for "anything else written on the internet" I find that
hard to believe as narconon stuff is probably on the internet
somewhere. Maybe one or two individuals decided that the internet is
a waste of time, but that's not to say it's any group or
organisational opinion. I've heard similar in AA, but it's definitely
not an AA opinion... it's not even the opinion of the group where the
individuals expressed their own personal views.

>There are folks out there who would say that narconon worked for a couple of
>folks, so why not leave them alone? I ask: "What is wrong with pointing
>out the truth?"

Nothing at all. Just make sure it's the truth, not just warped
perception or so clouded by opinion as to make any truth almost
meaningless.

>The idea In My
>Opinion (IMO) is that the focus shouldn't be on joining any kind of group,
>but rather to find the tools necessary for you to stay off of
>drink--permanently--and without a learned and gained dependency upon a group
>or program as a result.

So how's she supposed to "find the tools necessary" without looking
for, and using, those tools? And how would she know what tools work,
or how to use the tools when apparently nobody else is willing to show
how they're used? That's like dumping an electrician's toolbox in the
hands of a schoolkid and telling him to rewire a house. Or, even
worse, simply telling the schoolkid to go find his own tools for
rewiring the house at the local hardware store without so much as a
shopping list of what to buy.

>I'd say at this point you need to quit worrying about what some group has to
>say about anything and start worrying about what YOUR true wants and desires
>are in life and pursue such. You do have this power, all on your own.

So there's no need for any such "tools" at all? Make your mind up!

--
Blue Moon

[smicker]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 19:30:18 +0100, "catsruleok"
<catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>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.

I have been fortunate and been dry now for 3 years. I was a hopeless
case and I only stopped when my body packed up. I do not think there
are any 'one size fits all' solutions and now I have stopped I realise
that there many types of alcoholic. (see Dr.Moody, first chapter at
http://www.smicker.co.uk) he explains it very concisely. I am 60 and I
could never have stopped if I wasn't stopped by my body packing up and
leaving me alive. I believe you have to decide why you are an
alcoholic before you can tackle it and then if you want to beat it
enough to do just about anything to do so. After 60 years I do not
know any answers but I hope you find yours. Good luck.
smicker

[Virtualoso]

In article <iQdZa.3085$Ih1.1294989@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "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.
>
> Posts that rubbish AA? I think if you read a little more carefully you will
> see that most folks whom have spoken critically of AA, such as myself,
> simply point out the lies that AA and it's minions will pass off as fact.
> So in that regard, AA rubbishes itself. If you wish to be part of such an
> organization then by all means, go for it.
>
> Let me continue....
>
> I know personally a gal who believes that the "purification" program of
> narconon is ... [snip] ... I ask: "What is wrong with pointing
> out the truth?"

The truth pointed out here, is that Narcanon isn't AA.

> So you see, it isn't just about claiming one program is better than another
> or something did or did not work. It is also about pointing out the rubbish...

The rubbish is that you continue to attempt to "smear" AA by citing
entirely other things.

[Virtualoso]

In article <ZleZa.25682$%T.3103@edtnps84>, stuart
<fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote:

> I attend AA and work the steps, but also I do a lot of other stuff which
> exists outside the realm of AA completely and more in the vien of RR and
> some other ideas.

What an arsenal. Having trouble making less work, or you just don't
want to?

[Virtualoso]

In article <8hvajvg9l2ms6sog6a15jf7b54k5u9dmph@4ax.com>, smicker
<rossprat@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I do not think there
> are any 'one size fits all' solutions

Except for this one, eh? '-)

[staamfa]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com>

| >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.
|
| If you find that AA is working for you and you feel that it is right for
| you why should anyone try and persuade you otherwise.
|
| If it works for yo - why worry what others have to say?


Either he's not really convinced or he's out to proselytize where he has no
business trying. Either way it's not a good sign.

[staamfa]

"catsruleok" <

| I have read many posts that rubbish AA,

You have seen many posts that point out the rubbish of AA. AA rubishes
itself.

| 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.

In reading your above it sounds quite a bit like you're not committed to not
drinking. "hopes never to drink again" If that's how you feel than don't
do it period. That's one of AA's major problems that beats around the bush
about the problem in an effort to keep people coming back to it. Think
about it if you decide to not drink again ever and carry that out you don't
need AA and AA knows that so in AA you can't ever do that it's strictly one
day at a time keeping forever dependant on AA until you figure out that AA
is a waste of your time and move on.

| 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 don't susbscribe to the notion of group recovery. Doesn't make much sense
to rely on others whom have shown themselves incapable of controling their
impulses to teach you how to control yours.

|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.

I could tell you but you won't like the answer. It will seem completely
unsatisfactory to you becuase you've grown accustomed to AA's teaching that
it takes one day at a time and a dependence on the group to get you through
it.

| 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

Either that or you don't have to use it at all. It's all a matter of
interpretation really. Tell you what why don't you go to a meeting and
share that you've decided to interpret it as meaning "you don't need AA to
achieve permanent abstinence". The results should be quit instructive.

|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.

What might that be? Attend meetings and work its religious steps destined
for the wonderful place known as "one day at a time for the rest of your
life"? Life is too short for that kind of dependence.

[staamfa]

"Blue Moon" <


| Yeah, they "rubbish" AA. I've seen none of the allegations of "lies"
| about AA backed up by hard evidence, and that's not for want of
| looking.

Oh hogwash and rubbish. It most certaily is from lack of looking. Why only
just recently I provided hard fast evidence that AA via Wilson promoted AA
to the US Senate, The Bravo Channel even now is airing 30 Second AA
promotional spots, and the orignal AA and their Radio Spot fiasco are ALL
signs that AA does and did promote itself. AA claims that it doesn't
promote itself. Ergo AA lies and has been lying about that from it's
inception.

AA claims that it's not religious yet even a cursory read of it's doctrinal
publication shows that for a clear and unambiguous lie.

[catsruleok]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iQdZa.3085$Ih1.1294989@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:bh3chr$g08$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
<snip>

> I am not going to try and persuade you to join any group. The idea In My
> Opinion (IMO) is that the focus shouldn't be on joining any kind of group,
> but rather to find the tools necessary for you to stay off of
> drink--permanently--and without a learned and gained dependency upon a group
> or program as a result.
>
I think of groups as tools I can use to help me achieve some of the things I want to achieve.
Therefore, by joining them, I'm doing what you say I ought to do. Therefore, I would not expect you
or anyone who thinks as you do to disapprove of my actions.

Interestingly, none of the groups I belong to consist of members who always agree on everything that
the group does to try to achieve its objectives. I value the discussions that arise because of
differences of opinion and have seen the outcome of such discussions benefiting both individual
members and the group as a whole. This is a good thing which you, perhaps, are unable to
appreciate.

> > AA tells me that I must do whatever it takes to stay sober.
>
> I'd say at this point you need to quit worrying about what some group has to
> say about anything and start worrying about what YOUR true wants and desires
> are in life and pursue such. You do have this power, all on your own.

What power other than willpower, do I have ? If you're talking about willpower, you should know
that mine has let me down too often in the past for me to ever want to have only it to rely on in
the future.
>
> Remember: Having an open mind doesn't also mean you have to abandon all that
> you believe in, or that of which defines you as an autonomous human being.

>Markus>

I never thought it did :^)

JB

[Gail]

catsruleok wrote:
> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iQdZa.3085$Ih1.1294989@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>> "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:bh3chr$g08$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
> <snip>
>
>> I am not going to try and persuade you to join any group. The idea
>> In My
>> Opinion (IMO) is that the focus shouldn't be on joining any kind of
>> group,
>> but rather to find the tools necessary for you to stay off of
>> drink--permanently--and without a learned and gained dependency upon
>> a group
>> or program as a result.
>>
> I think of groups as tools I can use to help me achieve some of the
> things I want to achieve. Therefore, by joining them, I'm doing what
> you say I ought to do. Therefore, I would not expect you or anyone
> who thinks as you do to disapprove of my actions.
>
> Interestingly, none of the groups I belong to consist of members who
> always agree on everything that the group does to try to achieve its
> objectives. I value the discussions that arise because of
> differences of opinion and have seen the outcome of such discussions
> benefiting both individual members and the group as a whole. This is
> a good thing which you, perhaps, are unable to appreciate.
>
>>> AA tells me that I must do whatever it takes to stay sober.
>>
>> I'd say at this point you need to quit worrying about what some
>> group has to
>> say about anything and start worrying about what YOUR true wants and
>> desires
>> are in life and pursue such. You do have this power, all on your
>> own.
>
> What power other than willpower, do I have ?

CHOICE! ;)



If you're talking about
> willpower, you should know that mine has let me down too often in the
> past for me to ever want to have only it to rely on in the future.
>>
>> Remember: Having an open mind doesn't also mean you have to abandon
>> all that
>> you believe in, or that of which defines you as an autonomous human
>> being.
>
>> Markus>
>
> I never thought it did :^)
>
> JB

[Virtualoso]

In article <GRfZa.306317$o86.13035@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't susbscribe to the notion of group recovery. Doesn't make much sense
> to rely on others whom have shown themselves incapable of controling their
> impulses to teach you how to control yours.

Kind of like going to a group to have them teach you about stuff that
you hope you'll make a living at, when obviously they're not?

[Virtualoso]

In article <RZhZa.308164$o86.55045@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Now why would a
> non-religious book need a chapter to agnostics? hmmmm?

Check the psychology texts. You do attend a school library, don't you?

[Moonraker]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RZhZa.308164$o86.55045@news1.central.cox.net. ..
>
> "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. What denomination are we talking about? Nobody's
ever tried to baptize me or offer me communion.

> Need more? How about the Chapter to Agnostics. Now why would a
> non-religious book need a chapter to agnostics? hmmmm?

I dunno? You tell me.

>
> | I'm sure you'll be able to be totally specific, citing verifiable facts,
> in
> | your argument?

>
> Sure. Can do. Have done. Where are yours? I think I've heard them all
> before "It's a god of your understanding it is" "not really a god at all
but
> a god of your understanding" yeah sure a god just not a god. I get it,
yeah
> right. Not.
>
More of your non-sequitir bullshit. You didn't answer a damn thing except
to say you said it before. Well, asshole, I don't know WHO you said it to.
Twasn't me.

I asked a serious question. Apparently you don't have an answer. You
immediately jumped to a conclusion. Defensive sort, aint'cha?

[staamfa]

"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.

|What denomination are we talking about?

The variety espoused in AA's doctrinal publication of course. Exemplified
by it's very religious steps no less. How many times is God mentioned in
the steps Moon?

|Nobody's
| ever tried to baptize me or offer me communion.

So if there is no baptisim or communion there is no religious activity? How
narrow minded you are. 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.

| > 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?

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

You don't get to hide from facts that make you uncomfortable if you intend
to discuss this matter with me.


| > | I'm sure you'll be able to be totally specific, citing verifiable
facts,
| > in
| > | your argument?
|
| >
| > Sure. Can do. Have done. Where are yours? I think I've heard them all
| > before "It's a god of your understanding it is" "not really a god at all
| but
| > a god of your understanding" yeah sure a god just not a god. I get it,
| yeah
| > right. Not.
| >
| More of your non-sequitir bullshit.

tsk tsk, such potty mouths you AAs that make it here typically are.

|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. 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.

|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. 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.

| 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".

|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. 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.

|You
| immediately jumped to a conclusion.

I would say that's exactly what you're doing now.

|Defensive sort, aint'cha?

Given the nature of your potty mouthed response the evidence supports that
about you, not I.

[Mias]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GRfZa.306317$o86.13035@news1.central.cox.net. ..
> What might that be? Attend meetings and work its religious steps destined
> for the wonderful place known as "one day at a time for the rest of your
> life"? Life is too short for that kind of dependence.
>
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. One reason why I stopped drinking was because I was acting
like you and causing shit as far as I went.... Why don't you consider
becoming happy about life and finding peace with your fellow men. 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!)
Mias

[stuart]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GRfZa.306315$o86.299333@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Markus" <
> | So you see, it isn't just about claiming one program is better than
> another
> | or something did or did not work. It is also about pointing out the
> rubbish
> | that AA tries to float onto society as being some profound truth.
> |
>
> Indeed. Some of us see no need for programs or organizations for an
> individual to do what it is already within their power to do. If an
> individual "wants" one then they would do well to make sure that the one
> they choose doesn't lie about itself routinely, and one that isn't more
> harmful than not.
>
> |
> | Well, you have seen both the "glowing" posts in favor of AA, and you
have
> | also been afforded a critical review. Something that wasn't as
prevalent
> as
> | when I first got clean in '94.
> |
>
> The last few years have seen an upsurge of opinion against AA online and
in
> the media as well. In some ways it's surprising how quickly this has
> happened in others it only makes sense considering what AA has been doing
> for so long.

Encouraging is it? I am also very encouraged about the increased world-wide
accepatnce of terrorism. More and more, opinion is swing to the
anti-American view of the world...

[staamfa]

"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?

[Virtualoso]

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.

[Virtualoso]

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.

[staamfa]

"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.

[Virtualoso]

> |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.

[Mias]

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" <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

[catsruleok]

"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.

[staamfa]

"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"

[staamfa]

"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.

[staamfa]

"staamfa" <
| Close to 1.5 - 1.7 million people are coerced into AA meetings every year
as
| a direct result of actions taken by [steppers including] AA's.

[staamfa]

"catsruleok" <

| If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one who
follows any of the Step
| programmes I know about, I would be horrified.

What for? They're only human. I've had to deal with the seemier side of
humnity often enough.

| Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I have
learnt to do: not to
| harshly judge a whole organisation by observing the behaviour of just a
few of its less welcome
| members.

What on earh makes you think what I say about AA comes from the observations
of just a few?

[Gail]

catsruleok wrote:
> "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kPoZa.315338$o86.144769@news1.central.cox.net ...
>>
>> "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"
>
> If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one
> who follows any of the Step programmes I know about, I would be
> horrified.

JB...There are people in 12 step programs that are sicker than you might
know. Some may even say they are following or doing the steps, and in fact,
may be even sicker.

>
> Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I
> have learnt to do: not to harshly judge a whole organisation by
> observing the behaviour of just a few of its less welcome members.


Looking to the future or predicting? That type of behavior kept me drunk. I
had to address my control of others issues, too. I can't make you or Staamfa
choose to do anything I want you to do. My goodness, I wish I had that kind
of power...LOL

Less welcome members? Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
whatever addiction. Are you saying that there are less welcome members in
groups, having never attended any? If so, you are sitting there proving Mr.
Staamfa's point.

>>
> I wish you well.

Was that an honest wish for him?

I think this girl has me killfiled. I may be talking to the wind.....LOL

[staamfa]

"catsruleok" <
| >
| > "catsruleok" <
| >
| > | If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one who
| > follows any of the Step
| > | programmes I know about, I would be horrified.
| >
| > What for? They're only human. I've had to deal with the seemier side
of
| > humnity often enough.
| >
| > | Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I
have
| > learnt to do: not to
| > | harshly judge a whole organisation by observing the behaviour of just
a
| > few of its less welcome
| > | members.
| >
| > What on earh makes you think what I say about AA comes from the
observations
| > of just a few?
| >
| >
| Staamfa,
|
| I offered you an olive branch. You chose to reject it.

Did I? Is that how you read what I posted just then?

|You continue to sling mud at me.

Don't really recall addressing you much until you made this comment: "
It's quite clear that people like Markus and Staamfa have neither
genuine love for nor desire to see any alcoholic ..." which, I think even
you can agree looks like you slinging mud at Markus and I. I thought I was
rather easy going with you in my first message to you in which you made a
challange about rubbishing AA. So I'm not sure where you're coming from
here. Speaking of which don't forget to try what I suggested at your next
meeting attendance.

|I no
| longer wish to continue this conversation.

fair enough.

|It's a waste of my time.

You would be a better judge of that than I.

|I care not what you think of
| me.

Emmm Ok. Then what brought you here, saying the things you were saying, in
the first place?

| However, I still wish you well.

Thanks.

[catsruleok]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kPoZa.315338$o86.144769@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "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"

If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one who follows any of the Step
programmes I know about, I would be horrified.

Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I have learnt to do: not to
harshly judge a whole organisation by observing the behaviour of just a few of its less welcome
members.
>
I wish you well.

JB

[Gail]

catsruleok wrote:
> "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:bh59ik$2em$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cEpZa.316119$o86.177740@news1.central.cox.net ...
>>>
>>> "catsruleok" <
>>>
>>>> If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one
>>>> who
>>> follows any of the Step
>>>> programmes I know about, I would be horrified.
>>>
>>> What for? They're only human. I've had to deal with the seemier
>>> side of
>>> humnity often enough.
>>>
>>>> Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I
>>>> have
>>> learnt to do: not to
>>>> harshly judge a whole organisation by observing the behaviour of
>>>> just a
>>> few of its less welcome
>>>> members.
>>>
>>> What on earh makes you think what I say about AA comes from the
>>> observations
>>> of just a few?
>>>
>>>
>> Staamfa,
>>
>> I offered you an olive branch. You chose to reject it. You
>> continue to sling mud at me. I no longer wish to continue this
>> conversation. It's a waste of my time. I care not what you think
>> of me.
>> However, I still wish you well.
>>
>> JB
>>
> Oh, and there's another reason. It's not that I'm afraid to take you
> on. It's that I want to try to restore peace to
> alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism.
>
> JB

What is it Rosie says? ROFLMAO!!!! (((((((((JB))))))))))))))))

[catsruleok]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cEpZa.316119$o86.177740@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "catsruleok" <
>
> | If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one who
> follows any of the Step
> | programmes I know about, I would be horrified.
>
> What for? They're only human. I've had to deal with the seemier side of
> humnity often enough.
>
> | Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I have
> learnt to do: not to
> | harshly judge a whole organisation by observing the behaviour of just a
> few of its less welcome
> | members.
>
> What on earh makes you think what I say about AA comes from the observations
> of just a few?
>
>
Staamfa,

I offered you an olive branch. You chose to reject it. You continue to sling mud at me. I no
longer wish to continue this conversation. It's a waste of my time. I care not what you think of
me.
However, I still wish you well.

JB

[staamfa]

"catsruleok" <
| >
| Oh, and there's another reason. It's not that I'm afraid to take you on.

Okay. But you do realize this tends to indicate a level of agression and
hositlity on your part which is at odds with your postion of martyred, mud
slung on, innocence in the past post.

| It's that I want to try
| to restore peace to alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism.

ok.

[Gail]

"catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:bh5e7e$bsm$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com...
> > catsruleok wrote:
> > > "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:kPoZa.315338$o86.144769@news1.central.cox.net ...
> > >>
> <snip> >> "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"
> > >
> > > If you have received death threats and violent wishes from any one
> > > who follows any of the Step programmes I know about, I would be
> > > horrified.
> >
> > JB...There are people in 12 step programs that are sicker than you might
> > know. Some may even say they are following or doing the steps, and in
fact,
> > may be even sicker.
> >
> > >
> > > Looking to the future, I think it would be wise for you to do as I
> > > have learnt to do: not to harshly judge a whole organisation by
> > > observing the behaviour of just a few of its less welcome members.
> >
> >
> > Looking to the future or predicting? That type of behavior kept me
drunk. I
> > had to address my control of others issues, too. I can't make you or
Staamfa
> > choose to do anything I want you to do. My goodness, I wish I had that
kind
> > of power...LOL
> >
> > Less welcome members? Only requirement for membership is the desire to
stop
> > whatever addiction. Are you saying that there are less welcome members
in
> > groups, having never attended any? If so, you are sitting there proving
Mr.
> > Staamfa's point.
> >
> > >>
> > > I wish you well.
> >
> > Was that an honest wish for him?
> >
> > I think this girl has me killfiled. I may be talking to the wind.....LOL
> >
> >
> Hi Gail,
>
> No, I haven't killfiled you. In fact, I've never been tempted to killfile
anyone on this NG. I lead
> a very busy life and therefore can't respond to as many posts as I'd like
to. Some, like this one
> of yours requires and deserves a carefully considered answer. I hope I
can do it justice
>
> Firstly, I think that some of those who Staamfa claims have threatened
him, would have done so
> because they see him trying to bring down the one and only thing that
gives them the best chance of
> recovering from their alcoholism. You give another reason which I think
equally valid.

You know, I don't even know who Staamfa is or whether a he or she. If he or
she has been threatened, I can't honestly say it was from people in AA or
any other 12 program. That isn't clear to me at all.

>
> Secondly, I know I cannot make Staamfa - or anyone else for that matter -
do anything I say. But
> it's possible that Staamfa has never before had said to him what I said.
I'm content to let him do
> with
> the info what he wills.

LOL... He/She was here long before you or I. He/she has heard this debate
more times than I care to count or remember.


>
> Thirdly, you are right to pick me up on the use of the words "less welcome
members". I withdraw
> "less welcome" and apologise for any offence that these words may have
caused.


Well, to be honest, there are members I don't like or their ways, but they
are welcome as much as myself. ;) Lot's of times, not made to feel welcome,
though. Just my experience.


>
> Finally, I do wish Staamfa well. I wish him well in two senses. Firstly,
I hope he comes to no
> harm and secondly, I hope he remains in good health. I would wish these
things for everyone.

For me, if I was obsessed as he/she is, my health and sanity would be in
jeopardy. Just my opinion.

>
> Wishing you well.
>
> JB

Back at ya,
Gail

[staamfa]

"Mias"

| > 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?

| staamfa

| I can PROVE that I do not believe that AA is the only way and that I grant
a
| person the way that they see fit to recover.

I should think that would be rather hard to prove but I'll save you the
trouble and accept you at your word. So because you claim to believe that
everyone in AA believes that? See the problem there? You're unfortunatley
not the only AA, and realisticly in this respect you're not even in the
majority.

|It is however the only way
| that worked for me.

In this respect you are in the AA majority.


|Alcoholism is a life threatening disease and not to be
| fooled around by the likes of you.

Well actually, though you may not wish to accep this, it's not a disease at
all. It's simply a behavior. Poor one with alcohol consumption.

|My problem with your posts are you
| running AA down and causing unnessecary harm in the proccess.
| Mias

My problem with AA is that it teaches people like you that problem drinking
is an incurable disease which requires AA to fix, and in the process harms
the individual by transferring a dependence on alcohol to a dependence on
religious AA where so much time is wasted harping on something which in a
lot of cases hasn't been a real problem in years. Or worse makes it harder
for a person to get over their misbehavior with alcohol.

[Mias]

God Bless you staamfa...

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kprZa.318051$o86.258948@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Mias"
>
> | > 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?
>
> | staamfa
>
> | I can PROVE that I do not believe that AA is the only way and that I
grant
> a
> | person the way that they see fit to recover.
>
> I should think that would be rather hard to prove but I'll save you the
> trouble and accept you at your word. So because you claim to believe that
> everyone in AA believes that? See the problem there? You're
unfortunatley
> not the only AA, and realisticly in this respect you're not even in the
> majority.
>
> |It is however the only way
> | that worked for me.
>
> In this respect you are in the AA majority.
>
>
> |Alcoholism is a life threatening disease and not to be
> | fooled around by the likes of you.
>
> Well actually, though you may not wish to accep this, it's not a disease
at
> all. It's simply a behavior. Poor one with alcohol consumption.
>
> |My problem with your posts are you
> | running AA down and causing unnessecary harm in the proccess.
> | Mias
>
> My problem with AA is that it teaches people like you that problem
drinking
> is an incurable disease which requires AA to fix, and in the process harms
> the individual by transferring a dependence on alcohol to a dependence on
> religious AA where so much time is wasted harping on something which in a
> lot of cases hasn't been a real problem in years. Or worse makes it
harder
> for a person to get over their misbehavior with alcohol.
>
>

[ByTor]

In article <kprZa.318051$o86.258948@news1.central.cox.net>,
staampfa@yahoo.com says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer
and foaming at the mouth!

> My problem with AA is that it teaches people like you that problem drinking
> is an incurable disease which requires AA to fix, and in the process harms
> the individual by transferring a dependence on alcohol to a dependence on
> religious AA where so much time is wasted harping on something which in a
> lot of cases hasn't been a real problem in years. Or worse makes it harder
> for a person to get over their misbehavior with alcohol.
>
>
>

Not a disease/medical problem eh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030401/1529.html

"The American Medical Association recognized alcoholism as a disease in
1956."
"The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that
alcohol and drug abuse are associated with 100,000 deaths per year and
cost society $100 billion per year."

WOW! That's a real moral issue eh????

------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.treatment.org/Taps/tap15/tap15appendxa.html

At least 13.5% of all adults will experience alcohol abuse or dependence
in their lifetimes and 6.1% will experience a drug problem, exclusive of
nicotine.32 Over 72 illnesses and health conditions have been directly
linked to alcohol and other drug abuse (see Appendix E).33

Between 20% and 40% of all hospital admissions are for conditions
related to alcoholism.34, 35, 36, 37 As many as 40% of all patients seen
by physicians have alcohol problems.38 Alcohol-related hospitalizations
among elderly are as common as myocardial infarction.39 Table 5 shows
the use of hospitals for medical, psychiatric, and for detoxification
before and after treatment for chemical dependency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is also very interesting:

http://216.239.39.104/search?
q=cache:BfGbKDlHwhkJ:www.hkcfp.org.hk/article/2001/jun/20010604.pdf+DSMI
IIR+substance+abuse&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Delusional disorders were previously known asparanoia (and were quite
often included as part of the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Paranoia
literally means delusional, but many English-speaking psychiatrists use
it to refer primarily to delusions of persecution. The term implies a
habitual attitude of distrust, suspiciousness and irritability in an
individual. Delusional disorders were only revived by the DSMIIIR in
1987 to denote a particular group of psychotic conditions with distinct
characteristics. In recent years, two other syndromes –paraphrenia and
delusional misidentification syndromes– have been added to this
category.

The onset of delusional disorders may be insidious but occasionally they
develop acutely. Some patients keep their delusions secret for long
periods of time, and may even hide them behind religious or political
activities. Occasionally, they collide with the authorities or the
social norms. It is of interest that many patients can change from
delusional to normal modes of thought and behaviour easily, at least
temporarily, and thus succeed in deceiving others.

[staamfa]

"Mias" <
| God Bless you staamfa...

I realize that you, and others, believe that you are diseased but you
aren't. It's simply a matter of poor behavior with alcohol for various
reasons.

Alcoholism: The Volitional Disease

By: Officer S. Garry Nowak
Alcoholism is not a disease with an invasive pathology, nor is it a disease
of genetics gone awry. Alcoholism has nothing to do with irresistible
impulses or uncontrollable urges. Alcoholism is a disease of volition.

Calling alcoholism a disease infers that there is an invasive pathology
present where none exists. Calling alcoholism a disease infers the
possibility of a heritable genetic lineage with a predetermined immutable
eventuality where no such heritable genetic link has been proven. Calling
alcoholism a disease infers that there is a medicinal cure when no amount of
medicine or counseling can cure this 'disease.'

Calling alcoholism a disease exonerates the alcoholic from all
responsibility and accountability for his/her drinking and subsequent
misbehavior(s). Calling alcoholism a disease tends to impede the motivation
and the desire to change within the alcoholic for everyone knows that one is
not responsible for possessing a disease. When one possesses a disease
everyone readily acknowledges the lack of volitional control. Alcoholism
ceases to exist when the alcoholic volitionally chooses to stop drinking.
Alcoholism ends when the alcoholic is motivated to change his/her drinking
pattern. It never ends through force and/or coercion.

The one common prerequisite for all psycho therapeutic modalities is for the
client to possess the desire and motivation to change oneself. Desire alone,
inspires the motivation to change. Without desire and motivation change is
not possible. If rehabilitational therapeutic modalities could force or
coerce change without desire and motivation being present within the
individual, then our prison systems would release convicts who would
subsequently be honest and decent citizens. Our schools would produce
straight 'A' students and alcoholism (addictions) would be a thing of the
past. But in spite of our best-coerced efforts, we continue to release
criminals from our prisons, students who fail, and alcoholism flourishes.
Why is this?

One reason is that our legislators passed the Americans With Disabilities
Act (ADA). In so doing, their compassion has produced far more cruelty than
it has humanity. This bit of legislation was intended to protect the blind,
the deaf, and those in wheelchairs. These intended beneficiaries never
received any assistance from this legislation. Why? Because the word
'disability' was redefined by the courts to include: alcoholics, drug
addicts, the obese, math phobic's, etc. The ADA actually hurt those who were
intended to be protected by it.

This piece of compassionate legislation has more than likely interfered with
the natural progression of alcoholism. Alcoholics are no longer allowed to
'hit rock bottom.' Historically, 'hitting rock bottom' has been the common
element among those who have volitionally changed their drinking patterns.
This piece of compassionate legislation has removed that common element
which has always been considered the primary incentive required for
volitional change; i.e., the right to fail.

What this piece of compassionate legislation did do is to bestow all the
'benefits and rights' of the truly disabled upon those who are merely
volitionally disabled. By bestowing these benefits and rights of the truly
disabled upon alcoholics, the legislature has reinforced the disease
mentality of helplessness, powerlessness, and the inevitability of relapse.
The word 'disease' becomes forever associated with that which is beyond
one's volitional control. This piece of legislation reinforces the disease
construct that compassionately associates perpetual failure upon the
alcoholic. With this mentality, the alcoholic is not only forever doomed to
consume alcohol, but is forgiven and exonerated for doing so. This piece of
compassionate legislation prevents the primary motivating element for change
ever to be discovered by the alcoholic on his/her own, via what the
alcoholic does best, drink alcohol.

One of the truly great ironies of alcoholism is how we treat alcoholics.
Medicine and Doctors have virtually nothing to offer an alcohol. Doctors
send alcoholics to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), whether they (the alcoholic)
wants to go or not. The courts, our jails and prisons, employers, conditions
of parole/probation, et.al., all force and/or coerce an alcoholic into
attending AA. Why? Because AA represents the only acceptable course of
treatment for the alcoholic in the United States. AA alone has the answer.
To even consider any other therapeutic course of treatment is laughable. So
what is the foundation upon which AA is laid?

Bill W. and Dr. Bob were the founders of AA, but Bill W. was probably the
more influential of the two. Bill W. wrote AA's The Big Book and AA's
infamous Twelve Steps after experiencing a spiritual awakening while
undergoing a hospitalized treatment for his alcoholism. Bill W. also readily
acknowledged that AA was modeled after the Oxford Group Movement. The Oxford
Group Movement was led by Dr. Frank Buchman, a very charismatic leader, as
are all cult leaders. Buchman and his groupers were not in the business of
converting heathens to Christianity. What they did do is to subversively and
deceitfully 'steal' those Christians from their own church.

Dr. Buchman was never secretive about his possessing superior knowledge and
abilities. He readily admitted, and his followers readily acknowledged, that
Buchman knew what was best for society. The Oxford Group Movement subscribed
to the 'any means justifies the end' philosophy. Dr. Buchman once stated in
an interview that the world would be a far better place it were led by a
leader such as Adolf Hitler. Buchman was quoted: "I thank heaven for a man
like Adolf Hitler . . ." Dr. Buchman and his Oxford Group Movement were so
despised by the American public that they were forced to change their name
to the Moral Rearmament and subsequently they had to go underground. This is
the philosophical foundation of AA.

AA's infamous Twelve Steps has just as interesting a foundation. Bill W. was
hospitalized for alcoholism. During this hospitalization, he was treated by
Dr. Silkworth with Dr. Silkworth's own belladonna cure. This was a standard
treatment for alcoholism at that time. The belladonna cure consisted of a
blend of morphine, belladonna, henbane and other hallucinogenic drugs. Any
of these drugs individually are powerful hallucinogens, let alone the
synergistic effect of such a combination. It was while under the influence
of this hallucinogenic cure that Bill W. had his white light experience.'
This was his religious epiphany. Bill W. describes this experience: "I found
myself crying out, "If there is a God, let Him show Himself! I am ready to
do anything!" Suddenly, the room lit up with a great white light . . . All
about me there was a wonderful feeling of Presence, and I thought to myself,
"So, this is the God of the Preachers." This was the 'divine' inspiration
for Bill W. to write The Big Book and AA's Twelve Steps. While writing the
Twelve Steps, Bill W. arbitrarily decided to stop at twelve steps because
there were twelve apostles. This is the scientific foundation upon which AA
is premised. AA is the modality upon which 93% of the addictive treatment
programs have modeled themselves.

[staamfa]

| "Mias" <
| | God Bless you staamfa...
|
| I realize that you, and others, believe that you are diseased but you
| aren't. It's simply a matter of poor behavior with alcohol for various
| reasons.
|


Alcoholism: The Volitional Disease Continued (Part II)

The construct of disease theory alcoholism is closer to being a religion
than it is to being a disease. Why do I say this? Because in order to
believe in the different tenets of disease theory alcoholism, similar to
religion, you must have faith. None of the tenets of disease theory
alcoholism have ever been supported by scientific or doctoral level
research. It is faith alone which allows these tenets to exist. If you
support disease theory alcoholism, you have to have faith and believe in the
following:
Alcoholism can afflict anyone regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. This
is not true. Alcoholism is statistically so low in Jews, Cantonese Chinese,
and Amish that it is safe to say that alcoholism does not exist in those
cultures. Why? Because studies show that where either a strong religious
base where alcoholism is not accepted or a cultural base where alcoholism is
not accepted, alcoholism simply does not exist. It may sound simplistic but
it is true.

There are no protective factors against alcoholism - everyone is a potential
alcoholic. This is not true. As shown by Jews, Cantonese Chinese, and Amish,
a strong religious or cultural grouping that refuses to support the tenets
of disease theory alcoholism offers very protective factors against
alcoholism since alcoholism is non-existent in those religions/cultures.
Also, by definition, if alcoholism is a heritable, genetic trait, then there
will be those who do not possess that heritable, genetic trait. Therefore,
those who do not possess the gene for alcoholism would in fact possess a
protective factor against alcoholism. This tenet contradicts other tenets of
disease theory alcoholism.

Alcoholism is genetic. Cantonese Chinese and Ojibwa Indians are considered
to be genetically similar if not identical regarding alcoholism. Why?
Because both of these cultural peoples manifest a 'Chinese flush' after
consuming alcohol; i.e., a reddening of the face. If alcoholism is genetic;
and if both of these cultural peoples are genetically similar then both
groups should suffer similar rates of alcoholism. Yet, alcoholism is
nonexistent within the Cantonese Chinese while absolutely decimating the
Ojibwa Indians. What is the difference in belief systems? The Ojibwa Indians
believe that alcohol is stronger than a parent's love of his/her child while
the Cantonese Chinese believe that drunken misbehavior is a manifestation of
one's personality regardless of one's sobriety. The individual takes
responsibility for his/her behavior whether sober or inebriated.

Alcoholism is heritable. This tenet completely disregards learned behavior;
i.e., a child learns how to drink from parents, role models, peers, etc. IF
alcoholism were a 10% heritable or genetic trait, then it would be
immutable. Why? Because genetics cannot be changed volitionally and
statistically 85% of all alcoholics volitionally stop their alcohol
consumption without any outside interventions, therapies, hospitalizations,
etc. One cannot volitionally change their eye color, hair color, or skin
color volitionally, yet alcoholism has a significantly higher success rate
through volition than through any other means. There is no research that
scientifically supports alcoholism as being heritable.

What is the possibility that alcoholism is genetic and heritable? Per the
Human Genome Project, there are 80,000 genes with approximately 3 billion
different interacting combinations that exist in the human genome (the sum
total of heritable, genetic material in a human being). Even the proponents
of disease theory alcoholism have acknowledged that finding the gene that
causes alcoholism would be like finding the gene that causes one to like
basketball. The idea that alcoholism is 100% genetic and heritable is highly
unlikely by all studies and statistics.

Loss of control. Studies have consistently shown that alcoholics drink to
achieve a certain level of intoxication that they personally find desirable.
Alcoholics will alter their drinking pattern (consume less) if so doing
benefits them. By definition, IF alcoholism were a disease that was truly an
irresistible impulse of uncontrollability then alcoholics would consistently
drink until they are unconscious or until they overdosed on alcohol. That is
simply not true.

Denial. A major tenet of disease theory alcoholism is denial. Denial is an
unconscious defense mechanism that in theory is implemented to protect the
ego from unpleasantness. If one is to believe in denial then one has to
believe that in spite of everything that is obvious and negative in an
alcoholic's life; i.e., divorce, loss of employment, loss of family, medical
problems, legal problems, etc., the alcoholic is incapable of associating
these negatives in his/her life with his/her consumption of alcohol. Even
AA's Big Book addresses this as conscious lying, not denial. Also, it has to
be noted that a typical alcoholic is not the stereotypical skid row type.
Statistically, alcoholics are slightly smarter than average, hold better
jobs, hold professional jobs, managerial positions, etc. Yet, according to
this tenet of alcoholism they are not smart enough to associate the obvious
negative aspects of their lives with their consumption of alcohol.

There is a chemical imbalance of the brain. This is one of the newer
theories pertaining to disease alcoholism. It is questionable how there can
be an imbalance of the brain when there are no standards of what a
chemically balanced brain is; i.e., what chemicals comprise a balanced brain
in terms of percentages or weights, qualities, quantities, etc. What is a
normal, chemically balanced brain? It is assumed that a brain becomes
'balanced' when drugs alleviate symptoms. The alleviation of symptoms never
includes the adverse side effects of the prescriptive drug. Side effects may
include one or any combination of dry mouth, drooling, diarrhea,
constipation, sleep disturbance, eating disorders, sexual dysfunction just
to name a few. Yet proponents of this theoretical construct do not look at
these very serious side effects as being included as an imbalance of brain
chemistry.

Neurotransmitters. This is another new theoretical construct of disease
alcoholism. This theory proposes that neurotransmitters such as dopamine
and/or seratonin become particularly influenced towards alcohol consumption;
i.e., these neurotransmitters require alcohol in order to trigger their
function within the body. What this theory fails to address is how a generic
neurotransmitter such as dopamine (the continuum of pleasure) or seratonin
(the continuum of mood, affect and sleep) become highly specific and
targeted towards alcoholism? There is merely associative, anecdotal evidence
to support this tenet of alcoholism. Also, this theory fails to address how
genetically similar people such as Cantonese Chinese and Ojibwa Indians can
be so different in terms of the effects of alcohol and alcoholism yet be
genetically similar? This theory implies that if a Jew becomes an alcoholic,
then his neurotransmitters or brain chemistry has spontaneously become
altered. Not only is this not a compelling theory, it tends to contradict
itself.

Brain Waves or images. No similar brain waves have been found between
different alcoholics. All brain waves appear to be more similar to
fingerprints; i.e., each person's brain waves are unique unto themselves.

Addictive Personality. Addictive personality is defined as having an
existing premorbid condition prior to the onset of alcoholism. There are no
studies that have found any existing premorbid condition prior to the onset
of alcoholism among alcoholics. Therefore, this tenet of disease alcoholism
falls flat. There does not appear to be any such entity as an addictive
personality. This is a media construct, not a scientifically based
construct.

It the first drink that gets you drunk. An AA aphorism meaning that once an
alcoholic consumes the first drink, he/she is then an alcoholic. This is not
true. This is not even supported by proponents of disease theory alcoholism.
Even the proponents of disease theory alcoholism acknowledge that alcoholism
takes at least several years to develop. There is no scientific foundation
or substantiation for this saying.
Alcoholism is a behavior. Behaviors are not disease entities, they are bad
habits perseverated by obsessive repetition and habituation. Habituated,
substance induced behaviors cannot be reduced to a single etiology anymore
than non-substance induced behaviors can be reduced to a single etiology.
Sex, eating, gambling, computers, computer games, and unrequited love are
normative behaviors that have been declared diseases. Sex, gambling,
computers, computer games, and unrequited love do not involve the ingestion
of any substance yet abstinence from these habituated behaviors may incite
withdrawal symptoms identical to substance withdrawal symptoms. The answer
to the eradication of alcoholism lies in our national perspective of
alcoholism. Do we want to perpetuate the myth of alcoholism being a disease
entity that is out of the realm of one's discretional, volitional control or
do we tell the truth? Do we let the dirty secret out of the bag and tell
everyone that, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, they already possess the
power to hole dominion over alcoholism.
"The doctor said: "You have the mind of a chronic alcoholic. I have never
seen on single case recover, where that state of mind existed to the extent
that it does in you." (Carl Jung to Bill W. - Chapter 2, p.4, html version
The Big Book).

[Virtualoso]

In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> whatever addiction.

Not if you're referring to AA.

[Virtualoso]

In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> in order to believe in the different tenets of [ARFer] theory alcoholism, similar to
> religion, you must have faith.

Thus Spaketh the Officer. If anyone might Believe in Him.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:100820030037574418%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > |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.


Ummmhuh. 'Zactly. Patently transparent and ever so easy.

He keeps chanting the same mantra about the same silly nonsense. Poor
deluded fool.

[Virtualoso]

In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alcoholism can afflict anyone regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. This
> is not true. Alcoholism is statistically so low in Jews, Cantonese Chinese,
> and Amish that it is safe to say that alcoholism does not exist in those
> cultures. Why? Because studies show that where either a strong religious
> base where alcoholism is not accepted or a cultural base where alcoholism is
> not accepted, alcoholism simply does not exist. It may sound simplistic but
> it is true.
>
> There are no protective factors against alcoholism - everyone is a potential
> alcoholic. This is not true. As shown by Jews, Cantonese Chinese, and Amish,
> a strong religious or cultural grouping that refuses to support the tenets
> of disease theory alcoholism offers very protective factors against
> alcoholism since alcoholism is non-existent in those religions/cultures.

Or: this demonstrates and confirms that spirituality is, indeed,
effective antidote to alcoholism, and even a preventative, which AA has
suggested is essentially a "spiritual disease."

[Virtualoso]

In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Also, by definition, if alcoholism is a heritable, genetic trait, then there
> will be those who do not possess that heritable, genetic trait. Therefore,
> those who do not possess the gene for alcoholism would in fact possess a
> protective factor against alcoholism. This tenet contradicts other tenets of
> disease theory alcoholism.

Not at all. If a faulty gene were absent, there's nothing to "protect"
from. It's the faulty genetics that *is* the problem. This writer is
apparently mistaking "disease" for "communicable". Nonsense. But then,
anti-AA fanatics apparently make the same mistake, commonly,
paranoidally fearing that merely hearing about the known potentials of
alcoholic demise is then "caught" by others who then do so simply
because they heard that. LOL

> Alcoholism is genetic. Cantonese Chinese and Ojibwa Indians are considered
> to be genetically similar if not identical regarding alcoholism. Why?
> Because both of these cultural peoples manifest a 'Chinese flush' after
> consuming alcohol; i.e., a reddening of the face. If alcoholism is genetic;
> and if both of these cultural peoples are genetically similar then both
> groups should suffer similar rates of alcoholism. Yet, alcoholism is
> nonexistent within the Cantonese Chinese while absolutely decimating the
> Ojibwa Indians.

Now this is really silly. "Considered to be genetically similar"? Well,
maybe in some regards, but obviously not in terms of alcoholism. In
fact, this could outright support the genetic factor of alcoholism,
being a genetic difference between these peoples.

[Virtualoso]

In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alcoholism is heritable. This tenet completely disregards learned behavior;
> i.e., a child learns how to drink from parents, role models, peers, etc. IF
> alcoholism were a 10% heritable or genetic trait, then it would be
> immutable. Why? Because genetics cannot be changed volitionally and
> statistically 85% of all alcoholics volitionally stop their alcohol
> consumption without any outside interventions, therapies, hospitalizations,
> etc. One cannot volitionally change their eye color, hair color, or skin
> color volitionally, yet alcoholism has a significantly higher success rate
> through volition than through any other means. There is no research that
> scientifically supports alcoholism as being heritable.

Sure there's research scientificly supporting alcoholism being
heritable. In fact, that's where this very topic came from here -- from
the scientific research that revealed that. Before then, people pretty
much had the old, ignorant assumption that alcoholism was no more than
a chosen behavior. Of course, some backwards people still do,
especially those that can't handle facing the scientific advances in
the field since. The above is a good example of that simple-minded,
irrational thinking that can only deny and ignore wholesale the
scientific evidence, since there's no other rational sense to the
position.

[Virtualoso]

In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If one is to believe in denial then one has to
> believe that ...

No, "one" does not "have to" believe precisely that, and just that, or
else any one, given other belief about that.

[Virtualoso]

In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is a chemical imbalance of the brain. This is one of the newer
> theories pertaining to disease alcoholism. It is questionable how there can
> be an imbalance of the brain when there are no standards of what a
> chemically balanced brain is; i.e., what chemicals comprise a balanced brain
> in terms of percentages or weights, qualities, quantities, etc. What is a
> normal, chemically balanced brain? It is assumed that a brain becomes
> 'balanced' when drugs alleviate symptoms. The alleviation of symptoms never
> includes the adverse side effects of the prescriptive drug. Side effects may
> include one or any combination of dry mouth, drooling, diarrhea,
> constipation, sleep disturbance, eating disorders, sexual dysfunction just
> to name a few. Yet proponents of this theoretical construct do not look at
> these very serious side effects as being included as an imbalance of brain
> chemistry.
>
> Neurotransmitters. This is another new theoretical construct of disease
> alcoholism. This theory proposes that neurotransmitters such as dopamine
> and/or seratonin become particularly influenced towards alcohol consumption;
> i.e., these neurotransmitters require alcohol in order to trigger their
> function within the body. What this theory fails to address is how a generic
> neurotransmitter such as dopamine (the continuum of pleasure) or seratonin
> (the continuum of mood, affect and sleep) become highly specific and
> targeted towards alcoholism? There is merely associative, anecdotal evidence
> to support this tenet of alcoholism. Also, this theory fails to address how
> genetically similar people such as Cantonese Chinese and Ojibwa Indians can
> be so different in terms of the effects of alcohol and alcoholism yet be
> genetically similar? This theory implies that if a Jew becomes an alcoholic,
> then his neurotransmitters or brain chemistry has spontaneously become
> altered. Not only is this not a compelling theory, it tends to contradict
> itself.

The above is far more the theory of *other* "diseases" than alcoholism.
It's the premise of the popular "dual diagnosis" concept, with the
so-called brain chemical imbalance "illness" being a "mental illness"
supposedly then accompanying alcoholism, in cases where there's
alcoholic drinking, too (although these folks seem to most often be
found confusing alcoholism with drug addiction and whatnot, too). In
fact, a high ratio of anti-AAers prefer to believe the above and
ascribe that to being what they were "really" suffering from, rather
than alcoholism.

[Virtualoso]

In article <HZrZa.114936$852.92241@twister.nyc.rr.com>, ByTor
<ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:

> This is also very interesting:
>
> http://216.239.39.104/search?
> q=cache:BfGbKDlHwhkJ:www.hkcfp.org.hk/article/2001/jun/20010604.pdf+DSMI
> IIR+substance+abuse&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>
>
> Delusional disorders were previously known asparanoia (and were quite
> often included as part of the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Paranoia
> literally means delusional, but many English-speaking psychiatrists use
> it to refer primarily to delusions of persecution. The term implies a
> habitual attitude of distrust, suspiciousness and irritability in an
> individual. Delusional disorders were only revived by the DSMIIIR in
> 1987 to denote a particular group of psychotic conditions with distinct
> characteristics. In recent years, two other syndromes –paraphrenia and
> delusional misidentification syndromes– have been added to this
> category.
>
> The onset of delusional disorders may be insidious but occasionally they
> develop acutely. Some patients keep their delusions secret for long
> periods of time, and may even hide them behind religious or political
> activities. Occasionally, they collide with the authorities or the
> social norms. It is of interest that many patients can change from
> delusional to normal modes of thought and behaviour easily, at least
> temporarily, and thus succeed in deceiving others.

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I've often seen especially anti-AA
people proclaim that they'd been harboring there suspicious and
disturbed thinking for quite some time, even while hiding it from
others and pretending to be otherwise. Then, at some point, they could
no longer control these delusions and succumbed to acting them out
more, often in particularly anti-social and interpersonally acrid
forms. Some of these yet cloister together in fearful and aggressive
circles with others that share similar symptoms, perpetually indulging
their fantasies together. Or they craft twisty, raving websites when
driven to attempt to weave extensive "explanations" in the effort to
convince others of their irrational revelations.

[ByTor]

In article <100820030822551765%virtualoso@dot.com>, virtualoso@dot.com
says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer and foaming at the
mouth!

> In article <kmsZa.318629$o86.151585@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
> <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Alcoholism can afflict anyone regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. This
> > is not true. Alcoholism is statistically so low in Jews, Cantonese Chinese,
> > and Amish that it is safe to say that alcoholism does not exist in those
> > cultures. Why? Because studies show that where either a strong religious
> > base where alcoholism is not accepted or a cultural base where alcoholism is
> > not accepted, alcoholism simply does not exist. It may sound simplistic but
> > it is true.
> >
> > There are no protective factors against alcoholism - everyone is a potential
> > alcoholic. This is not true. As shown by Jews, Cantonese Chinese, and Amish,
> > a strong religious or cultural grouping that refuses to support the tenets
> > of disease theory alcoholism offers very protective factors against
> > alcoholism since alcoholism is non-existent in those religions/cultures.
>
> Or: this demonstrates and confirms that spirituality is, indeed,
> effective antidote to alcoholism, and even a preventative, which AA has
> suggested is essentially a "spiritual disease."
>

He, He....Touche'. ;0)

[Detlef Sax]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:30:51 +0200, Mias wrote:
>
> "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:GRfZa.306317$o86.13035@news1.central.cox.net. ..
>> What might that be? Attend meetings and work its religious steps destined
>> for the wonderful place known as "one day at a time for the rest of your
>> life"? Life is too short for that kind of dependence.
>>
> staamfa - If whatever way you reached whatever state you are in now, being
> sour, unhappy, criticizing, looking down, moaning, lying - is the only one,

You are happy? Not criticizing, not looking down at others?

> I for one do not want that way if your demeanor is what I would be letting
> myself in for. One reason why I stopped drinking was because I was acting
> like you and causing shit as far as I went.... Why don't you consider

Now you're acting better? Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the
unhappiest at all?

> becoming happy about life and finding peace with your fellow men. I have a

Why don't you first become happy?
And on grave yards there's also peace.

Seeing injustice and not speaking out what's wrong is almost
the same as agreeing with the injustice. That's not peace.

> organisation that you might try, and that worked for me, that I could advise

What's the name of this organization? What is working? Why do you
think someone else like you needs help?

> you about. (If you do not like me now you should have seen me before!)
> Mias

For me to say: I love you. But it's only really tough love I feel
for you. The softer love version may come later some time, some
day in future. Keep beeing patient.

D.
--
http://www.liberty-belles.org/flyers2.htm

[staamfa]

"Moonraker" <

| Ummmhuh. 'Zactly. Patently transparent and ever so easy.

And also wrong. Both of you, yet again.

You're beginning to show a marked penchant for that Mias.

| He keeps chanting the same mantra about the same silly nonsense.

And you're not repeating yourself? Did you accept anything I said? Then
perhaps we can look there for the source of my repetition.

| Poor
| deluded fool.

Now you know how I feel about you and the people who buy the erroneous
information about AA you're selling them, in the same way that you and Virt
both fell for it and both now proselytize it each in your own way.

[Virtualoso]

In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> True. LSR http://forums.delphiforums.com/lifering/start puts emphasis on
> the group experience and I tend to agree that it can be helpful ... [snip] ...
> A negative of LSR is that they
> promote signing of court slips. But other than that, they have a great
> approach.

Are you promoting your favorite cult again?

"SOS prides itself on its anti-cultist and free-thought approach. While
no human organization is free from the dangers of cultist degeneration,
SOS has been happily free of these problems. Where it has emerged...
One such process is now taking place with the larger LifeRing group"

[Virtualoso]

In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I too believed that I could not control my addiction
> utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was mistaken
> to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my own that
> I also couldn't be taught how to.

Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
relatively okay with the latter.

[ByTor]

In article <100820030847431039%virtualoso@dot.com>, virtualoso@dot.com
says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer and foaming at the
mouth!
> In article <HZrZa.114936$852.92241@twister.nyc.rr.com>, ByTor
> <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
>
> > This is also very interesting:
> >
> > http://216.239.39.104/search?
> > q=cache:BfGbKDlHwhkJ:www.hkcfp.org.hk/article/2001/jun/20010604.pdf+DSMI
> > IIR+substance+abuse&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> >
> > Delusional disorders were previously known asparanoia (and were quite
> > often included as part of the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Paranoia
> > literally means delusional, but many English-speaking psychiatrists use
> > it to refer primarily to delusions of persecution. The term implies a
> > habitual attitude of distrust, suspiciousness and irritability in an
> > individual. Delusional disorders were only revived by the DSMIIIR in
> > 1987 to denote a particular group of psychotic conditions with distinct
> > characteristics. In recent years, two other syndromes –paraphrenia and
> > delusional misidentification syndromes– have been added to this
> > category.
> >
> > The onset of delusional disorders may be insidious but occasionally they
> > develop acutely. Some patients keep their delusions secret for long
> > periods of time, and may even hide them behind religious or political
> > activities. Occasionally, they collide with the authorities or the
> > social norms. It is of interest that many patients can change from
> > delusional to normal modes of thought and behaviour easily, at least
> > temporarily, and thus succeed in deceiving others.
>
> Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I've often seen especially anti-AA
> people proclaim that they'd been harboring there suspicious and
> disturbed thinking for quite some time, even while hiding it from
> others and pretending to be otherwise. Then, at some point, they could
> no longer control these delusions and succumbed to acting them out
> more, often in particularly anti-social and interpersonally acrid
> forms. Some of these yet cloister together in fearful and aggressive
> circles with others that share similar symptoms, perpetually indulging
> their fantasies together. Or they craft twisty, raving websites when
> driven to attempt to weave extensive "explanations" in the effort to
> convince others of their irrational revelations.
>

ROTFLMAO.......Eloquently put as usual......Boy oh boy am I sorry I
misjudged you..... ;0)

[Moonraker]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uZa.320490$o86.193606@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Moonraker" <
>
> | Ummmhuh. 'Zactly. Patently transparent and ever so easy.
>
> And also wrong. Both of you, yet again.


Your'e NOT transparent? Well, slap my 'fro!


>
> You're beginning to show a marked penchant for that Mias.

Huh? naah. I've seen Mias's picture. He's WAY too ugly for even little
JonnyB. ;>)
>
> | He keeps chanting the same mantra about the same silly nonsense.

>
> And you're not repeating yourself?

Only to laugh at you.

>Did you accept anything I said?

And you are demanding that I accept your statements as fact? I accept you
MAY have said "something" in all of those deluded rants. I'm not sure what.
Other than you continue to rant. Is there a point in there, somewhere?

> Then perhaps we can look there for the source of my repetition.

Save us the misery, OK? We've heard enough.

>
> | Poor
> | deluded fool.
>
> Now you know how I feel about you and the people who buy the erroneous
> information about AA you're selling them, in the same way that you and
Virt
> both fell for it and both now proselytize it each in your own way.

I see. Just what erroneous information AM I selling, anyway? Who's Virt?
What did I fall for?




>

[staamfa]

"Moonraker" <
|
| Your'e NOT transparent? Well, slap my 'fro!


Why bother you're already bad enough off.

| > | He keeps chanting the same mantra about the same silly nonsense.
|
| >
| > And you're not repeating yourself?
|
| Only to laugh at you.

lol

| >Did you accept anything I said?
|
| And you are demanding that I accept your statements as fact?


Did you accept anything I said?

|I accept you
| MAY have said "something" in all of those deluded rants.

I accept you think of them as deluded rants. Do you accept that you're not
terribly bright if you can't spot the religious in AA?

|I'm not sure what.
| Other than you continue to rant.

Do you often experience confusion in the midst of discussions?

| Is there a point in there, somewhere?

AA is religious.

| > Then perhaps we can look there for the source of my repetition.
|
| Save us the misery, OK?

Misery is what you learn in AA. I'm showing you that aint necessary.

|We've heard enough

So you say. Did you accept anything I said?

| > | Poor
| > | deluded fool.
| >
| > Now you know how I feel about you and the people who buy the erroneous
| > information about AA you're selling them, in the same way that you and
| Virt
| > both fell for it and both now proselytize it each in your own way.
|
| I see. Just what erroneous information AM I selling, anyway?

That which you're selling via AA.

| Who's Virt?

Chris Kohler. Do you need a phone number and address?

| What did I fall for?

the bill of goods AAs sold you.

[Virtualoso]

In article <mwuZa.12412$AO3.11540@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >Did you accept anything I said?
>
> And you are demanding that I accept your statements as fact?

You may be beginning to realize that that is exactly what "the point"
you're being to subjected to all comes down to. You're being "told"
what and how to think or not.

> I accept you
> MAY have said "something" in all of those deluded rants. I'm not sure what.
> Other than you continue to rant. Is there a point in there, somewhere?

It takes entire, labrynthal, extensive websites to "explain" properly.
For some reason. Which is why the URLs are so often promoted in the
attempt to indoctrinate people to their amateur mind-control methods.
LOL

[Gail]

staamfa wrote:
> "Gail" <
>> For me, if I was obsessed as he/she is, my health and sanity would
>> be in jeopardy. Just my opinion.
>
> [dedicated]

And I was talking about me...;)

[staamfa]

"Gail" <
| staamfa wrote:
| > "Gail" <
| >> For me, if I was obsessed as he/she is, my health and sanity would
| >> be in jeopardy. Just my opinion.
| >
| > [dedicated]
|
| And I was talking about me...;)

How do you know I wasn't as well...;0)

[Gail]

Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
>> whatever addiction.
>
> Not if you're referring to AA.

Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)

[Moonraker]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HRuZa.321395$o86.130078@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "Moonraker" <
> | >Did you accept anything I said?
> |
> | And you are demanding that I accept your statements as fact?
>
>
> Did you accept anything I said?

Keep trying....
>
> |I accept you
> | MAY have said "something" in all of those deluded rants.
>
> I accept you think of them as deluded rants. Do you accept that you're
not
> terribly bright if you can't spot the religious in AA?

Good. We have one thing settled. We both agree you are deluded. You are
making an assumption that I would find "religion", **IF it exists in AA***,
a bad thing. More delusion on your part.

>
> |I'm not sure what.
> | Other than you continue to rant.
>
> Do you often experience confusion in the midst of discussions?

Only when dealing with circular arguments that have no facts, beginnings or
ends.
>
> | Is there a point in there, somewhere?
>
> AA is religious.


Ahhhhh! you finally condensed all that bullshit down to a 3-word turd.

Religious how? Make your case. And don't go to the mention of God in the
12 steps as "proof". You've been there, didn't work. Won't work. That's
a non-argument that proves nothing. US currency says "In God We Trust".
Are you saying the Federal Reserve System is a religion?


>
> | > Then perhaps we can look there for the source of my repetition.
> |
> | Save us the misery, OK?
>
> Misery is what you learn in AA. I'm showing you that aint necessary.


And your alternative is what, exactly? More delusion on your part,
assuming that I, or anybody else, is miserable.


>
> |We've heard enough
>
> So you say. Did you accept anything I said?

You mean as a fact? As a take-it-to-the-bank certifiable true statement
that I'd want to stake my life on?


>
> | > | Poor
> | > | deluded fool.
> | >
> | > Now you know how I feel about you and the people who buy the erroneous
> | > information about AA you're selling them, in the same way that you and
> | Virt
> | > both fell for it and both now proselytize it each in your own way.
> |
> | I see. Just what erroneous information AM I selling, anyway?
>
> That which you're selling via AA.

What are my fees and rewards for this sale?

>
> | Who's Virt?
>
> Chris Kohler. Do you need a phone number and address?

Sure. Is she good looking?

>
> | What did I fall for?
>
> the bill of goods AAs sold you.


And you've got a better bill of goods to sell, I suppose? What's yours
cost?
>
>

[Gail]

staamfa wrote:
> "Gail" <
>> staamfa wrote:
>>> "Gail" <
>>>> For me, if I was obsessed as he/she is, my health and sanity would
>>>> be in jeopardy. Just my opinion.
>>>
>>> [dedicated]
>>
>> And I was talking about me...;)
>
> How do you know I wasn't as well...;0)

Ok.
Can I ask, what is with the different organizations when you post? Do you
change them as you post? Call me dumb, some do. ;)

[staamfa]

"Moonraker" <

| > "Moonraker" <
| > | >Did you accept anything I said?
| > |
| > | And you are demanding that I accept your statements as fact?
| >
| >
| > Did you accept anything I said?
|
| Keep trying....
| >
| > |I accept you
| > | MAY have said "something" in all of those deluded rants.
| >
| > I accept you think of them as deluded rants. Do you accept that you're
| not
| > terribly bright if you can't spot the religious in AA?
|
| Good. We have one thing settled. We both agree you are deluded.

You're showing your inability to comprehend again Moon.

|You are
| making an assumption that I would find "religion", **IF it exists in
AA***,
| a bad thing.

Point out where I made such a distinction? I am making the point that it's
religious and by virtue of that that AA and AAs lie about AA. Most people
consider telling lies of that magnitude a bad thing but if you don't I guess
that's one more sign of yet another AA with a screwy sense of morality and
priorities.

|More delusion on your part.

Naw. The delusion was you claiming I agreed to your delusional statement
claiming I was a deluded ranter. Which, if true, would say quite a bit
about you that you would engage such in discussion. Yes yes I know you're
jus screwing with the one with the screw loose. I know yeah. That's the
ticket. lol

| > Chris Kohler. Do you need a phone number and address?
|
| Sure. Is she good looking?

You know people when faced with the name Chris automatically think male
because it's typically a male name. Any particular reason why you saw
female? Or is that just the AA 13th stepping hyper libido talking?

[Virtualoso]

In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Virtualoso wrote:
> > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> >> whatever addiction.
> >
> > Not if you're referring to AA.
>
> Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)

AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
desires about other things.

[Mias]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mwuZa.12412$AO3.11540@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> > You're beginning to show a marked penchant for that Mias.
> Huh? naah. I've seen Mias's picture. He's WAY too ugly for even little
> JonnyB. ;>)
Moon
For the sake of closure I WILL take that last remark as a COMPLIMENT!?
Thanks
Mias

[Virtualoso]

In article <ksvZa.322099$o86.196660@news1.central.cox.net>, staamfa
<staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You know people when faced with ... automatically think ...

Based on the same irrefutable and quality rigorous scientific studies
and solid evidence as everything else posed by the same scrupulous
correspondant. LOL

[Moonraker]

"Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
news:bh60gh$3k7$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mwuZa.12412$AO3.11540@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> > > You're beginning to show a marked penchant for that Mias.
> > Huh? naah. I've seen Mias's picture. He's WAY too ugly for even
little
> > JonnyB. ;>)
> Moon
> For the sake of closure I WILL take that last remark as a COMPLIMENT!?
> Thanks
> Mias
>
>


Hee hee. Poor Stumpy....he doesn't even know WHO he's arguing with,
muchless the topic.

That WAS your photo in the quit buddies website, wasn't it? Quite a
dashing figure there.....made me think of Capt. Ahab for some reason.

[Mias]

Very old photo fortunately!
"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vwvZa.11426$YQ4.3581@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>
> "Mias" <emiasNOSPAM@NOSPAMnetactive.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bh60gh$3k7$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:mwuZa.12412$AO3.11540@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> > > > You're beginning to show a marked penchant for that Mias.
> > > Huh? naah. I've seen Mias's picture. He's WAY too ugly for even
> little
> > > JonnyB. ;>)
> > Moon
> > For the sake of closure I WILL take that last remark as a COMPLIMENT!?
> > Thanks
> > Mias
> >
> >
>
>
> Hee hee. Poor Stumpy....he doesn't even know WHO he's arguing with,
> muchless the topic.
>
> That WAS your photo in the quit buddies website, wasn't it? Quite a
> dashing figure there.....made me think of Capt. Ahab for some reason.
>
>
>

[Gail]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:100820031043297817%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Virtualoso wrote:
> > > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> > >> whatever addiction.
> > >
> > > Not if you're referring to AA.
> >
> > Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)
>
> AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
> booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
> desires about other things.

Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction, so
I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA. Like I said, I may be
wrong. I used the words in reference to her statement, not knowing what
program(s) she said she knew about. :)
Gail

[Bobby L.]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjd4rg3ajmi469@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:100820031043297817%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Virtualoso wrote:
> > > > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> > > >> whatever addiction.
> > > >
> > > > Not if you're referring to AA.
> > >
> > > Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)
> >
> > AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
> > booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
> > desires about other things.
>
> Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction,
so
> I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA. Like I said, I may be
> wrong. I used the words in reference to her statement, not knowing what
> program(s) she said she knew about. :)
> Gail
>
>

Virt's point is well taken --- there are no "less welcome" members. But
someone would need to go a meeting to understand that.

Bobby L

[Virtualoso]

In article <vjd4rg3ajmi469@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:100820031043297817%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Virtualoso wrote:
> > > > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> > > >> whatever addiction.
> > > >
> > > > Not if you're referring to AA.
> > >
> > > Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)
> >
> > AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
> > booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
> > desires about other things.
>
> Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction, so
> I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA. Like I said, I may be
> wrong. I used the words in reference to her statement, not knowing what
> program(s) she said she knew about. :)

Fair enough. Except maybe a seeming continuing equating of a program
with "addiction" expressly. Some do, I'm sure. However, what's possibly
unique about AA is that it doesn't necessarily, and certainly not in
terms of the singular membership requirement.

Ironicly, when it comes to the AA detrAActors, this is one particular
premise that would seem especially compatible with their tediously and
oft touted, if merely innsisted conceptual, challenges regarding
"alcoholism" and the various pretended accusations levelled at AA.
Perhaps in the over-zealous interest in getting to more favored
fabrications, there is an unfortunate rush right by such a salient
point otherwise.

[Gail]

"Bobby L." <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5NwZa.9879$Pa4.1662@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>
> "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjd4rg3ajmi469@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:100820031043297817%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Virtualoso wrote:
> > > > > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> > > > >> whatever addiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if you're referring to AA.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)
> > >
> > > AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
> > > booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
> > > desires about other things.
> >
> > Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction,
> so
> > I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA. Like I said, I may
be
> > wrong. I used the words in reference to her statement, not knowing what
> > program(s) she said she knew about. :)
> > Gail
> >
> >
>
> Virt's point is well taken --- there are no "less welcome" members. But
> someone would need to go a meeting to understand that.
>
> Bobby L
>
>
>
>

Oh, ok. I understand now. AA meetings are for people who have a desire to
stop drinking. If they have another addiction, as I do, I am still welcome
there to learn how not to DRINK. ;) Primary purpose. I do know this.
I wouldn't go to sexaholic's anonymous to learn how to not drink. I have
wondered if they hand out chips for 1 day, 30 days, 60 days, etc...;) I
would hate to have to pick up a 10 years token...:( Don't know if that
would be a good thing or not, at least for me. ;)
Best to all and thanks,
Gail

[Moonraker]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjd7kufhpv4951@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I do know this.
> I wouldn't go to sexaholic's anonymous to learn how to not drink. I have
> wondered if they hand out chips for 1 day, 30 days, 60 days, etc...;) I
> would hate to have to pick up a 10 years token...:( Don't know if that
> would be a good thing or not, at least for me. ;)
> Best to all and thanks,
> Gail
>
>
I was thinking of sitting in the parking lot at a local SA meeting, waiting
to see who wanted to have a slip. ;>)

[Virtualoso]

In article <5NwZa.9879$Pa4.1662@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>, Bobby L.
<BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjd4rg3ajmi469@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:100820031043297817%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Virtualoso wrote:
> > > > > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> > > > >> whatever addiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if you're referring to AA.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)
> > >
> > > AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
> > > booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
> > > desires about other things.
> >
> > Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction,
> so
> > I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA. Like I said, I may be
> > wrong. I used the words in reference to her statement, not knowing what
> > program(s) she said she knew about. :)

> Virt's point is well taken --- there are no "less welcome" members. But
> someone would need to go a meeting to understand that.

My point? My point would be that every single individual there brings
with them such features as welcome, etc., and equally so, which may be
exercised or found by yet other individuals. Within that agreed, common
context, naturally. Just as it should be.

[Joe]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:48:19 -0500, "Gail"
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction, so
>I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA.
>


They do. By definition, a 12 step program is an AA type of program.
The courts agree.

Joe Milon

[Virtualoso]

In article <vjd7kufhpv4951@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Bobby L." <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:5NwZa.9879$Pa4.1662@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
> >
> > "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:vjd4rg3ajmi469@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > > news:100820031043297817%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > > In article <vjcv20d2t9ru90@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Virtualoso wrote:
> > > > > > In article <vjcauo3326lv46@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> > > > > > <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Only requirement for membership is the desire to stop
> > > > > >> whatever addiction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not if you're referring to AA.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please explain. I might even agree with you..;)
> > > >
> > > > AA's membership "requirement" is simply the desire to stop drinking
> > > > booze. Nothing necessarily about either "addiction" or any other
> > > > desires about other things.
> > >
> > > Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction,
> > so
> > > I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA. Like I said, I may
> be
> > > wrong. I used the words in reference to her statement, not knowing what
> > > program(s) she said she knew about. :)

> > Virt's point is well taken --- there are no "less welcome" members. But
> > someone would need to go a meeting to understand that.

> Oh, ok. I understand now. AA meetings are for people who have a desire to
> stop drinking. If they have another addiction, as I do, I am still welcome
> there to learn how not to DRINK. ;) Primary purpose. I do know this.

Unless one brings it up, for any certain reason, no one would
necessarily have any way of knowing whether or not you were addicted to
anything -- including alcohol.

> I wouldn't go to sexaholic's anonymous to learn how to not drink. I have
> wondered if they hand out chips for 1 day, 30 days, 60 days, etc...;) I
> would hate to have to pick up a 10 years token...:( Don't know if that
> would be a good thing or not, at least for me. ;)

Same thing might be said about Eat Anon, Love Anon, etc. Just so, I've
always been unable to quite grasp folks that insist that AA's program
is always being "copied" in terms of entire abstinence. These other
deals might be a lot more like Moderation Management or some such.

[Gail]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:I8xZa.12867$vK4.389@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>
> "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjd7kufhpv4951@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I do know this.
> > I wouldn't go to sexaholic's anonymous to learn how to not drink. I
have
> > wondered if they hand out chips for 1 day, 30 days, 60 days, etc...;) I
> > would hate to have to pick up a 10 years token...:( Don't know if that
> > would be a good thing or not, at least for me. ;)
> > Best to all and thanks,
> > Gail
> >
> >
> I was thinking of sitting in the parking lot at a local SA meeting,
waiting
> to see who wanted to have a slip. ;>)
>
>
>

Yeah, I asked a member of paranoids anonymous if they knew where the
meetings were and they wouldn't tell me. ;)

[Virtualoso]

In article <1bxZa.404$l96.93200@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
<jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > 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.
> >
> No, I've never gotten the impression from anyone in AA that I should shun
> any other method for sobriety either.

AA actually tends to more address folks that have been, indeed, trying
any number of "other methods for sobriety" already. And those that
aren't finding them working, either. AA also publishes and widely
distributes the book: "Living Sober" which is nothing but an entire
collection of "methods for sobriety" aside from AA's spiritual program.

> The only advice I've had over and
> over is to keep attending meetings.

Really? Ever read the book "Alcoholics Anonymous"? Not too much in
there at all about keep attending meetings.

> I've talked with those who failed, and
> it seems to follow a period where they start to think they don't need to
> attend meetings anymore (I've walked that road too). Either they think
> they're strong enough to not drink, or they can drink in moderation (include
> me with them as you read).

I've not attended meetings for years, after having attended many
meetings for years. It was not because I figured I was "strong enough
to not drink" nor in order to drink moderately or at all. Rather, in
terms of any drinking problem, my problem with alcohol was solved and
gone, just as AA had described and explained.

> So far, I'm remembering why I go to meetings,
> and the reason is simply to sit for an hour and remind myself why I quit
> drinking. I "forget" the feelings I had that day, as they've dissolved
> somewhat; I remember what the feelings were, but I no longer feel them and
> that's my area of danger. ....

AA publishes that "the teaching and practice of the 12 Steps is the
sole purpose of an AA group." Perhaps you're still working on Step One
at them?

[Moonraker]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjd8vagu9e7ve5@corp.supernews.com...
>

>
> Yeah, I asked a member of paranoids anonymous if they knew where the
> meetings were and they wouldn't tell me. ;)
>
>
It looks like a few of them have pitched their tents right here in this
newsgroup.

[Jay]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iQdZa.3085$Ih1.1294989@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:bh3chr$g08$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> I know personally a gal who believes that the "purification" program of
> narconon is the best thing since sliced bread. After printing out some
> literature in opposition to it and giving it to her, she took it to the
> "org" where they discounted it, and anything else written on the internet,
> as lies. She chose to close her eyes--and mind--and throw the literature
> away. She continues to tell anyone who will listen about how great
Narconon
> is. If it were not for people exposing this obvious fraud for what it is,
> then who knows how many folks would be sucked in by this scam (even though
> it appears the NY fire dept has most recently been).
>
So, from the above, I take it that it's a true fact that she joined
narcanon, that's it a true fact she worked that program, and that it's a
true fact that she got clean and/or sober, and, since she "continues to tell
everyone who will listen about how great Narconon" is, that she has remained
clean and/or sober. I assume all this is true as you have written it.
Thanks for pointing out a key truth about Narconon, that they have at least
one successful member.

> There are folks out there who would say that narconon worked for a couple
of
> folks, so why not leave them alone? I ask: "What is wrong with pointing
> out the truth?"
>
I would really like a reply to this question of mine. What objective does
it serve to "point out the truth" about a program like this? What goal in
the end do you seek to achieve? Why is it so wrong to just say, "I don't
agree with that program, but I'm glad it's there for you. Good luck and
keep at it."

> So you see, it isn't just about claiming one program is better than
another
> or something did or did not work. It is also about pointing out the
rubbish
> that AA tries to float onto society as being some profound truth.
>
hmmmm I can't speak on behalf of the AA organization here, but to me, any
program that works for someone is the best program. Likewise, any method
that works for them (including as you described) is best, but those which
are best is subject to those who are successful with them.

<SNIP>

> > AA tells me that I must do whatever it takes to stay sober.
>
> I'd say at this point you need to quit worrying about what some group has
to
> say about anything and start worrying about what YOUR true wants and
desires
> are in life and pursue such. You do have this power, all on your own.
>

This may be true for some, but it is a complete and blatant lie for others,
and I am living proof of that. I made that choice in 1995, and wanted after
almost a decade of drinking to quite - I really wanted to quit, to a point
where I broke off friendships. In time, I the reasons why I wanted to quit
faded, and I allowed myself to think that I could handle drinking again.
When I first joined AA, it was nice to know that I wasn't alone, and that,
in fact, many others had tried to quite on sheer logical reasoning and will
power too, and wound up in AA later anyway.

Another problem with this logic is that a person can rationally make the
decision to not drink. I know that a lot of people can do this, some are
worse than that; some drinkers have developed such a problem that it begins
to affect their minds, enabling them to rationalize the use of alcohol and
talk themselves into one more drink, one more night of drinking, or one more
week, that for one reason or the other it is better for them to drink, or
that they just plainly need to have that drink to make things better.

[Jay]

>
> Oh hogwash and rubbish. It most certaily is from lack of looking. Why
only
> just recently I provided hard fast evidence that AA via Wilson promoted AA
> to the US Senate, The Bravo Channel even now is airing 30 Second AA
> promotional spots, and the orignal AA and their Radio Spot fiasco are ALL
> signs that AA does and did promote itself. AA claims that it doesn't
> promote itself. Ergo AA lies and has been lying about that from it's
> inception.
>

I frequently watch Bravo frequently, and I haven't seen these ads that are
currently being run. Can you describe one to me so that I may be on the
lookout for it, maybe I'm missing it. What did you mean by the original AA?
Since AA evolved, using I believe input from previous programs, and with the
input of early members, no doubt someone along the way thought it would be
good to promote it. Myself, I can't think of one promotional piece that
I've seen in almost 35 years, unless you count references to it, in movies,
on West Wing and like that. As to the Senate thing, are you sure Wilson was
trying to convince the Senators that the Senate should support and sponsor
AA, which would be the point of promoting it to them, or was he providing
information about it that they were seeking, such as might happen in a
Senate inquiry? Was Hoffa promoting the Teamsters to them? Was Oliver
North promoting the gun trade to them?

I'd appreciate the more specific informaiton about the Bravo ads, and any
specific reference you can provide concerning the Senate thing, as I would
like to "go to the source" and consider what you've said. With a
description of the ads, I can watch out for them, and will no doubt see them
quickly (that old thing where when you're made aware of something, you
notice it constantly from then on lol - just keep a lookout for Jeep
Cherokees when you walk down the street, and you'll see what I mean). I'd
also like if you could let me know where I might procure any relevant Senate
transcripts, so if you could tell me when and where Wilson addressed the
Senate I should be able to get the info I'd want to read.

> AA claims that it's not religious yet even a cursory read of it's
doctrinal
> publication shows that for a clear and unambiguous lie.
>
There can be no doubt that AA had a religious bent. However, I believe
members who do not believe in God are not only accepted but instructed to
seek whatever alternate higher power they like, even if it's just their salt
shaker at home. Today, it's not necessary to follow a given religion to be
a member of AA. Another thing I'd like to know if possible - if AA is
religious, to which religion is it tied? I think it might be more apt to
say that AA is a spiritual organization than a religious one.

[catsruleok]

Dear Jay,

I just want to let you know that I understand what you're saying and consider it good advice.

Thank you very much.

JB

"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:1bxZa.404$l96.93200@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hi JB
>
> "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:bh3chr$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.
> >
> I've been a bit startled the last few days with the anti-AA posts I've seen,
> and I guess I saw them some 11 months ago, when I too gave up drinking. I
> wanted to reply because I like how you put that... "gave up drinking". The
> truly nice thing about AA is that when you attend meetings, you meet people
> who will accept you just becuase you want to quit - there are those who had
> to fight tooth and nail to get away from it, and those who have far less
> trouble. I'm blessed with not having developed as an alcoholic to the point
> where I needed to go to a detox centre, but I have a lot of respect for
> those that did. I've also been told that I didn't miss anything by a few
> wry-humoured old-timers. You're right that such posts don't help, and I'm
> ashamed that when I returned and started reading, and posting, a nearly got
> drawn in by them. Within 24 hours I'd... matured? a little, and started
> ignoring them (OK, I still read them when I feel like getting riled up, so
> you might see me go off the handle at those posters again hehe... I have my
> faults after all). The thing that sticks in my mind most are the posters
> who say AA doesn't work, members are actually just doing it all themselves
> and lying to themselves about how AA is and has helped them. One day, I
> want to look back and talk about all the 24s, not that I drank, but that I
> lived... the 24 where I get married (single as yet), the 24s of my
> honeymoon, the 24 where I just sit and stare in wonder at my first-born, the
> 24 where I walk my daughter (hope to have one) down the aisle... one day, I
> want to be a grey-haired (OK, BA:LD!) old liar, telling a small group of
> people in a non-descript room somewhere how the many hundreds of thousands
> of members helped me stay sober. That day, maybe I'll lie, but you can be
> I'll lie quite happily.
>
> > 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.
> >
> I think my best advice is that if you want to go with AA, go to real
> meetings, don't just do it here. I read posts here last summer, and then
> started attending meetings. I stopped reading the newsgroup and started
> talking to people face to face, which helped me a lot more. You have to
> remember, with all the people in the world, many are going to think and
> behave in different ways, even within AA itself. If you can change them,
> maybe it would make a better world for us all, but then, one without
> freedom. If we believe in freedom, we can't make other people do what we
> wish, so we must accept how they behave and what they think and either leave
> well-enough alone, or pause to consider it. Remember though, you can't
> control what people say here, but you can control what you read... when
> something you don't like pops up on your screen, try just popping it right
> back off. It took me only a few days to figure out the two or three posters
> I usually don't want to read, and they're easy enough to avoid :-).
>
> > 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.
> >
> No, I've never gotten the impression from anyone in AA that I should shun
> any other method for sobriety either. The only advice I've had over and
> over is to keep attending meetings. I've talked with those who failed, and
> it seems to follow a period where they start to think they don't need to
> attend meetings anymore (I've walked that road too). Either they think
> they're strong enough to not drink, or they can drink in moderation (include
> me with them as you read). So far, I'm remembering why I go to meetings,
> and the reason is simply to sit for an hour and remind myself why I quit
> drinking. I "forget" the feelings I had that day, as they've dissolved
> somewhat; I remember what the feelings were, but I no longer feel them and
> that's my area of danger. If it weren't for meetings, those feelings
> wouldn't even be a memory and then, well most reading this know the drill.
> So I attend meetings, and at first, I have to admit, it was to beat myself
> up about it, but now, it's to remember what I've gained and how things have
> gotten better already. One day, things will have gotten a whole lot better
> and someone will be thinking of me as a considerate husband, and a caring
> father.
>
> > Hoping for the best.
> >
> Wishing you the best, and thanks for listening!
>
> Jay
>
> >
> >
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <3dyZa.438$l96.106484@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
<jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > just recently I provided hard fast evidence that AA via Wilson promoted AA
> > to the US Senate, The Bravo Channel even now is airing 30 Second AA
> > promotional spots, and the orignal AA and their Radio Spot fiasco are ALL
> > signs that AA does and did promote itself. AA claims that it doesn't
> > promote itself. Ergo AA lies and has been lying about that from it's
> > inception.

> I frequently watch Bravo frequently, and I haven't seen these ads that are
> currently being run. Can you describe one to me so that I may be on the
> lookout for it, maybe I'm missing it. ... [snip]

Perhaps there's some confusion between "ads," "promotional spots," and
"public service announcements" (PSA). There are a number of PSAs in
various media, both print and broadcast. A difference in the media,
itself, regarding PSA's is that they are not purchased, nor are any
particular space, appearance or "audience segment" ordered or
purchased. Their running at all is at the complete discretion of the
media. The content is characteristicly informative and brief, rather
than more truly "promotional," in the real world use of the term.

But then, if you're going to attempt to even touch upon such matters
with a fanatic extremist as you've begun, you'll quickly find yourself
being met with the prancy jig moves of merely semantical quibbles,
terminological chauvinism, purely interpersonal skirmishhes and other
such parlor games masquerading as "meaning."

> > AA claims that it's not religious yet even a cursory read of it's
> > doctrinal publication shows that for a clear and unambiguous lie.
>
> There can be no doubt that AA had a religious bent. However, I believe
> members who do not believe in God are not only accepted but instructed to
> seek whatever alternate higher power they like, even if it's just their salt
> shaker at home. Today, it's not necessary to follow a given religion to be
> a member of AA. Another thing I'd like to know if possible - if AA is
> religious, to which religion is it tied? I think it might be more apt to
> say that AA is a spiritual organization than a religious one.

Bear in mind that the fundamentalist fanatic extremist atheist regards
anything and everything even remotely resembling "religious" (and in
only just the sense that they define that) as being what all/any such
amounts to absolutely. Thus, they are apparently unable to discern any
distinction at all between "religious" and "spiritual." Kind of a
conceptual blindness or something. Just so, if there is the inclusion
of *any* content that appears to "religious" to them, then the whole is
not only tainted by this, but is a Definitive basis. Especially when
they're suffering from paranoid "conspiracy" delusions about these
things.

Psychiatrists caution about arguing these topics directly with
psychotic delusionals that are known to have the above kinds of
symptoms, and are in fact diagnosed specifically according to having
those symptoms, in consideration of their own best interests. Please
realize that these sick people deserve our observance of this kind of
protocol, in order to not risk deepening their pathology all the more.
They are known to become dangerous to themselves and others
disproportionately, and even seriously so.

At the same time, the same doctors with special expertise point out
that it's also important to not "humor" them or indulge their delusions
at all, by acting as though there is any substance or merit or reality
to the specious, distorted ideas. That also could be a harmful, if well
intended, mistake.

[Markus]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..

> That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
proven
> THAT point,

Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do indeed
prove THAT point?

[stuart]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kPoZa.315338$o86.144769@news1.central.cox.net ...
>
> "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"

You're none of the above. You are a narrow-minded opinionated insensitive
jerk who gets his jollies trashing ideas that don't necessarily agree with
your own.

[Virtualoso]

In article <TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>
> > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
> proven
> > THAT point,
>
> Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do indeed
> prove THAT point?

The only point proved by that is that the courts have determined that
governmental agencies may not positively endorse anything that includes
religious content to any extent, while openly conceding that AA,
specifically, includes quite secular and nonreligious content, as well.
Thus, it's as non-religious as it is religious, according to the courts
that have ruled on this.

[stuart]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>
> > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
> proven
> > THAT point,
>
> Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do indeed
> prove THAT point?

Just how do a bunch of lawyers PROVE anything?
Lemme tell you a story about lawyers and courts. My lawyer acquaintance
proved that no drunk driving charges could be or should be laid in a vehicle
roll-over accident involving two gentlemen who were both obviously and
clearly intoxicated at the time of the collision. Because neither of them
were wearing seatbelts, they were both flung from the vehicle. There were no
witnesses. Neither of the two could actually remember who was driving.
One thing they did prove is they both got charged for failing to wear their
seatbelts.

[Markus]

"Joe" <ATdot@.com> wrote in message
news:7u7djvo702tmpdh54qmgk9gubs3p1ml965@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:48:19 -0500, "Gail"
> <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> They do. By definition, a 12 step program is an AA type of program.
> The courts agree.
>
> Joe Milon

Hey Joe!

Good to read ya again bud, glad you could stop in and say hi. Quite a party
we're having here. Been fun, but alais all fun things have to come to an
end ;-)

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Virtualoso]

In article <rLAZa.10230$Pa4.8461@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:100820031630159424%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <3dyZa.438$l96.106484@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
> > <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > just recently I provided hard fast evidence that AA via Wilson
> promoted AA
> > > > to the US Senate, The Bravo Channel even now is airing 30 Second AA
> > > > promotional spots, and the orignal AA and their Radio Spot fiasco are
> ALL
> > > > signs that AA does and did promote itself. AA claims that it doesn't
> > > > promote itself. Ergo AA lies and has been lying about that from it's
> > > > inception.
> >
> > > I frequently watch Bravo frequently, and I haven't seen these ads that
> are
> > > currently being run. Can you describe one to me so that I may be on the
> > > lookout for it, maybe I'm missing it. ... [snip]
> >
> > Perhaps there's some confusion between "ads," "promotional spots," and
> > "public service announcements" (PSA). There are a number of PSAs in
> > various media, both print and broadcast. A difference in the media,
> > itself, regarding PSA's is that they are not purchased, nor are any
> > particular space, appearance or "audience segment" ordered or
> > purchased. Their running at all is at the complete discretion of the
> > media. The content is characteristicly informative and brief, rather
> > than more truly "promotional," in the real world use of the term.
> >
> > But then, if you're going to attempt to even touch upon such matters
> > with a fanatic extremist as you've begun, you'll quickly find yourself
> > being met with the prancy jig moves of merely semantical quibbles,
> > terminological chauvinism, purely interpersonal skirmishhes and other
> > such parlor games masquerading as "meaning."
> >
> > > > AA claims that it's not religious yet even a cursory read of it's
> > > > doctrinal publication shows that for a clear and unambiguous lie.
> > >
> > > There can be no doubt that AA had a religious bent. However, I believe
> > > members who do not believe in God are not only accepted but instructed t
> o
> > > seek whatever alternate higher power they like, even if it's just their
> salt
> > > shaker at home. Today, it's not necessary to follow a given religion to
> be
> > > a member of AA. Another thing I'd like to know if possible - if AA is
> > > religious, to which religion is it tied? I think it might be more apt
> to
> > > say that AA is a spiritual organization than a religious one.
> >
> > Bear in mind that the fundamentalist fanatic extremist atheist regards
> > anything and everything even remotely resembling "religious" (and in
> > only just the sense that they define that) as being what all/any such
> > amounts to absolutely. Thus, they are apparently unable to discern any
> > distinction at all between "religious" and "spiritual." Kind of a
> > conceptual blindness or something. Just so, if there is the inclusion
> > of *any* content that appears to "religious" to them, then the whole is
> > not only tainted by this, but is a Definitive basis. Especially when
> > they're suffering from paranoid "conspiracy" delusions about these
> > things.
> >
> > Psychiatrists caution about arguing these topics directly with
> > psychotic delusionals that are known to have the above kinds of
> > symptoms, and are in fact diagnosed specifically according to having
> > those symptoms, in consideration of their own best interests. Please
> > realize that these sick people deserve our observance of this kind of
> > protocol, in order to not risk deepening their pathology all the more.
> > They are known to become dangerous to themselves and others
> > disproportionately, and even seriously so.
> >
> > At the same time, the same doctors with special expertise point out
> > that it's also important to not "humor" them or indulge their delusions
> > at all, by acting as though there is any substance or merit or reality
> > to the specious, distorted ideas. That also could be a harmful, if well
> > intended, mistake.

> Translation: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!

Oh, not at all an adequate translation. Feed the poor, hungry devils,
indeed. But only with nourishing, proper fare. They may better be able
to get well that way.

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:100820031737211000%virtualoso@dot.com...
>> > Translation: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
>
> Oh, not at all an adequate translation. Feed the poor, hungry devils,
> indeed. But only with nourishing, proper fare. They may better be able
> to get well that way.


Feeding truth and logic to these parasites only makes them vomit all over
the insides of your monitor.

[Bobby L.]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>
> > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
> proven
> > THAT point,
>
> Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do indeed
> prove THAT point?
>
>
>


Yes, I think perhaps we do.

[Moonraker]

"Bobby L." <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:WKCZa.13933$vK4.12258@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com ...
>
> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> > "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
> >
> > > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
> > proven
> > > THAT point,
> >
> > Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do
indeed
> > prove THAT point?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, I think perhaps we do.
>
>
>

I thought it was Missourians who needed to be shown, not us Gawgians?
;>)

[Joe]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:16:32 GMT, "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>"Joe" <ATdot@.com> wrote in message
>news:7u7djvo702tmpdh54qmgk9gubs3p1ml965@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:48:19 -0500, "Gail"
>> <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> They do. By definition, a 12 step program is an AA type of program.
>> The courts agree.
>>
>> Joe Milon
>
>Hey Joe!
>
>Good to read ya again bud, glad you could stop in and say hi. Quite a party
>we're having here. Been fun, but alais all fun things have to come to an
>end ;-)
>
>-Markus

Hey Markus!!! I see you are still fighting the good fight...Whatta
buncha crap aye? That's what some holy roller said about arguing with
me on a message board. The good fight...indeed! It's good to see ya
buddy and I'll see ya in another thread, aye? Take care

Joe Milon

[Jay]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:100820031315154183%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <1bxZa.404$l96.93200@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
> <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> AA actually tends to more address folks that have been, indeed, trying
> any number of "other methods for sobriety" already. And those that
> aren't finding them working, either. AA also publishes and widely
> distributes the book: "Living Sober" which is nothing but an entire
> collection of "methods for sobriety" aside from AA's spiritual program.
>
> > The only advice I've had over and
> > over is to keep attending meetings.
>
> Really? Ever read the book "Alcoholics Anonymous"? Not too much in
> there at all about keep attending meetings.
>
Point taken. I was refering to advice I've had from members, not from the
books. I'm reading the big book these days, and have read the 12 steps and
12 traditions a bit. I haven't read enough of the AA literature to be any
kind of expert on the writings, but I find I get good advice via meetings
too.

> > I've talked with those who failed, and
> > it seems to follow a period where they start to think they don't need to
> > attend meetings anymore (I've walked that road too). Either they think
> > they're strong enough to not drink, or they can drink in moderation
(include
> > me with them as you read).
>
> I've not attended meetings for years, after having attended many
> meetings for years. It was not because I figured I was "strong enough
> to not drink" nor in order to drink moderately or at all. Rather, in
> terms of any drinking problem, my problem with alcohol was solved and
> gone, just as AA had described and explained.
>
That's great! Sometimes I long to get to that point... lol usually in the
half hour before I leave for a meeting. Funny thing is, I really enjoy them
once I'm there.

> > So far, I'm remembering why I go to meetings,
> > and the reason is simply to sit for an hour and remind myself why I quit
> > drinking. I "forget" the feelings I had that day, as they've dissolved
> > somewhat; I remember what the feelings were, but I no longer feel them
and
> > that's my area of danger. ....
>
> AA publishes that "the teaching and practice of the 12 Steps is the
> sole purpose of an AA group." Perhaps you're still working on Step One
> at them?

I'm past Step 1 alright, but reminding myself of it doesn't hurt. Oddly, on
Friday I was at a meeting and in the discussion I said how I'm doing ok, but
not really progressing in AA, and I was surprised when the guy who runs that
meeting, who I only slightly know, started pointing out how I've progressed
since I started attending it. Sometimes, I still feel like I'm working on
Step 1 though, whether in a meeting or not. I'm in the "2nd" time around
now, and last time I quit drinking, attended meetings for about 5 or 6
months (Sept til just after Christmas/late Jan), then thought I had a handle
on life. By May I was drinking again. Now, I've also got a handle on Step
2, perhaps because I've always believed that a greater power could help me
with anything I attempt. Step 3 I do daily, I'd say, at least at this
point. I can kind of relate that to other events, however minor, where I
sought that sort of help. I'm Catholic, I pray and always have - but I'm
far from a saint or anything like that. I don't even know if the term good
could describe me as a Catholic, but faithful might be fitting. Step 4 I've
not "done" but I've talked it through with a few people. Until I actually
write it down, I won't consider it done, but rather "incomplete".

[Jay]

Thanks, because sometimes after I post, I feel like I'm just full of it.
I'm in the early learning stages though, but it's remarkable how even a
little bit helps. I think I'm probably at that "little knowledge, lotta
danger" stage though.

Good luck!

"catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:bh6lpb$8bk$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Dear Jay,
>
> I just want to let you know that I understand what you're saying and
consider it good advice.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> JB
>
> "Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1bxZa.404$l96.93200@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Hi JB
> >
> > "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.
> > >
> > I've been a bit startled the last few days with the anti-AA posts I've
seen,
> > and I guess I saw them some 11 months ago, when I too gave up drinking.
I
> > wanted to reply because I like how you put that... "gave up drinking".
The
> > truly nice thing about AA is that when you attend meetings, you meet
people
> > who will accept you just becuase you want to quit - there are those who
had
> > to fight tooth and nail to get away from it, and those who have far less
> > trouble. I'm blessed with not having developed as an alcoholic to the
point
> > where I needed to go to a detox centre, but I have a lot of respect for
> > those that did. I've also been told that I didn't miss anything by a
few
> > wry-humoured old-timers. You're right that such posts don't help, and
I'm
> > ashamed that when I returned and started reading, and posting, a nearly
got
> > drawn in by them. Within 24 hours I'd... matured? a little, and started
> > ignoring them (OK, I still read them when I feel like getting riled up,
so
> > you might see me go off the handle at those posters again hehe... I have
my
> > faults after all). The thing that sticks in my mind most are the
posters
> > who say AA doesn't work, members are actually just doing it all
themselves
> > and lying to themselves about how AA is and has helped them. One day, I
> > want to look back and talk about all the 24s, not that I drank, but that
I
> > lived... the 24 where I get married (single as yet), the 24s of my
> > honeymoon, the 24 where I just sit and stare in wonder at my first-born,
the
> > 24 where I walk my daughter (hope to have one) down the aisle... one
day, I
> > want to be a grey-haired (OK, BA:LD!) old liar, telling a small group of
> > people in a non-descript room somewhere how the many hundreds of
thousands
> > of members helped me stay sober. That day, maybe I'll lie, but you can
be
> > I'll lie quite happily.
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > I think my best advice is that if you want to go with AA, go to real
> > meetings, don't just do it here. I read posts here last summer, and
then
> > started attending meetings. I stopped reading the newsgroup and started
> > talking to people face to face, which helped me a lot more. You have to
> > remember, with all the people in the world, many are going to think and
> > behave in different ways, even within AA itself. If you can change
them,
> > maybe it would make a better world for us all, but then, one without
> > freedom. If we believe in freedom, we can't make other people do what
we
> > wish, so we must accept how they behave and what they think and either
leave
> > well-enough alone, or pause to consider it. Remember though, you can't
> > control what people say here, but you can control what you read... when
> > something you don't like pops up on your screen, try just popping it
right
> > back off. It took me only a few days to figure out the two or three
posters
> > I usually don't want to read, and they're easy enough to avoid :-).
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > No, I've never gotten the impression from anyone in AA that I should
shun
> > any other method for sobriety either. The only advice I've had over and
> > over is to keep attending meetings. I've talked with those who failed,
and
> > it seems to follow a period where they start to think they don't need to
> > attend meetings anymore (I've walked that road too). Either they think
> > they're strong enough to not drink, or they can drink in moderation
(include
> > me with them as you read). So far, I'm remembering why I go to
meetings,
> > and the reason is simply to sit for an hour and remind myself why I quit
> > drinking. I "forget" the feelings I had that day, as they've dissolved
> > somewhat; I remember what the feelings were, but I no longer feel them
and
> > that's my area of danger. If it weren't for meetings, those feelings
> > wouldn't even be a memory and then, well most reading this know the
drill.
> > So I attend meetings, and at first, I have to admit, it was to beat
myself
> > up about it, but now, it's to remember what I've gained and how things
have
> > gotten better already. One day, things will have gotten a whole lot
better
> > and someone will be thinking of me as a considerate husband, and a
caring
> > father.
> >
> > > Hoping for the best.
> > >
> > Wishing you the best, and thanks for listening!
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jay]

Point taken, both ways, guys.

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iTBZa.14247$AO3.10422@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com ...
>
> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:100820031737211000%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >> > Translation: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
> >
> > Oh, not at all an adequate translation. Feed the poor, hungry devils,
> > indeed. But only with nourishing, proper fare. They may better be able
> > to get well that way.
>
>
> Feeding truth and logic to these parasites only makes them vomit all over
> the insides of your monitor.
>
>
>
>
>

[rita]

"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3dyZa.438$l96.106484@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> There can be no doubt that AA had a religious bent. However, I believe
> members who do not believe in God are not only accepted but instructed to
> seek whatever alternate higher power they like, even if it's just their
salt
> shaker at home.
>
------------------------

Let me put it plainly: a belief in a "higher power" that controls your
your behavior, your "character", and your destiny is a RELIGIOUS belief. If
that "higher power" is a tree, a doorknob, or "the salt shaker at home",
then the person believing in its control of their destiny is either
delusional, or a follower of a religious belief system that some might term
"idolatry".



> Today, it's not necessary to follow a given religion to be
> a member of AA. Another thing I'd like to know if possible - if AA is
> religious, to which religion is it tied?
>
----------------------

It is tied to the 12-step religion -- the "higher power" belief system,
the "work the steps and God will remove the desire to drink" belief system.
This is a religious belief system. For this reason, federal circuit courts
and state supreme courts have consistently ruled that government coerced
involvement with any 12-step program or 12-step treatment is
unconstitutional, i.e. a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.


> I think it might be more apt to
> say that AA is a spiritual organization than a religious one.
>
-----------------------

The courts have ruled that this artificial distinction is irrelevant
for Establishment Clause purposes.

~Rita

[rita]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rLAZa.10230$Pa4.8461@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>

>
> Translation: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
>
----------------------------

Trolls?? TROLLS??!?? YOU are the one crossposting to
alt.recovery.from-12-steps!!! This is a group for people who are reject AA,
who wish to discuss, demystify, and dissect the 12-step belief system. YOU
are the troll on OUR list!!

~Rita

p.s. Agreeing with Virt/Otto/Civizen/Christopher's ludicrous flames shows a
real lack of imagination on your part.

[Virtualoso]

In article <xkMZa.119364$852.58244@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> It is tied to the 12-step religion ...
> This is a religious belief system. For this reason, federal circuit courts
> and state supreme courts have consistently ruled ...

No, the courts have not ruled "for that reason" of a "12-step
religion." Much less "consistently." Which is why you can't actually
quote even a single one actually saying so.

--
"There are types entirely normal ... except when it comes to alcohol."
- Dr. Silkworth

[Virtualoso]

In article <ykMZa.119365$852.27315@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> This is a group for people who are reject AA,
> who wish to discuss, demystify, and dissect the 12-step belief system. YOU
> are the troll on OUR list!!

This is a list to discuss "recovery from 12 steps" which may well
include examining the nature of that very concept, and the true basis
for subjective "problems" of that kind. The distinct conceptual and
experiential delusion that there is anything real to so-called "recover
from 12 steps" or that there is any actual, certain way to do so, is
spot on topic, including discussion, demystifications, and dissections
of that very belief - which appears to be "the problem" itself.

Instead, often what's found being promoted in this NG are wildly
anti-scientific beliefs, as well as certain distinct religious beliefs,
such as those found in Satanism, by believers that use this venue and
their own personal religious bigotry to attempt to proselytize these
and conduct adversarial campaigns against other religions, and persons
known or presumed to be involved with them. This is done by merely
speciously asserting that AA "is" equivalent to them, or that any
non-hostile attitude toward AA amounts to them, or just simplisticly
attacking individual persons directly, themselves, otherwise.

These are definitely a form of trolls in this NG. You are among the
ones that certainly do so.

--
"There are types entirely normal ... except when it comes to alcohol."
- Dr. Silkworth

[Moonraker]

"rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:ykMZa.119365$852.27315@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:rLAZa.10230$Pa4.8461@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
> >
>
> >
> > Translation: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
> >
> ----------------------------
>
> Trolls?? TROLLS??!?? YOU are the one crossposting to
> alt.recovery.from-12-steps!!! This is a group for people who are reject
AA,
> who wish to discuss, demystify, and dissect the 12-step belief system.
YOU
> are the troll on OUR list!!
>
> ~Rita
>
> p.s. Agreeing with Virt/Otto/Civizen/Christopher's ludicrous flames shows
a
> real lack of imagination on your part.
>
>

Uhhhhh?

Who died and left you in charge of where I post?

I merely replied to a cross-post in a thread started by somebody else.

Kiss my ass.

[Virtualoso]

In article <MkNZa.12303$Pa4.3218@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:ykMZa.119365$852.27315@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > ...
> > alt.recovery.from-12-steps!!! This is a group for people who are reject
> > AA, who wish to discuss, demystify, and dissect the 12-step belief system.
> > YOU are the troll on OUR list!!

How imaginative.

> > ... a real lack of imagination on your part.

> Uhhhhh?
>
> Who died and left you in charge of where I post?
>
> I merely replied to a cross-post in a thread started by somebody else.
>
> Kiss my ass.

Many of the propositions that there is some "recovery from 12 steps" is
possibly imaginative. But it seems that you're now being subjected to
review by the ARF "originality of thought" committee. Usually the case
in this NG when you don't appear in step with their detrAActor
groupthink doctrine.

[Mias]

Would not call them trolls. Would rather compare them to strangers being
invited into a house from a act of charity and then shits on the dining room
table!
"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:110820030634399263%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <ykMZa.119365$852.27315@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
> <rita66@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > This is a group for people who are reject AA,
> > who wish to discuss, demystify, and dissect the 12-step belief system.
YOU
> > are the troll on OUR list!!
>
> This is a list to discuss "recovery from 12 steps" which may well
> include examining the nature of that very concept, and the true basis
> for subjective "problems" of that kind. The distinct conceptual and
> experiential delusion that there is anything real to so-called "recover
> from 12 steps" or that there is any actual, certain way to do so, is
> spot on topic, including discussion, demystifications, and dissections
> of that very belief - which appears to be "the problem" itself.
>
> Instead, often what's found being promoted in this NG are wildly
> anti-scientific beliefs, as well as certain distinct religious beliefs,
> such as those found in Satanism, by believers that use this venue and
> their own personal religious bigotry to attempt to proselytize these
> and conduct adversarial campaigns against other religions, and persons
> known or presumed to be involved with them. This is done by merely
> speciously asserting that AA "is" equivalent to them, or that any
> non-hostile attitude toward AA amounts to them, or just simplisticly
> attacking individual persons directly, themselves, otherwise.
>
> These are definitely a form of trolls in this NG. You are among the
> ones that certainly do so.
>
> --
> "There are types entirely normal ... except when it comes to alcohol."
> - Dr. Silkworth

[Jay]

That's one answer that applies all over though - one of the really important
ones.

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:090820031641027501%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <8hvajvg9l2ms6sog6a15jf7b54k5u9dmph@4ax.com>, smicker
> <rossprat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do not think there
> > are any 'one size fits all' solutions
>
> Except for this one, eh? '-)

[Agent_Orange]

Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message news:<100820030912400871%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
> <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I too believed that I could not control my addiction
> > utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was mistaken
> > to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my own that
> > I also couldn't be taught how to.
>
> Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
> people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> relatively okay with the latter.

What research? Please be specific. Where was it
published, and when? Authors? Title?

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *
* "There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate
* true believer. He seems to use words as if he were
* ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for
* quibbling, hairsplitting, and scholastic tortuousness."
* =="The True Believer", by Eric Hoffer, pages 79 to 80.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8e728989.0308111524.2bdca393@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:<100820030912400871%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> > In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
> > <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I too believed that I could not control my addiction
> > > utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was
> > > mistaken
> > > to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my own
> > > that
> > > I also couldn't be taught how to.
> >
> > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
> > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> > relatively okay with the latter.
>
> What research? Please be specific. Where was it
> published, and when? Authors? Title?

Already have.

[Bobby L.]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OWCZa.14277$AO3.5954@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>
> "Bobby L." <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:WKCZa.13933$vK4.12258@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com ...
> >
> > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> > > "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
> > >
> > > > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
> > > proven
> > > > THAT point,
> > >
> > > Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do
> indeed
> > > prove THAT point?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I think perhaps we do.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I thought it was Missourians who needed to be shown, not us Gawgians?
> ;>)
>
>
>
>
>

When I see someone drawing to an inside straight and I'm holding three of a
kind.... I gotta call that bluff.

Bobby L ;)

[Joe]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:56:04 -0400, "Moonraker"
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
>"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
>>
>> > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
>> proven
>> > THAT point,
>>
>> Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do indeed
>> prove THAT point?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, why not? Post away.
>

I first came to this NG right after it was formed. I left when it
became repetitious. If you really want to read those court decisions,
go look them up for yourself. Ignore Shitraker, Markus.

Joe Milon

[Moonraker]

"Joe" <ATdot@.com> wrote in message
news:verhjvks0kn62aafvk5e0pem78dbcian9n@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:56:04 -0400, "Moonraker"
> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:TLAZa.3932$Ih1.1559197@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> >> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:0UvZa.11504$YQ4.3304@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
> >>
> >> > That's not what you said. You said "AA is religious". You haven't
> >> proven
> >> > THAT point,
> >>
> >> Do you really need the mountain of links to court decisions that do
indeed
> >> prove THAT point?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, why not? Post away.
> >
>
> I first came to this NG right after it was formed. I left when it
> became repetitious. If you really want to read those court decisions,
> go look them up for yourself. Ignore Shitraker, Markus.
>
> Joe Milon
>
>
Then you should have stayed gone, asshole.

[Jay]

Hi Markus,

I'm seeking some info from what you wrote below for myself, and it's not
really AA or non-AA related. You mention LSR (never heard of it before,
don't know about it yet, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out) and in
particular, that it's a negative that they sign court slips. I've heard of
courts requiring proof that someone is getting help before, but I don't
understand how or why it's a negative for them to sign the slips? I'd have
thought, of the top of my head, that it would be a help to the person who is
required to get the signature but I'm interested in how it could be a
negative.

I'm also interested in how a troll is recognized or defined... sort of what
constitutes one? Off the top of my head, again, I guess I'd see it as
someone trying to stir up trouble and all, but I'm sure there's a more
indepth explanation of them.

Thanks for your views,

Jay

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:bh40ts$6ak$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:iQdZa.3085$Ih1.1294989@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> > > "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bh3chr$g08$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I am not going to try and persuade you to join any group. The idea In
> My
> > > Opinion (IMO) is that the focus shouldn't be on joining any kind of
> group,
> > > but rather to find the tools necessary for you to stay off of
> > > drink--permanently--and without a learned and gained dependency upon a
> group
> > > or program as a result.
>
> > I think of groups as tools I can use to help me achieve some of the
> things I want to achieve.
> > Therefore, by joining them, I'm doing what you say I ought to do.
> Therefore, I would not expect you
> > or anyone who thinks as you do to disapprove of my actions.
>
> True. LSR http://forums.delphiforums.com/lifering/start puts emphasis on
> the group experience and I tend to agree that it can be helpful, as long
as
> the group isn't the "focus" as I said above. A negative of LSR is that
they
> promote signing of court slips. But other than that, they have a great
> approach.
>
> > What power other than willpower, do I have ? If you're talking about
> willpower, you should know
> > that mine has let me down too often in the past for me to ever want to
> have only it to rely on in
> > the future.
>
> The above is a common perception of folks new to recovery that AA exploits
> (whether it was designed as exploitation or just borne out of ignorance is
> irrelevant). I too believed that I could not control my addiction
> utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was
mistaken
> to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my own
that
> I also couldn't be taught how to. The bottom line is that I had to do the
> work to study and learn and allow myself to be taught how to use my own
> natural strengths and become dependant once again upon myself. A return
to
> normalcy if you will. Please NOTE: Just because you don't drink due to
the
> fact that if you did you would be a glutton about it hardly qualifies you
as
> abnormal or afflicted with some disease. Any human being can achieve this
> JB.
>
> Also, please understand that I've no problem with how anyone gets
themselves
> free of a dependency. If AA is your choice, then so be it. However, I
will
> still call bullshit when I see it in print, kinda like when I think we are
> now in the midst of a troll.
>
> With that said, would you care to clarify what you mean with this:
>
> > 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.
>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
>
>

[Jay]

"ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:OiuZa.115378$852.109679@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <100820030847431039%virtualoso@dot.com>, virtualoso@dot.com
> says... while attaching C4 explosives to computer and foaming at the
> mouth!
> > In article <HZrZa.114936$852.92241@twister.nyc.rr.com>, ByTor
> > <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is also very interesting:
> > >
> > > http://216.239.39.104/search?
> > >
q=cache:BfGbKDlHwhkJ:www.hkcfp.org.hk/article/2001/jun/20010604.pdf+DSMI
> > > IIR+substance+abuse&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> > >
> > >
> > > Delusional disorders were previously known asparanoia (and were quite
> > > often included as part of the diagnosis of schizophrenia). Paranoia
> > > literally means delusional, but many English-speaking psychiatrists
use
> > > it to refer primarily to delusions of persecution. The term implies a
> > > habitual attitude of distrust, suspiciousness and irritability in an
> > > individual. Delusional disorders were only revived by the DSMIIIR in
> > > 1987 to denote a particular group of psychotic conditions with
distinct
> > > characteristics. In recent years, two other syndromes -paraphrenia and
> > > delusional misidentification syndromes- have been added to this
> > > category.
> > >
> > > The onset of delusional disorders may be insidious but occasionally
they
> > > develop acutely. Some patients keep their delusions secret for long
> > > periods of time, and may even hide them behind religious or political
> > > activities. Occasionally, they collide with the authorities or the
> > > social norms. It is of interest that many patients can change from
> > > delusional to normal modes of thought and behaviour easily, at least
> > > temporarily, and thus succeed in deceiving others.
> >
> > Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I've often seen especially anti-AA
> > people proclaim that they'd been harboring there suspicious and
> > disturbed thinking for quite some time, even while hiding it from
> > others and pretending to be otherwise. Then, at some point, they could
> > no longer control these delusions and succumbed to acting them out
> > more, often in particularly anti-social and interpersonally acrid
> > forms. Some of these yet cloister together in fearful and aggressive
> > circles with others that share similar symptoms, perpetually indulging
> > their fantasies together. Or they craft twisty, raving websites when
> > driven to attempt to weave extensive "explanations" in the effort to
> > convince others of their irrational revelations.
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO.......Eloquently put as usual......Boy oh boy am I sorry I
> misjudged you..... ;0)

I've been grinning ear to ear too! I posted a bit in this thread
originally, and well, to summarize (and simplify) what Virt said to me:
"Shut up, you're not helping things." Of course, that's summarizing what
he/she? said in the same way that 2+4+8=14 summarizes
2+4+8+16+32+64+128=254.

All of it was well put, Virt.

[Jay]

EEEK! I didn't even notice that. Thanks for pointing it out Rita, I'll
delete the other group in all subsequent posts.

"rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:ykMZa.119365$852.27315@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:rLAZa.10230$Pa4.8461@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com. ..
> >
>
> >
> > Translation: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!!
> >
> ----------------------------
>
> Trolls?? TROLLS??!?? YOU are the one crossposting to
> alt.recovery.from-12-steps!!! This is a group for people who are reject
AA,
> who wish to discuss, demystify, and dissect the 12-step belief system.
YOU
> are the troll on OUR list!!
>
> ~Rita
>
> p.s. Agreeing with Virt/Otto/Civizen/Christopher's ludicrous flames shows
a
> real lack of imagination on your part.
>
>

[Markus]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:100820030840013339%virtualoso@dot.com...

> > The above is far more the theory of *other* "diseases" than alcoholism.

Really? No shit? You come to that conclusion all on your own? That is
exactly what the author of the article was implying.

> > It's the premise of the popular "dual diagnosis" concept,

A diagnosis is now both a premise and popular? Can your drivel be anymore
superfluorous?

>> with the so-called .....supposedly then

Guessing as usual again Virt?

>> In fact, a high ratio of anti-AAers prefer to believe the above

Do you have a copy of the result of the poll your quoting? Was it double
blind? Or is your psychosis running the asylum again?

If you had read what your responding to you would understand that the author
was being skeptical of all theroies he/she presented. Is that what your
referring to that these anti-AAers (whomever and whatever that is) embrace?
The skepticism? You really don't know now do you?

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Kev]

Jay wrote:

>
> If you check my email address, you'll see I'm Canadian, so state
> court and circuit court rulings really mean little to me. Up here, I
> haven't as yet heard of a court ruling that the courts can or cannot
> mandate participation in AA, but I do believe that they require only
> that one "seeks help" and then may choose AA or some other means.
> Personally, I don't think it's worth much to require someone to
> attend a self-help group - if they're not there willingly, and really
> wanting the help offered, they probably won't be successful beyond
> the period during which they're required to attend, if even then.
> I'm not at all sure, but again, you didn't address the question of to
> which denomination it is tied... I'll save you the trouble, it's not
> tied to any denomination.
>

Thats like saying Catholicism is not a religion because it is not tied to
any other denomination. AA has its own set of religious beliefs called the
12 steps

--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Bobby L.]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bhbpk7$102lfi$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Jay wrote:
>
> >
> > If you check my email address, you'll see I'm Canadian, so state
> > court and circuit court rulings really mean little to me. Up here, I
> > haven't as yet heard of a court ruling that the courts can or cannot
> > mandate participation in AA, but I do believe that they require only
> > that one "seeks help" and then may choose AA or some other means.
> > Personally, I don't think it's worth much to require someone to
> > attend a self-help group - if they're not there willingly, and really
> > wanting the help offered, they probably won't be successful beyond
> > the period during which they're required to attend, if even then.
> > I'm not at all sure, but again, you didn't address the question of to
> > which denomination it is tied... I'll save you the trouble, it's not
> > tied to any denomination.
> >
>
> Thats like saying Catholicism is not a religion because it is not tied to
> any other denomination. AA has its own set of religious beliefs called the
> 12 steps
>
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>

Just a football has its own set of religious beliefs? Hell, by your analogy
almost anything could be labeled a religion.

E.g. The dogma of football..

If you don't shoot you can't score.

Strikers should shoot

Backs should defend

Only the goalie may touch the ball with his hand.

If the game is in the UK, drunks and violence are required and the game does
not count unless at least 10 spectators are taken to hospital.

Bobby L

[Kev]

Bobby L. wrote:
> "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bhbpk7$102lfi$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Jay wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you check my email address, you'll see I'm Canadian, so state
>>> court and circuit court rulings really mean little to me. Up here,
>>> I haven't as yet heard of a court ruling that the courts can or
>>> cannot mandate participation in AA, but I do believe that they
>>> require only that one "seeks help" and then may choose AA or some
>>> other means. Personally, I don't think it's worth much to require
>>> someone to
>>> attend a self-help group - if they're not there willingly, and
>>> really wanting the help offered, they probably won't be successful
>>> beyond
>>> the period during which they're required to attend, if even then.
>>> I'm not at all sure, but again, you didn't address the question of
>>> to which denomination it is tied... I'll save you the trouble, it's
>>> not tied to any denomination.
>>>
>>
>> Thats like saying Catholicism is not a religion because it is not
>> tied to any other denomination. AA has its own set of religious
>> beliefs called the 12 steps
>>
>> --
>> Kev
>> Brighton UK
>>
>>
>
> Just a football has its own set of religious beliefs? Hell, by your
> analogy almost anything could be labeled a religion.
>
> E.g. The dogma of football..
>
> If you don't shoot you can't score.
>
> Strikers should shoot
>
> Backs should defend
>
> Only the goalie may touch the ball with his hand.
>
> If the game is in the UK, drunks and violence are required and the
> game does not count unless at least 10 spectators are taken to
> hospital.
>
> Bobby L

Do any of your so called "religious beliefs" from football require God? No
thought not. If you're going to make an analogy please make it something
close otherwise its nonsense
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Virtualoso]

In article <Jvd_a.6604$Ih1.2002457@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:100820030840013339%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> > > The above is far more the theory of *other* "diseases" than alcoholism.
>
> Really? No shit? You come to that conclusion all on your own? That is
> exactly what the author of the article was implying.
>
> > > It's the premise of the popular "dual diagnosis" concept,
>
> A diagnosis is now both a premise and popular? Can your drivel be anymore
> superfluorous?
>
> >> with the so-called .....supposedly then
>
> Guessing as usual again Virt?

When it comes to those matters, I rely on scientific information
provided by experts in the related disciplines, rather than "officers"
(what kind of officer wrote that?). And certainly rather than mere ARF
spatters, like you.

At any rate, our good "Officer"s attempt to somehow segue' from
dismissing the popular speculative beliefs about various "psychiatric
disorders" as supposedly also being what "alcoholism" Really Is, too,
is both specious and obvious. And obtuse. And silly.

But, I'm sure we can all have a bit more fun with it, if you like.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bhbpk7$102lfi$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jay wrote:
>
> >
> > If you check my email address, you'll see I'm Canadian, so state
> > court and circuit court rulings really mean little to me. Up here, I
> > haven't as yet heard of a court ruling that the courts can or cannot
> > mandate participation in AA, but I do believe that they require only
> > that one "seeks help" and then may choose AA or some other means.
> > Personally, I don't think it's worth much to require someone to
> > attend a self-help group - if they're not there willingly, and really
> > wanting the help offered, they probably won't be successful beyond
> > the period during which they're required to attend, if even then.
> > I'm not at all sure, but again, you didn't address the question of to
> > which denomination it is tied... I'll save you the trouble, it's not
> > tied to any denomination.
> >
>
> Thats like saying Catholicism is not a religion because it is not tied to
> any other denomination. AA has its own set of religious beliefs called the
> 12 steps

Just like the religious cult with the belief as Kev just expressed. Or
the religious belief in the unscientific, intangible being some call
the "self," despite there being not even a shred of evidence that any
such thing exists.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bhbq8a$10i1be$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Do any of your so called "religious beliefs" from football require God? No
> thought not. If you're going to make an analogy please make it something
> close otherwise its nonsense

Well, what's "God," required or not, believe or not?

[Markus]

"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9H8_a.1233$VG.93897@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hi Markus,

> I'm seeking some info from what you wrote below for myself, and it's not
> really AA or non-AA related. You mention LSR (never heard of it before,
> don't know about it yet, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out)

Here is their faq: http://www.unhooked.com/lsr/faq.htm

> and in particular, that it's a negative that they sign court slips.
> I've heard of courts requiring proof that someone is getting help
> before, but I don't understand how or why it's a negative for them
> to sign the slips?

Jay, there have been threads that have lasted for months regarding court
slips. Go to google, select the "groups" tab, then type in "court slips" in
the search field. It returned over 50000 articles ;-)

My take on it? On one hand, if someone is found looped on the highway, the
same highway I and my family travel on, then fuck em, they should go to jail
for a spell. If not, then what's the harm with a little accountability? But
on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts to
nothing more than governmental thought reform. If the government wants to
adopt a first strike policy that dictates a person will not drink or drug
for whatever period and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample to
avoid a jail sentence then so be it. But how the person stays abstinent
should be of no concern to the government--period.

I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the simple
reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are necessary for one to
get and stay sober.

Just my 2c

> I'm also interested in how a troll is recognized or defined... sort of
> what constitutes one? Off the top of my head, again, I guess I'd see it
as
> someone trying to stir up trouble and all, but I'm sure there's a more
> indepth explanation of them.

You've given one "loose" definition of troll, provided the individual is
typing only to annoy and not contribute anything of value and has no
interest what-so-ever in the main topic of the group. However, just because
what someone writes is annoying doesn't necessarily quantify that author as
a troll ;-)

Another troll tactic is to act like your someone else and are genuinely
interested in what a poster, or group of posters have to say but in fact you
are setting them up. Such as I have had folks act like they are interested
in a certain type of recovery and I would engage in discourse with them, and
then all of a sudden they act like it was the worst suggestion ever and get
real nasty giving the appearance what I had suggested totally failed. In
reality they were just using a different screen name and never had any
interest in something other than their step program.

And in all fairness, this tactic has been used by both sides.

I believe there is a USENET troll faq. Try alt.troll ?

My reason for being suspicious of cat was twofold in that I have been burned
in the past one, and two that we seemed to be having a civil discussion when
all of a sudden I came across a post where he is slamming me. Maybe he
feels that way, maybe he is just trying to win the favor of the group. Or
maybe he is a "troll." I asked for clarification from him and have never
received any, or I missed it.

HTH

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Moonraker]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> But
> on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts to
> nothing more than governmental thought reform.

But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who go to AA?

>If the government wants to
> adopt a first strike policy that dictates a person will not drink or drug
> for whatever period and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
to
> avoid a jail sentence then so be it. But how the person stays abstinent
> should be of no concern to the government--period.

Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting your first
strike policy enforcement.

>
> I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the simple
> reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are necessary for one
to
> get and stay sober.

And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody should
attend them?

>
> Just my 2c
>

It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.

[Markus]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .

> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...

> > on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts to
> > nothing more than governmental thought reform.

> But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who go to
> AA?

Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that insecure?

> >If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
> > dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
> > and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample

> Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting your first
> strike policy enforcement.

Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an inmate--where
urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you think before you type?

> > I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the simple
> > reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are necessary

> And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody should
> attend them?

It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The point being
that the government has no business being in the business of mandating
attendance for punitive reasons at that which attempts thought
reform--regardless of the method of so called "reform" (a subjective term in
and of itself).

> > Just my 2c

> It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.

The amount you spent on an education?

-Markus

[Moonraker]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>
> > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>
> > > on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts to
> > > nothing more than governmental thought reform.
>
> > But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who go to
> > AA?
>
> Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that insecure?

Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever possible,
denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to divert, deflect,
even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want to change everybody's mind
so that they would be in agreement with you (whatever that position might
be)? Do you deny an abject hatred of AA?

Insecure? You wish.


>
> > >If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
> > > dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
> > > and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
>
> > Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting your
first
> > strike policy enforcement.
>
> Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an inmate--where
> urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you think before you type?

Do you think before you propose another government program?
>
> > > I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the
simple
> > > reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are necessary
>
> > And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody should
> > attend them?
>
> It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The point
being
> that the government has no business being in the business of mandating
> attendance for punitive reasons at that which attempts thought
> reform--regardless of the method of so called "reform" (a subjective term
in
> and of itself).

Well, hell. I guess we might as well open the gates at the prisons then.
We sure wouldn't wanna infringe on any criminal's rights by forcing his
attendance in the cellblock for punitive reasons or to reform him.

>
> > > Just my 2c
>
> > It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.
>
> The amount you spent on an education?

I got more for my money than you did, apparently.

>
> -Markus
>
>
>
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>
> > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>
> > > on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts to
> > > nothing more than governmental thought reform.
>
> > But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who go to
> > AA?
>
> Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that insecure?

Think some of this thoughts could use some reforming about that?

[Virtualoso]

In article <d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The point being
> that the government has no business being in the business of mandating
> attendance for punitive reasons at that which attempts thought
> reform--regardless of the method of so called "reform" (a subjective term in
> and of itself).

Then any "rehabilitation" is equivalent to "thought reform." If it's
someone that demonstrably thought something leading to criminal acts,
then anyone influencing them in any other way would be "thought
reform," as well.

[Virtualoso]

In article <mki_a.4073$_3.2114@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> > "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
> >
> > > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> >
> > > > on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts to
> > > > nothing more than governmental thought reform.
> >
> > > But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who go to
> > > AA?
> >
> > Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that insecure?
>
> Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever possible,
> denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to divert, deflect,
> even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want to change everybody's mind
> so that they would be in agreement with you (whatever that position might
> be)? Do you deny an abject hatred of AA?
>
> Insecure? You wish.

As Marcus says, himself, he's "an enemy" concerned with "tactics."

[Gail]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mki_a.4073$_3.2114@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> > "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
> >
> > > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> >
> > > > on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what amounts
to
> > > > nothing more than governmental thought reform.
> >
> > > But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who go
to
> > > AA?
> >
> > Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that insecure?
>
> Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever
possible,
> denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to divert, deflect,
> even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want to change everybody's mind
> so that they would be in agreement with you (whatever that position might
> be)? Do you deny an abject hatred of AA?
>
> Insecure? You wish.
>
>
> >
> > > >If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
> > > > dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
> > > > and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
> >
> > > Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting your
> first
> > > strike policy enforcement.
> >
> > Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an inmate--where
> > urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you think before you
type?
>
> Do you think before you propose another government program?
> >
> > > > I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the
> simple
> > > > reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are necessary
> >
> > > And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody should
> > > attend them?
> >
> > It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The point
> being
> > that the government has no business being in the business of mandating
> > attendance for punitive reasons at that which attempts thought
> > reform--regardless of the method of so called "reform" (a subjective
term
> in
> > and of itself).
>
> Well, hell. I guess we might as well open the gates at the prisons then.
> We sure wouldn't wanna infringe on any criminal's rights by forcing his
> attendance in the cellblock for punitive reasons or to reform him.
>
> >
> > > > Just my 2c
> >
> > > It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.
> >
> > The amount you spent on an education?
>
> I got more for my money than you did, apparently.
>
> >
> > -Markus
> >


You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from, Markus. My
son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to attend AA. Just big
fines, court cost's, few days in jail and a 2 day program on how to drink
that cost quite a bit and losing his license each time. Only thing that I
can see is forced upon a person is the money has to be paid to the
government or else. Government does not care about you, me or the person
needing to be educated about drug or alcohol abuse.

I also volunteer at a women's prison where absolutely NONE of the women are
forced in any way to attend AA. So, I don't know where you are getting your
information.

Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the option
of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug program,
anger management or domestic violence for those convictions. It is their
choice and most take the latter to stay out of jail...;) Then, they must go
around telling everyone they were forced to go. The alcoholic, addict and
abuser thinking?

Best,
Gail

[Moonraker]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjjesknpjena33@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from, Markus.
My
> son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to attend AA. Just big
> fines, court cost's, few days in jail and a 2 day program on how to drink
> that cost quite a bit and losing his license each time. Only thing that I
> can see is forced upon a person is the money has to be paid to the
> government or else. Government does not care about you, me or the person
> needing to be educated about drug or alcohol abuse.
>
> I also volunteer at a women's prison where absolutely NONE of the women
are
> forced in any way to attend AA. So, I don't know where you are getting
your
> information.
>
> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the
option
> of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug program,
> anger management or domestic violence for those convictions. It is their
> choice and most take the latter to stay out of jail...;) Then, they must
go
> around telling everyone they were forced to go. The alcoholic, addict and
> abuser thinking?
>
> Best,
> Gail
>
>
It's not correct information, Gail, that Markus is spewing. Just more
ranting of hatred and misinformation. The fact that the courts are willing
to set up diversion programs for these offenders takes lots of pressure off
the prison systems.

[Kev]

Gail wrote:
> "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mki_a.4073$_3.2114@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>>
>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>>>
>>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>
>>>>> on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what
>>>>> amounts to nothing more than governmental thought reform.
>>>
>>>> But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who
>>>> go to AA?
>>>
>>> Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that insecure?
>>
>> Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever
>> possible, denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to
>> divert, deflect, even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want to
>> change everybody's mind so that they would be in agreement with you
>> (whatever that position might be)? Do you deny an abject hatred of
>> AA?
>>
>> Insecure? You wish.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
>>>>> dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
>>>>> and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
>>>
>>>> Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting
>>>> your first strike policy enforcement.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an
>>> inmate--where urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you
>>> think before you type?
>>
>> Do you think before you propose another government program?
>>>
>>>>> I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the
>>>>> simple reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are
>>>>> necessary
>>>
>>>> And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody
>>>> should attend them?
>>>
>>> It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The
>>> point being that the government has no business being in the
>>> business of mandating attendance for punitive reasons at that which
>>> attempts thought reform--regardless of the method of so called
>>> "reform" (a subjective term in and of itself).
>>
>> Well, hell. I guess we might as well open the gates at the prisons
>> then. We sure wouldn't wanna infringe on any criminal's rights by
>> forcing his attendance in the cellblock for punitive reasons or to
>> reform him.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Just my 2c
>>>
>>>> It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.
>>>
>>> The amount you spent on an education?
>>
>> I got more for my money than you did, apparently.
>>
>>>
>>> -Markus
>>>
>
>
> You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from,
> Markus. My son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to
> attend AA. Just big fines, court cost's, few days in jail and a 2 day
> program on how to drink that cost quite a bit and losing his license
> each time. Only thing that I can see is forced upon a person is the
> money has to be paid to the government or else. Government does not
> care about you, me or the person needing to be educated about drug or
> alcohol abuse.
>
> I also volunteer at a women's prison where absolutely NONE of the
> women are forced in any way to attend AA. So, I don't know where you
> are getting your information.
>
> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the
> option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug
> program, anger management or domestic violence for those convictions.
> It is their choice and most take the latter to stay out of jail...;)
> Then, they must go around telling everyone they were forced to go.
> The alcoholic, addict and abuser thinking?
>
> Best,
> Gail

I have a blue car therefore red cars do not exist, I just don't know where
your information comes from
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Gail]

Kev wrote:
> Gail wrote:
>> "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:mki_a.4073$_3.2114@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>>>
>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>>>>
>>>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>>
>>>>>> on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what
>>>>>> amounts to nothing more than governmental thought reform.
>>>>
>>>>> But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those who
>>>>> go to AA?
>>>>
>>>> Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that
>>>> insecure?
>>>
>>> Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever
>>> possible, denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to
>>> divert, deflect, even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want to
>>> change everybody's mind so that they would be in agreement with you
>>> (whatever that position might be)? Do you deny an abject hatred of
>>> AA?
>>>
>>> Insecure? You wish.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
>>>>>> dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
>>>>>> and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
>>>>
>>>>> Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting
>>>>> your first strike policy enforcement.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an
>>>> inmate--where urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you
>>>> think before you type?
>>>
>>> Do you think before you propose another government program?
>>>>
>>>>>> I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the
>>>>>> simple reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are
>>>>>> necessary
>>>>
>>>>> And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody
>>>>> should attend them?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The
>>>> point being that the government has no business being in the
>>>> business of mandating attendance for punitive reasons at that which
>>>> attempts thought reform--regardless of the method of so called
>>>> "reform" (a subjective term in and of itself).
>>>
>>> Well, hell. I guess we might as well open the gates at the prisons
>>> then. We sure wouldn't wanna infringe on any criminal's rights by
>>> forcing his attendance in the cellblock for punitive reasons or to
>>> reform him.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2c
>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.
>>>>
>>>> The amount you spent on an education?
>>>
>>> I got more for my money than you did, apparently.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Markus
>>>>
>>
>>
>> You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from,
>> Markus. My son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to
>> attend AA. Just big fines, court cost's, few days in jail and a 2 day
>> program on how to drink that cost quite a bit and losing his license
>> each time. Only thing that I can see is forced upon a person is the
>> money has to be paid to the government or else. Government does not
>> care about you, me or the person needing to be educated about drug or
>> alcohol abuse.
>>
>> I also volunteer at a women's prison where absolutely NONE of the
>> women are forced in any way to attend AA. So, I don't know where you
>> are getting your information.
>>
>> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the
>> option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug
>> program, anger management or domestic violence for those convictions.
>> It is their choice and most take the latter to stay out of jail...;)
>> Then, they must go around telling everyone they were forced to go.
>> The alcoholic, addict and abuser thinking?
>>
>> Best,
>> Gail
>
> I have a blue car therefore red cars do not exist, I just don't know
> where your information comes from

Mostly experience and dealing with people in Denial...;)

[Kev]

Gail wrote:
> Kev wrote:
>> Gail wrote:
>>> "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mki_a.4073$_3.2114@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>>> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what
>>>>>>> amounts to nothing more than governmental thought reform.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those
>>>>>> who go to AA?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that
>>>>> insecure?
>>>>
>>>> Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever
>>>> possible, denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to
>>>> divert, deflect, even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want to
>>>> change everybody's mind so that they would be in agreement with you
>>>> (whatever that position might be)? Do you deny an abject hatred of
>>>> AA?
>>>>
>>>> Insecure? You wish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
>>>>>>> dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
>>>>>>> and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting
>>>>>> your first strike policy enforcement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an
>>>>> inmate--where urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you
>>>>> think before you type?
>>>>
>>>> Do you think before you propose another government program?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for the
>>>>>>> simple reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings are
>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>
>>>>>> And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody
>>>>>> should attend them?
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The
>>>>> point being that the government has no business being in the
>>>>> business of mandating attendance for punitive reasons at that
>>>>> which attempts thought reform--regardless of the method of so
>>>>> called "reform" (a subjective term in and of itself).
>>>>
>>>> Well, hell. I guess we might as well open the gates at the prisons
>>>> then. We sure wouldn't wanna infringe on any criminal's rights by
>>>> forcing his attendance in the cellblock for punitive reasons or to
>>>> reform him.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just my 2c
>>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>> The amount you spent on an education?
>>>>
>>>> I got more for my money than you did, apparently.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Markus
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from,
>>> Markus. My son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to
>>> attend AA. Just big fines, court cost's, few days in jail and a 2
>>> day program on how to drink that cost quite a bit and losing his
>>> license each time. Only thing that I can see is forced upon a
>>> person is the money has to be paid to the government or else.
>>> Government does not care about you, me or the person needing to be
>>> educated about drug or alcohol abuse.
>>>
>>> I also volunteer at a women's prison where absolutely NONE of the
>>> women are forced in any way to attend AA. So, I don't know where you
>>> are getting your information.
>>>
>>> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has
>>> the option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol
>>> & drug program, anger management or domestic violence for those
>>> convictions. It is their choice and most take the latter to stay
>>> out of jail...;) Then, they must go around telling everyone they
>>> were forced to go. The alcoholic, addict and abuser thinking?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gail
>>
>> I have a blue car therefore red cars do not exist, I just don't know
>> where your information comes from
>
> Mostly experience and dealing with people in Denial.

Are you denying that AA signs court cards because it does not happen near
you? ..;)
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Gail]

Kev wrote:
> Gail wrote:
>> Kev wrote:
>>> Gail wrote:
>>>> "Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:mki_a.4073$_3.2114@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d%h_a.6686$Ih1.2056469@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>>>> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4Ug_a.5317$rh1.2499@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:yLg_a.6664$Ih1.2039975@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> on the other hand, I just can't bring myself to accept what
>>>>>>>> amounts to nothing more than governmental thought reform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's OK for you to attempt to reform the thoughts of those
>>>>>>> who go to AA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow. Is this how you interpret what I write? Are you that
>>>>>> insecure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you deny that your posts are anti-AA, bashing 12 steps whenever
>>>>> possible, denigrating those who do attend AA? Do you not want to
>>>>> divert, deflect, even destroy 12 step programs? Do you not want
>>>>> to change everybody's mind so that they would be in agreement
>>>>> with you (whatever that position might be)? Do you deny an
>>>>> abject hatred of AA?
>>>>>
>>>>> Insecure? You wish.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the government wants to adopt a first strike policy that
>>>>>>>> dictates a person will not drink or drug for whatever period
>>>>>>>> and must be monitored via urinalysis or blood sample
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless, of course, the taxpayers get burdened with supporting
>>>>>>> your first strike policy enforcement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm. The cost of urinalysis vs. the cost of housing an
>>>>>> inmate--where urinalysis will occur on a schedule anyway. Do you
>>>>>> think before you type?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think before you propose another government program?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also dislike the idea of forced attendance to meetings for
>>>>>>>> the simple reason that I do not accept the idea that meetings
>>>>>>>> are necessary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And because "you" don't think they are necessary, ergo, nobody
>>>>>>> should attend them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't a question of should or should not for an anybody. The
>>>>>> point being that the government has no business being in the
>>>>>> business of mandating attendance for punitive reasons at that
>>>>>> which attempts thought reform--regardless of the method of so
>>>>>> called "reform" (a subjective term in and of itself).
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, hell. I guess we might as well open the gates at the
>>>>> prisons then. We sure wouldn't wanna infringe on any criminal's
>>>>> rights by forcing his attendance in the cellblock for punitive
>>>>> reasons or to reform him.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just my 2c
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't worth that much. Here's two-bits, go buy a clue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The amount you spent on an education?
>>>>>
>>>>> I got more for my money than you did, apparently.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Markus
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from,
>>>> Markus. My son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to
>>>> attend AA. Just big fines, court cost's, few days in jail and a 2
>>>> day program on how to drink that cost quite a bit and losing his
>>>> license each time. Only thing that I can see is forced upon a
>>>> person is the money has to be paid to the government or else.
>>>> Government does not care about you, me or the person needing to be
>>>> educated about drug or alcohol abuse.
>>>>
>>>> I also volunteer at a women's prison where absolutely NONE of the
>>>> women are forced in any way to attend AA. So, I don't know where
>>>> you are getting your information.
>>>>
>>>> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has
>>>> the option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol
>>>> & drug program, anger management or domestic violence for those
>>>> convictions. It is their choice and most take the latter to stay
>>>> out of jail...;) Then, they must go around telling everyone they
>>>> were forced to go. The alcoholic, addict and abuser thinking?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Gail
>>>
>>> I have a blue car therefore red cars do not exist, I just don't know
>>> where your information comes from
>>
>> Mostly experience and dealing with people in Denial.
>
> Are you denying that AA signs court cards because it does not happen
> near you? ..;)

Not at all. I know people come in and have some kind of sheet signed. It is
their choice in whether the offender chooses to go to a meeting, or serve
the time for the crime. Just my opinion. Always looking for and easier,
softer way, then can't even follow through on that...LOL Forced? I don't
think so...;)

[Kev]

Gail wrote:
>
> Not at all. I know people come in and have some kind of sheet signed.
> It is their choice in whether the offender chooses to go to a
> meeting, or serve the time for the crime. Just my opinion. Always
> looking for and easier, softer way, then can't even follow through on
> that...LOL Forced? I don't think so...;)

Ah, so you're just a coercion denier then! The stuff about your son and the
women's prison was just a smoke screen.
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Gail]

Kev wrote:
> Gail wrote:
>>
>> Not at all. I know people come in and have some kind of sheet signed.
>> It is their choice in whether the offender chooses to go to a
>> meeting, or serve the time for the crime. Just my opinion. Always
>> looking for and easier, softer way, then can't even follow through on
>> that...LOL Forced? I don't think so...;)
>
> Ah, so you're just a coercion denier then! The stuff about your son
> and the women's prison was just a smoke screen.

I have absolutely no control over what you think. Will not argue with you,
Kev. Is my opinion and that is all. You have one, too. Just like we both
have an ass hole or do you dispute that? On the facts presented by you in
this forum, I would say that your ass hole is bigger than mine. ;)

[Moonraker]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjk4ppkaen9re9@corp.supernews.com...
> > I have absolutely no control over what you think. Will not argue with
you,
> Kev. Is my opinion and that is all. You have one, too. Just like we both
> have an ass hole or do you dispute that?

As full of shit as he appears to be, his may be missing......

[Joe]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:07:21 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com>
wrote:

>
>As Marcus says, himself, he's "an enemy" concerned with "tactics."


Hey Genius, first of all, it's Markus with a "K." Second and third, I
was the one who used the words "enemy" and "tactics" in another post
that had nothing to do with this. Get your shit together Virt.

Joe Milon

[rita]

"Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8e728989.0308111524.2bdca393@posting.google.c om...
> Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:<100820030912400871%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> > In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
> > <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I too believed that I could not control my addiction
> > > utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was
mistaken
> > > to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my own
that
> > > I also couldn't be taught how to.
> >
> > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
> > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> > relatively okay with the latter.
>
> What research? Please be specific. Where was it
> published, and when? Authors? Title?
>
------------------------

A better question: How does one prove that involvement with 12-step
programs and specifically 12-step programs is what causes people to do
"substantially better"??

I categorically rejected EVERYTHING that was presented in my 12-step
"treatment" and my coerced AA involvement. Yet when over 200 body fluid
tests proved I was remaining drug/alcohol free as required, I was listed as
a "treatment success". And the EAP goons insisted that it was AA and
"treatment" that "caused" my success. What rubbish.

~Rita

[rita]

"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9H8_a.1233$VG.93897@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hi Markus,
>
> I'm seeking some info from what you wrote below for myself, and it's not
> really AA or non-AA related. You mention LSR (never heard of it before,
> don't know about it yet, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out) and
in
> particular, that it's a negative that they sign court slips. I've heard
of
> courts requiring proof that someone is getting help before, but I don't
> understand how or why it's a negative for them to sign the slips?
> I'd have
> thought, of the top of my head, that it would be a help to the person who
is
> required to get the signature but I'm interested in how it could be a
> negative.
>
-----------------------

I'm not Markus, but I'll give you my viewpoint on this.

Recovery support groups, and other support groups and "fellowships",
are private "clubs" if you will, and in fact refer to themselves as
"voluntary gatherings" or something similar.

Courts, probation departments, and other suich government agencies can
and do impose various orders on persons who have broken the law. One such
order may be to attend a class or some group sessions of some type. Run by
the government or someone clearly understanding that they are operating for
the government, this is perfectly acceptable.

It is NOT acceptable, however, for the government to order someone to
join or attend a private club as a condition of probation. And it is
dishonest for an organization which touts itself as voluntary and not
affiliated with anything, to be acting as an arm of the government, behaving
in the role of a government-set-up class or group for probationers, and
snitching on people who do not attend. BTW in some instances the slips to
be signed also include naming the "sponsor", and even a statement by the
signer as to whether the coercee is "working the steps". Not to mention
that the coercers -- the P.O.'s and other government employees -- frequently
quiz the coercees as to their level of belief in and "acceptance" of the
"recovery" ideology of the group they have been mandated to.

In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has been
consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it is
unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the government to
require attendance or involvement, because of the religiosity of 12-step
philosophy. So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the government
people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying the "no
affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals, but are
"cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States Consititution
(and human rights statutes in countries other than America).

It has been ruled in the courts that there is no Constitutional
violation in government-mandated LSR, SOS, SMART, or other secular recovery
groups, since they aren't religious as AA/NA are. However, on an ethical
level (for the reasons I elucidated above), it is just as wrong for LSR
convenors to "cooperate" with the government by reporting on people's
attendance, as it is for AA chairs to do so.

When I was unconstotutionally mandated to attend AA, there were some
meetings I attended where over half the attendees were coercees. Many of
them listened to Walkmans or read the paper until the meeting was over and
they could get their slips signed. Some were actually chattering amongst
themselves. It occurred to me that a newcomer who really WANTED to pursue
recovery the AA way, would not have perceived themselves to be among others
of like mind in those rooms. How farcical at such meetings for the speaker
to drone on about "if you want what we have..." It would be no different if
LSR or SMART meetings became majority-coercee.

If chairpersons of whatever type of meeting refuse to sign slips --
even better, if they write letters to the government agencies specifically
STATING that they will not violate the traditions and ideals of their
organizations by reporting attendance to the government -- the coercion will
stop, and recovery groups will once again be voluntarily attended only by
people who WANT what they have to offer.

The government can require abstinence as a term of probation (and
mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person achieves
abstinence should be totally up to them. And please keep in mind that the
majority of people who discontinue an unhealthy drinking/drugging behavior
do so WITHOUT any "recovery" groups. Surely you can see that it is not
"helping" a person -- it is outrageous, actually -- for them to get an
unsatisfactory probation report for being perfectly sober and law-abiding,
but not attending recovery meetings that they do not find the least bit
necessary or helpful in their reformation.

It's the classic question: do you want to be part of the problem, or
part of the solution?

~Rita

p.s. here is a better link for LSR:

http://www.unhooked.com

and for SMART:

http://www.smartrecovery.org

[Virtualoso]

In article <vjjl5adtjok85c@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has
> >> the option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol &
> >> drug program, anger management or domestic violence for those
> >> convictions. It is their choice and most take the latter to stay out
> >> of jail...;) Then, they must go around telling everyone they were
> >> forced to go. The alcoholic, addict and abuser thinking?

> > So, how's the success rate of those programs, in terms of repeat
> > offenders?

> This MRT is the only program that I know anything about. I am sure there are
> others. I went through it volunteerly, not as an inmate.... [snip]
> d.. MRT® has shown to reduce the recidivism rate of offenders from 30%-50%
> after 10 years of release.

As is often the case, it's useful to delve a bit of detail in such
things, especially the math and numbers presented. Apparently, that
would be 50% of the "expected recidivism" rather than 50% of the entire
population of offenders that have undergone MRT. MRT is credited with a
23% "decline" in "expected recidivism rate," which still doesn't
actually give us a percentage of the number of actual people undergoing
it that were successful. However, it obviously would be a yet smaller
percentage of the whole.

And I noted that the higher figure of 50% pertained to "about half" of
only those that were initially successful (at one year), rather than
half of all attended, being "indicated" to still succeeding at 10
years, although the actual data and research has been somewhat sketchy.

The studies were conducted with people that were incarcerated and that
underwent the programs while incarcerated. Know of any similar research
for people that underwent this instead of incarceration (such as
yourself) and how that's fared?

--------------------------------
Excerpted from: Meta-analysis of MRT recidivism research on
post-incarceration adult felony offenders.
Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review , 10 (3/4), 4-6
Little, G. L. (2001)

Results from the present report indicate that MRT treatment of adult
offenders during their incarceration leads to significantly reduced
recidivism for the one-year time period after release. In general, MRT
treatment leads to a 23% decline in expected recidivism during that
time frame. However, this reduction is substantial and significant
since the expected rates of recidivism are 30-50% during that period.

Thus, it can be stated that MRT cuts the expected one-year recidi-
vism rate in half or substantially more. One of the most serious
drawbacks of recidivism research is the timeframe typically employed in
collecting data. It is not uncommon in criminal justice literature to
have 3-month recidivism rates from programs compared to 5-year re-
cidivism data from another. In addition, few researchers have continued
to follow treated groups for extended timeframes following treatment.
MRT providers and researchers have provided several studies of 5-year
recidivism data as well as 10-year data (Little, 2000). The results
indicate that lower recidivism rates persist to at least the 10-year
period

[Kev]

Gail wrote:
> Kev wrote:
>> Gail wrote:
>>> Kev wrote:
>>>> Gail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. I know people come in and have some kind of sheet
>>>>> signed. It is their choice in whether the offender chooses to go
>>>>> to
>>>>> a
>>>>> meeting, or serve the time for the crime. Just my opinion. Always
>>>>> looking for and easier, softer way, then can't even follow through
>>>>> on that...LOL Forced? I don't think so...;)
>>>>
>>>> Ah, so you're just a coercion denier then! The stuff about your son
>>>> and the women's prison was just a smoke screen.
>>>
>>> I have absolutely no control over what you think. Will not argue
>>> with you, Kev. Is my opinion and that is all. You have one, too.
>>> Just like
>>> we both have an ass hole or do you dispute that? On the facts
>>> presented by you in this forum, I would say that your ass hole is
>>> bigger than mine. ;)
>>
>> Down to the personal insult now. Well done ;)
>
> Well THANK YOU, Kev. That means a lot coming from you. :) Did you
> actually think that I wouldn't insult you, too? TSK TSK TSK
> You did imply that I was a lier?

When was that?
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[ByTor]

In article <j8r_a.4602$kq.1057175@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita66@webtv.net
says...

> I'm not Markus, but I'll give you my viewpoint on this.
>
> Recovery support groups, and other support groups and "fellowships",
> are private "clubs" if you will, and in fact refer to themselves as
> "voluntary gatherings" or something similar.

Hear, hear!

>
> Courts, probation departments, and other such government agencies can
> and do impose various orders on persons who have broken the law. One such
> order may be to attend a class or some group sessions of some type. Run by
> the government or someone clearly understanding that they are operating for
> the government, this is perfectly acceptable.
>
> It is NOT acceptable, however, for the government to order someone to
> join or attend a private club as a condition of probation. And it is
> dishonest for an organization which touts itself as voluntary and not
> affiliated with anything, to be acting as an arm of the government, behaving
> in the role of a government-set-up class or group for probationers, and
> snitching on people who do not attend. BTW in some instances the slips to
> be signed also include naming the "sponsor", and even a statement by the
> signer as to whether the coercee is "working the steps". Not to mention
> that the coercers -- the P.O.'s and other government employees -- frequently
> quiz the coercees as to their level of belief in and "acceptance" of the
> "recovery" ideology of the group they have been mandated to.

Exactly! Hear, Hear!

>
> In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has been
> consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it is
> unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the government to
> require attendance or involvement, because of the religiosity of 12-step
> philosophy. So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
> government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the government
> people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying the "no
> affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals, but are
> "cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States Consititution
> (and human rights statutes in countries other than America).

Hear, hear......Excellent, excellent...Most agreeable! It is obvious
from the very beginning that the Court/Penal Systems had very little
understanding of the traditions and "IMPOSED" their will and coercivness
on AA as a whole. That was a hell of an assumption on their part. I had
refused to sign those slips in keeping with the traditions.

>
> It has been ruled in the courts that there is no Constitutional
> violation in government-mandated LSR, SOS, SMART, or other secular recovery
> groups, since they aren't religious as AA/NA are. However, on an ethical
> level (for the reasons I elucidated above), it is just as wrong for LSR
> convenors to "cooperate" with the government by reporting on people's
> attendance, as it is for AA chairs to do so.
>
> When I was unconstotutionally mandated to attend AA, there were some
> meetings I attended where over half the attendees were coercees. Many of
> them listened to Walkmans or read the paper until the meeting was over and
> they could get their slips signed. Some were actually chattering amongst
> themselves. It occurred to me that a newcomer who really WANTED to pursue
> recovery the AA way, would not have perceived themselves to be among others
> of like mind in those rooms. How farcical at such meetings for the speaker
> to drone on about "if you want what we have..." It would be no different if
> LSR or SMART meetings became majority-coercee.
>
> If chairpersons of whatever type of meeting refuse to sign slips --
> even better, if they write letters to the government agencies specifically
> STATING that they will not violate the traditions and ideals of their
> organizations by reporting attendance to the government -- the coercion will
> stop, and recovery groups will once again be voluntarily attended only by
> people who WANT what they have to offer.

Hear, hear....Amen to that!

>
> The government can require abstinence as a term of probation (and
> mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person achieves
> abstinence should be totally up to them. And please keep in mind that the
> majority of people who discontinue an unhealthy drinking/drugging behavior
> do so WITHOUT any "recovery" groups. Surely you can see that it is not
> "helping" a person -- it is outrageous, actually -- for them to get an
> unsatisfactory probation report for being perfectly sober and law-abiding,
> but not attending recovery meetings that they do not find the least bit
> necessary or helpful in their reformation.
>
> It's the classic question: do you want to be part of the problem, or
> part of the solution?
>
> ~Rita
>
> p.s. here is a better link for LSR:
>
> http://www.unhooked.com
>
> and for SMART:
>
> http://www.smartrecovery.org


Your Honor, I rest my case!!!

WOW! Well said, well said, and summarized.....<applause, applause> ;0)

[Gail]

Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <vjjl5adtjok85c@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
> <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has
>>>> the option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol
>>>> & drug program, anger management or domestic violence for those
>>>> convictions. It is their choice and most take the latter to stay
>>>> out
>>>> of jail...;) Then, they must go around telling everyone they were
>>>> forced to go. The alcoholic, addict and abuser thinking?
>
>>> So, how's the success rate of those programs, in terms of repeat
>>> offenders?
>
>> This MRT is the only program that I know anything about. I am sure
>> there are others. I went through it volunteerly, not as an
>> inmate.... [snip] d.. MRT® has shown to reduce the recidivism rate
>> of offenders from 30%-50% after 10 years of release.
>
> As is often the case, it's useful to delve a bit of detail in such
> things, especially the math and numbers presented. Apparently, that
> would be 50% of the "expected recidivism" rather than 50% of the
> entire population of offenders that have undergone MRT. MRT is
> credited with a 23% "decline" in "expected recidivism rate," which
> still doesn't
> actually give us a percentage of the number of actual people
> undergoing
> it that were successful. However, it obviously would be a yet smaller
> percentage of the whole.
>
> And I noted that the higher figure of 50% pertained to "about half" of
> only those that were initially successful (at one year), rather than
> half of all attended, being "indicated" to still succeeding at 10
> years, although the actual data and research has been somewhat
> sketchy.
>
> The studies were conducted with people that were incarcerated and that
> underwent the programs while incarcerated. Know of any similar
> research
> for people that underwent this instead of incarceration (such as
> yourself) and how that's fared?

Unfortunately, I don't keep in contact with the people that were in my group
that I attended or the people that I facilitated.

For me, I went through MRT in 99, same time I was getting sober this last
time. I learned and then accepted that I was manipulative, self-centered,
self-serving, egotistical, dishonest, disloyal, and a few (lots of) other
things. I know now that by working the steps that I would probably find out
those same things about myself. I just couldn't grasp what different people
were telling me in the meetings of AA. Conflicting suggestios? In MRT, I had
a workbook, a facilitator and everyone got the same suggestions on how to do
the workbook. I haven't had a drink since May 31, 1999, church and getting
my way isn't what is going to make me happy. Recognizing that I had all
these defects, realizing that my belief systems were screwwed up all to
hell, and being willing to change has helped me to stay sober. I may just be
one of a few who has stayed sober, of those who went through the program on
the outside.
I do know that a lot of the inmates who go through the MRT do come back to
prison, some just months after released. But, I guess that happens with all
alcohol or drug program attendees, even in AA.
I really can't give statistics, how and why's. I just know that MRT worked
for me. It did help me to understand what was being said in the book of
Alcoholic's Anonymous, too.
Best,
Gail

>
> --------------------------------
> Excerpted from: Meta-analysis of MRT recidivism research on
> post-incarceration adult felony offenders.
> Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review , 10 (3/4), 4-6
> Little, G. L. (2001)
>
> Results from the present report indicate that MRT treatment of adult
> offenders during their incarceration leads to significantly reduced
> recidivism for the one-year time period after release. In general, MRT
> treatment leads to a 23% decline in expected recidivism during that
> time frame. However, this reduction is substantial and significant
> since the expected rates of recidivism are 30-50% during that period.
>
> Thus, it can be stated that MRT cuts the expected one-year recidi-
> vism rate in half or substantially more. One of the most serious
> drawbacks of recidivism research is the timeframe typically employed
> in collecting data. It is not uncommon in criminal justice literature
> to
> have 3-month recidivism rates from programs compared to 5-year re-
> cidivism data from another. In addition, few researchers have
> continued
> to follow treated groups for extended timeframes following treatment.
> MRT providers and researchers have provided several studies of 5-year
> recidivism data as well as 10-year data (Little, 2000). The results
> indicate that lower recidivism rates persist to at least the 10-year
> period

[Markus]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjk4ppkaen9re9@corp.supernews.com...

> I have absolutely no control over what you think. Will not argue with you,
> Kev. Is my opinion and that is all. You have one, too. Just like we both
> have an ass hole or do you dispute that? On the facts presented by you in
> this forum, I would say that your ass hole is bigger than mine. ;)

Ahhh. Your opinion is just an opinion and equates to a teeny butthole. But
anyone who has an opinion in opposition to yours and .......

Your in good company with virt and that punk moonraker.

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Markus]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vjjesknpjena33@corp.supernews.com...

> You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from, Markus.

What information? The fact that I simply opined on the merits of government
mandating recovery?

> My son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to attend AA.

Ahhh. I see, the "information" you question is the mandating itself. First
of all, please understand I don't support a mandate to any form of recovery,
meaning I'm not limiting it to just AA. Second, I am pleased that your area
cannot force someone to AA, as that means the activism over the years has
paid off. Third, if you think it still doesn't happen in areas outside of
yours, then your the one in denial and may be in need of working with
yourself (working with those in denial is your self proclaimed specialty
isn't it?).

> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the
option
> of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug program,

Ahhh yes, "...the option of...". Figures you would accept those two, and
only two choices as "options."

Plain to see why your an expert in the subject of denial.

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Markus]

"Bobby L." <BobbyL2000nospam@bell$outh.net> wrote in message
news:Hds_a.7128$_3.3699@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...

> I do not remember saying that but perhaps you have made an important
point.
> The other is that AA is not tied to a pre-defined "higher power" or
> consciousness nor tied to any traditional dogma.

So if a couple gets married in a non-denominational church it isn't regarded
as "Holy Matrimony"?

-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:25:38 GMT, "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Second, I am pleased that your area
>cannot force someone to AA, as that means the activism over the years has
>paid off.

LOL what a leap of logic THAT is!

>> Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the
>>option of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug program,
>
>Ahhh yes, "...the option of...". Figures you would accept those two, and
>only two choices as "options."

I'd suggest removing the option of drug & alcohol program, and send
'em to jail. AA wasn't created to save governments money, though I'm
not sure about other organisations. However, if they want to keep
alkies off the streets after they get released from jail, they can
improve the capability for AA etc. to get into the prisons to hold
meetings for those who want it.

Gail's experience is relevant, however, in that the practices you are
discussing are not, and never have been, as widespread as you seem to
want everyone to believe.

[Moonraker]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:acaf0428acc6b062efbf4cb8bd8ffd13@free.teranew s.com...
> Gail's experience is relevant, however, in that the practices you are
> discussing are not, and never have been, as widespread as you seem to
> want everyone to believe.

Exactly. In most of the cases I know about personally, the drunk's lawyer
got them started in AA before they ever saw the judge. Thinking was ,
"look, yer honor, I'm doing something about my problem. You don't have to
whup me no more. I be good!" So, the court merely holds the drunk to his
promise that he undertook voluntarily.

The fact that he may come to an AA meeting and bitch because the judge is
enforcing the drunk's own commitment doesn't give rise to the claim of
coersion.
>

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:58:09 GMT, "staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com>
wrote:

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

Isn't that precisely the conduct that you yourself consistently
portray?

--

Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:11:21 +0100, "catsruleok"
<catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>Oh, and there's another reason. It's not that I'm afraid to take you on. It's that I want to try
>to restore peace to alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism.

That's not in your power to do. But the furthest you can go towards
ridding a group of Trolls is to quit feeding them, even with "I don't
want to feed you" food.

--

Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:48:19 -0500, "Gail"
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction, so
>I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA.

They use the same program, though change the first and last Steps.
However, sometimes their Traditions seem to have a different meaning
to AA's Traditions. As such, they specifically become other than AA.

--

Blue Moon

[Gail]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gws_a.6753$Ih1.2157830@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjk4ppkaen9re9@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > I have absolutely no control over what you think. Will not argue with
you,
> > Kev. Is my opinion and that is all. You have one, too. Just like we both
> > have an ass hole or do you dispute that? On the facts presented by you
in
> > this forum, I would say that your ass hole is bigger than mine. ;)
>
> Ahhh. Your opinion is just an opinion and equates to a teeny butthole.
But
> anyone who has an opinion in opposition to yours and .......

Who is in opposition here, Markus? Oppositon is the refusal to change. I
have changed my opinion and thinking on many things.
Once I moved past that opposition, I began to recover. Wishing you the same.

>
> Your in good company with virt and that punk moonraker.
>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
>
>

[Gail]

"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SLs_a.6757$Ih1.2161085@newssrv26.news.prodigy .com...
> "Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vjjesknpjena33@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > You know, I don't know where all this information is coming from,
Markus.
>
> What information? The fact that I simply opined on the merits of
government
> mandating recovery?
>
> > My son has had three DUI's and has never been forced to attend AA.
>
> Ahhh. I see, the "information" you question is the mandating itself.
First
> of all, please understand I don't support a mandate to any form of
recovery,
> meaning I'm not limiting it to just AA. Second, I am pleased that your
area
> cannot force someone to AA, as that means the activism over the years has
> paid off. Third, if you think it still doesn't happen in areas outside of
> yours, then your the one in denial and may be in need of working with
> yourself (working with those in denial is your self proclaimed specialty
> isn't it?).
>
> > Here, if an alcoholic, druggie or abuser is convicted, he/she has the
> option
> > of doing the time for the crime or attending an alcohol & drug program,
>
> Ahhh yes, "...the option of...". Figures you would accept those two, and
> only two choices as "options."
>
> Plain to see why your an expert in the subject of denial.
>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
>
>

Thank you, Markus. My first big laugh of the day. I just love a good joke.
;)

[catsruleok]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c80284d3224a79ce91c1b3f3281d9a68@free.teranew s.com...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:11:21 +0100, "catsruleok"
> <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and there's another reason. It's not that I'm afraid to take you on. It's that I want to
try
> >to restore peace to alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism.
>
> That's not in your power to do. But the furthest you can go towards
> ridding a group of Trolls is to quit feeding them, even with "I don't
> want to feed you" food.
>
> --
>
> Blue Moon

That's good advice.

JB

[Virtualoso]

In article <XTs_a.6759$Ih1.2162766@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Bobby L." <BobbyL2000nospam@bell$outh.net> wrote in message
> news:Hds_a.7128$_3.3699@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > I do not remember saying that but perhaps you have made an important
> point.
> > The other is that AA is not tied to a pre-defined "higher power" or
> > consciousness nor tied to any traditional dogma.
>
> So if a couple gets married in a non-denominational church it isn't regarded
> as "Holy Matrimony"?

Depends upon whom you ask.

[Virtualoso]

In article <SLs_a.6757$Ih1.2161085@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> ... that means the activism over the years has
> paid off.

"The activism" LOL. Love it.

Fact is, the selling of things like the trademarked MRT program has had
nothing to do with any "activism" -- that is, besides the commercial
activity of promoting and selling that into various public
institutions.

[Virtualoso]

In article <754bbb0623daa2a3987c5c11ccdbb89a@free.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:48:19 -0500, "Gail"
> <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok. I understand that. JB did not specify which 12 program or addiction, so
> >I assumed each 12 program copied the program of AA.
>
> They use the same program, though change the first and last Steps.
> However, sometimes their Traditions seem to have a different meaning
> to AA's Traditions. As such, they specifically become other than AA.

They also produce and refer to various published descriptions of their
premise and program, generally with substantive differences from what's
found in AA ,too.

[Jay]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bhclg9$1095as$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Jay wrote:
> > "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bhbq8a$10i1be$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> Bobby L. wrote:
> >>> "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:bhbpk7$102lfi$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>>> Jay wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you check my email address, you'll see I'm Canadian, so state
> >>>>> court and circuit court rulings really mean little to me. Up
> >>>>> here,
> >>>>> I haven't as yet heard of a court ruling that the courts can or
> >>>>> cannot mandate participation in AA, but I do believe that they
> >>>>> require only that one "seeks help" and then may choose AA or some
> >>>>> other means. Personally, I don't think it's worth much to require
> >>>>> someone to
> >>>>> attend a self-help group - if they're not there willingly, and
> >>>>> really wanting the help offered, they probably won't be successful
> >>>>> beyond
> >>>>> the period during which they're required to attend, if even then.
> >>>>> I'm not at all sure, but again, you didn't address the question of
> >>>>> to which denomination it is tied... I'll save you the trouble,
> >>>>> it's not tied to any denomination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thats like saying Catholicism is not a religion because it is not
> >>>> tied to any other denomination. AA has its own set of religious
> >>>> beliefs called the 12 steps
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Kev
> >>>> Brighton UK
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Just a football has its own set of religious beliefs? Hell, by your
> >>> analogy almost anything could be labeled a religion.
> >>>
> >>> E.g. The dogma of football..
> >>>
> >>> If you don't shoot you can't score.
> >>>
> >>> Strikers should shoot
> >>>
> >>> Backs should defend
> >>>
> >>> Only the goalie may touch the ball with his hand.
> >>>
> >>> If the game is in the UK, drunks and violence are required and the
> >>> game does not count unless at least 10 spectators are taken to
> >>> hospital.
> >>>
> >>> Bobby L
> >>
> >> Do any of your so called "religious beliefs" from football require
> >> God? No thought not. If you're going to make an analogy please make
> >> it something close otherwise its nonsense
> >> --
> >> Kev
> >> Brighton UK
> >>
> > Well, in hockey, you get about 20,000 people sitting around a rink,
> > watching guys skating across it, and all of them are praying for the
> > same outcome. It's very close to a religious event. And no, I'm not
> > taking your 12 step religious beliefs seriously.
>
> I take it you have given up on the idea of saying that AA is not religious
> becaise it is not tied to another denomination
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
I see AA as something that can work whether you're religious or not. I
don't recognize it as a religion however, as it is vastly different than the
religion of which I am also a member. I think at this point, we just have
to accept we're not going to agree and move on.

[Jay]

"rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:j8r_a.4601$kq.1056954@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Agent_Orange" <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:8e728989.0308111524.2bdca393@posting.google.c om...
> > Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:<100820030912400871%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> > > In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
> > > <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I too believed that I could not control my addiction
> > > > utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was
> mistaken
> > > > to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my
own
> that
> > > > I also couldn't be taught how to.
> > >
> > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
> > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> > > relatively okay with the latter.
> >
> > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
> > published, and when? Authors? Title?
> >
> ------------------------
>
> A better question: How does one prove that involvement with 12-step
> programs and specifically 12-step programs is what causes people to do
> "substantially better"??
>
> I categorically rejected EVERYTHING that was presented in my 12-step
> "treatment" and my coerced AA involvement. Yet when over 200 body fluid
> tests proved I was remaining drug/alcohol free as required, I was listed
as
> a "treatment success". And the EAP goons insisted that it was AA and
> "treatment" that "caused" my success. What rubbish.
>
> ~Rita
>
Hi Rita,

I'm not sure who the EAP goons are, but I'm getting the impression that
they're social workers of some sort. Nuff said about them. I'm wondering,
did anyone in AA ever claim to you that AA was the reason that you were
successful? Genuine question - not a dig or jab or anything like that.

[Jay]

Thanks for explaining below, Rita, I appreciate having your views on it.

"rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:j8r_a.4602$kq.1057175@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:9H8_a.1233$VG.93897@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > I'm seeking some info from what you wrote below for myself, and it's not
> > really AA or non-AA related. You mention LSR (never heard of it before,
> > don't know about it yet, but thanks for the link, I'll check it out) and
> in
> > particular, that it's a negative that they sign court slips. I've heard
> of
> > courts requiring proof that someone is getting help before, but I don't
> > understand how or why it's a negative for them to sign the slips?
> > I'd have
> > thought, of the top of my head, that it would be a help to the person
who
> is
> > required to get the signature but I'm interested in how it could be a
> > negative.
> >
> -----------------------
>
> I'm not Markus, but I'll give you my viewpoint on this.
>
> Recovery support groups, and other support groups and "fellowships",
> are private "clubs" if you will, and in fact refer to themselves as
> "voluntary gatherings" or something similar.
>
> Courts, probation departments, and other suich government agencies
can
> and do impose various orders on persons who have broken the law. One such
> order may be to attend a class or some group sessions of some type. Run
by
> the government or someone clearly understanding that they are operating
for
> the government, this is perfectly acceptable.
>
> It is NOT acceptable, however, for the government to order someone to
> join or attend a private club as a condition of probation. And it is
> dishonest for an organization which touts itself as voluntary and not
> affiliated with anything, to be acting as an arm of the government,
behaving
> in the role of a government-set-up class or group for probationers, and
> snitching on people who do not attend. BTW in some instances the slips to
> be signed also include naming the "sponsor", and even a statement by the
> signer as to whether the coercee is "working the steps". Not to mention
> that the coercers -- the P.O.'s and other government employees --
frequently
> quiz the coercees as to their level of belief in and "acceptance" of the
> "recovery" ideology of the group they have been mandated to.
>
> In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has been
> consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it is
> unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the government to
> require attendance or involvement, because of the religiosity of 12-step
> philosophy. So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
> government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the
government
> people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying the "no
> affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals, but are
> "cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States
Consititution
> (and human rights statutes in countries other than America).
>
> It has been ruled in the courts that there is no Constitutional
> violation in government-mandated LSR, SOS, SMART, or other secular
recovery
> groups, since they aren't religious as AA/NA are. However, on an ethical
> level (for the reasons I elucidated above), it is just as wrong for LSR
> convenors to "cooperate" with the government by reporting on people's
> attendance, as it is for AA chairs to do so.
>
> When I was unconstotutionally mandated to attend AA, there were some
> meetings I attended where over half the attendees were coercees. Many of
> them listened to Walkmans or read the paper until the meeting was over and
> they could get their slips signed. Some were actually chattering amongst
> themselves. It occurred to me that a newcomer who really WANTED to pursue
> recovery the AA way, would not have perceived themselves to be among
others
> of like mind in those rooms. How farcical at such meetings for the
speaker
> to drone on about "if you want what we have..." It would be no different
if
> LSR or SMART meetings became majority-coercee.
>
> If chairpersons of whatever type of meeting refuse to sign slips --
> even better, if they write letters to the government agencies specifically
> STATING that they will not violate the traditions and ideals of their
> organizations by reporting attendance to the government -- the coercion
will
> stop, and recovery groups will once again be voluntarily attended only by
> people who WANT what they have to offer.
>
> The government can require abstinence as a term of probation (and
> mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person achieves
> abstinence should be totally up to them. And please keep in mind that the
> majority of people who discontinue an unhealthy drinking/drugging behavior
> do so WITHOUT any "recovery" groups. Surely you can see that it is not
> "helping" a person -- it is outrageous, actually -- for them to get an
> unsatisfactory probation report for being perfectly sober and law-abiding,
> but not attending recovery meetings that they do not find the least bit
> necessary or helpful in their reformation.
>
> It's the classic question: do you want to be part of the problem, or
> part of the solution?
>
> ~Rita
>
> p.s. here is a better link for LSR:
>
> http://www.unhooked.com
>
> and for SMART:
>
> http://www.smartrecovery.org
>
>
>
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <VaD_a.9040$VG.356954@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
<jay@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
> > > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> > > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> > > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> > > > relatively okay with the latter.
> > >
> > > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
> > > published, and when? Authors? Title?
> > >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > A better question: How does one prove that involvement with 12-step
> > programs and specifically 12-step programs is what causes people to do
> > "substantially better"??
> >
> > I categorically rejected EVERYTHING that was presented in my 12-step
> > "treatment" and my coerced AA involvement. Yet when over 200 body fluid
> > tests proved I was remaining drug/alcohol free as required, I was listed
> as
> > a "treatment success". And the EAP goons insisted that it was AA and
> > "treatment" that "caused" my success. What rubbish.

> I'm not sure who the EAP goons are, but I'm getting the impression that
> they're social workers of some sort. Nuff said about them. I'm wondering,
> did anyone in AA ever claim to you that AA was the reason that you were
> successful? Genuine question - not a dig or jab or anything like that.

As Rita has told it here over time, she elected to attend AA at first,
and withhout objection, as it suited her personal convenience best at
the time, and only objected some time later. What seems apparent is
that she may have not passed a random drug/alcohol test in the first
place, with a job in public transportation that may have seriously
prohibited that for very good reasons and with specific policies and
procedures regarding that already in place, accordingly.

Any number of people may well correct their drug/alcohol use during
work hours, in any number of "ways", yet some of those that aren't
doing so voluntarily then obviously can and do once subject to various
imposed corrective measures. It might be difficult to absolutely know
just which aspect of the correct measures may have been "the most
effective" or variously contributing to the result though.

Mere claims from a violator that they are perfectly willing and able to
remain drug/alcohol free can sure seem suspect, when this is in the
aftermath of already demonstrating that they haven't been. In any job
that perhaps can effect the welfare of other people, and all the more
so when this might be seriously the case, such mere insistent claims
may not merit accepting as the highest assurance, nor only expecting
the employer to accomodate a burden of having to test the employee
every day before work/lunch in order to allow them to work acceptably,
free of any other corrective measures simply because they don't want
to.

Rita's choice to attend AA as one of several optional courses available
at the time sure seems to have at least caused her a manifest degree of
"motivation" and altered action, on several scores. That may have also
heightened her willingness and ability to remain suitable for work, as
well, although she seems especially unable to accept that singular
notion, since she objects to other aspects of it and brought suit on
those grounds.

[Moonraker]

>> > > The government can require abstinence as a term of probation
(and
> > > mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person achieves
> > > abstinence should be totally up to them. ...

As I understand it, this "required abstinence" was a condition of
continued employment, and given that the public safety required such
abstinence, what's the problem?

If you wanted to achieve abstinence under your own "program" without
supervision and objected to the testing, you could have merely changed
jobs to a position where such sobriety isn't a prerequisite. What's
important here? Your principles, or your paycheck? Was peeing in the cup
too painful for you?

..

[rita]

"Jay" <jay@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:VaD_a.9040$VG.356954@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:j8r_a.4601$kq.1056954@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > A better question: How does one prove that involvement with
12-step
> > programs and specifically 12-step programs is what causes people to do
> > "substantially better"??
> >
> > I categorically rejected EVERYTHING that was presented in my
12-step
> > "treatment" and my coerced AA involvement. Yet when over 200 body fluid
> > tests proved I was remaining drug/alcohol free as required, I was listed
> as
> > a "treatment success". And the EAP goons insisted that it was AA and
> > "treatment" that "caused" my success. What rubbish.
> >
> > ~Rita
> >
> Hi Rita,
>
> I'm not sure who the EAP goons are, but I'm getting the impression that
> they're social workers of some sort. Nuff said about them. I'm
wondering,
> did anyone in AA ever claim to you that AA was the reason that you were
> successful? Genuine question - not a dig or jab or anything like that.
>
------------------------------

OK, and a genuine answer: Yes, indeed, several AA members made the
claim that AA was the reason for my success at required abstinence. All
such persons were treatment counselors at the facility I was mandated to.

I've seen some posters from the step groups question the claim that
most treatment counselors are 12-step members who push 12-step belief. I
know that this was in fact the case at the facility I was sent to. The
counselors TOLD us in group sessions that they were AA/NA attendees, and
that they KNEW that 12-step participation was the "only" way anyone could
stay sober.

Since I was sober, their conclusion was that the AA attendance that I
was forced to endure without a shred of belief in the philosophy espoused,
"must" be the reason. One counselor arrogantly suggested that I had been
actually absorbing AA "wisdom" even though I was outwardly "pretending" to
reject it.

~Rita

[rita]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130820032217438582%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <VaD_a.9040$VG.356954@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
> <jay@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> As Rita has told it here over time, she elected to attend AA at first,
> and withhout objection...

....

> Rita's choice to attend AA as one of several optional courses available
> at the time ...

---------------------

Are you a pathological liar in addition to your other problems?? - I
NEVER attended AA voluntarily, and there were NO other options offered. I
would have been fired from my job, a job at which I had excelled for 17
years, if I remained sober without attending AA and specifically AA. The
EAP goons (people paid by tax dollars BTW) said verbatim, "We don't care
about whether employees are abstinent, we care whether they prove they are
living a recovery lifestyle." And I objected to AA from the very first
meeting I attended.


>
> Mere claims from a violator that they are perfectly willing and able to
> remain drug/alcohol free can sure seem suspect, when this is in the
> aftermath of already demonstrating that they haven't been.
>
---------------

Idiot -- and you think making employees attend AA is going to guarantee
that they are drug/alcohol free? -- at least 5 employees I know of who went
through the EAP program, who went to every AA meeting required and never
questioned the ideology nor argued with EAP personnel, turned up "dirty" a
second time and were fired. And who knows how many times they actually
arrived at work "dirty" on days they were not tested. So much for AA making
people "clean". And I, the one who vehemently rejected AA and went so far
as to sue the EAP goons, am the one who has never had a trace of anything in
the approximately 250 times I have been tested since the original trace
"positive". I have kept my promise to be drug/alcohol free on duty FOREVER,
without any recovery group involvement, and apparently it's worked better
for me than the one-day-at-a-time, it's-an-endless-struggle thinking worked
for the fired employees.


> In any job
> that perhaps can effect the welfare of other people, and all the more
> so when this might be seriously the case, such mere insistent claims
> may not merit accepting as the highest assurance, nor only expecting
> the employer to accomodate a burden of having to test the employee
> every day before work/lunch in order to allow them to work acceptably,
> free of any other corrective measures simply because they don't want
> to.
>
---------------------

Well. Why don't you go run a railroad where there is no body fluid
testing, and mere assurances by an employee that they are attending AA is
sufficient proof for you that no drugs/alcohol are being consumed. And then
maybe wake up and pull your head out of your Tuchis.

~Rita

[Virtualoso]

In article <ZLM_a.13148$uv.2772708@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> I've seen some posters from the step groups question the claim that
> most treatment counselors are 12-step members who push 12-step belief. I
> know that this was in fact the case at the facility I was sent to. The
> counselors TOLD us in group sessions that they were AA/NA attendees, and
> that they KNEW that 12-step participation was the "only" way anyone could
> stay sober.

Some people liken personally knowing that any members are counselors to
amounting to or somehow "meaning" that "most" are. Others liken
personally knowing people that have benefitted from merely attending
meetings, to meaning that everyone that does so will. Is there a way
for one to "know" either of these, more accurately?

[Virtualoso]

In article <ZLM_a.13149$uv.2772474@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:130820032217438582%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <VaD_a.9040$VG.356954@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
> > <jay@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As Rita has told it here over time, she elected to attend AA at first,
> > and withhout objection...
>
> ...
>
> > Rita's choice to attend AA as one of several optional courses available
> > at the time ...
>
> ---------------------
>
> Are you a pathological liar in addition to your other problems?? - I
> NEVER attended AA voluntarily, and there were NO other options offered.

You posted that you could have gone to some other group, but chose to
go to the AA group you did because it was handier to where you lived.

> And I objected to AA from the very first
> meeting I attended.

Expressly objected to it to your employers -- or just personally
considered it objectionable? As you've before posted, it wasn't until a
certain eventual point that you "realized" certain things you then
expressed as a key basis of your objection.

I've noticed how much your story and recounting changes over time.

> > Mere claims from a violator that they are perfectly willing and able to
> > remain drug/alcohol free can sure seem suspect, when this is in the
> > aftermath of already demonstrating that they haven't been.
> >
> ---------------
>
> Idiot -- and you think making employees attend AA is going to guarantee
> that they are drug/alcohol free? ...

You seem to be having a lot of trouble keeping your attention on any
points or material, other than your one campaigned fixation. Mere
claims from demonstrable violators that they are not going to violate
are reasonably doubtable. And not at all necessarily the best source
for determining what supposedly will prevent them from doing what they
already have done.

> I have kept my promise to be drug/alcohol free on duty FOREVER...

It's not "forever" yet, is it?

> > In any job
> > that perhaps can effect the welfare of other people, and all the more
> > so when this might be seriously the case, such mere insistent claims
> > may not merit accepting as the highest assurance, nor only expecting
> > the employer to accomodate a burden of having to test the employee
> > every day before work/lunch in order to allow them to work acceptably,
> > free of any other corrective measures simply because they don't want
> > to.
> >
> ---------------------
>
> Well. Why don't you go run a railroad ...

You're being simply idiotic and huffy. Again.

[rita]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:140820030750280474%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <ZLM_a.13149$uv.2772474@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
> <rita66@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:130820032217438582%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > > In article <VaD_a.9040$VG.356954@news20.bellglobal.com>, Jay
> > > <jay@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > As Rita has told it here over time, she elected to attend AA at first,
> > > and withhout objection...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Rita's choice to attend AA as one of several optional courses
available
> > > at the time ...
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Are you a pathological liar in addition to your other problems?? -
I
> > NEVER attended AA voluntarily, and there were NO other options offered.
>
> You posted that you could have gone to some other group, but chose to
> go to the AA group you did because it was handier to where you lived.
>
----------------------

You're either lying, confusing me with some other poster, or
delusional. Which is it?

I was told by the EAP goons (who had total carte-blanche over making
demands of employees on pain of being fired) that I was NOT ALLOWED to
utilize any non-12-step methods whatsoever to meet my EAP requirements.
This not only meant no LSR, SMART etc. meetings would count, but my
privately-paid-for psychotherapy wouldn't count either -- even though my
therapist wrote a letter stating that in his professional opinion, I was not
an alcoholic or addict and was responding well to counseling for depression,
and should be allowed to work.


> > And I objected to AA from the very first
> > meeting I attended.
>
> Expressly objected to it to your employers -- or just personally
> considered it objectionable?
>
---------------------

I expressly objected to AA to my assigned EAP counselor (who is paid by
my employer). I told her I could not relate to 12-step philosophy and found
that it conflicted with my religious beliefs and personal style. She told
me I need to keep going nontheless. I was made to continue attending 5 AA
meetings a week and was moreover quizzed on my level of 12-step and
"disease" belief. When I said I didn't believe I had any "disease" (and
this was after my licensed and degreed therapist had written a letter that I
showed no signs of alcoholism or drug addiction) I was told I couldn't be
allowed back to work until I stopped "resisting" and "admitted" I had a
"disease".


> As you've before posted, it wasn't until a
> certain eventual point that you "realized" certain things you then
> expressed as a key basis of your objection.
>
--------------------

You're lying and/or delusional again. I posted no such thing. I never
for one millisecond believed in 12-step ideology nor did I ever find AA
meetings or "treatment" helpful in any way whatsoever. And I strenuously
objected to being made to not only go through useless and unhelpful
"treatment", but to being expected to LIE and say it was "helping" me and
"keeping me sober"!

> I've noticed how much your story and recounting changes over time.
>
------------------------

You're very involved with your own fantasies. My posts are extremely
consistent.


> > > Mere claims from a violator that they are perfectly willing and able
to
> > > remain drug/alcohol free can sure seem suspect, when this is in the
> > > aftermath of already demonstrating that they haven't been.
> > >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Idiot -- and you think making employees attend AA is going to
guarantee
> > that they are drug/alcohol free? ...
>
> You seem to be having a lot of trouble keeping your attention on any
> points or material, other than your one campaigned fixation. Mere
> claims from demonstrable violators that they are not going to violate
> are reasonably doubtable. And not at all necessarily the best source
> for determining what supposedly will prevent them from doing what they
> already have done.
>
------------------------

And like I asked you (and you've neatly avoided): in what way does
mandating AA ensure no drugs/alcohol in the system of rail employees? - And
what is your objection to body fluid testing to make such a determination?


> > I have kept my promise to be drug/alcohol free on duty FOREVER...
>
> It's not "forever" yet, is it?
>
> > > In any job
> > > that perhaps can effect the welfare of other people, and all the more
> > > so when this might be seriously the case, such mere insistent claims
> > > may not merit accepting as the highest assurance, nor only expecting
> > > the employer to accomodate a burden of having to test the employee
> > > every day before work/lunch in order to allow them to work acceptably,
> > > free of any other corrective measures simply because they don't want
> > > to.
> > >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Well. Why don't you go run a railroad ...
>
> You're being simply idiotic and huffy. Again.
>
-------------------------

Well! - Look at the pot calling the kettle black!!

~Rita

[rita]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ToM_a.9749$_3.8835@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> >> > > The government can require abstinence as a term of probation
> (and
> > > > mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person
achieves
> > > > abstinence should be totally up to them. ...
>
> As I understand it, this "required abstinence" was a condition of
> continued employment, and given that the public safety required such
> abstinence, what's the problem?
>
> If you wanted to achieve abstinence under your own "program" without
> supervision and objected to the testing, you could have merely changed
> jobs to a position where such sobriety isn't a prerequisite. What's
> important here? Your principles, or your paycheck? Was peeing in the cup
> too painful for you?
>
-----------------------

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?? - I just said that
ascertaining abstinence via body fluid testing was justified and fine by
me -- in fact, I've been tested over 200 times, have no objection whatsoever
to proving I am drug/alcohol free on duty -- it is the demand that employees
MUST be involved with AA/NA in ADDITION to being tested that is wrong... and
I sued my employer over this, and haven't been back to AA since, and though
they still test my breath and my pee, they can no longer test my BELIEFS for
"cleanliness" nor tell me or any other employee that our sobriety is the
"wrong" sobriety. Have a problem with that?

~Rita

[rita]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130820032225427337%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> > > In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has been
> > > consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it is
> > > unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the government to
> > > require attendance or involvement....
>
> Actually, factually, is has *not* been "consistently ruled in court."
>
---------------------

OH??? Can you name one single case where the final ruling was that
government-mandated 12-step involvement was NOT an Establishment Clause
violation??


> > > So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
> > > government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the
> > government
> > > people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying the
"no
> > > affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals, but
are
> > > "cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States
> > Consititution
> > > (and human rights statutes in countries other than America).
>
> No court has *ever* ruled any such thing, nor is that necessarily the
> actual nature of the matter at all. It's pure construal and personal
> bias.
>
------------------------

Read the caselaw, fool. The court rulings in ALL the lawsuits about
government 12-step coercion were that gov't 12-step coercion is an
Establishment Clause violation because of the religiosity of 12-step
ideology and practice. My added thought (clearly labeled as such) is that
tattletale-slip-signing by AA members also violates some of AA's stated
traditions.

> > > When I was unconstotutionally mandated to attend AA...
>
> As you've before described it, you were not actually, specifically
> "mandated to AA," as such, but voluntarily selected and elected to
> attend.
>
--------------------

You're lying and/or delusional again. I was mandated to attend 12-step
"treatment" AND 5 AA meetings a week -- specifically AA meetings -- as a
condition of keeping my government job. I sued, and was released from this
odious obligation, but of course was still required to submit to body fluid
testing (as are all employees) to prove I am drug/alcohol free while on
duty.


> > > The government can require abstinence as a term of probation (and
> > > mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person achieves
> > > abstinence should be totally up to them. ...
>
> Again, no court at all has ever ruled any such thing. Quite the
> opposite, actually.
>
-----------------------

What are you babbling about?? - I didn't say the courts ruled that how
a person abstains should be up to them -- clearly I was expressing my
opinion in that particular sentence -- but the courts HAVE ruled in
several federal circuits that 12-step involvement cannot be required. And
in my opinion NO particular type of "recovery" meeting or philosophy should
ever be mandated.

~Rita

[Moonraker]

"rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:bsP_a.13612$uv.2860733@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:130820032225427337%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >
> > > > In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has been
> > > > consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it is
> > > > unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the government
to
> > > > require attendance or involvement....
> >
> > Actually, factually, is has *not* been "consistently ruled in court."
> >
> ---------------------
>
> OH??? Can you name one single case where the final ruling was that
> government-mandated 12-step involvement was NOT an Establishment Clause
> violation??
>
>
> > > > So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
> > > > government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the
> > > government
> > > > people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying the
> "no
> > > > affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals,
but
> are
> > > > "cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States
> > > Consititution
> > > > (and human rights statutes in countries other than America).
> >
> > No court has *ever* ruled any such thing, nor is that necessarily the
> > actual nature of the matter at all. It's pure construal and personal
> > bias.
> >
> ------------------------
>
> Read the caselaw, fool. The court rulings in ALL the lawsuits about
> government 12-step coercion were that gov't 12-step coercion is an
> Establishment Clause violation because of the religiosity of 12-step
> ideology and practice. My added thought (clearly labeled as such) is that
> tattletale-slip-signing by AA members also violates some of AA's stated
> traditions.
>
> > > > When I was unconstotutionally mandated to attend AA...
> >
> > As you've before described it, you were not actually, specifically
> > "mandated to AA," as such, but voluntarily selected and elected to
> > attend.
> >
> --------------------
>
> You're lying and/or delusional again. I was mandated to attend
12-step
> "treatment" AND 5 AA meetings a week -- specifically AA meetings -- as a
> condition of keeping my government job. I sued, and was released from
this
> odious obligation, but of course was still required to submit to body
fluid
> testing (as are all employees) to prove I am drug/alcohol free while on
> duty.
>
>
> > > > The government can require abstinence as a term of probation
(and
> > > > mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person
achieves
> > > > abstinence should be totally up to them. ...
> >
> > Again, no court at all has ever ruled any such thing. Quite the
> > opposite, actually.
> >
> -----------------------
>
> What are you babbling about?? - I didn't say the courts ruled that
how
> a person abstains should be up to them -- clearly I was expressing my
> opinion in that particular sentence -- but the courts HAVE ruled in
> several federal circuits that 12-step involvement cannot be required.
And
> in my opinion NO particular type of "recovery" meeting or philosophy
should
> ever be mandated.
>
> ~Rita
>
>
Anybody else see the irony of a bus driver espousing theories on
constitutional law?

[Virtualoso]

In article <U%O_a.13451$uv.2846813@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> And
> what is your objection to body fluid testing to make such a determination?

I have no objection to mandatory testing for demonstrated violaters.
However, I see no reason at all why that "should be" the sole remedy.
And even less, that the violator "should be" the sole determiner of
what they else they must do. Their violation has already unmistakenly
proven them wrong.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bsP_a.13612$uv.2860733@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:130820032225427337%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >
> > > > In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has been
> > > > consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it is
> > > > unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the government to
> > > > require attendance or involvement....
> >
> > Actually, factually, is has *not* been "consistently ruled in court."
> >
> ---------------------
>
> OH??? Can you name one single case where the final ruling was that
> government-mandated 12-step involvement was NOT an Establishment Clause
> violation??

In other words: courts have *not* "consistently ruled" that.

> > > > So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
> > > > government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the
> > > government
> > > > people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying the
> "no
> > > > affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals, but
> are
> > > > "cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States
> > > Consititution
> > > > (and human rights statutes in countries other than America).
> >
> > No court has *ever* ruled any such thing, nor is that necessarily the
> > actual nature of the matter at all. It's pure construal and personal
> > bias.
> >
> ------------------------
>
> Read the caselaw, fool. The court rulings in ALL the lawsuits about
> government 12-step coercion were that gov't 12-step coercion is an
> Establishment Clause violation because of the religiosity of 12-step
> ideology and practice. My added thought ...

Reading the case law makes it blatantly obvious that your purely
biased, apparently legally wrong, "added thought" insinuated into facts
is a frequent bad habit of yours.

> > > > The government can require abstinence as a term of probation (and
> > > > mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person achieves
> > > > abstinence should be totally up to them. ...
> >
> > Again, no court at all has ever ruled any such thing. Quite the
> > opposite, actually.
> >
> -----------------------
>
> What are you babbling about?? - I didn't say the courts ruled that how
> a person abstains should be up to them -- clearly I was expressing my
> opinion in that particular sentence -- but the courts HAVE ruled in
> several federal circuits that 12-step involvement cannot be required.

The federal courts have ruled that 12-step involvement most certainly
can be among what's required. Bzzzzzt. Your mincy equivocations are
tangling you up. Again.

[Virtualoso]

In article <EjS_a.1535$sx4.1175@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Anybody else see the irony of a bus driver espousing theories on
> constitutional law?

Wonderful irony, indeed. All the more so, when similar tyros suddently
turn into rigorous academic scholars and clinicians, too.

[rita]

"Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:EjS_a.1535$sx4.1175@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
>
> "rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:bsP_a.13612$uv.2860733@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:130820032225427337%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > >
> > > > > In the case of AA and other 12-step "fellowships", it has
been
> > > > > consistently ruled in court (whenever someone files suit) that it
is
> > > > > unconsitutional (Establishment Clause violation) for the
government
> to
> > > > > require attendance or involvement....
> > >
> > > Actually, factually, is has *not* been "consistently ruled in court."
> > >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > OH??? Can you name one single case where the final ruling was that
> > government-mandated 12-step involvement was NOT an Establishment Clause
> > violation??
> >
> >
> > > > > So when AA chairpersons "cooperate" with courts and other
> > > > > government entities by blithely signing slips that report to the
> > > > government
> > > > > people's attendance or lack thereof, they are not only betraying
the
> > "no
> > > > > affiliation" (not to mention "anonymity" and "voluntary") ideals,
> but
> > are
> > > > > "cooperating" with an egregious violation of the United States
> > > > Consititution
> > > > > (and human rights statutes in countries other than America).
> > >
> > > No court has *ever* ruled any such thing, nor is that necessarily the
> > > actual nature of the matter at all. It's pure construal and personal
> > > bias.
> > >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Read the caselaw, fool. The court rulings in ALL the lawsuits
about
> > government 12-step coercion were that gov't 12-step coercion is an
> > Establishment Clause violation because of the religiosity of 12-step
> > ideology and practice. My added thought (clearly labeled as such) is
that
> > tattletale-slip-signing by AA members also violates some of AA's stated
> > traditions.
> >
> > > > > The government can require abstinence as a term of probation
> (and
> > > > > mandate body fluid testing to ascertain it), but HOW a person
> achieves
> > > > > abstinence should be totally up to them. ...
> > >
> > > Again, no court at all has ever ruled any such thing. Quite the
> > > opposite, actually.
> > >
> > -----------------------
> >
> > What are you babbling about?? - I didn't say the courts ruled that
> how
> > a person abstains should be up to them -- clearly I was expressing my
> > opinion in that particular sentence -- but the courts HAVE ruled in
> > several federal circuits that 12-step involvement cannot be required.
> And
> > in my opinion NO particular type of "recovery" meeting or philosophy
> should
> > ever be mandated.
> >
> > ~Rita
> >
> >
> Anybody else see the irony of a bus driver espousing theories on
> constitutional law?
>
---------------------------

I am not a bus driver, genius. And I am not "espousing theories on
constitutional law", I am STATING what was RULED in federal court. Why
don't you read the caselaw as I have? - and why shouldn't a transportation
worker read legal stuff? - do you assume me to be illiterate, or of low IQ??
And since I myself went to the trouble of filing a federal lawsuit, OF
COURSE my attorney explained the issues to me and encouraged me to read
these things.

Here are links to the 12-step coercion rulings. And of course for
every ruling, there are many many similar lawsuits settled out of court,
allowing the plaintiffs to be sober without attending AA, without any
punishment for doing so.


Griffin v. Coughlin:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ny/ctap/I96_0137.htm

Warner v. OCPD:
http://www.unhooked.com/sep/warnerny.htm

Note: This case was appealed all the way to the NYS Supreme Court,
which denied cert. The decision and award stood, after 10 years of appeals
by
the Orange County Probation Department.

Kerr v. Farrey and Lind:
http://www.unhooked.com/sep/7circopn.htm

Evans v. Tennessee Board of Paroles:
http://www.unhooked.com/sep/tennessee.htm

There is also a current case in
Pennsylvania. I don't know if it's been completed/settled yet, and
unfortunately I don't have a link.
~Rita

[Moonraker]

"rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:Rx5%a.5$ev.22932@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
> I am not a bus driver, genius.

And probably not a member of MENSA, either?

And I am not "espousing theories on
> constitutional law", I am STATING what was RULED in federal court.

Actually, you are stating your biased opinion of a ruling. Got a law
degree, do you?


> Why
> don't you read the caselaw as I have? - and why shouldn't a transportation
> worker read legal stuff? -


You assume that I would give a shit about the bleatings of some malcontent
government doofus who got caught dirty and started whining. Filing suits to
keep them from firing your sorry ass, which is what they should have done.
You reading the caselaw on taxpayer's time? In between sweeping out the
bus?



do you assume me to be illiterate, or of low IQ??

You DO have a WebTV addy. Think you just answered your own question.


> And since I myself went to the trouble of filing a federal lawsuit, OF
> COURSE my attorney explained the issues to me and encouraged me to read
> these things.
>
Did he write it in crayola for you?

[Virtualoso]

In article <Rx5%a.5$ev.22932@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

>> >Rita wrote:
>>
>> >What are you babbling about?? - I didn't say the courts ruled that
> > >how a person abstains should be up to them -- clearly I was expressing my
> > > opinion ... in my opinion ...

> > Moonraker wrote:
> >
> > Anybody else see the irony of a bus driver espousing theories on
> > constitutional law?

> Then Rita wrote:
>
> I am not a bus driver, genius. And I am not "espousing theories on
> constitutional law", I am STATING what was RULED in federal court. Why
> don't you read the caselaw as I have? ....

LOL. The Railroad Rita Two Step.

[rita]

"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:z66%a.806$Q_.4@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "rita" <rita66@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:Rx5%a.5$ev.22932@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >>
> > I am not a bus driver, genius.
>
> And probably not a member of MENSA, either?
>
------------------

Non-sequitur which I won't dignify with an answer.


> And I am not "espousing theories on
> > constitutional law", I am STATING what was RULED in federal court.
>
> Actually, you are stating your biased opinion of a ruling. Got a law
> degree, do you?
>
---------------------

I don't need a law degree to read. Can you read?


<< Warner attended A.A. meetings at the direction of his probation
officer, Neal Terwilliger, from November 1990 through September 1992.
However, in January of 1991, Warner complained to Terwilliger that, as an
atheist, he found the religious nature of the A.A. meetings objectionable.
The probation officer instructed Warner to continue his attendance. Some
months later, Terwilliger determined that Warner lacked sufficient
commitment to the program; he directed Warner to attend "Step meetings" and
to seek another more advanced A.A. member as a "sponsor" to give him
guidance and encourage his adherence to the program. The Step meetings were
devoted to discussion of A.A.'s "Twelve Steps," which represented the heart
of the therapy program.

The district court found that the program Warner was required to attend
involved a substantial religious component. For example, the "Twelve Steps"
included instruction that participants should "believe that a Power greater
than ourselves could restore us"; "[make] a decision to turn our will and
our lives over to the care of God as we [understand] Him"; "[a]dmit[] to God
.. . . the exact nature of our wrongs"; be "entirely ready to have God remove
all these defects . . . [and] ask Him to remove our shortcomings"; and
"[seek] through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with
God, as we [understand] Him." >>


<<...The claim that non-sectarian religious exercise falls outside the
First Amendment's scrutiny has been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme
Court. As the Court made clear in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v.
Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1993), "a principle at the heart of the
Establishment Clause [is] that government should not prefer one religion to
another, or religion to irreligion." Id. at 2491; see also Allegheny, 492
U.S. at 591; School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,
216-17 (1963).


<< Resolving questions as to the reach of the Establishment Clause "of
necessity [requires] line-drawing, . . . determining at what point a
dissenter's rights of religious freedom are infringed by the State." Id. at
2661. We have little difficulty concluding that the constitutional line was
crossed here. >>


>
> > Why
> > don't you read the caselaw as I have? - and why shouldn't a
transportation
> > worker read legal stuff? -
>
>
> You assume that I would give a shit about the bleatings of some malcontent
> government doofus who got caught dirty and started whining. Filing suits
to
> keep them from firing your sorry ass
>
------------------

No, I was never threatened with being fired. In fact I had just
received a "15 Years of Exemplary Service" award at the time, and was (still
am) considered a valued employee. I SUED to be released from having to
PRETEND to believe in 12-steppism and to sit through meetings when they were
odious to me and completely irrelevant to my proven sobriety.


> You reading the caselaw on taxpayer's time? In between sweeping out the
> bus?
>
-----------------------

I don't sweep buses, moron, and I read caselaw at home on my own
computer. Hmmm, are you posting to Usenet on your company's time? Are you
even employed??

>
> do you assume me to be illiterate, or of low IQ??
>
> You DO have a WebTV addy. Think you just answered your own question.
>
--------------------

Bwahahaha!!! Can you spell P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E?? And the WebTV addy is
just a link I use for Usenet to keep vicious creeps like you from posting to
my computer addy.

>
> > And since I myself went to the trouble of filing a federal lawsuit, OF
> > COURSE my attorney explained the issues to me and encouraged me to read
> > these things.
> >
> Did he write it in crayola for you?
>
-------------------------

Oh aren't you clever. The true sign of a troll with no real defense or
substance: useless, moronic flames.

~Rita

[Virtualoso]

In article <V68%a.12$Sq.56945@twister.nyc.rr.com>, rita
<rita66@webtv.net> wrote:

> << Warner attended A.A. meetings at the direction of his probation
> officer, Neal Terwilliger, from November 1990 through September 1992.
> However, in January of 1991, Warner complained to Terwilliger that, as an
> atheist, he found the religious nature of the A.A. meetings objectionable.

Of course, this was all well after he began attending AA entirely on
his - even prior to being convicted/probationed - and his "complaint"
didn't arise until some time after he continued attending during
probation. Obviously, after some time, he began to find the whole deal
inconvenient.


> > You assume that I would give a shit about the bleatings of some malcontent
> > government doofus who got caught dirty and started whining. Filing suits
> to
> > keep them from firing your sorry ass
> >
> ------------------
>
> No, I was never threatened with being fired. In fact I had just
> received a "15 Years of Exemplary Service" award at the time, and was (still
> am) considered a valued employee. ...

Yet, you've several times described all that as somehow threatening
your livelihood. Two Step Rita, again changing her tune and dance, true
to form.

[Agent_Orange]

Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message news:<110820031811188834%virtualoso@dot.com>...

>>
>> In article <8e728989.0308111524.2bdca393@posting.google.com>,
>> Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<100820030912400871%virtualoso@dot.com>...
>> > > In article <jUtZa.3361$Ih1.1468331@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, Markus
>> > > <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I too believed that I could not control my addiction
>> > > > utilizing my own inner strengths. However, I discovered that I was
>> > > > mistaken
>> > > > to believe that just because I couldn't control my addiction on my own
>> > > > that
>> > > > I also couldn't be taught how to.
>> > >
>> > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
>> > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
>> > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
>> > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
>> > > relatively okay with the latter.
>> >
>> > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
>> > published, and when? Authors? Title?
>>
>> Already have.
>>

No you have not. All you did was say that some unnamed "experts" at Stanford
said something that you like.

Where did you get that story? What book or scientific journal printed the
results of their study?

Or did you just make it up? Or just hear a rumor from some guy in a bar?

Please tell me precisely where you got that litte tidbit of rumor.
I shall of course go to the medical library and look it up,
and xerox it for my library, just like I do with all of the
other scientific reports and papers on the effectiveness
of 12-step treatment:

http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Brandsma
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Walsh
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Ditman


* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
** Being surrounded by a group of people who keep telling
** you that you are powerless over alcohol, and that your
** will power is useless, is not getting "support".
** It is getting sabotaged.
** With friends like them, you don't need any enemies.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8e728989.0308151614.8bdb020@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> >> > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
> >> > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> >> > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> >> > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> >> > > relatively okay with the latter.
> >> >
> >> > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
> >> > published, and when? Authors? Title?
> >>
> >> Already have.

> No you have not.

Yes, I have. More than once.

> All you did was say that some unnamed "experts" at Stanford
> said something that you like.
>
> Where did you get that story? What book or scientific journal printed the
> results of their study?
>
> Or did you just make it up? Or just hear a rumor from some guy in a bar?
>
> Please tell me precisely where you got that litte tidbit of rumor.
> I shall of course go to the medical library and look it up,
> and xerox it for my library, just like I do with all of the
> other scientific reports and papers on the effectiveness
> of 12-step treatment:

Well aren't you such a busy little scholarly bee. Might even be able to
conduct some of the simplest of online Google searches, then. Yet, what
with all that rigorous researching you're doing, isn't it surprising
that above got by your ever-scanning attention so far. Somehow.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8e728989.0308161409.1ff237a@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:<150820031728111537%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> > In article <8e728989.0308151614.8bdb020@posting.google.com>,
> > Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing
> > > >> > > that
> > > >> > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
> > > >> > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
> > > >> > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
> > > >> > > relatively okay with the latter.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
> > > >> > published, and when? Authors? Title?
> > > >>
> > > >> Already have.
> >
> > > No you have not.
> >
> > Yes, I have. More than once.
>
> When? Where? Why are you refusing to give the information?
> Your answers are all evasions.
> >
> > > All you did was say that some unnamed "experts" at Stanford
> > > said something that you like.
> > >
> > > Where did you get that story? What book or scientific journal printed the
> > > results of their study?
> > >
> > > Or did you just make it up? Or just hear a rumor from some guy in a bar?
> > >
> > > Please tell me precisely where you got that litte tidbit of rumor.
> > > I shall of course go to the medical library and look it up,
> > > and xerox it for my library, just like I do with all of the
> > > other scientific reports and papers on the effectiveness
> > > of 12-step treatment:
> >
> > Well aren't you such a busy little scholarly bee. Might even be able to
> > conduct some of the simplest of online Google searches, then. Yet, what
> > with all that rigorous researching you're doing, isn't it surprising
> > that above got by your ever-scanning attention so far. Somehow.
>
> Such sarcasm. I don't think that you know the answer.
> You are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor, aren't you?
>
> You can't give a source, can you?

Do your web search, rather than play this simpy game. Simple.

[angryjohn]

On 16 Aug 2003 15:09:56 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org (Agent_Orange) wrote:

>Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message news:<150820031728111537%virtualoso@dot.com>...
>> In article <8e728989.0308151614.8bdb020@posting.google.com>,
>> Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing that
>> > >> > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better at
>> > >> > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
>> > >> > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
>> > >> > > relatively okay with the latter.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
>> > >> > published, and when? Authors? Title?
>> > >>
>> > >> Already have.
>>
>> > No you have not.
>>
>> Yes, I have. More than once.
>
>When? Where? Why are you refusing to give the information?
>Your answers are all evasions.


Virto's standard answer when asked to back anything he has posted.

>>
>> > All you did was say that some unnamed "experts" at Stanford
>> > said something that you like.
>> >
>> > Where did you get that story? What book or scientific journal printed the
>> > results of their study?
>> >
>> > Or did you just make it up? Or just hear a rumor from some guy in a bar?
>> >
>> > Please tell me precisely where you got that litte tidbit of rumor.
>> > I shall of course go to the medical library and look it up,
>> > and xerox it for my library, just like I do with all of the
>> > other scientific reports and papers on the effectiveness
>> > of 12-step treatment:
>>
>> Well aren't you such a busy little scholarly bee. Might even be able to
>> conduct some of the simplest of online Google searches, then. Yet, what
>> with all that rigorous researching you're doing, isn't it surprising
>> that above got by your ever-scanning attention so far. Somehow.
>
>Such sarcasm. I don't think that you know the answer.
>You are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor, aren't you?
>
>You can't give a source, can you?
>

Of course he cannot provide a source. He is afraid there might be other data
in the source which doesn't quite support his point of view.


>
>* Agent Orange *
>* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
>* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
>* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
>* True infomation, human intelligence, *
>* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
>* cult leaders... *

aa#2106

[Kai]

Agent_Orange wrote:
> Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:<150820031728111537%virtualoso@dot.com>...
>> In article <8e728989.0308151614.8bdb020@posting.google.com>,
>> Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> > > Experts at the Stanford Medical Center conducted research showing
>>>>> that > > people involved with 12 step programs did substantially better
>>>>> at > > results than those that underwent training in practical behavioral
>>>>> > > methods. Which is not to say that some minority of people did
>>>>> > > relatively okay with the latter.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What research? Please be specific. Where was it
>>>>> > published, and when? Authors? Title?
>>>>>
>>>>> Already have.
>>
>>> No you have not.
>>
>> Yes, I have. More than once.
>
> When? Where? Why are you refusing to give the information?
> Your answers are all evasions.
>>
>>> All you did was say that some unnamed "experts" at Stanford
>>> said something that you like.
>>>
>>> Where did you get that story? What book or scientific journal printed the
>>> results of their study?
>>>
>>> Or did you just make it up? Or just hear a rumor from some guy in a bar?
>>>
>>> Please tell me precisely where you got that litte tidbit of rumor.
>>> I shall of course go to the medical library and look it up,
>>> and xerox it for my library, just like I do with all of the
>>> other scientific reports and papers on the effectiveness
>>> of 12-step treatment:
>>
>> Well aren't you such a busy little scholarly bee. Might even be able to
>> conduct some of the simplest of online Google searches, then. Yet, what
>> with all that rigorous researching you're doing, isn't it surprising
>> that above got by your ever-scanning attention so far. Somehow.
>
> Such sarcasm. I don't think that you know the answer.
> You are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor, aren't you?
>
> You can't give a source, can you?

Are you this thick?

Just kidding, I know you are.

http://www.stanfordhospital.com/newsEvents/newsReleases/052001/twelveStepPrograms.html

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/may23/12step.html

http://www.psycport.com/news/2001/05/17/eng-ascribe/eng-ascribe_012033_233_100959637668.html

Took me about two seconds.

Kai

[Craig S.]

"Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in message
news:bhnb2i$3db$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
>
> Agent_Orange wrote:
> > You can't give a source, can you?
>
> Are you this thick?
>
> Just kidding, I know you are.
>
>
http://www.stanfordhospital.com/newsEvents/newsReleases/052001/twelveStepPrograms.html
>
> http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/may23/12step.html
>
>
http://www.psycport.com/news/2001/05/17/eng-ascribe/eng-ascribe_012033_233_100959637668.html
>
> Took me about two seconds.
>
> Kai

You don't really expect this will shut him up, do you?

[Kai]

Craig S. wrote:
>
> You don't really expect this will shut him up, do you?

You think I'm that thick?

Naw, I don't expect anything, just thought I'd share the links to the study for
the less obsessed crowd to read at will.

Kai

[Ken]

Kai wrote:
<snip>
>>Such sarcasm. I don't think that you know the answer.
>>You are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor, aren't you?
>>
>>You can't give a source, can you?
>
>
> Are you this thick?
>
> Just kidding, I know you are.
>
> http://www.stanfordhospital.com/newsEvents/newsReleases/052001/twelveStepPrograms.html
>
> http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/may23/12step.html
>
> http://www.psycport.com/news/2001/05/17/eng-ascribe/eng-ascribe_012033_233_100959637668.html
>
> Took me about two seconds.
>
> Kai
>
>

Kai,

These three references to one study published elsewhere, don't mean much
in and of themselves. Apparently, success is defined as "abstinent at
one year." This is what AA member George Vaillant did with his research
of inner-city alcoholics. Of course, those who didn't go to AA did
better, but that was hidden because, although a relatively equal number
was abstinent in the AA group and the non-AA group, there was a large
number of moderators in the non-AA group. According to AA-board member
and Harvard psychiatrist Vaillant, those who moderated were "treatment
failures." People who are successful in limiting their treatment are
simply written off.

There is nothing in these second-hand reports to indicate anything other
than therapists are more expensive than AA for "follow up." The rest is
just chatter and may or may not be backed up by the published study.

Judging by past occurances where "AA works" has been claimed to have
been proven, this is probably not just pure bunk reporting on a study,
but the study probably is too.

Ken Ragge

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F3F9CBD.8070501@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:

> These three references to one study published elsewhere, don't mean much
> ... Apparently, success is defined as "abstinent ...
>
> ... where "AA works" has been claimed to have
> been proven, this is probably not just pure bunk reporting on a study,
> but the study probably is too.

LOL

[Bobby L.]

You can read the study at

www.alcoholism-cer.com


"Ken" <kenr@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:3F3FE4CA.80304@intergate.com...
>
>
> Kai wrote:
> > Ken wrote:
> >
> >>Kai wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>Such sarcasm. I don't think that you know the answer.
> >>>>You are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor, aren't you?
> >>>>
> >>>>You can't give a source, can you?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Are you this thick?
> >>>
> >>>Just kidding, I know you are.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
http://www.stanfordhospital.com/newsEvents/newsReleases/052001/twelveStepPrograms.html
> >
> >>>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/may23/12step.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
http://www.psycport.com/news/2001/05/17/eng-ascribe/eng-ascribe_012033_233_100959637668.html
> >
> >>>Took me about two seconds.
> >>>
> >>>Kai
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Kai,
> >>
> >>These three references to one study published elsewhere, don't mean much
> >>in and of themselves.
> >
> >
> > Well, they mean there are actual studies instead of just
'unsubstantiated
> > rumors', don't they. Which is what the links were supposed to mean.
> >
>
> Kai,
>
> Going by what you posted, the three links, are all refering to one
> study. I've not been following the thread, but one study (or even a
> group of studies) are rather valueless in and of itself. Second hand
> references (esp. from newspapers) quite often are nothing but
> unsubstantiated rumors.
>
> >
> >> Apparently, success is defined as "abstinent at
> >>one year." This is what AA member George Vaillant did with his research
> >>of inner-city alcoholics. Of course, those who didn't go to AA did
> >>better, but that was hidden because, although a relatively equal number
> >>was abstinent in the AA group and the non-AA group, there was a large
> >>number of moderators in the non-AA group. According to AA-board member
> >>and Harvard psychiatrist Vaillant, those who moderated were "treatment
> >>failures." People who are successful in limiting their treatment are
> >>simply written off.
> >>
> >>There is nothing in these second-hand reports to indicate anything other
> >>than therapists are more expensive than AA for "follow up." The rest is
> >>just chatter and may or may not be backed up by the published study.
> >>
> >>Judging by past occurances where "AA works" has been claimed to have
> >>been proven, this is probably not just pure bunk reporting on a study,
> >>but the study probably is too.
> >
> >
> > It just can't work. Bugs you like hell to see links to actual studies
done at an
> > actual science university, doesn't it? Kinda different from an
undergraduate
> > paper by a noname student.
>
> It doesn't bug me at all. Almost twenty years ago I spent a great deal
> of time at research libraries reading the literature. There are a lot
> of silly and meaningless studies. For example, the Veterans
> Administration did a study on something like "improving communication
> skills" improved peoples' Fifth Step confessions. That was called
> science and published in one of the "Alcoholism" journals. Big deal.
>
> I'm sure why you are so concerned with credentials. What credentials
> did Frank Buchman, Bill Wilson, Ebby Thatcher et al have? What
> credentials did E.M Jellinek have? The credentials of an undergraduate
> student far exceeds those of those four.
>
> Ken Ragge
>
> >
> > Kai
> >
> >
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F3FE4CA.80304@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:

> >>>>... I don't think that you know the answer.
> >>>>You are just repeating unsubstantiated rumor, aren't you?
> >>>>
> >>>>You can't give a source, can you?

> Going by what you posted, the three links, are all refering to one
> study. ... [snip]

The niggle that was just underway was the pretense that there was some
imaginary inability to produce real sources, as if they didn't exist.
The three URLs, from a very quick and simple online query, showed the
ridiculous basis from that stupid gambit.

> > It just can't work. Bugs you like hell to see links to actual studies done
> > at an
> > actual science university, doesn't it? Kinda different from an undergraduate
> > paper by a noname student.
>
> It doesn't bug me at all. Almost twenty years ago I spent a great deal
> of time at research libraries reading the literature. ... [snip]

Tried any since then?

> I'm sure why you are so concerned with credentials. ... [snip]

Did you mean to write "not sure"? But then, you don't happen to have
any particular credentials in these matters, aside from being an
essentially self-published author, or what's colloquially known as a
"self styled expert" or the like?

Others were most certainly concerned with credentials, especially a
couple that get very concerned about bona fide scientific and medical
credentials. Those doing such studies at Standford Medical
School do have credentials. Perhaps you might like to address your
dismissals of credentials toward the ARF posters that hound others for
credentials and academic/scholarly/professional citations?

"Don't believe me ... believe the scientists and doctors"
- Agent Orange

[Virtualoso]

In article <f0lvjvode382p11a690f5n1sef5ckjegaq@4ax.com>, Joe
<ATdot@.com> wrote:

> There are plenty of studies showing cognitive therapy's effectiveness
> and not only with substance abuse.

Provide one or two good ones.

> Also, that study was biased....

LOL. Mere detraction. Prove it.

> Why did they spend any time at all discussing the 12-step approach?

Perhaps you'll have to address how/why cognitivists regared that much
of whatever they consider to be "the 12-step approach" to be equivalent
to cognitive therapy elements and components.

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F3FE7DA.6030909@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:

> Don't you understand that they _have_ to spend time on the 12-step
> approach? If the subjects don't learn the AA spiritual beliefs of
> "Powerlessness" and "Unmanageablity" they are very likely to simply
> moderate or quit on their own. ....

Even though they've obviously done no such thing prior to spending any
time with "12 step approach" whatsoever previously. For some reason.

[Joe]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:50:21 -0400, "Bobby L."
<BobbyL2000nospam@bell$outh.net> wrote:

>You can read the study at
>
> www.alcoholism-cer.com
>
>


Thanks Bobby. Unfortunately, It costs $20.00 and I can wait till
somebody else spends the money :-).

I did notice that this alcoholism periodical has as its editor none
other than Earnest Gallo of Gallo Winery fame. Mr. Gallo has a
monetary interest which is aided by people thinking they are powerless
and/or have a disease. He did a study a few years back which supported
the disease concept. He is definitely a traditionalist. What would
happen if people found out they had the power to quit all along?
Chaos. Gallo Wine sales would be hurting. Keep the status quo. Keep
people thinking they are powerless and diseased...and drinking Gallo
Wine! Integrity...what's that?

Joe Milon

[Virtualoso]

In article <35d0kvk4487otqjojtfu27gb83giio8s51@4ax.com>, Joe
<ATdot@.com> wrote:

> What would
> happen if people found out they had the power to quit all along?

How was that "working" almost 100 years ago, when everyone was sure of
just that?

[Kai]

Joe wrote:
>
> Kai, Quit saying "studies." There was one biased study that we know
> very little about. The amount of links do not equal the amount of
> studies!

Now when Mickey's shorter hand reaches the top...

The whole point apparent to anyone having actually read and understood the
thread was that AO claimed Virt was unable to produce links to any
references and I did one two-second websearch that produced three separate
links to the study Virt was referring to.

The fact that you claim to have very little knowledge of the subject matter
is something only you can change, maybe.

Kai

[Joe]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:23:07 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>>
>> Kai, Quit saying "studies." There was one biased study that we know
>> very little about. The amount of links do not equal the amount of
>> studies!
>
>Now when Mickey's shorter hand reaches the top...
>
>The whole point apparent to anyone having actually read and understood the
>thread was that AO claimed Virt was unable to produce links to any
>references and I did one two-second websearch that produced three separate
>links to the study Virt was referring to.
>
>The fact that you claim to have very little knowledge of the subject matter
>is something only you can change, maybe.
>
>Kai
>
I said "we" which means us here. You seem to have a problem with
singularity. When you add "S" to a word or change the spelling certain
ways, it becomes plural. This means more than one. Tomorrow we will
have a lesson in punctuation. Stay tuned kids!

Joe Milon

[Kai]

Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:23:07 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>>
>>> Kai, Quit saying "studies." There was one biased study that we know
>>> very little about. The amount of links do not equal the amount of
>>> studies!
>>
>> Now when Mickey's shorter hand reaches the top...
>>
>> The whole point apparent to anyone having actually read and
>> understood the thread was that AO claimed Virt was unable to produce
>> links to any references and I did one two-second websearch that
>> produced three separate links to the study Virt was referring to.
>>
>> The fact that you claim to have very little knowledge of the subject
>> matter is something only you can change, maybe.
>>
>> Kai
>>
> I said "we" which means us here.

Are you sure it's a good idea to surround yourself with other ignorant
people, wherever you are?

> You seem to have a problem with
> singularity. When you add "S" to a word or change the spelling certain
> ways, it becomes plural. This means more than one. Tomorrow we will
> have a lesson in punctuation. Stay tuned kids!

Not everyone is a native English speaker, Joe. If my punctuation, or the
lack of it, bugs you, tough luck. Again, you're the only person capable of
developing yourself over the spelling flame-level. Perhaps.

Kai

[Joe]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:50:44 +0300, "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com>
wrote:

>
>Not everyone is a native English speaker, Joe. If my punctuation, or the
>lack of it, bugs you, tough luck. Again, you're the only person capable of
>developing yourself over the spelling flame-level. Perhaps.
>
>Kai
>


We are not talking about a spelling flame. The content of the message
changes depending on whether you use a plural or singular term. Also,
your illiteracy doesn't bother me in the least. Have a nice day!

Joe Milon

[Bingo]

"staamfa" <staampfa@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:RZhZa.308164$o86.55045@news1.central.cox.net:

>
> "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?
>
> Already have. Too numerous times to count. But then do you
> really need me to repost the Steps? They indicate a quite
> religious fellowship you know. Need more? How about the Chapter
> to Agnostics. Now why would a non-religious book need a chapter
> to agnostics? hmmmm?
>
>| I'm sure you'll be able to be totally specific, citing
>| verifiable facts,
> in
>| your argument?
>
> Sure. Can do. Have done. Where are yours? I think I've heard
> them all before "It's a god of your understanding it is" "not
> really a god at all but a god of your understanding" yeah sure a
> god just not a god. I get it, yeah right. Not.
>
>

And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
you're screwed!"

[Bingo]

"Jay" <jay613@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:xXh_a.4728$VG.185554@news20.bellglobal.com:

>
> "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bhbq8a$10i1be$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Bobby L. wrote:
>> > "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bhbpk7$102lfi$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >> Jay wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> If you check my email address, you'll see I'm Canadian, so
>> >>> state court and circuit court rulings really mean little to
>> >>> me. Up here, I haven't as yet heard of a court ruling that
>> >>> the courts can or cannot mandate participation in AA, but I
>> >>> do believe that they require only that one "seeks help" and
>> >>> then may choose AA or some other means. Personally, I don't
>> >>> think it's worth much to require someone to
>> >>> attend a self-help group - if they're not there willingly,
>> >>> and really wanting the help offered, they probably won't be
>> >>> successful beyond
>> >>> the period during which they're required to attend, if even
>> >>> then. I'm not at all sure, but again, you didn't address
>> >>> the question of to which denomination it is tied... I'll
>> >>> save you the trouble, it's not tied to any denomination.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Thats like saying Catholicism is not a religion because it
>> >> is not tied to any other denomination. AA has its own set of
>> >> religious beliefs called the 12 steps
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Kev
>> >> Brighton UK
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Just a football has its own set of religious beliefs? Hell,
>> > by your analogy almost anything could be labeled a religion.
>> >
>> > E.g. The dogma of football..
>> >
>> > If you don't shoot you can't score.
>> >
>> > Strikers should shoot
>> >
>> > Backs should defend
>> >
>> > Only the goalie may touch the ball with his hand.
>> >
>> > If the game is in the UK, drunks and violence are required
>> > and the game does not count unless at least 10 spectators are
>> > taken to hospital.
>> >
>> > Bobby L
>>
>> Do any of your so called "religious beliefs" from football
>> require God? No thought not. If you're going to make an analogy
>> please make it something close otherwise its nonsense
>> --
>> Kev
>> Brighton UK
>>
> Well, in hockey, you get about 20,000 people sitting around a
> rink, watching guys skating across it, and all of them are
> praying for the same outcome. It's very close to a religious
> event. And no, I'm not taking your 12 step religious beliefs
> seriously.
>
>

....and if my teams wins, I stay sober? They grant my wishes? poor
analogy

[Agent_Orange]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vjut62l6d3gn4f@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in message
> news:bhnb2i$3db$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> >
> >
> > Agent_Orange wrote:
> > > You can't give a source, can you?
> >
> > Are you this thick?
> >
> > Just kidding, I know you are.
> >
> >
> http://www.stanfordhospital.com/newsEvents/newsReleases/052001/twelveStepPrograms.html
> >
> > http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/may23/12step.html
> >
> >
> http://www.psycport.com/news/2001/05/17/eng-ascribe/eng-ascribe_012033_233_100959637668.html
> >
> > Took me about two seconds.
> >
> > Kai
>
> You don't really expect this will shut him up, do you?


Okay, thank you Kai.
Now Virtualoso did not post these links.
Virt, is this the report to which you were referring?

[Virtualoso]

In article <Xns93DB88D0B6EB4billmicrosoftcom@204.127.204.17>, Bingo
<bill@microsoft.com> wrote:

> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
> you're screwed!"

The only mystery might be just why any sage agnostics/atheists would be
so nervous for their fellow agnostics/atheists on the mere count of
their being "told" that. LOL

[rosie readandpost]

>
> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
> you're screwed!"


that is sure up for interpretation!
i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!

[Virtualoso]

In article <8e728989.0308191437.3b252f03@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

>
> That study by Huphreys was a hoax. The V.A. sure got cheated out
> of their money on that one.

Prove it. Raw accusation doesn't count.

> For a real randomized study, look at Brandsma:
>
> ...There should have been ...

Raw advocacy for something else, is only just that.

> ... this was
> not a test of Rational Behavioral Therapy versus A.A..

What is "Rational Behavioral Therapy," more exactly? No, the cited
study was not about anything "versus A.A." The "versus" is your own
particular bias and campaign. The study was about obvious, manifest
results among real people, and which ones of them were obviously doing
better at just what.

> The lead author, Keith Humphreys, is obviously, blatantly, biased.

Biased toward perceivably real-life results, apparently. And his
co-author? And all the peers that have reviewed their work?

Oops. Your rabid bias might be showing.

> By the way, Humphreys loves to harp on the idea that
> "free" A.A. is very money-saving and cost effective.

It is.


> That is not what Dr. Walsh found. ...

Well, he's probably just blatantly biased and mistakenly basing his
work on fundamentally flawed constructs and unviable methodology.

> Translation:... [snip paranoicly delusional thinking]

[Kai]

Agent_Orange wrote:
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>>
>>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
>>> you're screwed!"
>>
>>
>> that is sure up for interpretation!
>> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
>
> Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
>
> The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
> sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
> chapter 4 of the Big Book.

You sure are fixated on Bill's writing, aren't you. You seem to think of him
as some sort of prophet. Whereas most AA's I know realize anything Bill W.
wrote is just what Bill W. wrote and nothing more.

Kai

[rosie readandpost]

>plenty of people who do just
> fine without either AA or a spiritual program.

without a doubt!

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

new virus:
Sobig.F
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sobig.f@mm.html



"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message news:190820031733080156%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <8e728989.0308191440.3f5b9e71@posting.google.com>,
> Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> > "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > > >
> > > > And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
> > > > you're screwed!"
> > >
> > >
> > > that is sure up for interpretation!
> > > i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
> >
> > Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
>
> Doesn't prove them wrong at all, but in fact proves them right since
> they always acknowledged that there were plenty of people who do just
> fine without either AA or a spiritual program. AA is for the others,
> that do want and/or need it.

[rosie readandpost]

i think you misattributed kai, but for the record, i haven't canonized bill w.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

new virus:
Sobig.F
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sobig.f@mm.html



"Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> wrote in message news:bhv2bc$nob$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Agent_Orange wrote:
> > "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> >>>
> >>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
> >>> you're screwed!"
> >>
> >>
> >> that is sure up for interpretation!
> >> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
> >
> > Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
> >
> > The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
> > sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
> > chapter 4 of the Big Book.
>
> You sure are fixated on Bill's writing, aren't you. You seem to think of him
> as some sort of prophet. Whereas most AA's I know realize anything Bill W.
> wrote is just what Bill W. wrote and nothing more.
>
> Kai
>
>

[rosie readandpost]

sorry kai, it looked like you were responding to me.
this is how you quoted:

> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>>
>>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
>>> you're screwed!"
>>
>>
>> that is sure up for interpretation!
>> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
>
> Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
>
> The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
> sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
> chapter 4 of the Big Book.

[rosie readandpost]

:)

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

new virus:
Sobig.F
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sobig.f@mm.html



"Craig S." <cspurlock@mtneer.net> wrote in message news:P2M0b.1657$sV.617@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:FkK0b.2692$Hf.577@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> wrote in message
> > news:bhvrbd$6pu$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> > > rosie readandpost wrote:
> > > > i think you misattributed kai, but for the record, i haven't
> > > > canonized bill w.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah? I responded to Agent Orange, not to you. It's not always about
> > you,
> > > Rosie,
> >
> > Ah, but Kai, it IS all about Rosie.
>
> No it isn't. It's all about ME. Please try to keep this straight in the
> future.
>
>

[Kai]

rosie readandpost wrote:
> sorry kai, it looked like you were responding to me.
> this is how you quoted:

I'm beginning to understand why some people consider you a major nuisance. Here
is a link to Google Groups for the
actual post I wrote, there's no need for you to start forging my posts:

http://tinyurl.com/km63

And here it is for you once more. Is it really so hard to admit being wrong,
even at an extremely harmless matter such as this one?

<quote>
Agent_Orange wrote:
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>>
>>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
>>> you're screwed!"
>>
>>
>> that is sure up for interpretation!
>> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
>
> Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
>
> The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
> sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
> chapter 4 of the Big Book.

You sure are fixated on Bill's writing, aren't you. You seem to think of him
as some sort of prophet. Whereas most AA's I know realize anything Bill W.
wrote is just what Bill W. wrote and nothing more.

Kai
</quote>

And after this follows what you claim I posted in order to not have to actually
admit you were wrong. What a stupid cow!

>
>> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>>>
>>>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
>>>> you're screwed!"
>>>
>>>
>>> that is sure up for interpretation!
>>> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
>>
>> Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
>>
>> The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
>> sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
>> chapter 4 of the Big Book.

[rosie readandpost]

i still don't understand your objection.
you left EVERYTHING i posted in your response and it looked like you were responding to me.
THAT is how i was confused.


you need me to say i was wrong?




"i was wrong"


.................feel better?
(LOL! take a chill pill, hon)

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

new virus:
Sobig.F
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.sobig.f@mm.html

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:26:42 -0500, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>sorry kai, it looked like you were responding to me.
>this is how you quoted:
>
>> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...

Not according to my newsreader, which shows me:

"
Agent_Orange wrote:
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
..
..
..
"

So my newsreader thinks that Kai was responding to something that
Agent Orange wrote in response to something you wrote. Did your
newsreader miss out the top line? Even so, the presence of a ">"
alongside a line in a post indicates that it's a quote from another
post.

Not that it matters either way anyway.

--
Blue Moon

[rosie readandpost]

> So my newsreader thinks that Kai was responding to something that
> Agent Orange wrote in response to something you wrote. Did your
> newsreader miss out the top line? Even so, the presence of a ">"
> alongside a line in a post indicates that it's a quote from another
> post.
>
> Not that it matters either way anyway.
>
> --
> Blue Moon



it DOES matter to me, THANK YOU for explaining it.
my computer ignorance, shows once again!
;)

[rosie readandpost]

> Forchrissakes, why do I bother.
>
> Kai
>
>



i sure don't know why.......................you seem to be VERY angry and upset, and i am QUITE SURE its not just about
this!
so once again, let me apologize for upsetting you, and being wrong!

[Kai]

rosie readandpost wrote:
>> Forchrissakes, why do I bother.
>>
>> Kai
>>
>>
>
>
>
> i sure don't know why.......................you seem to be VERY angry and
> upset, and i am QUITE SURE its not just about this!
> so once again, let me apologize for upsetting you, and being wrong!

Sure. I also want to appear like a good, humble, recovery person with the
correct dosage of meds, and therefore I say I'm sorry for having gotten offended
by your false accusations.

Kai

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:38:54 -0500, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>it DOES matter to me, THANK YOU for explaining it.

ok that's cool :) Live'n'learn, right?

--
Blue Moon

[rosie readandpost]

>....................... therefore I say I'm sorry for having gotten offended
> by your false accusations.
>
> Kai
>
>

false accusations?
a little dramatic don't you think?

apology?
that would be nice, but its not necessary!

[rosie readandpost]

> ok that's cool :) Live'n'learn, right?
>
> --
> Blue Moon

YUP!
thanks again.

[Kai]

rosie readandpost wrote:
>> ....................... therefore I say I'm sorry for having gotten offended
>> by your false accusations.
>>
>> Kai
>>
>>
>
> false accusations?
> a little dramatic don't you think?
>
> apology?
> that would be nice, but its not necessary!

Hey, guess what. I'm going to let you have the last word here, Rosie. Write
anything you want as a response to this post and I won't respond to it. I
promise.

Kai

[Craig S.]

"Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in message
news:bi0ah0$4pv$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
>
> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >> ....................... therefore I say I'm sorry for having gotten
offended
> >> by your false accusations.
> >>
> >> Kai
> >>
> >>
> >
> > false accusations?
> > a little dramatic don't you think?
> >
> > apology?
> > that would be nice, but its not necessary!
>
> Hey, guess what. I'm going to let you have the last word here, Rosie.
Write
> anything you want as a response to this post and I won't respond to it. I
> promise.

Must be a slow day ya buncha babies.

[Moonraker]

"Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in message
news:bi06pd$qsr$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
>
>
> Robert, Blue Moon, Moonraker, Gail, I'm sorry. You were right, the slogan
lady
> is a pain.
>
> Kai
>
>

Yeah. Rosie's got a BS, MS, and Phd. You "know" what BS is, a MS is
just "more of the same", and PhD is "Piled Higher and Deeper". She's
learned more and more about less and less until she knows absolutely
everything about nothing.

If it were just one person that was crossways with her, you might want to
give her the benefit of the doubt. But when even the newcomers start
blasting her after a day or two....

[Agent_Orange]

"Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> wrote in message news:<bhv2bc$nob$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>...
> Agent_Orange wrote:
> > "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> >>>
> >>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
> >>> you're screwed!"
> >>
> >>
> >> that is sure up for interpretation!
> >> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
> >
> > Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
> >
> > The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
> > sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
> > chapter 4 of the Big Book.
>
> You sure are fixated on Bill's writing, aren't you. You seem to think of him
> as some sort of prophet. Whereas most AA's I know realize anything Bill W.
> wrote is just what Bill W. wrote and nothing more.
>
> Kai

Geez Louise...
Are you trying to claim that everybody ignores the 12 Steps
and the Big Book, and that what Bill Wilson wrote is now
obsolete and irrelevant and ignored by the true believers?

That's not what I see in "the rooms"...

And yes, Bill Wilson is often worshipped as a prophet.
I recall Nan Robertson, in her book "Getting Better Inside
of A.A.", saying that when he was getting old,
Bill Wilson had become "the grand Poo-bah of A.A."

(That title was, of course, tongue-in-cheek, but the
hero-worship that she was observing was not.)

* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
"There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate
true believer. He seems to use words as if he were
ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for
quibbling, hairsplitting, and scholastic tortuousness."
=="The True Believer", by Eric Hoffer, pages 79 to 80.

[Kai]

Agent_Orange wrote:
> "Kai" <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> wrote in message
> news:<bhv2bc$nob$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>...
>> Agent_Orange wrote:
>>> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:<%qq0b.721$01.29874@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>> And the chapter to the agnostics basically says "get over it...or
>>>>> you're screwed!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that is sure up for interpretation!
>>>> i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
>>>
>>> Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
>>>
>>> The success of agnostics or atheists in achieving and maintaining
>>> sobriety does not change what Bill Wilson actually wrote in
>>> chapter 4 of the Big Book.
>>
>> You sure are fixated on Bill's writing, aren't you. You seem to think of him
>> as some sort of prophet. Whereas most AA's I know realize anything Bill W.
>> wrote is just what Bill W. wrote and nothing more.
>>
>> Kai
>
> Geez Louise...
> Are you trying to claim that everybody ignores the 12 Steps
> and the Big Book, and that what Bill Wilson wrote is now
> obsolete and irrelevant and ignored by the true believers?

Where did I say "irrelevant and ignored"? If I recall correctly, oh there it is
a few lines up, I wrote "most AA's I know realize anything Bill W. wrote is just
what Bill W. wrote and nothing more". Now if anything other than what's
considered 'holy' or 'divine' words are immediately irrelevant to you, it's
okay, but don't get AA mixed up with yourself. And please, do not claim you know
more about the people I know, than I do.

>
> That's not what I see in "the rooms"...

You go to AA? Watch out for the meticulous brainwashing techniques!

>
> And yes, Bill Wilson is often worshipped as a prophet.
> I recall Nan Robertson, in her book "Getting Better Inside
> of A.A.", saying that when he was getting old,
> Bill Wilson had become "the grand Poo-bah of A.A."

What was it you've said in about a thousand posts about anecdotal evidence? I'm
certain some consider Bill W. a prophet, though, just like some consider just
about any loonie a prophet. AA has no monopoly on people who 'find' prophets.

Kai

[Virtualoso]

In article <bi5ngb$ft3$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote:

> Agent_Orange wrote:
> >
> > Geez Louise...
> > Are you trying to claim that everybody ignores the 12 Steps
> > and the Big Book, and that what Bill Wilson wrote is now
> > obsolete and irrelevant and ignored by the true believers?
>
> Where did I say "irrelevant and ignored"? If I recall correctly, oh there it
> is
> a few lines up, I wrote "most AA's I know realize anything Bill W. wrote is
> just
> what Bill W. wrote and nothing more". Now if anything other than what's
> considered 'holy' or 'divine' words are immediately irrelevant to you, it's
> okay, but don't get AA mixed up with yourself. And please, do not claim you
> know
> more about the people I know, than I do.
>
> >
> > That's not what I see in "the rooms"...
>
> You go to AA? Watch out for the meticulous brainwashing techniques!
>
> >
> > And yes, Bill Wilson is often worshipped as a prophet.
> > I recall Nan Robertson, in her book "Getting Better Inside
> > of A.A.", saying that when he was getting old,
> > Bill Wilson had become "the grand Poo-bah of A.A."
>
> What was it you've said in about a thousand posts about anecdotal evidence?
> I'm
> certain some consider Bill W. a prophet, though, just like some consider just
> about any loonie a prophet. AA has no monopoly on people who 'find' prophets.

Kai, you might remember that the detrAActors can't really find "bad
enough" things about AA, so they have to keep trying to prop up their
own projections and only just certain "worst case examples" as though
that were the whole of it all. Not that many people pay them much mind.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8e728989.0308221106.5391dac8@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:<190820031733080156%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> > In article <8e728989.0308191440.3f5b9e71@posting.google.com>,
> > Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> > > > that is sure up for interpretation!
> > > > i know many recovering agnostics, who are doing just fine!
> > >
> > > Sure, which just proves that Bill Wilson was wrong.
> >
> > Doesn't prove them wrong at all, but in fact proves them right since
> > they always acknowledged that there were plenty of people who do just
> > fine without either AA or a spiritual program. AA is for the others,
> > that do want and/or need it.
>
> That is not what Bill Wilson wrote in chapter 4 of the
> Big Book. As Bill Sees It, you must ... [snip]

Obviously the reason you can only extract just that certain section
speciously is because it's way past parts that explain clearly and
plainly that it only applies to just the persons that it applies to.
Not anyone else.

[Virtualoso]

In article <8e728989.0308221138.75a947dd@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:

> Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:<190820031731505469%virtualoso@dot.com>...
> > In article <8e728989.0308191437.3b252f03@posting.google.com>,
> > Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That study by Huphreys was a hoax. The V.A. sure got cheated out
> > > of their money on that one.
> >
> > Prove it. Raw accusation doesn't count.
> >
>
> I just did. ....

No, you didn't.

>
> > > ... this was
> > > not a test of Rational Behavioral Therapy versus A.A..
> >
> > What is "Rational Behavioral Therapy," more exactly? No, the cited
> > study was not about anything "versus A.A." The "versus" is your own
> > particular bias and campaign. The study was about obvious, manifest
> > results among real people, and which ones of them were obviously doing
> > better at just what.
>
> Go read some works by Dr. Albert Ellis ... Dr. Ellis is the creator of
> Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) ....

I've read Dr. Ellis, and more extensively than what you suggested. By
the way, his gig is "Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy" whereas above
we were addressing "Rational Behavior Therapy". Are these always just
Dr. Ellis's gig? Why no, not at all. Heck, there's *lots* of things
that aren't REBT that are RBT. But, there's also lots of differences
and disagreements among them, too.

So -- just what, more exactly, were you flatly asserting wasn't a "test
of Rational Behavioral Therapy"?

> > > The lead author, Keith Humphreys, is obviously, blatantly, biased.
> >
> > Biased toward perceivably real-life results, apparently. And his
> > co-author? And all the peers that have reviewed their work?
>
> What peers? ....

All the peers that have reviewed their work. It's been very widely
presented.

> See:
> http://aorange1.tripod.com...
> for an examination of the real effectiveness of the 12-step therapy.

No reason at all do that. After all, you yourself say:

"Don't believe me... believe the doctors and scientists" - Agent Orange

Well, Dr. Humphrey and his associates *are* the doctors and scientists,
while you're just an unqualified crank website operator spinning your
own yarns and quoting amateur student papers on your site and such.

> Oh, by the way, I was just at Kinkos yesterday, xeroxing off two Rand
> reports on the effectiveness of treatment. They had some blockbuster
> data, like that as many people stopped destructive alcoholic drinking
> by becoming moderate drinkers as by total abstinence.


When didn't you know that? AA, for instance, has always known and
published in their book, "Alcoholics Anonymous," that there are people
that do that. Try to keep up, eh?

> > > Translation:... [snip paranoicly delusional thinking]
>
> Prove it. ....

Your delusional website, along with your similar usenet postings,
demonstrates a cluster of symptoms clearly enough, well matching the
clinical descriptions of particular delusional disorders.

[Virtualoso]

In article <3F46E0B4.8090608@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:

> Kai wrote:
> > Agent_Orange wrote:
> > <snip excerpts from BB>
> >
> >>So you have to give up logic and "Reason" in order to join Bill Wilson
> >>on the Lost Island of La-La Land.
> >
> >
> > You have trouble understanding written text or something? Did you, in any
> > of the
> > quotes, notice the 'I' or 'we' parts? The BB of course makes it very clear
> > that
> > 'they', that were the 'we', were people who felt *they* needed to do what
> > 'they'
> > did, and that there other people who are not like them and therefore have no
> > need to do the same. But it is also suggested that, should someone think
> > they
> > are suffering from the same condition that is described in detail in the BB,
> > they may try the same procedures 'they' had found useful and working for
> > them.
> >
> > If the description of the symptoms fits you, here's how people who had these
> > similar symptoms found a solution to their problem.
> >
> > Kai
> >
>
> Kai,
>
> When I point out "I" and "we" in that context, I get called a liar by
> the groupers. Of course "God as we understood God" is God as they [the
> Oxford Group] understood God.
>
> Why is that so difficult for groupers other than yourself to grasp?

Because by four years into AA when the book was produced, lots of folks
weren't Oxford folks at all. Why is that so difficult for you to
understand? Or, at least, pretend you don't understand.

[Kai]

Ken wrote:
> Kai wrote:
>> Agent_Orange wrote:
>> <snip excerpts from BB>
>>
>>> So you have to give up logic and "Reason" in order to join Bill Wilson
>>> on the Lost Island of La-La Land.
>>
>>
>> You have trouble understanding written text or something? Did you, in any of
>> the quotes, notice the 'I' or 'we' parts? The BB of course makes it very
>> clear that 'they', that were the 'we', were people who felt *they* needed to
>> do what 'they' did, and that there other people who are not like them and
>> therefore have no need to do the same. But it is also suggested that, should
>> someone think they are suffering from the same condition that is described
>> in detail in the BB, they may try the same procedures 'they' had found
>> useful and working for them.
>>
>> If the description of the symptoms fits you, here's how people who had these
>> similar symptoms found a solution to their problem.
>>
>> Kai
>>
>
> Kai,
>
> When I point out "I" and "we" in that context, I get called a liar by
> the groupers. Of course "God as we understood God" is God as they [the
> Oxford Group] understood God.
>
> Why is that so difficult for groupers other than yourself to grasp?

And you claim I'm being silly? You're saying that references in AA literature to
'God as we understood' refer to one particular understanding of God that Oxford
Group had? Get real, even a child would understand it is a reference to each and
every person's unique, personal understanding of God. As it is also clearly said
in AA literature.

Kai

[Virtualoso]

In article <bi8f61$70g$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote:

> Ken wrote:
> > Kai wrote:
> >> Agent_Orange wrote:
> >> <snip excerpts from BB>
> >>
> >>> So you have to give up logic and "Reason" in order to join Bill Wilson
> >>> on the Lost Island of La-La Land.
> >>
> >>
> >> You have trouble understanding written text or something? Did you, in any
> >> of
> >> the quotes, notice the 'I' or 'we' parts? The BB of course makes it very
> >> clear that 'they', that were the 'we', were people who felt *they* needed
> >> to
> >> do what 'they' did, and that there other people who are not like them and
> >> therefore have no need to do the same. But it is also suggested that,
> >> should
> >> someone think they are suffering from the same condition that is described
> >> in detail in the BB, they may try the same procedures 'they' had found
> >> useful and working for them.
> >>
> >> If the description of the symptoms fits you, here's how people who had
> >> these
> >> similar symptoms found a solution to their problem.
> >>
> >> Kai
> >>
> >
> > Kai,
> >
> > When I point out "I" and "we" in that context, I get called a liar by
> > the groupers. Of course "God as we understood God" is God as they [the
> > Oxford Group] understood God.
> >
> > Why is that so difficult for groupers other than yourself to grasp?
>
> And you claim I'm being silly? You're saying that references in AA literature
> to
> 'God as we understood' refer to one particular understanding of God that
> Oxford
> Group had? Get real, even a child would understand it is a reference to each
> and
> every person's unique, personal understanding of God. As it is also clearly said
> in AA literature.

This is why you'll so often see detrAActors both haranguing folks to
answer to their Which Hunting Inquistion of "which god" is being
referred to, while also insisting Which One it is (their own concept
that they don't believe in).

[rosie readandpost]

> Amazingly I still hear people say, for
> example, that depression is angery turned inward, an idea popular
> in the 20s (Fruedian), that was long ago dismissed. But because
> It's somewhere in the "gospel" literature of AA then it must be
> true. dangerous.

yup!
i hear that around the AA tables every once in awhile, and remember the adage, to take what i need and leave the rest
behind!
rosie

[Virtualoso]

In article <Xns93E5EB876F5BEbillmicrosoftcom@204.127.199.17>, Bingo
<bill@microsoft.com> wrote:

> AA is a still a great program, but much os the literature is
> woefully out of date. Amazingly I still hear people say, for
> example, that depression is angery turned inward, an idea popular
> in the 20s (Fruedian), that was long ago dismissed. But because
> It's somewhere in the "gospel" literature of AA then it must be
> true. dangerous.

Whereas, "depression" is "really" just what?

[Virtualoso]

In article <Uwz3b.21249$Jb1.15848@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Amazingly I still hear people say, for
> > example, that depression is angery turned inward, an idea popular
> > in the 20s (Fruedian), that was long ago dismissed. But because
> > It's somewhere in the "gospel" literature of AA then it must be
> > true. dangerous.
>
> yup!
> i hear that around the AA tables every once in awhile, and remember the
> adage, to take what i need and leave the rest
> behind!

Whereas, it's "really" a reason to take drugs?

[Virtualoso]

In article <UGz3b.20351$421.307578@weber.videotron.net>, Jim Blair
<jblair@videotron.ca> wrote:

> Bing wrote
> . But because It's somewhere in the "gospel" literature of AA then it must
> be true. dangerous.
>
> Stuff like this becomes true b/c most AA's don't read the literature and
> they let morons impose this kind of crap on them.

"Let impose"? Or did they just hear someone say (otherwise known as
"being told") and chose to listen to just that?

[Craig S.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:280820032047167199%virtualoso@dot.com...

> Whereas, "depression" is "really" just what?

A good excuse to drink.

[Kai]

Tram wrote:
> "Kai" <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> wrote in
> news:bi0ah0$4pv$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi:
>>
>> Hey, guess what. I'm going to let you have the last word here,
>> Rosie. Write anything you want as a response to this post and I
>> won't respond to it. I promise.
>>
>> Kai
>>
> Thank Christ for that. You must be a real blast at parties, until
> the cops show up.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's tough to have to read the whole thread
through to finally get to show one's stupidity at the end of it. Sorry about
that.

Kai

[rosie readandpost]

"Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message news:vktpij8voerkaa@corp.supernews.com...
> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:280820032047167199%virtualoso@dot.com...
>
> > Whereas, "depression" is "really" just what?
>
> A good excuse to drink.
>
>

depression can be a KILLER disease, and the prejudice about mental illness in this thread is disgusting and pitiful!

[Virtualoso]

In article <%iI3b.19041$hf1.6831@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vktpij8voerkaa@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > news:280820032047167199%virtualoso@dot.com...
> >
> > > Whereas, "depression" is "really" just what?
> >
> > A good excuse to drink.

> depression can be a KILLER disease, and the prejudice about mental illness in
> this thread is disgusting and pitiful!

Some people do get depressed and kill themselves, sometimes. Including
because of "therapy" and "meds" and folks that treat them like they're
some sort of "mentally ill." Among quite a few other reasons. That much
hasn't established anything in particular to be especially prejudiced
about.


What's the Real Truth about all that?

[rosie readandpost]

you are very correct when you site that depressed folks DO DIE for several different reasons.
depression IS a mental illness, and is treatable.


--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

yesterday has forever passed, and tomorrow will
forever elude us. today is the only day we have.
today, I will try to start fresh, free of the burdens of
yesterday...............................n.wing



"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message news:290820030709528579%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <%iI3b.19041$hf1.6831@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
> readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:vktpij8voerkaa@corp.supernews.com...
> > > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> > > news:280820032047167199%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > >
> > > > Whereas, "depression" is "really" just what?
> > >
> > > A good excuse to drink.
>
> > depression can be a KILLER disease, and the prejudice about mental illness in
> > this thread is disgusting and pitiful!
>
> Some people do get depressed and kill themselves, sometimes. Including
> because of "therapy" and "meds" and folks that treat them like they're
> some sort of "mentally ill." Among quite a few other reasons. That much
> hasn't established anything in particular to be especially prejudiced
> about.
>
>
> What's the Real Truth about all that?

[Virtualoso]

In article <EQJ3b.20640$hf1.7013@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> depression IS a mental illness, and is treatable.

Well, some people do believe that - variously. Whatever that might
mean, in particular. Others don't, including psychiatrists, doctors,
neurologists, etc.

[Craig S.]

"rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EQJ3b.20640$hf1.7013@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> you are very correct when you site that depressed folks DO DIE for several
different reasons.

Like cirrhosis for instance.

[angryjohn]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 07:09:52 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:

>In article <%iI3b.19041$hf1.6831@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
>readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:vktpij8voerkaa@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
>> > news:280820032047167199%virtualoso@dot.com...
>> >
>> > > Whereas, "depression" is "really" just what?
>> >
>> > A good excuse to drink.
>
>> depression can be a KILLER disease, and the prejudice about mental illness in
>> this thread is disgusting and pitiful!
>
>Some people do get depressed and kill themselves, sometimes. Including
>because of "therapy" and "meds" and folks that treat them like they're
>some sort of "mentally ill." Among quite a few other reasons. That much
>hasn't established anything in particular to be especially prejudiced
>about.
>

Yawn............................

>
>What's the Real Truth about all that?

Good thing I learned that there is no point in trying to make sense out of what
you write. That would be depressing.
aa#2106

[Bingo]

"Jim Blair" <jblair@videotron.ca> wrote in
news:UGz3b.20351$421.307578@weber.videotron.net:

>
> Bing wrote
> . But because It's somewhere in the "gospel" literature of AA
> then it must be true. dangerous.
>
> Stuff like this becomes true b/c most AA's don't read the
> literature and they let morons impose this kind of crap on them.
> Jim
>
>

Yes, it's other side of the coin: The fellowship (not the program)
propagates a lot of the BS, maybe 75 percent of it.

[Virtualoso]

In article <Xns93E754A3F977billmicrosoftcom@63.240.76.16>, Bingo
<bill@microsoft.com> wrote:

> In some ways, Rosie, I think it's a losing battle here because I'm
> guessing that most people don't know what *major* depression is or
> its debilatating effects. It's also increasing at an alraming rate,
> 900 percent in the twentieth century. That's nine hundred, in case
> you thought I fat-fingered a zero:)

Well, the "diagnosis" sure has skyrocketed. Mostly since the meds began
to be marketed.

[Robert McGregor]

"Bingo" <bill@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93E754A3F977billmicrosoftcom@63.240.76.16. ..

>I think it's a losing battle here because I'm
> guessing that most people don't know what *major* depression is or
> its debilatating effects. It's also increasing at an alraming rate,
> 900 percent in the twentieth century. That's nine hundred, in case
> you thought I fat-fingered a zero:)

Do you really believe your undocumented statistic has no relationship to
persuasion of the gullible, by promoters of clinical theory, and
pharmaceutical snake oils?

Bob

[rock ooont roll]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:52:46 +1000, "Robert McGregor"
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Bingo" <bill@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns93E754A3F977billmicrosoftcom@63.240.76.16. ..
>
>>I think it's a losing battle here because I'm
>> guessing that most people don't know what *major* depression is or
>> its debilatating effects. It's also increasing at an alraming rate,
>> 900 percent in the twentieth century. That's nine hundred, in case
>> you thought I fat-fingered a zero:)
>
>Do you really believe your undocumented statistic has no relationship to
>persuasion of the gullible, by promoters of clinical theory, and
>pharmaceutical snake oils?
>
>Bob
>
>
Hey Robert lets have a party. I'll bring the voddy.

[rosie readandpost]

>
> In some ways, Rosie, I think it's a losing battle here because I'm
> guessing that most people don't know what *major* depression is or
> its debilatating effects.


thanks bingo, i might agree with you, but my email says differently.

there have been a few BRAVE folks who have spoken out as i have regarding chronic depression in recovery, but there are
many more, who chose NOT to get verbally slaughtered, in these "recovery" newsgroups when sharing about their
depression/alcoholism. (who can blame them?)
i will continue to post about it. it IS my experience, strength and hope.
it was my getting started in recovery from alcoholism, that allowed my depression to be properly diagnosed and treated.
:)
rosie
readandpost@yahoo.com

[rosie readandpost]

>
> Yes, it's other side of the coin: The fellowship (not the program)
> propagates a lot of the BS, maybe 75 percent of it.


i totally agree!