A message to those who rubbish, AA [Archive] - Drug & Alcohol Rehab Forums & News

View Full Version : A message to those who rubbish, AA

Pages : [1] 2 3

catsruleok

08-09-2003, 02:30 PM

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

08-09-2003, 05:37 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 06:13 PM

Blue Moon

08-09-2003, 06:25 PM

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

08-09-2003, 06:54 PM

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

08-09-2003, 07:13 PM

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

08-09-2003, 07:38 PM

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

08-09-2003, 07:40 PM

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

08-09-2003, 07:41 PM

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

08-09-2003, 07:55 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 07:55 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 07:55 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 08:19 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 09:36 PM

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

08-09-2003, 10:09 PM

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

08-09-2003, 10:40 PM

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

08-09-2003, 11:04 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 11:21 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 11:30 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 11:46 PM

"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

08-09-2003, 11:58 PM

"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

08-10-2003, 12:01 AM

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

08-10-2003, 12:03 AM

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

08-10-2003, 02:12 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 03:37 AM

> |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

08-10-2003, 05:08 AM

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

08-10-2003, 05:48 AM

catsruleok

08-10-2003, 06:02 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 06:07 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 06:07 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 06:13 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 07:03 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 07:26 AM

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

08-10-2003, 07:30 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 07:33 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 07:39 AM

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

08-10-2003, 07:52 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 08:01 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 08:49 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 09:04 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 09:37 AM

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

08-10-2003, 09:43 AM

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

08-10-2003, 10:00 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 10:09 AM

| "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

08-10-2003, 11:04 AM

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

08-10-2003, 11:20 AM

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

08-10-2003, 11:22 AM

"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

08-10-2003, 11:22 AM

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

08-10-2003, 11:28 AM

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

08-10-2003, 11:32 AM

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

08-10-2003, 11:34 AM

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

08-10-2003, 11:40 AM

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 m