View Full Version : Recovery groups (non-step)
Markus
08-13-2003, 11:38 PM
Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
for help, and many other people dislike the religious nature of
12-step programs. If you (or anyone that you know) have an addictions
problem and are seeking secular sources of help, please be aware of
the following (listed in alphabetical order):
MODERATION MANAGEMENT: http://www.moderation.org/whatisMM.html MM,
founded in 1994, suggests guidelines and limits for moderate drinking,
and provides professionally advised meetings for those attempting to
moderate. MM provides a supportive mutual-help environment that
encourages people who are concerned about their drinking to take
action to cut back or quit drinking before drinking problems become
severe. For groups in your area call 1-425-483-5293.
SECULAR ORGANIZATIONS FOR SOBRIETY (SOS) a.k.a. "Save Our Selves"
SOS is an alternative recovery method for those alcoholics or drug
addicts who are uncomfortable with the spiritual content of widely
available 12-Step programs. SOS takes a reasonable, secular approach
to recovery and maintains that sobriety is a separate issue from
religion or spirituality. SOS credits the individual for achieving and
maintaining his or her own sobriety, without reliance on any "Higher
Power." SOS respects recovery in any form regardless of the path by
which it is achieved. It is not opposed to or in competition with any
other recovery programs. http://www.secularsobriety.org/
SOS International: http://www.sossobriety.org/homepage.htm
**LifeRing Secular Recovery (LSR) LSR is a non-religious self-help
recovery organization for individuals who choose abstinence from
alcohol and other addictive drugs, or who are in relationships where
chemical dependency is a problem. The basic philosophy of LifeRing
Secular Recovery is summarized in the Three "S" -- Sobriety,
Secularity, Self-Help. http://www.unhooked.com/lsr/faq.htm
S.M.A.R.T. Recovery: http://www.smartrecovery.org SMART (Self
Management And Recovery Training), founded in 1994, is based on the
principles of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. SMART is a
time-limited free, professionally advised abstinence program based on
the theory that addictions are learned behaviors caused by faulty
self-defeating thinking, and that one can learn to change that
thinking and also, with practice and repetition, change the behaviors
resulting from it. For groups in your area call (216) 292-0220.
RATIONAL RECOVERY: http://www.rational.org/Q%26A.html RR was founded
in 1986 by Jack and Lois Trimpey in response to the lack of choice in
the field of addictions. RR is based on Addictive Voice Recognition
Technique (AVRT), and is a total abstinence program. NOTE: RR no
longer supports groups other than interaction on the web. As far as
programs go, it is basically an off the shelf self help book with a
web site. Great for self starters!
WOMEN FOR SOBRIETY: http://www.womenforsobriety.org WFS is the
oldest--founded in 1975--of the modern (non-12-step) programs, and is
dedicated to helping women overcome alcoholism and other addictions.
WFS accepts the disease model and is an abstinence program. The "New
Life" program helps women achieve sobriety and sustain ongoing
recovery. For groups in your area call 1-800-333-1606.
--
to reply, remove 4u
Virtualoso
08-14-2003, 01:31 AM
In article <l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com>, Markus
<markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> for help...
That's really not at all an objective statement. It's no more than a
personally biased "belief" at best, with no other unequivocal basis.
However, a great deal of academic, clinical and scientific research has
shown clearly that among the least effective methods and/or sources of
"help" are those that attempt to "educate" or use typical
"cognitive/behavior modification" techniques. Especially those
fashioned from the amateurs representing their own mere personal
beliefs and practices as that. Or those that rely on the
pseudo-"religious" beliefs about mental entities and "beasts" that one
fights and talks to silently within to struggle control of one's own
mind. In fact, that could be regarded as seriously mentally ill.
Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com>, Markus
> <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to
>> them for help...
>
> That's really not at all an objective statement. It's no more than a
> personally biased "belief" at best, with no other unequivocal basis.
>
> However, a great deal of academic, clinical and scientific research
> has shown clearly that among the least effective methods and/or
> sources of "help" are those that attempt to "educate" or use typical
> "cognitive/behavior modification" techniques. Especially those
> fashioned from the amateurs representing their own mere personal
> beliefs and practices as that. Or those that rely on the
> pseudo-"religious" beliefs about mental entities and "beasts" that one
> fights and talks to silently within to struggle control of one's own
> mind. In fact, that could be regarded as seriously mentally ill.
Can agree in regard to being seriously mentally ill. MRT is directed to and
for the person with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. (APD) Most offenders
and inmates suffer from APD. They are not your typical alcoholic, or are
they?
Virtualoso
08-14-2003, 02:29 AM
In article <vjm9i3snicdj48@corp.supernews.com>, Gail
<serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Virtualoso wrote:
> > In article <l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com>, Markus
> > <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to
> >> them for help...
> >
> > That's really not at all an objective statement. It's no more than a
> > personally biased "belief" at best, with no other unequivocal basis.
> >
> > However, a great deal of academic, clinical and scientific research
> > has shown clearly that among the least effective methods and/or
> > sources of "help" are those that attempt to "educate" or use typical
> > "cognitive/behavior modification" techniques. Especially those
> > fashioned from the amateurs representing their own mere personal
> > beliefs and practices as that. Or those that rely on the
> > pseudo-"religious" beliefs about mental entities and "beasts" that one
> > fights and talks to silently within to struggle control of one's own
> > mind. In fact, that could be regarded as seriously mentally ill.
>
> Can agree in regard to being seriously mentally ill. MRT is directed to and
> for the person with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. (APD) Most offenders
> and inmates suffer from APD. They are not your typical alcoholic, or are
> they?
I'm unsure just what the basis might be for anyone to figure that a
"personality disorder" is any "thing" more actual than alcoholism, or
that one might "really be" the other. However, I do notice that people
that like the concept of "personality disorder" tend to pin yet more on
to the notion.
Whatever "personality disorder" might be, it may be that some
alcoholics might also be among those considered as "having that." Just
so, alcoholics number among those that are regarded as "suffering from"
any number of other things. But if and when they do, I see no reason to
presume that that much "means" these are then equivalent.
--
"There are types entirely normal ... except when it comes to alcohol."
- Dr. Silkworth
catsruleok
08-14-2003, 03:15 AM
"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com...
> Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> for help, and many other people dislike the religious nature of
> 12-step programs. If you (or anyone that you know) have an addictions
> problem and are seeking secular sources of help, please be aware of
> the following (listed in alphabetical order):
<snip>
If asked, I would not tell anyone to not follow a Twelve Step programme. Although it's true that it
doesn't work for everyone (one reason being that the person who fails to complete the programme
doesn't put in the work required to do so), it works for many. So far, it works for me. The only
way any person is going to find out whether or not such a programme is going to work for them is to
try it for themselves.
JB
stuart
08-14-2003, 09:53 AM
"catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:bhfapc$jqo$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com...
> > Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> > for help, and many other people dislike the religious nature of
> > 12-step programs. If you (or anyone that you know) have an addictions
> > problem and are seeking secular sources of help, please be aware of
> > the following (listed in alphabetical order):
>
> <snip>
>
> If asked, I would not tell anyone to not follow a Twelve Step programme.
Although it's true that it
> doesn't work for everyone (one reason being that the person who fails to
complete the programme
> doesn't put in the work required to do so), it works for many. So far, it
works for me. The only
> way any person is going to find out whether or not such a programme is
going to work for them is to
> try it for themselves.
JB
This guy and Stumpy have been doing this obsessively for years. Most AA
folks have nothing at all against other methods of recovery, but these guys
sure have a problem with AA.
I always figure it's low class to knock the alternatives.....
>
> JB
>
>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:31:12 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com>
wrote:
>In article <l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com>, Markus
><markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
>> for help...
>
>That's really not at all an objective statement. It's no more than a
>personally biased "belief" at best, with no other unequivocal basis.
>
Virt just wants to argue. Markus's statement is fine. Virt, why do you
say it is
> no more than a
>>personally biased "belief" at best???
It is a fact that all programs do not work for all people.
You write well Virt. Not factual or true, but you have a good
vocabulary.
Joe Milon
Blue Moon
08-14-2003, 12:34 PM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:38:51 GMT, Markus <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
>for help
Of those who actually do come to AA for help and are willing to do
what is suggested, it seems to work remarkably well.
>If you (or anyone that you know) have an addictions
>problem and are seeking secular sources of help, please be aware of
>the following (listed in alphabetical order):
You could simply have posted the list without displaying your personal
agenda at the top.
>MODERATION MANAGEMENT: http://www.moderation.org/whatisMM.html MM,
>founded in 1994, suggests guidelines and limits for moderate drinking,
>and provides professionally advised meetings for those attempting to
>moderate. MM provides a supportive mutual-help environment that
>encourages people who are concerned about their drinking to take
>action to cut back or quit drinking before drinking problems become
>severe. For groups in your area call 1-425-483-5293.
Don't forget to ask them about their founder, Audrey Kishline.
>SECULAR ORGANIZATIONS FOR SOBRIETY (SOS) a.k.a. "Save Our Selves"
>SOS is an alternative recovery method for those alcoholics or drug
>addicts who are uncomfortable with the spiritual content of widely
>available 12-Step programs.
Is this their message, or yours? If it's theirs, it seems sad that
they feel any need to mention any other program at all.
>RATIONAL RECOVERY: http://www.rational.org/Q%26A.html RR was founded
>in 1986 by Jack and Lois Trimpey in response to the lack of choice in
>the field of addictions. RR is based on Addictive Voice Recognition
>Technique (AVRT), and is a total abstinence program.
Apparently Trimpey has abandoned much of the "Rational" parts of his
Rational program. Thus, if you want a real irrational session of
bashing other methods, apparently this is the place to go. Nobody
seems willing to talk about how they handle sobriety, or even whether
they have any. Which is all a shame, because the rational message
could be quite useful.
>WOMEN FOR SOBRIETY: http://www.womenforsobriety.org WFS is the
>oldest--founded in 1975--of the modern (non-12-step) programs, and is
>dedicated to helping women overcome alcoholism and other addictions.
I checked their web site out a couple of years ago, and the program
seemed to make a lot of sense. The sexism seems a shame though (and,
before anyone else points it out, I can understand the sexism that
many women feel when they read the AA book, though AA meetings
nowadays are not run that way).
--
Blue Moon
stuart
08-14-2003, 04:33 PM
"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cihnjvk5ip25v11v7nkqb2l8u5aaha4403@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:50:15 GMT, "stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com...
> >
> >The non-spiritual aspect of the many recovery programs out there don't
> >always work for everyone, so I would be delighted to point you in the
> >direction of Alcoholics Anonymous.
> >
> >Thank You
> >
>
> If I had really written the above it would have started with "The
> non-religious aspect of...". But I didn't write the above. I guess
> fraud is all I can expect from a person who signs MD to his name when
> in fact he has never earned such a title.
You seem to know as much about me as you do AA.;-)
>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
Markus
08-14-2003, 04:47 PM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:33:13 GMT, "stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote:
>You seem to know as much about me as you do AA.;-)
Instead of being flippant, please cut and paste where I posted
something erroneous about AA.
I will concede that I know more about AA than I do you. Only because
I haven't given you the research time as I have AA. Keep using my
name fraudulently and that will change however.
BTW: I was unaware that to be a chiropractor also required an MD.
Something unique to Canada? Or did you go on and get your MD? Are you
now practicing medicine? Are you going to answer honestly?
If true, kudo's in advance and I stand corrected. Feel free to fly
your happy ass down here to Chicago and I will buy you a coffee, hell,
a latte even. But um, just don't try and land at Meigs Field ;-)
-Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u
stuart
08-14-2003, 05:52 PM
"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gnsnjvg791qh50q80fjpkreol7shr1f8p2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:33:13 GMT, "stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote:
>
>
> >You seem to know as much about me as you do AA.;-)
>
> Instead of being flippant, please cut and paste where I posted
> something erroneous about AA.
>
> I will concede that I know more about AA than I do you. Only because
> I haven't given you the research time as I have AA. Keep using my
> name fraudulently and that will change however.
Sorry, but you got the wrong guy.....I merely posted the opposite of what
you did, and you responded with an attack of my credibility. What for?
>
> BTW: I was unaware that to be a chiropractor also required an MD.
> Something unique to Canada? Or did you go on and get your MD? Are you
> now practicing medicine? Are you going to answer honestly?
It is not necessary to have any medical training to be a chiropractor, but
there are probably about a hundred or so world-wide who do have this combo
of degrees. BTW Most chiropractors in Canada also have undergrad
universitydegrees as well.
>
> If true, kudo's in advance and I stand corrected. Feel free to fly
> your happy ass down here to Chicago and I will buy you a coffee, hell,
> a latte even. But um, just don't try and land at Meigs Field ;-)
I also hold a pilot's lic....
>
> -Markus
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
Moonraker
08-14-2003, 06:42 PM
"stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote in message
news:pwT_a.19180$zE1.3928@edtnps84...
>
> "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gnsnjvg791qh50q80fjpkreol7shr1f8p2@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:33:13 GMT, "stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote:
Only because
> > I haven't given you the research time as I have AA. Keep using my
> > name fraudulently and that will change however.
>
> Sorry, but you got the wrong guy.....I merely posted the opposite of what
> you did, and you responded with an attack of my credibility. What for?
He attacked your credibility to divert attention from his lack thereof.
Markus
08-14-2003, 07:34 PM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:52:21 GMT, "stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote:
>Sorry, but you got the wrong guy.....I merely posted the opposite of what
>you did, and you responded with an attack of my credibility. What for?
Really, I've got the wrong guy? Go back to your original post where
you started it with this:
>"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Attack on your credibility? I would have to dig, but I have seen you
sign a couple of your posts with a bunch of titles to include MD. So,
are you going to actually answer my questions:
> Or did you go on and get your MD? Are you
> now practicing medicine?
You haven't yet. And if you are not a certified and licensed MD, why
would you have put that in your sig?
>I also hold a pilot's lic....
This much I knew, hench the invite :-) To clarify what I meant about
Miegs field (was there mostly to ease the conjestion of private pilots
at the larger airports of Midway and O'hare) here is a link you might
find interesting:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-157x.html
Markus
--
to reply, remove 4u
Virtualoso
08-14-2003, 09:25 PM
In article <obU_a.1696$sx4.255@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Sorry, but you got the wrong guy.....I merely posted the opposite of what
> > you did, and you responded with an attack of my credibility. What for?
>
> He attacked your credibility to divert attention from his lack thereof.
Notice the particularly ARFy pattern?
Agent_Orange
08-14-2003, 11:31 PM
Blue Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3cce54638445cb871ac5364e0a5fc751@free.teranews.com >...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:38:51 GMT, Markus <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> >for help
>
> Of those who actually do come to AA for help and are willing to do
> what is suggested, it seems to work remarkably well.
>
Nonsense. That is lying with qualifiers. It is just saying,
"The A.A. program works great for that minuscule few
for whom it works great."
> >MODERATION MANAGEMENT: http://www.moderation.org/whatisMM.html MM,
> >founded in 1994, suggests guidelines and limits for moderate drinking,
> >and provides professionally advised meetings for those attempting to
> >moderate. MM provides a supportive mutual-help environment that
> >encourages people who are concerned about their drinking to take
> >action to cut back or quit drinking before drinking problems become
> >severe. For groups in your area call 1-425-483-5293.
>
> Don't forget to ask them about their founder, Audrey Kishline.
>
Don't forget that Audrey Kishline quit the M.M. program and
returned to A.A.. Three months later, she went on a binge and
drove drunk and killed two innocent people.
Don't forget to mention the involvement with A.A..
And while you are at it, don't forget to mention that
Dr. Jeffrey Brandsma did a study of A.A. where he found
that several months of A.A. indoctrination quintupled the
rate of binge drinking in alcoholics.
http://aorange1.tripod.com/orange-effectiveness.html#Brandsma
It seems that teaching people that they are powerless over
alcohol makes them behave like they are powerless over alcohol.
* Agent Orange *
* agent_orange@linuxmail.org *
* AA and Recovery Cult Debunking *
* http://aorange1.tripod.com/ *
* True infomation, human intelligence, *
* and Reason are the mortal enemies of *
* cult leaders... *
stuart
08-15-2003, 12:22 AM
"Moonraker" <moonrak9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:obU_a.1696$sx4.255@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote in message
> news:pwT_a.19180$zE1.3928@edtnps84...
> >
> > "Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:gnsnjvg791qh50q80fjpkreol7shr1f8p2@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:33:13 GMT, "stuart" <nospam@freds.com> wrote:
> Only because
> > > I haven't given you the research time as I have AA. Keep using my
> > > name fraudulently and that will change however.
> >
> > Sorry, but you got the wrong guy.....I merely posted the opposite of
what
> > you did, and you responded with an attack of my credibility. What for?
>
> He attacked your credibility to divert attention from his lack thereof.
Being a good fellow, he offered some non-spiritual alternatives for quitting
drinking for those who would rather not look at AA, and this is fine. Being
a good fellow also, I pointed out the AA spiritual alternative to his
organizations, for those who don't care to look into those he suggested.
I didn't see a problem with that. I have absolutely nothing against the
organizations he has suggested. They are good organizations, right?
He can research me all he wants. Quite frankly, I don't think I'm worth his
valuable time.
Virtualoso
08-15-2003, 01:45 AM
In article <8e728989.0308141931.34e213a3@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> Blue Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<3cce54638445cb871ac5364e0a5fc751@free.teranews.com >...
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:38:51 GMT, Markus <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> > >for help
> >
> > Of those who actually do come to AA for help and are willing to do
> > what is suggested, it seems to work remarkably well.
> >
>
> Nonsense. That is lying with qualifiers. It is just saying,
> "The A.A. program works great for that minuscule few
> for whom it works great."
It works great for those that do that with it. Why would anyone want to
go do a lousy job at that? Or is that a bit like whatever lousy job
they've been doing otherwise, before, too? Well, there's the entire
rest of the world, every day. Hasn't been "working for" them, either?
Blue Moon
08-15-2003, 08:31 AM
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 21:16:03 GMT, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>How the hell can anyone be on pills and working all sorts of different
>>recovery programs without getting an odd perception? If she had dived
>>into just one program, maybe the outcome would have been different.
>just as soon as you graduate from college and medical school with your MD, i will listen to your opinion on which
>program she should "dive into" first!
Doesn't take a doctor to see the facts that a person got drunk and
popped a load of pills.
However, I'm afraid I raelly don't believe you would listen any more
if I were to go get a MD.
--
Blue Moon
Blue Moon
08-15-2003, 10:09 AM
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:33:45 GMT, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> However, I'm afraid I raelly don't believe you would listen any more
>> if I were to go get a MD.
>if you had, you wouldn't be sitting in araa spouting off about medicine and showing your ignorance.
I haven't noticed you coming out with any correct corrections. Which
is honestly a shame, I'd have liked to discuss the whole issue of
drugs, particularly benzos and ADs, with someone without anyone
resorting to personal agendas.
>i am truly disappointed when you stray away from what you are good at.
I'm not here to avoid your disappointment, or try to earn your
approval. I've no control over what you think of me. Sometimes your
low opinion of me seems unfair or at least misplaced, but that's not
something I can deal with myself.
--
Blue Moon
rosie readandpost
08-15-2003, 12:18 PM
> As she was on the pills AND messing with all sorts of different
> recovery methods is a strong implication that she didn't actually jump
> in to work any one of them.
>
> --
> Blue Moon
BM,
are you comfortable sitting there on your ass, judging people?
AGENT
i know folks who have quit drinking who used ALL DIFFERENT methods.
WHATEVER WORKS!
AA is not the only way, nor is SMART or WFS.....................
ORGANIZED religion doesn't work for all either.
rosie
Blue Moon
08-15-2003, 12:19 PM
On 14 Aug 2003 20:31:55 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
(Agent_Orange) wrote:
>Blue Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3cce54638445cb871ac5364e0a5fc751@free.teranews.com >...
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:38:51 GMT, Markus <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
>> >for help
>>
>> Of those who actually do come to AA for help and are willing to do
>> what is suggested, it seems to work remarkably well.
>
>Nonsense. That is lying with qualifiers. It is just saying,
>"The A.A. program works great for that minuscule few
>for whom it works great."
No, it's not saying that at all. It's saying "Of those who actually
do come to AA for help and are willing to do what is suggested, it
seems to work remarkably well." The important element is the
willingness. Most who walk into AA are not willing to do what needs
doing, therefore few can really wonder as to why things didn't work
out too well.
>> >MODERATION MANAGEMENT: http://www.moderation.org/whatisMM.html MM,
>> >founded in 1994, suggests guidelines and limits for moderate drinking,
>> >and provides professionally advised meetings for those attempting to
>> >moderate. MM provides a supportive mutual-help environment that
>> >encourages people who are concerned about their drinking to take
>> >action to cut back or quit drinking before drinking problems become
>> >severe. For groups in your area call 1-425-483-5293.
>>
>> Don't forget to ask them about their founder, Audrey Kishline.
>>
>Don't forget that Audrey Kishline quit the M.M. program and
>returned to A.A.. Three months later, she went on a binge and
>drove drunk and killed two innocent people.
>Don't forget to mention the involvement with A.A..
Indeed. Moderation Management's own founder left MM because it didn't
work for her. I'm not sure what in her life caused all the issues,
but the point is that she left MM for a reason, and that can only be
that it wasn't working. But she didn't just go to AA and nothing
else, did she? She was messing about with all sorts of shit. So by
that logic, SMART didn't work, nor did WFS. From what they found in
her car, she was also on antidepressants.
As she was on the pills AND messing with all sorts of different
recovery methods is a strong implication that she didn't actually jump
in to work any one of them.
--
Blue Moon
Virtualoso
08-15-2003, 04:15 PM
In article <fd7c6a6f5d669180c20ed0d07211ed21@free.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2003 20:31:55 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
> (Agent_Orange) wrote:
>
> >Blue Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<3cce54638445cb871ac5364e0a5fc751@free.teranews.com >...
> >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 03:38:51 GMT, Markus <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> >> >for help
> >>
> >> Of those who actually do come to AA for help and are willing to do
> >> what is suggested, it seems to work remarkably well.
> >
> >Nonsense. That is lying with qualifiers. It is just saying,
> >"The A.A. program works great for that minuscule few
> >for whom it works great."
>
> No, it's not saying that at all. It's saying "Of those who actually
> do come to AA for help and are willing to do what is suggested, it
> seems to work remarkably well." The important element is the
> willingness. Most who walk into AA are not willing to do what needs
> doing, therefore few can really wonder as to why things didn't work
> out too well.
Most of whom are there because other things they're not doing well
aren't working out to well, either. Including the myriad of
"alternatives" to being there in the first place.
> >Don't forget that Audrey Kishline quit the M.M. program and
> >returned to A.A.. Three months later, she went on a binge and
> >drove drunk and killed two innocent people.
> >Don't forget to mention the involvement with A.A..
>
> Indeed. Moderation Management's own founder left MM because it didn't
> work for her. I'm not sure what in her life caused all the issues,
> but the point is that she left MM for a reason, and that can only be
> that it wasn't working. But she didn't just go to AA and nothing
> else, did she? She was messing about with all sorts of shit. So by
> that logic, SMART didn't work, nor did WFS. From what they found in
> her car, she was also on antidepressants.
>
> As she was on the pills AND messing with all sorts of different
> recovery methods is a strong implication that she didn't actually jump
> in to work any one of them.
Maybe that's a pitfall of "trying" MM.
Virtualoso
08-15-2003, 04:17 PM
In article <iJ7%a.107777$6a3.3431282@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > As she was on the pills AND messing with all sorts of different
> > recovery methods is a strong implication that she didn't actually jump
> > in to work any one of them.
> are you comfortable sitting there on your ass, judging people?
>
> AGENT
> i know folks who have quit drinking who used ALL DIFFERENT methods.
> WHATEVER WORKS!
Someone drinking enough to be concerned about findings some "method" to
quit drink obviously doesn't know "what works."
rosie readandpost
08-15-2003, 05:16 PM
"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:7747b0052c7f3df2d82c94f8fd749f89@free.teranew s.com...
>How the hell can anyone be on pills and working all sorts of different
>recovery programs without getting an odd perception? If she had dived
>into just one program, maybe the outcome would have been different.
just as soon as you graduate from college and medical school with your MD, i will listen to your opinion on which
program she should "dive into" first!
Virtualoso
08-15-2003, 05:24 PM
In article <J_b%a.92196$7O4.2134262@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Someone drinking enough to be concerned about findings some "method" to
> > quit drink obviously doesn't know "what works."
>
> please don't confuse yourself, with those who reach out for help, and
> continue to reach out, until they find what works
> for themselves!
Are you confusing them as those that reach out for help, and continue
to reach out, passing by the opportunity to keep at it the first help
until it worked?
Shawster
08-15-2003, 06:27 PM
"rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n4c%a.92198$7O4.2134773@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
> "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7747b0052c7f3df2d82c94f8fd749f89@free.teranew s.com...
>
> >How the hell can anyone be on pills and working all sorts of different
> >recovery programs without getting an odd perception? If she had dived
> >into just one program, maybe the outcome would have been different.
>
>
>
> just as soon as you graduate from college and medical school with your MD,
i will listen to your opinion on which
> program she should "dive into" first!
sensei says, "Man who chase many rabbits, never catch any."
Virtualoso
08-15-2003, 08:29 PM
In article <_6d%a.49454$On2.2409053@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Shawster
<shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:n4c%a.92198$7O4.2134773@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> >
> > "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7747b0052c7f3df2d82c94f8fd749f89@free.teranew s.com...
> >
> > >How the hell can anyone be on pills and working all sorts of different
> > >recovery programs without getting an odd perception? If she had dived
> > >into just one program, maybe the outcome would have been different.
> >
> >
> >
> > just as soon as you graduate from college and medical school with your MD,
> i will listen to your opinion on which
> > program she should "dive into" first!
>
> sensei says, "Man who chase many rabbits, never catch any."
So which shall it be, the red pill or the blue pill?
Virtualoso
08-15-2003, 08:49 PM
In article <JZe%a.92225$7O4.2147891@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > However, I'm afraid I raelly don't believe you would listen any more
> > if I were to go get a MD.
> >
> > --
> > Blue Moon
>
> if you had, you wouldn't be sitting in araa spouting off about medicine and
> showing your ignorance.
> i am truly disappointed when you stray away from what you are good at.
> Sharing your own ESH.
Unlike the MD's that say pretty much the same thing about popping pills?
Shawster
08-16-2003, 09:57 PM
"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:150820031729507465%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <_6d%a.49454$On2.2409053@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Shawster
> <shawster@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:n4c%a.92198$7O4.2134773@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:7747b0052c7f3df2d82c94f8fd749f89@free.teranew s.com...
> > >
> > > >How the hell can anyone be on pills and working all sorts of
different
> > > >recovery programs without getting an odd perception? If she had
dived
> > > >into just one program, maybe the outcome would have been different.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > just as soon as you graduate from college and medical school with your
MD,
> > i will listen to your opinion on which
> > > program she should "dive into" first!
> >
> > sensei says, "Man who chase many rabbits, never catch any."
>
> So which shall it be, the red pill or the blue pill?
the decision is alrady made, the truth is in the why.
>
I appreciate the fact there are other ways to sober up but most 12 step
programs are not 'religious in nature' they are however spiritual. This is
a SIGNIFICANT difference. Just ask any native indian what religion they
belong to....
"Markus" <markusx14u@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:l10mjv8geacu70ikmmp0cqf0q4gc54s38c@4ax.com...
> Twelve-step programs do not work well for many people who come to them
> for help, and many other people dislike the religious nature of
> 12-step programs. If you (or anyone that you know) have an addictions
> problem and are seeking secular sources of help, please be aware of
> the following (listed in alphabetical order):
>
> MODERATION MANAGEMENT: http://www.moderation.org/whatisMM.html MM,
> founded in 1994, suggests guidelines and limits for moderate drinking,
> and provides professionally advised meetings for those attempting to
> moderate. MM provides a supportive mutual-help environment that
> encourages people who are concerned about their drinking to take
> action to cut back or quit drinking before drinking problems become
> severe. For groups in your area call 1-425-483-5293.
>
> SECULAR ORGANIZATIONS FOR SOBRIETY (SOS) a.k.a. "Save Our Selves"
> SOS is an alternative recovery method for those alcoholics or drug
> addicts who are uncomfortable with the spiritual content of widely
> available 12-Step programs. SOS takes a reasonable, secular approach
> to recovery and maintains that sobriety is a separate issue from
> religion or spirituality. SOS credits the individual for achieving and
> maintaining his or her own sobriety, without reliance on any "Higher
> Power." SOS respects recovery in any form regardless of the path by
> which it is achieved. It is not opposed to or in competition with any
> other recovery programs. http://www.secularsobriety.org/
>
> SOS International: http://www.sossobriety.org/homepage.htm
>
> **LifeRing Secular Recovery (LSR) LSR is a non-religious self-help
> recovery organization for individuals who choose abstinence from
> alcohol and other addictive drugs, or who are in relationships where
> chemical dependency is a problem. The basic philosophy of LifeRing
> Secular Recovery is summarized in the Three "S" -- Sobriety,
> Secularity, Self-Help. http://www.unhooked.com/lsr/faq.htm
>
> S.M.A.R.T. Recovery: http://www.smartrecovery.org SMART (Self
> Management And Recovery Training), founded in 1994, is based on the
> principles of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. SMART is a
> time-limited free, professionally advised abstinence program based on
> the theory that addictions are learned behaviors caused by faulty
> self-defeating thinking, and that one can learn to change that
> thinking and also, with practice and repetition, change the behaviors
> resulting from it. For groups in your area call (216) 292-0220.
>
> RATIONAL RECOVERY: http://www.rational.org/Q%26A.html RR was founded
> in 1986 by Jack and Lois Trimpey in response to the lack of choice in
> the field of addictions. RR is based on Addictive Voice Recognition
> Technique (AVRT), and is a total abstinence program. NOTE: RR no
> longer supports groups other than interaction on the web. As far as
> programs go, it is basically an off the shelf self help book with a
> web site. Great for self starters!
>
> WOMEN FOR SOBRIETY: http://www.womenforsobriety.org WFS is the
> oldest--founded in 1975--of the modern (non-12-step) programs, and is
> dedicated to helping women overcome alcoholism and other addictions.
> WFS accepts the disease model and is an abstinence program. The "New
> Life" program helps women achieve sobriety and sustain ongoing
> recovery. For groups in your area call 1-800-333-1606.
> --
> to reply, remove 4u
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:54:22 -0400, "j4td" <address@address.com>
wrote:
>I appreciate the fact there are other ways to sober up but most 12 step
>programs are not 'religious in nature' they are however spiritual. This is
>a SIGNIFICANT difference. Just ask any native indian what religion they
>belong to....
I asked Joe the local native Indian and he said he was 7th Day.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Agent_Orange wrote:
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<iJ7%a.107777$6a3.3431282@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>
>> AGENT
>> i know folks who have quit drinking who used ALL DIFFERENT methods.
>> WHATEVER WORKS!
>> AA is not the only way, nor is SMART or WFS.....................
>> ORGANIZED religion doesn't work for all either.
>>
>> rosie
>
> Honestly, Rosie,
> that line about how A.A. works great for some is just another
> slogan.
>
> Where is the evidence?
> Not even A.A. Trustee, Doctor and Professor George E. Vaillant
> could show that A.A. worked for some.
>
> Vaillant ran an A.A.-based treatment program at
> Cambridge Hospital in Boston for 20 years, trying to make
> A.A. work.
Like you yourself said, this is bullshit. "AA-based" treatment at a hospital run
by some doc is not AA and you know it.
> Then he tracked his first 100 patients for 8
> years. The score was 5 sober, 29 dead, 66 still drinking.
Hey, whatever happened to abstinence not being any sign of success? Maybe those
66 learned how to moderate. :-)
> Five percent is the normal rate of spontaneous remission
> in alcoholics, so A.A. scored zero above normal spontaneous
> remission.
And you got this "normal spontaneous remission" rate from where? What the hell
does it mean anyway?
> But the 29% death rate is not normal.
Right. 100% death rate is normal.
> That is
> way too high. Even Prof. Vaillant called it "appalling".
> Vaillant's A.A.-based treatment program had the highest death
> rate of any program that he studied.
What I find appalling is that people like you actually deny that alcoholism is a
lethal illness often ending at the death of the alcoholic. You, Ragge, Stumpy
and other loonies keep talking like most alkies either stopped drinking or
learned how to moderate at some point, but the truth, of course, is that most
drunks die a premature death as a consequence of their drinking. Look around
yourself forchrissakes. I'm certain almost every adult in Finland knows several
people who died of drinking. I'm as certain that people who know several
ex-drunks who stopped drinking or started to successfully moderate are much
harder to find.
Kai
Kai wrote:
> Agent_Orange wrote:
>
>>"rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:<iJ7%a.107777$6a3.3431282@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>
>>>AGENT
>>>i know folks who have quit drinking who used ALL DIFFERENT methods.
>>>WHATEVER WORKS!
>>>AA is not the only way, nor is SMART or WFS.....................
>>>ORGANIZED religion doesn't work for all either.
>>>
>>>rosie
>>
>>Honestly, Rosie,
>>that line about how A.A. works great for some is just another
>>slogan.
>>
>>Where is the evidence?
>>Not even A.A. Trustee, Doctor and Professor George E. Vaillant
>>could show that A.A. worked for some.
>>
>>Vaillant ran an A.A.-based treatment program at
>>Cambridge Hospital in Boston for 20 years, trying to make
>>A.A. work.
>
>
> Like you yourself said, this is bullshit. "AA-based" treatment at a hospital run
> by some doc is not AA and you know it.
>
Kai,
This is too funny. I'm very curious about just what is "AA" among
program people when speaking in an outside forum. For example, an AA
clubhouse, which was opened by AA members, is run by only AA members and
only allows AA (and maybe other 12-step groups) to meet there, is not AA.
When some of the nonsense crap written in the 12 & 12 and Big Book are
pointed out in public, it's "none of us take the literature seriously,
AA is the Fellowship." Then, of course, if one points out the insanity
of members of the "Fellowship," it is "AA is the program. Of course
people will let you down, the program never will."
And now, (not that it is new) here you argue that a program run by
Harvard Psychiatrist, AA board member and an Alanon is "not AA." Are
you also going to argue that it wasn't AA when Dr. Bob and Bill Wilson
isolated "alcoholics" in hospital rooms and only allowed groupers for
visitors wasn't AA?
>
>>Then he tracked his first 100 patients for 8
>>years. The score was 5 sober, 29 dead, 66 still drinking.
>
>
> Hey, whatever happened to abstinence not being any sign of success? Maybe those
> 66 learned how to moderate. :-)
>
What happened to moderation _also_ being a measure of success?
>
>>Five percent is the normal rate of spontaneous remission
>>in alcoholics, so A.A. scored zero above normal spontaneous
>>remission.
>
>
> And you got this "normal spontaneous remission" rate from where? What the hell
> does it mean anyway?
>
>
>>But the 29% death rate is not normal.
>
>
> Right. 100% death rate is normal.
>
Why do you insist on being so silly? The only grouping of people that I
know that habitually drinking to excess results in death 100% of the
time rather than in moderation or abstention is among those who "come to
believe" and don't manage to abstain.
>
>>That is
>>way too high. Even Prof. Vaillant called it "appalling".
>>Vaillant's A.A.-based treatment program had the highest death
>>rate of any program that he studied.
>
>
> What I find appalling is that people like you actually deny that alcoholism is a
> lethal illness often ending at the death of the alcoholic.
What I find appalling is that people like you, who gain their "wisdom"
through cult/"re-education" techniques, in "tilling the black soil of
hopelessness" (Bill Wilson) not only pushes people off into suicide, but
encourages binge drinking.
The most successful potato chip advertising campaign I can think of is
so successful it has been around for decades, "Bet you can't eat just
one." It has been around at least twenty of thirty years. Please tell
me, how does the AA "one drink, one drunk" ("Bet you can't drink just
one") essentially differ from the slogan that gets people to eat more
potato chips than any other?
> You, Ragge, Stumpy
> and other loonies keep talking like most alkies either stopped drinking or
> learned how to moderate at some point, but the truth, of course, is that most
> drunks die a premature death as a consequence of their drinking.
If you had stuck to using the word "alcoholic" your above statement
would have some grounds to be argued as true. In Programese, an
"alcoholic" is someone who either is saved in AA or faces inevitable
"jails, institutions and death." If someone stops drinking without the
Steps, they never were a "real alcoholic." This is no different that if
pneumonia was defined as an "always fatal disease." If someone doesn't
die, of course it wasn't pneumonia. Then throw in "recovery from
pneumonia through the 12 Steps" . . .
> Look around
> yourself forchrissakes. I'm certain almost every adult in Finland knows several
> people who died of drinking. I'm as certain that people who know several
> ex-drunks who stopped drinking or started to successfully moderate are much
> harder to find.
>
It is my understanding that Scandinavia is much like Ireland. They,
like AA members, attribute great power to an inanimate substance. They
don't try to moderate.
If you walk into a bar in the U.S. late at night, you will find people
who have great belief in AA doctrine. They all have various amounts of
time working the program. You will find them lying on the floor or out
in the gutter in a puddle of vomit.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com
> Kai
>
>
j4td wrote:
> I appreciate the fact there are other ways to sober up but most 12 step
> programs are not 'religious in nature' they are however spiritual. This is
> a SIGNIFICANT difference. Just ask any native indian what religion they
> belong to....
j4td,
I can certainly see where the Step programs can be honestly described as
"religious not christian" however, I'm very curious what language you
are speaking where a "program" which is all about "fitting oneself into
God's plan" is not religious. Have you ever actually thought about this?
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com
ByTor wrote:
<---snip--->
> Try correlating that with the success rate of any **SHORT TERM* program.
> It does not matter that it was "AA" , I will say it again, it was a
> *SHORT TERM* program.
ByTor,
What in the world makes you think Vaillant's study was short term?
You may also want to include in your *research*, I
> say it again, the success rate of *SHORT TERM* programs....What you have
> above are totally bogus statistics, where is this research and what did
> they take in to consideration??? And don't send me to a page written by
> you....Who are you anyway???
You might wish to start with "The Natural History of Alcoholism" by AA
board member and Harvard psychiatrist George Vaillant.
> How much of a percentage of the patients *ACTUALLY* wanted to be
> there.....MOTIVATION is a key factor in any success, this is a HUMAN
> QUALITY & CHOICE...........SO NO AMOUNT OF TREATMENT CAN EVER BE
> MEASURED OF IT"S WORTH IF SOMEONE IS NOT MOTIVATED TO STAY
> STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If one is motivated, what in the world do they need with any program or
treatment or whatever?
>
<---snip--- multiple lines of:>
> PERSONAL MOTIVATION PERSONAL MOTIVATION PERSONAL MOTIVATION PERSONAL
Ken Ragge
ByTor
08-22-2003, 02:51 PM
In article <3F4665DD.2030502@intergate.com>, kenr@intergate.com says...
>
>
> ByTor wrote:
> <---snip--->
> > Try correlating that with the success rate of any **SHORT TERM* program.
> > It does not matter that it was "AA" , I will say it again, it was a
> > *SHORT TERM* program.
>
> ByTor,
>
> What in the world makes you think Vaillant's study was short term?
I did not say *short term S-T-U-D-Y*.....The reasearch was based on a
S-H-O-R-T T-E-R-M P-R-O-G-R-A-M
>
> >You may also want to include in your *research*, I
> > say it again, the success rate of *SHORT TERM* programs....What you have
> > above are totally bogus statistics, where is this research and what did
> > they take in to consideration??? And don't send me to a page written by
> > you....Who are you anyway???
>
> You might wish to start with "The Natural History of Alcoholism" by AA
> board member and Harvard psychiatrist George Vaillant.
What will this do for me????
>
> > How much of a percentage of the patients *ACTUALLY* wanted to be
> > there.....MOTIVATION is a key factor in any success, this is a HUMAN
> > QUALITY & CHOICE...........SO NO AMOUNT OF TREATMENT CAN EVER BE
> > MEASURED OF IT"S WORTH IF SOMEONE IS NOT MOTIVATED TO STAY
> > STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> If one is motivated, what in the world do they need with any program or
> treatment or whatever?
Are you REALLY THAT DENSE???????????????????????
Ken wrote:
> Kai wrote:
>> Agent_Orange wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then he tracked his first 100 patients for 8
>>> years. The score was 5 sober, 29 dead, 66 still drinking.
>>
>>
>> Hey, whatever happened to abstinence not being any sign of success? Maybe
>> those 66 learned how to moderate. :-)
>>
>
> What happened to moderation _also_ being a measure of success?
Beats me. Cannot have anything to do with the fact that most alcoholics seem to
have huge difficulties to moderate, right?
>
>>
>>> Five percent is the normal rate of spontaneous remission
>>> in alcoholics, so A.A. scored zero above normal spontaneous
>>> remission.
>>
>>
>> And you got this "normal spontaneous remission" rate from where? What the
>> hell does it mean anyway?
>>
>>
>>> But the 29% death rate is not normal.
>>
>>
>> Right. 100% death rate is normal.
>>
>
> Why do you insist on being so silly? The only grouping of people that I
> know that habitually drinking to excess results in death 100% of the
> time rather than in moderation or abstention is among those who "come to
> believe" and don't manage to abstain.
You 'know' that? Did it come to you in a dream or what?
>
>>
>>> That is
>>> way too high. Even Prof. Vaillant called it "appalling".
>>> Vaillant's A.A.-based treatment program had the highest death
>>> rate of any program that he studied.
>>
>>
>> What I find appalling is that people like you actually deny that alcoholism
>> is a lethal illness often ending at the death of the alcoholic.
>
> What I find appalling is that people like you, who gain their "wisdom"
> through cult/"re-education" techniques, in "tilling the black soil of
> hopelessness" (Bill Wilson) not only pushes people off into suicide, but
> encourages binge drinking.
Really? Why is it that I, for example, who knew absolutely nothing about AA - I
didn't even know we had it in Finland, found binge drinking all on my own? As a
matter of fact I used to binge drink for several years before I landed in AA.
After that I immediately relapsed once and haven't had a drink since. Oh, and I
haven't committed suicide either.
I realize you naturally have nothing to actually back up your claims about AA
pushing people into suicides, but don't you think someone, I mean someone other
than you and a couple of your online buddies, would've noticed this horrid
organization that causes and worsens alcoholism and pushes people into suicides
while at the same time pretends to do good?
>
> The most successful potato chip advertising campaign I can think of is
> so successful it has been around for decades, "Bet you can't eat just
> one." It has been around at least twenty of thirty years. Please tell
> me, how does the AA "one drink, one drunk" ("Bet you can't drink just
> one") essentially differ from the slogan that gets people to eat more
> potato chips than any other?
Umm,okay. So it's these magic words that cause binge drinking. These people who
would otherwise have no trouble controlling their drinking, immediately lose
control and start drinking like bloody palmtrees the minute someone at an AA
group says the magic words: "Bet you can't drink just one" I read the words a
few times and even typed them to see how they affect me. I'm still here, sober.
>
>> You, Ragge, Stumpy
>> and other loonies keep talking like most alkies either stopped drinking or
>> learned how to moderate at some point, but the truth, of course, is that most
>> drunks die a premature death as a consequence of their drinking.
>
> If you had stuck to using the word "alcoholic" your above statement
> would have some grounds to be argued as true. In Programese, an
> "alcoholic" is someone who either is saved in AA or faces inevitable
> "jails, institutions and death." If someone stops drinking without the
> Steps, they never were a "real alcoholic." This is no different that if
> pneumonia was defined as an "always fatal disease." If someone doesn't
> die, of course it wasn't pneumonia. Then throw in "recovery from
> pneumonia through the 12 Steps" . . .
Quite a few alcoholics seem to face 'jails, institutions and death', even though
you try to claim they don't. There was a study recently here in Finland which
concluded that about 80% of all inmates have a substance abuse problem. And no,
they didn't all pick it up inside. Alcohol-related deaths is the number three
killer in Finland, right after tobacco and cardio- pulmonary-diseases, to which
heavy drinking also contributes, by the way.
>
>> Look around
>> yourself forchrissakes. I'm certain almost every adult in Finland knows
>> several people who died of drinking. I'm as certain that people who know
>> several ex-drunks who stopped drinking or started to successfully moderate
>> are much harder to find.
>>
>
> It is my understanding that Scandinavia is much like Ireland. They,
> like AA members, attribute great power to an inanimate substance. They
> don't try to moderate.
Well, you're very wrong about Scandinavia then. But I'm certain you're a better
expert on it than I am. My much narrower than your experience on Finnish drunks
is that every one of them has tried to moderate at some point. To my experience,
most drunks do not drink vast amounts of booze from day one, but rather 'evolve'
in time. Certainly at the point when friends, families, jobs and apartments
slowly start to go away, most people will try to moderate. I know I did. As a
matter of fact moderation was the very thing I wanted. Went to a therapist for
years just to learn moderation. Tried Antabus, SSRI's, you name it, but all the
time my binges got longer and more destructive. Need I remind you I knew
absolutely nothing about AA at the time.
>
> If you walk into a bar in the U.S. late at night, you will find people
> who have great belief in AA doctrine. They all have various amounts of
> time working the program. You will find them lying on the floor or out
> in the gutter in a puddle of vomit.
Sure, and this because of AA.
Think I'll go and do my typical Scandinavian daily worship of an inanimate
substance.
Kai
ByTor wrote:
> In article <3F4665DD.2030502@intergate.com>, kenr@intergate.com says...
>
>>
>>ByTor wrote:
>><---snip--->
>>
>>>Try correlating that with the success rate of any **SHORT TERM* program.
>>>It does not matter that it was "AA" , I will say it again, it was a
>>>*SHORT TERM* program.
>>
>>ByTor,
>>
>>What in the world makes you think Vaillant's study was short term?
>
>
> I did not say *short term S-T-U-D-Y*.....The reasearch was based on a
> S-H-O-R-T T-E-R-M P-R-O-G-R-A-M
>
>>>You may also want to include in your *research*, I
>>>say it again, the success rate of *SHORT TERM* programs....What you have
>>>above are totally bogus statistics, where is this research and what did
>>>they take in to consideration??? And don't send me to a page written by
>>>you....Who are you anyway???
>>
>>You might wish to start with "The Natural History of Alcoholism" by AA
>>board member and Harvard psychiatrist George Vaillant.
>
>
> What will this do for me????
>
ByTor,
By what you've written re the Vaillant study, you have no idea what it
was. The recommended book (by an AA board member and main researcher)
will fill you in.
Ken Ragge
>
>>>How much of a percentage of the patients *ACTUALLY* wanted to be
>>>there.....MOTIVATION is a key factor in any success, this is a HUMAN
>>>QUALITY & CHOICE...........SO NO AMOUNT OF TREATMENT CAN EVER BE
>>>MEASURED OF IT"S WORTH IF SOMEONE IS NOT MOTIVATED TO STAY
>>>STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>If one is motivated, what in the world do they need with any program or
>>treatment or whatever?
>
>
> Are you REALLY THAT DENSE???????????????????????
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:16 PM
In article <8e728989.0308220901.7fca27a5@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> "rosie readandpost" <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<iJ7%a.107777$6a3.3431282@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> >
> > AGENT
> > i know folks who have quit drinking who used ALL DIFFERENT methods.
> > WHATEVER WORKS!
> > AA is not the only way, nor is SMART or WFS.....................
> > ORGANIZED religion doesn't work for all either.
> >
> > rosie
>
> Honestly, Rosie,
> that line about how A.A. works great for some is just another
> slogan.
>
> Where is the evidence?...
All the sober alcoholics that it's worked great for, for over half a
century, all over the world. Sheesh.
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:16 PM
In article <8e728989.0308220901.7fca27a5@posting.google.com>,
Agent_Orange <agent_orange@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> Vaillant ran an A.A.-based treatment program at
> Cambridge Hospital in Boston ...
An "AA-based treatment program" isn't AA, of course, whatever else it
might be.
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:22 PM
In article <3F46628F.7050300@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> Then, of course, if one points out the insanity
> of members of the "Fellowship," it is "AA is the program. Of course
> people will let you down, the program never will."
>
> And now, (not that it is new) here you argue that a program run by
> Harvard Psychiatrist, AA board member and an Alanon is "not AA."
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with some really very
simple discernments: regardless of professional credential, the good
doctor seems to have merely proven that attempts to institutionalize
and professionally approximate what's termed "AA-based program" might
not get any particular results representative of what AA, itself, does.
Maybe if you didn't twist your mind so much futilely trying to "prove"
some other notion of your own with "evidence" which does no such thing,
it would be clearer for you.
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:24 PM
In article <3F46628F.7050300@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> What I find appalling is ... pushes people off into suicide...
You don't seem to know much about the facts of suicides, then.
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:31 PM
In article <3F46628F.7050300@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> This is no different that if
> pneumonia was defined as an "always fatal disease." If someone doesn't
> die, of course it wasn't pneumonia. Then throw in "recovery from
> pneumonia through the 12 Steps" . . .
It's not at all like that, of course. Maybe this kind of skewed, wrong
thinking of yours is what you're really struggling with. Rather,
something like diabetes or other incurable conditions, once contracted,
are then always present, aren't they? And yet, individuals suffer from
quite varying severity and progressively worsening forms of it, don't
they? Or can they go back to gorging themselves on sugar later?
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:33 PM
In article <3F46628F.7050300@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> If you walk into a bar in the U.S. late at night, you will find people
> who have great belief in AA doctrine. They all have various amounts of
> time working the program. You will find them lying on the floor or out
> in the gutter in a puddle of vomit.
Possibly. More likely is you'll find scoffers at AA and the program
doing that, though. Even saying many things that "anti AA" folks say.
Obviously, they're sure not working the AA program. AA sure doesn't
propose that it's program is going to work them, otherwise.
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:34 PM
In article <3F4665DD.2030502@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> If one is motivated, what in the world do they need with any program or
> treatment or whatever?
Indeed. In fact, why in the world are they having problems with alcohol
at all in the first place?
Virtualoso
08-22-2003, 09:37 PM
In article <3F4663DE.7080704@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> I can certainly see where the Step programs can be honestly described as
> "religious not christian" however, I'm very curious what language you
> are speaking where a "program" which is all about "fitting oneself into
> God's plan" is not religious. Have you ever actually thought about this?
The program is spiritual, not religious. That you, personally, might be
incapable of discernment of any difference is quite another thing.
Unless, of course, you might provide example of what you regard as
spiritual, which is not religious. I'm guessing you are unable to, as
it appears you simply do not have the mental refinement.
Kai wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
>>Kai wrote:
>>
>>>Agent_Orange wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Then he tracked his first 100 patients for 8
>>>>years. The score was 5 sober, 29 dead, 66 still drinking.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, whatever happened to abstinence not being any sign of success? Maybe
>>>those 66 learned how to moderate. :-)
>>>
>>
>>What happened to moderation _also_ being a measure of success?
>
>
> Beats me. Cannot have anything to do with the fact that most alcoholics seem to
> have huge difficulties to moderate, right?
>
Kai,
Certainly it has to do with the virtual impossibility of anyone who goes
to AA managing to moderate with all the well meaning (and
not-so-well-meaning) attempts to sabotague success. "Bet you can't eat
just one" potato chip."/ "You can't drink just one." And the widespread
practice of using success as a sign of failure.
>
>>>>Five percent is the normal rate of spontaneous remission
>>>>in alcoholics, so A.A. scored zero above normal spontaneous
>>>>remission.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you got this "normal spontaneous remission" rate from where? What the
>>>hell does it mean anyway?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But the 29% death rate is not normal.
>>>
>>>
>>>Right. 100% death rate is normal.
>>>
>>
>>Why do you insist on being so silly? The only grouping of people that I
>>know that habitually drinking to excess results in death 100% of the
>>time rather than in moderation or abstention is among those who "come to
>>believe" and don't manage to abstain.
>
>
> You 'know' that? Did it come to you in a dream or what?
>
Actually from a far better source than you evidently have. You obviously
haven't polled the people who are falling-down drunk outside meetings.
Believe it or not, there are people outside of AA meetings, and they
behave differently from those who go to meetings. Except, of course,
those who end up lying in their own vomit in the gutter.
>
>>>>That is
>>>>way too high. Even Prof. Vaillant called it "appalling".
>>>>Vaillant's A.A.-based treatment program had the highest death
>>>>rate of any program that he studied.
>>>
>>>
>>>What I find appalling is that people like you actually deny that alcoholism
>>>is a lethal illness often ending at the death of the alcoholic.
>>
>>What I find appalling is that people like you, who gain their "wisdom"
>>through cult/"re-education" techniques, in "tilling the black soil of
>>hopelessness" (Bill Wilson) not only pushes people off into suicide, but
>>encourages binge drinking.
>
>
> Really? Why is it that I, for example, who knew absolutely nothing about AA - I
> didn't even know we had it in Finland, found binge drinking all on my own? As a
> matter of fact I used to binge drink for several years before I landed in AA.
> After that I immediately relapsed once and haven't had a drink since. Oh, and I
> haven't committed suicide either.
>
> I realize you naturally have nothing to actually back up your claims about AA
> pushing people into suicides, but don't you think someone, I mean someone other
> than you and a couple of your online buddies, would've noticed this horrid
> organization that causes and worsens alcoholism and pushes people into suicides
> while at the same time pretends to do good?
>
I would say "while at the same time really believes they are doing
good."
Pay attention the next time in a meeting that it is announced that
someone else committed suicide. Listen for anything other than blaming
"the disease" and the person who committed suicide.
>
>>The most successful potato chip advertising campaign I can think of is
>>so successful it has been around for decades, "Bet you can't eat just
>>one." It has been around at least twenty of thirty years. Please tell
>>me, how does the AA "one drink, one drunk" ("Bet you can't drink just
>>one") essentially differ from the slogan that gets people to eat more
>>potato chips than any other?
>
>
> Umm,okay. So it's these magic words that cause binge drinking. These people who
> would otherwise have no trouble controlling their drinking, immediately lose
> control and start drinking like bloody palmtrees the minute someone at an AA
> group says the magic words: "Bet you can't drink just one" I read the words a
> few times and even typed them to see how they affect me. I'm still here, sober.
>
Here you are trying to be silly. The point is is that the words contain
powerful suggestion, powerful imagery of _failure_. Of course it didn't
make you go out and drink.
>
>>>You, Ragge, Stumpy
>>>and other loonies keep talking like most alkies either stopped drinking or
>>>learned how to moderate at some point, but the truth, of course, is that most
>>>drunks die a premature death as a consequence of their drinking.
>>
>>If you had stuck to using the word "alcoholic" your above statement
>>would have some grounds to be argued as true. In Programese, an
>>"alcoholic" is someone who either is saved in AA or faces inevitable
>>"jails, institutions and death." If someone stops drinking without the
>>Steps, they never were a "real alcoholic." This is no different that if
>>pneumonia was defined as an "always fatal disease." If someone doesn't
>>die, of course it wasn't pneumonia. Then throw in "recovery from
>>pneumonia through the 12 Steps" . . .
>
>
> Quite a few alcoholics seem to face 'jails, institutions and death', even though
> you try to claim they don't. There was a study recently here in Finland which
> concluded that about 80% of all inmates have a substance abuse problem. And no,
> they didn't all pick it up inside. Alcohol-related deaths is the number three
> killer in Finland, right after tobacco and cardio- pulmonary-diseases, to which
> heavy drinking also contributes, by the way.
I'm just plain shocked at the great growth in substance abuse problems
since AA was founded. In the U.S., just as AA's public relations arm
began teaching the public about "the disease," Marty Mann was before
Congress asking for money for further education because of 100,000
alcoholics in the country. Now, since we've all become so educated,
there are not only tens of millions of alcoholics, but a huge number of
drug addicts that never existed before in great numbers.
Ken Ragge
http://www.morerevealed.com
>
>
>>>Look around
>>>yourself forchrissakes. I'm certain almost every adult in Finland knows
>>>several people who died of drinking. I'm as certain that people who know
>>>several ex-drunks who stopped drinking or started to successfully moderate
>>>are much harder to find.
>>>
>>
>>It is my understanding that Scandinavia is much like Ireland. They,
>>like AA members, attribute great power to an inanimate substance. They
>>don't try to moderate.
>
>
> Well, you're very wrong about Scandinavia then. But I'm certain you're a better
> expert on it than I am. My much narrower than your experience on Finnish drunks
> is that every one of them has tried to moderate at some point. To my experience,
> most drunks do not drink vast amounts of booze from day one, but rather 'evolve'
> in time. Certainly at the point when friends, families, jobs and apartments
> slowly start to go away, most people will try to moderate. I know I did. As a
> matter of fact moderation was the very thing I wanted. Went to a therapist for
> years just to learn moderation. Tried Antabus, SSRI's, you name it, but all the
> time my binges got longer and more destructive. Need I remind you I knew
> absolutely nothing about AA at the time.
>
>
>>If you walk into a bar in the U.S. late at night, you will find people
>>who have great belief in AA doctrine. They all have various amounts of
>>time working the program. You will find them lying on the floor or out
>>in the gutter in a puddle of vomit.
>
>
> Sure, and this because of AA.
>
> Think I'll go and do my typical Scandinavian daily worship of an inanimate
> substance.
>
> Kai
>
>
angryjohn
08-22-2003, 11:52 PM
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:25:01 GMT, ByTor <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote:
>In article <8e728989.0308220901.7fca27a5@posting.google.com>,
>agent_orange@linuxmail.org says...
>
>
>***snippety doo daa snippety yeh***
>
> this is a HUMAN
>QUALITY & CHOICE...........
And there is the answer from the mouth of an ardent AA supporter. CHOICE!
aa#2106
Moonraker
08-23-2003, 12:23 AM
"Ken" <kenr@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E047.4090802@intergate.com...
> I'm just plain shocked at the great growth in substance abuse problems
> since AA was founded. In the U.S., just as AA's public relations arm
> began teaching the public about "the disease," Marty Mann was before
> Congress asking for money for further education because of 100,000
> alcoholics in the country. Now, since we've all become so educated,
> there are not only tens of millions of alcoholics, but a huge number of
> drug addicts that never existed before in great numbers.
>
You say this like you believe that AA "causes" substance abuse problems. Of
course there are more alcoholics and addicts now than there were in 1935.
There's also more murders, rapes, armed robberies, and tax evasion than
there was 68 years ago.
And of course, in 1935 we didn't have the internet, TV, and Hollywood hadn't
yet made a movie with a cuss word in it. Now we have a media culture that
romanticizes the "addictions" of all these worthless pieces of crap that
fancy themselves entertainers. These glitterati get cannonized because they
have been to treatment. There's no consequences for their actions, and the
younger set see this and emulate it. Maybe you should be ranting about MTV
and Entertainment Tonight and Wild On... and all the rest of this wasteland
instead of blaming societal ills on AA?
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 02:04 AM
In article <bIB1b.1637$jd.1516@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Ken" <kenr@intergate.com> wrote in message
> news:3F46E047.4090802@intergate.com...
> > I'm just plain shocked at the great growth in substance abuse problems
> > since AA was founded. In the U.S., just as AA's public relations arm
> > began teaching the public about "the disease," Marty Mann was before
> > Congress asking for money for further education because of 100,000
> > alcoholics in the country. Now, since we've all become so educated,
> > there are not only tens of millions of alcoholics, but a huge number of
> > drug addicts that never existed before in great numbers.
> >
>
> You say this like you believe that AA "causes" substance abuse problems. Of
> course there are more alcoholics and addicts now than there were in 1935.
> There's also more murders, rapes, armed robberies, and tax evasion than
> there was 68 years ago.
There's quite a few more people, too. Isn't the ratio of alcoholics
pretty much the same as it was then, though?
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 02:05 AM
In article <m1tdkv4rd1gr4m1p1ml7pmbou2mjg7vfl0@4ax.com>, angryjohn
<john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:37:01 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <3F4663DE.7080704@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I can certainly see where the Step programs can be honestly described as
> >> "religious not christian" however, I'm very curious what language you
> >> are speaking where a "program" which is all about "fitting oneself into
> >> God's plan" is not religious. Have you ever actually thought about this?
> >
> >The program is spiritual, not religious. That you, personally, might be
> >incapable of discernment of any difference is quite another thing.
> >Unless, of course, you might provide example of what you regard as
> >spiritual, which is not religious. I'm guessing you are unable to, as
> >it appears you simply do not have the mental refinement.
>
>
> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and "religious"?
I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it, either.
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 03:33 AM
In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
<john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and "religious"?
> >
> >I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it, either.
>
>
> It is a simple question. ...
It's a simple question? So you must have a simple answer.
angryjohn
08-23-2003, 09:49 AM
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:33:12 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and "religious"?
>> >
>> >I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it, either.
>>
>>
>> It is a simple question. ...
>
>It's a simple question? So you must have a simple answer.
Yes, a simple question. Posed to you, in order to discover what you view the
difference between the two terms is. Virt makes a declaration then fails to
back it up in any way, as usual.
aa#2106
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 10:25 AM
In article <7vrekv8t4eae5k4kgj4tbq46mqueuj2rqh@4ax.com>, angryjohn
<john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:33:12 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and "religious"?
> >> >
> >> >I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it, either.
> >>
> >>
> >> It is a simple question. ...
> >
> >It's a simple question? So you must have a simple answer.
>
>
> Yes, a simple question. Posed to you, in order to discover what you view the
> difference between the two terms is. Virt makes a declaration then fails to
> back it up in any way, as usual.
Well, apparently you don't discern too keenly.
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 11:22 AM
In article <vkevd59na3bse8@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
> "j4td" <address@address.com> wrote in message
> news:J6j1b.60188$PD3.4619277@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> > I appreciate the fact there are other ways to sober up but most 12 step
> > programs are not 'religious in nature' they are however spiritual. This
> is
> > a SIGNIFICANT difference. Just ask any native indian what religion they
> > belong to....
>
> Aside from a lack of dogma, spiritual superstition is insignificantly
> different from religious superstition.
Maybe, then, not too different from scientismist superstition, either.
Craig S.
08-23-2003, 12:52 PM
"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:230820030822321761%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <vkevd59na3bse8@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
> <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > "j4td" <address@address.com> wrote in message
> > news:J6j1b.60188$PD3.4619277@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >
> > > I appreciate the fact there are other ways to sober up but most 12
step
> > > programs are not 'religious in nature' they are however spiritual.
This
> > is
> > > a SIGNIFICANT difference. Just ask any native indian what religion
they
> > > belong to....
> >
> > Aside from a lack of dogma, spiritual superstition is insignificantly
> > different from religious superstition.
>
> Maybe, then, not too different from scientismist superstition, either.
We may remain deadlocked on this issue. Perhaps we can ask our Father, who
art in heaven, to settle it for us.
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 01:00 PM
In article <vkf6jvm7b4s18f@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
> "Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:230820030822321761%virtualoso@dot.com...
> > In article <vkevd59na3bse8@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
> > <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "j4td" <address@address.com> wrote in message
> > > news:J6j1b.60188$PD3.4619277@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > >
> > > > I appreciate the fact there are other ways to sober up but most 12
> step
> > > > programs are not 'religious in nature' they are however spiritual.
> This
> > > is
> > > > a SIGNIFICANT difference. Just ask any native indian what religion
> they
> > > > belong to....
> > >
> > > Aside from a lack of dogma, spiritual superstition is insignificantly
> > > different from religious superstition.
> >
> > Maybe, then, not too different from scientismist superstition, either.
>
> We may remain deadlocked on this issue. Perhaps we can ask our Father, who
> art in heaven, to settle it for us.
Good idea. Just as soon as the studies are complete proving the
effective way to do that.
angryjohn
08-23-2003, 04:56 PM
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:25:16 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>In article <7vrekv8t4eae5k4kgj4tbq46mqueuj2rqh@4ax.com>, angryjohn
><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:33:12 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
>> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and "religious"?
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it, either.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It is a simple question. ...
>> >
>> >It's a simple question? So you must have a simple answer.
>>
>>
>> Yes, a simple question. Posed to you, in order to discover what you view the
>> difference between the two terms is. Virt makes a declaration then fails to
>> back it up in any way, as usual.
>
>Well, apparently you don't discern too keenly.
I can discern your inability to provide any type of answer to the question. It
was you Virt that made the following statement:
"The program is spiritual, not religious."
The question was not posted to see if I could discern a difference it was posed
in order to find out what you view the difference to be. It is your statement
stating there is a difference.
The answer you have provided clearly indicates what the difference is. No
answer, no difference.
aa#2106
Robert McGregor
08-23-2003, 05:08 PM
"angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
news:10lfkv4k21k8t2o5giuantm6e41visc8jr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:25:16 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <7vrekv8t4eae5k4kgj4tbq46mqueuj2rqh@4ax.com>, angryjohn
> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:33:12 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
> >> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and "religious"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it, either.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a simple question. ...
> >> >
> >> >It's a simple question? So you must have a simple answer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, a simple question. Posed to you, in order to discover what you
view the
> >> difference between the two terms is. Virt makes a declaration then
fails to
> >> back it up in any way, as usual.
> >
> >Well, apparently you don't discern too keenly.
>
>
> I can discern your inability to provide any type of answer to the
question. It
> was you Virt that made the following statement:
>
> "The program is spiritual, not religious."
>
> The question was not posted to see if I could discern a difference it was
posed
> in order to find out what you view the difference to be. It is your
statement
> stating there is a difference.
>
> The answer you have provided clearly indicates what the difference is. No
> answer, no difference.
>
>
> aa#2106
Jeez, I've been in high spirits away from religion, in low spirits when
surrounded by religion, and vice versa.
Spose if you're always in low spirits, any difference would be a problem for
you.
High spirited Bob
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 07:20 PM
In article <53nfkvs7o3pki4q6jc11mkkeo6gab1j1l6@4ax.com>, angryjohn
<john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> What does the state of my spirits have to do with Virt answering the question?
> I am genuinely curious as to how he differentiates the two. ...
Oh, well, "genuinely" curious. Yet, you keep answering it "for" me. LOL
Virtualoso
08-23-2003, 07:23 PM
In article <1srfkvgldk0c3q93b60jjs0rig9g3s6tmi@4ax.com>, angryjohn
<john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> The hem? You mean he wears a dress?
> aa#2106
Typical detrAActor thinking. Needlessly narrow, limited, groundlessly
presumptive and projected. Don't most all your clothes have hems AG?
I'm pretty sure Bob's do, even without a single "dress" among them.
Robert McGregor
08-23-2003, 07:28 PM
"angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
news:1srfkvgldk0c3q93b60jjs0rig9g3s6tmi@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:10:13 +1000, "Robert McGregor"
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
> >news:53nfkvs7o3pki4q6jc11mkkeo6gab1j1l6@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 07:08:42 +1000, "Robert McGregor"
> >> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:10lfkv4k21k8t2o5giuantm6e41visc8jr@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:25:16 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <7vrekv8t4eae5k4kgj4tbq46mqueuj2rqh@4ax.com>, angryjohn
> >> >> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:33:12 -0700, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>,
angryjohn
> >> >> >> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and
> >"religious"?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I didn't expect a Raggist would be able to discern it,
either.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It is a simple question. ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's a simple question? So you must have a simple answer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, a simple question. Posed to you, in order to discover what
you
> >> >view the
> >> >> >> difference between the two terms is. Virt makes a declaration
then
> >> >fails to
> >> >> >> back it up in any way, as usual.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well, apparently you don't discern too keenly.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I can discern your inability to provide any type of answer to the
> >> >question. It
> >> >> was you Virt that made the following statement:
> >> >>
> >> >> "The program is spiritual, not religious."
> >> >>
> >> >> The question was not posted to see if I could discern a difference
it
> >was
> >> >posed
> >> >> in order to find out what you view the difference to be. It is your
> >> >statement
> >> >> stating there is a difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> The answer you have provided clearly indicates what the difference
is.
> >No
> >> >> answer, no difference.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> aa#2106
> >> >
> >> >Jeez, I've been in high spirits away from religion, in low spirits
when
> >> >surrounded by religion, and vice versa.
> >> >
> >> >Spose if you're always in low spirits, any difference would be a
problem
> >for
> >> >you.
> >> >
> >> >High spirited Bob
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> What does the state of my spirits have to do with Virt answering the
> >question?
> >
> >
> >That's mean spirited of you, asking me to explain Virt's reticence! Even
if
> >you can't touch the hem of his garment, you could at least ask Him!
> >
> >Bob;-)
> >
> >
>
>
> The hem? You mean he wears a dress?
> aa#2106
Ahem! Regardless of "He" being transvestite, hermaphrodite, or simply a he
with a capital H, perhaps if you addressed Him with a spirit of reverence,
He would desist from religiously hemming you out.
Has that sewn up this thread?
Bob;-)
Moonraker
08-23-2003, 07:49 PM
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bi8tde$6mgfg$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > The hem? You mean he wears a dress?
> > aa#2106
>
> Ahem! Regardless of "He" being transvestite, hermaphrodite, or simply a he
> with a capital H, perhaps if you addressed Him with a spirit of reverence,
> He would desist from religiously hemming you out.
>
> Has that sewn up this thread?
>
One can only hope.
angryjohn
08-24-2003, 01:45 AM
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:18:59 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>In article <10lfkv4k21k8t2o5giuantm6e41visc8jr@4ax.com>, angryjohn
><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
>
>> "The program is spiritual, not religious."
>>
>> The question was not posted to see if I could discern a difference ...
>
>If you are able to discern a difference, you have the answer to your
>own question.
So you can't answer. Ok, that is enough of an answer.
Yawn...........
aa#2106
angryjohn
08-24-2003, 01:47 AM
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:49:27 -0400, "Moonraker" <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>
>"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:bi8tde$6mgfg$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> > The hem? You mean he wears a dress?
>> > aa#2106
>>
>> Ahem! Regardless of "He" being transvestite, hermaphrodite, or simply a he
>> with a capital H, perhaps if you addressed Him with a spirit of reverence,
>> He would desist from religiously hemming you out.
>>
>> Has that sewn up this thread?
>>
> One can only hope.
>
>
You all enjoy your life there in Virtopia.
aa#2106
Virtualoso
08-24-2003, 03:01 AM
In article <takgkvk4fkm32i39735fm8h6ccd3qhea8s@4ax.com>, angryjohn
<john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> You all enjoy your life there in Virtopia.
Once again, AAngryJohn's reduced to just another heckler.
catsruleok
08-24-2003, 07:07 AM
>> >> >> >In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
> >> >> >> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and
> >"religious"?
I thinkVirtualoso wrote:
>>>>> "The program is spiritual, not religious."
<snip.
Hi Angryjohn,
After giving much thought to your question, I now feel able to tell you what I think the difference
is.
IMO, spirituality relates only to the spirit or soul. It's like no other feeling that a person can
have. This feeling enables a person to achieve a state of mind that cannot be attained by any
other means. It enables them to feel completely at ease with themselves and the world around them,
They feel serene. MO, it's not necessary to believe in either a God or Higher Power, in order to be
able to be spiritual. Religion, on the other, demands a belief in a supreme being/Higher Power.
I believe that it is possible to follow a religion but never reach a spiritual state.
JB
PS: Crossed posted only because Angryjohn's was.
angryjohn
08-24-2003, 11:27 AM
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:07:02 +0100, "catsruleok" <catsruleok@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >In article <mh4ekv08gbd548odvtgkim6jgb2pgflbtn@4ax.com>, angryjohn
>> >> >> >> ><john@angryjohn.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> Just what is the difference between "spiritual" and
>> >"religious"?
>
>I thinkVirtualoso wrote:
>
>>>>>> "The program is spiritual, not religious."
><snip.
>
>Hi Angryjohn,
>
>After giving much thought to your question, I now feel able to tell you what I think the difference
>is.
>
>IMO, spirituality relates only to the spirit or soul. It's like no other feeling that a person can
>have. This feeling enables a person to achieve a state of mind that cannot be attained by any
>other means. It enables them to feel completely at ease with themselves and the world around them,
>They feel serene. MO, it's not necessary to believe in either a God or Higher Power, in order to be
>able to be spiritual. Religion, on the other, demands a belief in a supreme being/Higher Power.
>I believe that it is possible to follow a religion but never reach a spiritual state.
>
>JB
>
>PS: Crossed posted only because Angryjohn's was.
>
>
>
>
Thank you.
aa#2106
Craig S.
08-24-2003, 01:20 PM
"angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
news:53nfkvs7o3pki4q6jc11mkkeo6gab1j1l6@4ax.com...
> What does the state of my spirits have to do with Virt answering the
question?
The real question is why you would get your panties in a bunch over
something so silly in the first place. Not like any of this will have any
lasting effect on humankind or anything. You may as well be out in the yard
playing catch for all the groundbreaking significance Usenet ramblings hold.
Get a grip, man.
Virtualoso
08-24-2003, 01:47 PM
In article <vkhsko1koepidb@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
> "angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
> news:53nfkvs7o3pki4q6jc11mkkeo6gab1j1l6@4ax.com...
>
> > What does the state of my spirits have to do with Virt answering the
> question?
>
> The real question is why you would get your panties in a bunch over
> something so silly in the first place. Not like any of this will have any
> lasting effect on humankind or anything. You may as well be out in the yard
> playing catch for all the groundbreaking significance Usenet ramblings hold.
> Get a grip, man.
He was just doing his typical simplistic digressive ploy which always
head straight to mere personal derision, whereby he somehow becomes the
Inquisitor demanding that His Simple Question (and its premise) be
submitted to, in faithful service to one of his Heros, once he saw the
post below. Of course, neither he nor his Hero are able to come up with
any examples of "spiritual" that are not "religious," because they are
simply without any such discernment -- so they can only insist that no
one else can, either. It's important to them. His hope is that this
preceding point becomes forgotten or abansoned via his shenanigans.
For a buncha' folks that like to sometimes pretend that are concerned
that individuals think and act for themselves, they are really as
severely uptight and demanding as any they'd oppose, ostensibly on a
basis of disapproving of such things. It's more like just a basic
conceptual bigotry, really. And ironicly, it's riddled with inherent
self-contradictions.
For example, the prime Raggist Delusion that insists that anyone merely
being "told" that there are people that are alcoholics will somehow
suddenly have some mysterious Power of Suggestion that will dangerously
turn the people that hear this into that very kind of alcoholic -- even
though, supposedly, there is no such thing. As though, all their life,
experience, thinking, etc. up to that point simply vanishes in the
presence of this inexplicably compelling Suggestion. Of course, they
have to hurry right by just how/why that person was drinking
alcoholicly prior to hearing this.
Yet, anyone that insists this paranoid Delusion about such an insidious
Suggestion is, themself, creating and propogating it in that very act.
Thus, they obviously don't have any real problem with "telling" people
that they are mushminded dupes, and what and how they "should" be
thinking, and the dire damaging results of doing otherwise, while
subjecting them to their own brand of Mind Controlling Dangerous
Suggestions. It's really a very curious, hopelessly self-invalidating
and inescapably recursive feature of the OrangutanRaggist Delusion.
In article <3F4663DE.7080704@intergate.com>, Ken <kenr@intergate.com>
wrote:
> > I can certainly see where the Step programs can be honestly described as
> > "religious not christian" however, I'm very curious what language you
> > are speaking where a "program" which is all about "fitting oneself into
> > God's plan" is not religious. Have you ever actually thought about this?
> Virtualoso wrote:
>
> The program is spiritual, not religious. That you, personally, might be
> incapable of discernment of any difference is quite another thing.
> Unless, of course, you might provide example of what you regard as
> spiritual, which is not religious. I'm guessing you are unable to, as
> it appears you simply do not have the mental refinement.
angryjohn
08-24-2003, 09:01 PM
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:47:49 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote:
>In article <vkhsko1koepidb@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
><cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> "angryjohn" <john@angryjohn.net> wrote in message
>> news:53nfkvs7o3pki4q6jc11mkkeo6gab1j1l6@4ax.com...
>>
>> > What does the state of my spirits have to do with Virt answering the
>> question?
>>
>> The real question is why you would get your panties in a bunch over
>> something so silly in the first place. Not like any of this will have any
>> lasting effect on humankind or anything. You may as well be out in the yard
>> playing catch for all the groundbreaking significance Usenet ramblings hold.
>> Get a grip, man.
>
No, I just asked a question that Virt is unable to answer. Why do you care?
>He was just doing his typical simplistic digressive ploy which always
>head straight to mere personal derision, whereby he somehow becomes the
>Inquisitor demanding that His Simple Question (and its premise) be
>submitted to, in faithful service to one of his Heros, once he saw the
>post below. Of course, neither he nor his Hero are able to come up with
>any examples of "spiritual" that are not "religious," because they are
>simply without any such discernment -- so they can only insist that no
>one else can, either. It's important to them. His hope is that this
>preceding point becomes forgotten or abansoned via his shenan