Blue Moon
10-15-2003, 02:36 PM
On 13 Oct 2003 10:37:29 -0700, agent_orange@linuxmail.org
(Agent_Orange) wrote:
>"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message news:<bln5fv$pgu$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> > > At the last count, AA runs 0 treatment centres.
>> >
>> > You are playing word games. I said "dominates", not "owns" or "runs".
>> > The facilities are owned by another corporation besides
>> > Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., and are run by
>> > true-believer 12-steppers. In a real sense, those other corporations
>> > act as front groups for A.A.. They "carry the message" while
>> > protecting the A.A. headquarters from lawsuits for malpractice
>> > and promoting quack medicine.
>>
>> As you don't like the current situation, I'm wondering what if anything you are doing to persuade
>> those who support AA that any program of yours is at least as helpful as the AA programme. To date,
>> all I've seen you do is criticise AA.
>>
>> JB
>
>There you go, the standard A.A. response:
>Create a diversion, avoid answering the question,
>just launch an ad hominem attack on the speaker.
If you think JB was "launching an ad hominem attack", your perception
really is as seriously off-beam as many have come to believe. She was
making a perfectly accurate observation.
>Likewise, I can criticize the ineffective voodoo
>medicine of A.A., even without having an alternative
>program.
So your answer could simply have been "no".
>Lastly, I am involved in other recovery programs
>to help people get over addictions, but I choose
>not to brag about it because I do not wish to mix
>criticism of A.A. with those other recovery
>programs.
Why not? If they work so well, why are you so afraid of presenting
their credentials for rational review?
>I am well aware of the fact that there is
>a difference between criticizing A.A. and recovery.
Indeed. However, as this is a recovery newsgroup your criticism is
off-topic, not least because it's so inaccurate.
>That is also part of the reason for my anonymity.
Huh?
>What percentage of the true believers in A.A. actually
>sincerely tried other recovery programs first?
Why don't you conduct a survey?
>If they did not give all of the other recovery
>programs and techniques a real try, then they cannot
>very well say that A.A. is the only thing that
>works for them, now can they?
So everyone should try all other methods and carry on drinking just to
satisfy your curiousity? I had absolutely no need to try MM to know
it couldn't work for me. As for others, if I get what you have I
don't want to try those either. Some people really do seem to stay
sober on irrational obsession with AA.
>And for that matter, how many alcoholism and drug
>addiction treatment facitilities in this country
>*are not* based on the 12-step cult religion?
What country? In the UK, there are many such facilities.
Your own agenda here is clear, and has nothing to do with recovery
from anything.
--
Blue Moon
(Agent_Orange) wrote:
>"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message news:<bln5fv$pgu$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> > > At the last count, AA runs 0 treatment centres.
>> >
>> > You are playing word games. I said "dominates", not "owns" or "runs".
>> > The facilities are owned by another corporation besides
>> > Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., and are run by
>> > true-believer 12-steppers. In a real sense, those other corporations
>> > act as front groups for A.A.. They "carry the message" while
>> > protecting the A.A. headquarters from lawsuits for malpractice
>> > and promoting quack medicine.
>>
>> As you don't like the current situation, I'm wondering what if anything you are doing to persuade
>> those who support AA that any program of yours is at least as helpful as the AA programme. To date,
>> all I've seen you do is criticise AA.
>>
>> JB
>
>There you go, the standard A.A. response:
>Create a diversion, avoid answering the question,
>just launch an ad hominem attack on the speaker.
If you think JB was "launching an ad hominem attack", your perception
really is as seriously off-beam as many have come to believe. She was
making a perfectly accurate observation.
>Likewise, I can criticize the ineffective voodoo
>medicine of A.A., even without having an alternative
>program.
So your answer could simply have been "no".
>Lastly, I am involved in other recovery programs
>to help people get over addictions, but I choose
>not to brag about it because I do not wish to mix
>criticism of A.A. with those other recovery
>programs.
Why not? If they work so well, why are you so afraid of presenting
their credentials for rational review?
>I am well aware of the fact that there is
>a difference between criticizing A.A. and recovery.
Indeed. However, as this is a recovery newsgroup your criticism is
off-topic, not least because it's so inaccurate.
>That is also part of the reason for my anonymity.
Huh?
>What percentage of the true believers in A.A. actually
>sincerely tried other recovery programs first?
Why don't you conduct a survey?
>If they did not give all of the other recovery
>programs and techniques a real try, then they cannot
>very well say that A.A. is the only thing that
>works for them, now can they?
So everyone should try all other methods and carry on drinking just to
satisfy your curiousity? I had absolutely no need to try MM to know
it couldn't work for me. As for others, if I get what you have I
don't want to try those either. Some people really do seem to stay
sober on irrational obsession with AA.
>And for that matter, how many alcoholism and drug
>addiction treatment facitilities in this country
>*are not* based on the 12-step cult religion?
What country? In the UK, there are many such facilities.
Your own agenda here is clear, and has nothing to do with recovery
from anything.
--
Blue Moon