OT: Trouble brewing...

[Kirk S]

Hi all,

I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...

I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the women on
the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving what
advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal information about
herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this point.
I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making myself too
important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do not want
to "lead her on".

Got any suggestions?

Kirk S.

[Gail]

"Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
>
> I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the women on
> the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving what
> advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal information
about
> herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this point.
> I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making myself too
> important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do not
want
> to "lead her on".
>
> Got any suggestions?
>
> Kirk S.
>
>

Tell her or post in the alt.support.divorce group that you are not looking
for a relationship or are you?

Best,
Gail

[Kirk S]

"Gail" <serenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1027gaqcej2v745@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
> >
> > I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the women
on
> > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving what
> > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal information
> about
> > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
point.
> > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making myself
too
> > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do not
> want
> > to "lead her on".
> >
> > Got any suggestions?
> >
> > Kirk S.
> >
> >
>
> Tell her or post in the alt.support.divorce group that you are not looking
> for a relationship or are you?

I replied that I was really flattered by the attention and that I would be
less than honest if I didn't tell her that I'm not looking to start a new
relationship.

To do anything else could turn into an excuse to *forget* about it by using
alcohol or drugs.

Thanks,

Kirk S.

>
> Best,
> Gail
>
>

[J. Rockford]

In article <zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Kirk S
<kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
>
> I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the women on
> the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving what
> advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal information about
> herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this point.
> I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making myself too
> important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do not want
> to "lead her on".
>
> Got any suggestions?
>
> Kirk S.

Yeah, Pork her! "Stick & move" It will make you feel better about
losing your wifey.


Have a nice day, Mike

[JB]

"Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
>
> I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the
women on
> the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving
what
> advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal
information about
> herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
point.
> I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making
myself too
> important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do
not want
> to "lead her on".
>
> Got any suggestions?
>
> Kirk S.

Hi,

If this lady is sending you private emails which are beginning to make
you feel uncomfortable, maybe you could advise her that you would
prefer to correspond in future only via emails posted on the NG.. If
you decide that this is what would best serve your interests and the
lady continues to send you private messages, I think you should
consider ignoring them.

HTH

JB

[Kirk S]

"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:c00l7i$h36$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
> >
> > I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the
> women on
> > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving
> what
> > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal
> information about
> > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
> point.
> > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making
> myself too
> > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do
> not want
> > to "lead her on".
> >
> > Got any suggestions?
> >
> > Kirk S.
>
> Hi,
>
> If this lady is sending you private emails which are beginning to make
> you feel uncomfortable, maybe you could advise her that you would
> prefer to correspond in future only via emails posted on the NG.. If
> you decide that this is what would best serve your interests and the
> lady continues to send you private messages, I think you should
> consider ignoring them.
>
Yeah, I mentioned that I was flattered and uncomfortable with the situation.
She replied that she was sorry I got the wrong impression. So, I made
myself too important and could have ruined the chance at a friendship.

I guess that I'll give this up when I'm ready. Because of my own
insecurity, I project it outwards on everyone else and push them away.

Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to help someone
else with a divorce.

Kirk S. <everyday we get chances at lessons, somedays we learn, somedays we
are too important to learn>

> HTH
>
> JB
>
>

[Kirk S]

"J. Rockford" <mikedawn@flash.net> wrote in message
news:060220041156102396%mikedawn@flash.net...
> In article <zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Kirk S
> <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
> >
> > I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the women
on
> > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving what
> > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal information
about
> > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
point.
> > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making myself
too
> > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do not
want
> > to "lead her on".
> >
> > Got any suggestions?
> >
> > Kirk S.
>
> Yeah, Pork her! "Stick & move" It will make you feel better about
> losing your wifey.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel really good after that advice. Pork? What sort of
word is that? What I really need, another addictive behavior to use instead
of dealing with my feelings.

I didn't lose her, I pushed her away because of my own fears. I had plenty
to do with it.

Kirk S. <trying hard to not self-criticize...>
>
>
> Have a nice day, Mike

[J. Rockford]

In article <08RUb.41738$M81.9515@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Kirk S
<kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote:

> "J. Rockford" <mikedawn@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:060220041156102396%mikedawn@flash.net...
> > In article <zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Kirk S
> > <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
> > >
> > > I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the women
> on
> > > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving what
> > > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal information
> about
> > > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
> point.
> > > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making myself
> too
> > > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do not
> want
> > > to "lead her on".
> > >
> > > Got any suggestions?
> > >
> > > Kirk S.
> >
> > Yeah, Pork her! "Stick & move" It will make you feel better about
> > losing your wifey.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel really good after that advice. Pork? What sort of
> word is that? What I really need, another addictive behavior to use instead
> of dealing with my feelings.
>
> I didn't lose her, I pushed her away because of my own fears. I had plenty
> to do with it.
>
> Kirk S. <trying hard to not self-criticize...>
> >
> >
> > Have a nice day, Mike

Just joking Captain, Mike

[Plug]

"Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this point.

Hi Kirk,
Is anyone ever ready for a relationship? How long is a respectable/suitable
time to leave between splitting up and starting anew? I wasn't "ready"
either but my new relationship has meant my recovery is even happier. He
didn't know me when I drank, so our relationship is based on my sobriety.
Sometimes good things happen when you least expect them!

Deb/Bubba

[Kirk S]

"J. Rockford" <mikedawn@flash.net> wrote in message
news:060220041249445416%mikedawn@flash.net...
> In article <08RUb.41738$M81.9515@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Kirk S
> <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "J. Rockford" <mikedawn@flash.net> wrote in message
> > news:060220041156102396%mikedawn@flash.net...
> > > In article <zbOUb.56725$sd.12703@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, Kirk S
> > > <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I would like some advice on a situation that I'm participating in...
> > > >
> > > > I've been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the
women
> > on
> > > > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving
what
> > > > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal
information
> > about
> > > > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
> > point.
> > > > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making
myself
> > too
> > > > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do
not
> > want
> > > > to "lead her on".
> > > >
> > > > Got any suggestions?
> > > >
> > > > Kirk S.
> > >
> > > Yeah, Pork her! "Stick & move" It will make you feel better about
> > > losing your wifey.
> >
> > Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel really good after that advice. Pork? What sort
of
> > word is that? What I really need, another addictive behavior to use
instead
> > of dealing with my feelings.
> >
> > I didn't lose her, I pushed her away because of my own fears. I had
plenty
> > to do with it.
> >
> > Kirk S. <trying hard to not self-criticize...>
> > >
> > >
> > > Have a nice day, Mike
>
> Just joking Captain, Mike

Yeah, I know... The reason I'm mad is that the thought DID cross my mind
for an instant.

Kirk S.

[Moonraker]

"Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to help someone
> else with a divorce.
>
I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on this group,
we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing out advice on
sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)

[Kirk S]

"Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
news:cFUUb.10825$Rl4.353@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to help someone
> > else with a divorce.
> >
> I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on this group,
> we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing out advice
on
> sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)
>
Ahh, I see. The blind leading the blind, eh?

Kirk S.
>

[Moonraker]

"Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lMUUb.57287$sd.28438@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> "Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
> news:cFUUb.10825$Rl4.353@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to help
someone
> > > else with a divorce.
> > >
> > I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on this group,
> > we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing out
advice
> on
> > sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)
> >
> Ahh, I see. The blind leading the blind, eh?
>
> Kirk S.
> >

Pretty much.

At a meeting last night, a fellow was wanting advice on working his 4th
step. In his comments, he said he had less than 4 weeks since his last
drink.

The other 25 people pretty much told him to relax, kick back. There aren't
any extra points for doing this in record time.

[Robert McGregor]

"Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
news:m4VUb.10836$Rl4.7791@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:lMUUb.57287$sd.28438@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > "Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
> > news:cFUUb.10825$Rl4.353@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to
help
> someone
> > > > else with a divorce.
> > > >
> > > I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on
this group,
> > > we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing
out
> advice
> > on
> > > sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)
> > >
> > Ahh, I see. The blind leading the blind, eh?
> >
> > Kirk S.
> > >
>
> Pretty much.
>
> At a meeting last night, a fellow was wanting advice on working his
4th
> step. In his comments, he said he had less than 4 weeks since his
last
> drink.
>
> The other 25 people pretty much told him to relax, kick back.
There aren't
> any extra points for doing this in record time.
>

Whenever I had real "problems" with a step, it was invariably because
I was not thorough enough on the preceding step/s.

Of the AAers that demanded I take it easy when I was a newbie, I
occasionally hear about the few who stayed sober. They are still
moaning about their adversity of the day at AA meetings, just as
neurotic and miserable as they were when they first "advised" me.

With benefit of hindsight, I'm glad I was almost as obsessive about
taking those steps as I had been about getting the next drink. If
nothing else, that new obsession gave me something both positive and
practical to occupy my mind; as it raced past Boeings at 10,000 +
feet.

Bob

[rosie]

>....................... I'm glad I was almost as obsessive about
> taking those steps as I had been about getting the next drink.

me too!
AMEN!

[Moonraker]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c01848$122fnh$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
> news:m4VUb.10836$Rl4.7791@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
> >
> > "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:lMUUb.57287$sd.28438@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > "Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
> > > news:cFUUb.10825$Rl4.353@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > > Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to
> help
> > someone
> > > > > else with a divorce.
> > > > >
> > > > I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on
> this group,
> > > > we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing
> out
> > advice
> > > on
> > > > sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)
> > > >
> > > Ahh, I see. The blind leading the blind, eh?
> > >
> > > Kirk S.
> > > >
> >
> > Pretty much.
> >
> > At a meeting last night, a fellow was wanting advice on working his
> 4th
> > step. In his comments, he said he had less than 4 weeks since his
> last
> > drink.
> >
> > The other 25 people pretty much told him to relax, kick back.
> There aren't
> > any extra points for doing this in record time.
> >
>
> Whenever I had real "problems" with a step, it was invariably because
> I was not thorough enough on the preceding step/s.

What I didn't say was that, from the general tone of this guy's comments,
it was pretty obvious to most everyone else in the room that he probably
hadn't really come to grips with Step 1, muchless any of the following.
Although I hadn't met this guy previously, I do know his sponsor. The
expression on the sponsor's face was: "Ohhhhhhh my
Gaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwddddd!"

I'd agree that difficulty on a step usually relates to a lack of
thoroughness in a preceeding one.

[Robert McGregor]

" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cyVUb.28709$2h.4338@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> >....................... I'm glad I was almost as obsessive about
> > taking those steps as I had been about getting the next drink.
>
> me too!
> AMEN!
>
>

http://blank.org/link/?q=1076111572


http://blank.org/link/?q=1076111344

[Debbie]

> Hi all,

> I would like some advice on a situation that I'm >participating in I've
been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the
> women
> > > on
> > > > > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and giving
> what
> > > > > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal
> information
> > > about
> > > > > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at this
> > > point.
> > > > > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making
> myself
> > > too
> > > > > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I do
> not
> > > want
> > > > > to "lead her on".
> > > > >
> > > > > Got any suggestions?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk S.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, Pork her! "Stick & move" It will make you feel better about
> > > > losing your wifey.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel really good after that advice. Pork? What
sort
> of
> > > word is that? What I really need, another addictive behavior to use
> instead
> > > of dealing with my feelings.
> > >
> > > I didn't lose her, I pushed her away because of my own fears. I had
> plenty
> > > to do with it.
> > >
> > > Kirk S. <trying hard to not self-criticize...>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Have a nice day, Mike
> >
> > Just joking Captain, Mike
>
> Yeah, I know... The reason I'm mad is that the thought DID cross my mind
> for an instant.
>
> Kirk S.
>


Here's my advice. Hold out your hand, Kirk.






<SMACK, SMACK>

No Porking at this time (Yes Mike, I've heard of that term -- Heh).

Kirk, tell her the truth -- "I'm feeling uncomfortable right now with
getting too close to anyone. I like you -- can we just talk right now
through e-mail and be buddies?"

A friend told me ~that~ one time -- "just be honest" -- it works wonders in
all phases of your life. You can't hurt people when you just tell them how
you feel.


Debbie


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/03

[Julie LaRue]

Like you don't have enough problems already?
My sponsor told me it isn't a good idea to get involved with anyone for the
first you're sober numerous times.
When I meet this hot boi and he wanted to move in with me she said, "sure go
ahead."
It was a total mess! When I complained to her that you told me to "go ahead
and let him move in" she replied, "you already knew what I said about it not
being a good and you even got similar feedback from several others in AA,
but you wanted what you wanted so I figured....Go ahead and learn the hard
way."
Man, I sure learned the hard way.
Julie


"Debbie" <Debbie_PrivateABC@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1028deb6r1h75c1@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hi all,
>
> > I would like some advice on a situation that I'm >participating in I've
> been posting on the alt.support.divorce group and one of the
> > women
> > > > on
> > > > > > the group has started sending me e-mails. I'm replying and
giving
> > what
> > > > > > advice I can and she keeps sending more and more personal
> > information
> > > > about
> > > > > > herself. I am not ready to start any sort of relationship at
this
> > > > point.
> > > > > > I'm probably just reading more into it than there is and making
> > myself
> > > > too
> > > > > > important, eh? I am not responsible for her feelings however I
do
> > not
> > > > want
> > > > > > to "lead her on".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Got any suggestions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kirk S.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, Pork her! "Stick & move" It will make you feel better
about
> > > > > losing your wifey.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I'm sure I'd feel really good after that advice. Pork? What
> sort
> > of
> > > > word is that? What I really need, another addictive behavior to use
> > instead
> > > > of dealing with my feelings.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't lose her, I pushed her away because of my own fears. I had
> > plenty
> > > > to do with it.
> > > >
> > > > Kirk S. <trying hard to not self-criticize...>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a nice day, Mike
> > >
> > > Just joking Captain, Mike
> >
> > Yeah, I know... The reason I'm mad is that the thought DID cross my
mind
> > for an instant.
> >
> > Kirk S.
> >
>
>
> Here's my advice. Hold out your hand, Kirk.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <SMACK, SMACK>
>
> No Porking at this time (Yes Mike, I've heard of that term -- Heh).
>
> Kirk, tell her the truth -- "I'm feeling uncomfortable right now with
> getting too close to anyone. I like you -- can we just talk right now
> through e-mail and be buddies?"
>
> A friend told me ~that~ one time -- "just be honest" -- it works wonders
in
> all phases of your life. You can't hurt people when you just tell them
how
> you feel.
>
>
> Debbie
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/03
>
>

[Julie LaRue]

Duh, I would like to remind you that ALCOHOL IS A DRUG.
That makes you (the alcoholics) no better and yet equal to every low bottom
junkie.
Julie
Just share YOUR experience, strength, and hope.


"Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
news:cFUUb.10825$Rl4.353@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to help someone
> > else with a divorce.
> >
> I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on this group,
> we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing out advice
on
> sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)
>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"Julie LaRue" <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4CZUb.14139$GO6.3757@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Duh, I would like to remind you that ALCOHOL IS A DRUG.
> That makes you (the alcoholics) no better and yet equal to every low
bottom
> junkie.
> Julie
> Just share YOUR experience, strength, and hope.

Where did you buy that special dispensation from practicing what you
preach?

Wanna buy a bridge?

Bob.


>
>
> "Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
> news:cFUUb.10825$Rl4.353@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Kirk S" <kspradling@nospamkc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:n5RUb.41737$M81.21535@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > Besides, I don't really feel like I'm in a good position to help
someone
> > > else with a divorce.
> > >
> > I don't know why that would bother you...hell, right here on this
group,
> > we've got wet drunks, liars, frauds, and drug addicts handing out
advice
> on
> > sobriety. You'd probably fit right in over there....;>)
> >
> >
>
>

[JB]

"Debbie" <Debbie_PrivateABC@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1028deb6r1h75c1@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>

> You can't hurt people when you just tell them how
> you feel.
>
>
> Debbie
>
Ever ? :^)

I don't think it's possible for anyone to always know for sure what
effect any words they utter will have on another person since we don't
possess the ability to control another's reactions.

JB

[Debbie]

>
> > You can't hurt people when you just tell them how
> > you feel.
> >
> >
> > Debbie
> >
> Ever ? :^)
>

> I don't think it's possible for anyone to always know for sure what
> effect any words they utter will have on another person since we don't
> possess the ability to control another's reactions.
>
> JB
>

I think if you're a nice person and you tell someone how you honestly feel,
you may hurt their feelings if that's not what they want to hear -- sure.
It's all in how you say it. Personally, I would rather be told the truth in
a *kind way* even if it hurts. That's just me though. YMMV. ;-)

Debbie


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/03

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:13:52 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Duh, I would like to remind you that ALCOHOL IS A DRUG.

Indeed. However not all drugs are the same, and this forum is about
alcoholism. I have been given morphine, that doesn't make me a
morphine addict. I'm also not a pill addict just for taking a
painkiller. I am an alcoholic.

>That makes you (the alcoholics) no better and yet equal to every low bottom
>junkie.

Curious choice of words. Are you saying that you're not alcoholic?

--
Blue Moon

[Julie LaRue]

There is no difference except the chemical make up when it comes to
addiction. I started drinking at 15 and continued to do so while I used
LSD 2 years, Coke 12 years, Heroin 4 years, Crank one year, Pot the entire
25 years, Crack the last 5 years, and anything else that could push the
effect that alcohol gave me.
In the end, none of this mixing of mind altering drugs worked any longer.

Addiction is a disease and it matters little if your DRUG of choice is
alcohol, glue, or any other mind altering substance. Some of us alcoholics
are just hanging onto some "false pride" when they attempt to make some
distinction between themselves and other drugs users.
We have all forsaken our bodies, mental health, and spiritual beings to our
addictions.
Alcohol is a drug and that makes every alcoholic a drug addict wither they
care to admit or not.
yours in RECOVERY,
Julie


"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:67eebb330d4808abfa8028a943f398ab@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:13:52 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
> <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Duh, I would like to remind you that ALCOHOL IS A DRUG.
>
> Indeed. However not all drugs are the same, and this forum is about
> alcoholism. I have been given morphine, that doesn't make me a
> morphine addict. I'm also not a pill addict just for taking a
> painkiller. I am an alcoholic.
>
> >That makes you (the alcoholics) no better and yet equal to every low
bottom
> >junkie.
>
> Curious choice of words. Are you saying that you're not alcoholic?
>
> --
> Blue Moon

[Robert McGregor]

No wonder you don't know if you're Arthur, or Martha.

Bob

"Julie LaRue" <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BPjVb.15924$jH6.15018@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
> There is no difference except the chemical make up when it comes to
> addiction. I started drinking at 15 and continued to do so while I
used
> LSD 2 years, Coke 12 years, Heroin 4 years, Crank one year, Pot the
entire
> 25 years, Crack the last 5 years, and anything else that could push
the
> effect that alcohol gave me.
> In the end, none of this mixing of mind altering drugs worked any
longer.
>
> Addiction is a disease and it matters little if your DRUG of choice
is
> alcohol, glue, or any other mind altering substance. Some of us
alcoholics
> are just hanging onto some "false pride" when they attempt to make
some
> distinction between themselves and other drugs users.
> We have all forsaken our bodies, mental health, and spiritual beings
to our
> addictions.
> Alcohol is a drug and that makes every alcoholic a drug addict
wither they
> care to admit or not.
> yours in RECOVERY,
> Julie
>
>
> "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:67eebb330d4808abfa8028a943f398ab@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:13:52 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
> > <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Duh, I would like to remind you that ALCOHOL IS A DRUG.
> >
> > Indeed. However not all drugs are the same, and this forum is
about
> > alcoholism. I have been given morphine, that doesn't make me a
> > morphine addict. I'm also not a pill addict just for taking a
> > painkiller. I am an alcoholic.
> >
> > >That makes you (the alcoholics) no better and yet equal to every
low
> bottom
> > >junkie.
> >
> > Curious choice of words. Are you saying that you're not
alcoholic?
> >
> > --
> > Blue Moon
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:30:09 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>There is no difference except the chemical make up when it comes to
>addiction.

Well, that makes it a pretty huge difference. Apparently my chemical
make up is different. Hell, I was even able to kick cigarettes
without any need for recovery. I'm also able to moderate quite
successfully with caffeine, sugar, chocolate, oral steroids and
antihistamines.

> I started drinking at 15 and continued to do so while I used
>LSD 2 years, Coke 12 years, Heroin 4 years, Crank one year, Pot the entire
>25 years, Crack the last 5 years, and anything else that could push the
>effect that alcohol gave me.

Therefore, because my problem was only with alcohol, it appears that
my case is different. Or maybe it is you who is trying to bring other
substances into the discussion of alcoholism, thus muddying the
waters.

>Addiction is a disease and it matters little if your DRUG of choice is
>alcohol, glue, or any other mind altering substance. Some of us alcoholics
>are just hanging onto some "false pride" when they attempt to make some
>distinction between themselves and other drugs users.

Seems to me that "false pride" is simply your own projection. I'm not
even sure why you're bringing up this discussion. So much for not
indulging mental masturbation!

>Alcohol is a drug and that makes every alcoholic a drug addict wither they
>care to admit or not.

I don't recall anyone here saying, or even implying, that alcohol is
not a drug.

However, it's plain fact that not all drug addicts are alcoholic, and
not all alcoholics are addicted to other substances. That's exactly
why you have the other fellowships.

--
Blue Moon

[Ron]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:30:09 GMT, Julie LaRue <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is no difference except the chemical make up when it comes to
> addiction.

That's a big difference.

> I started drinking at 15 and continued to do so while I used LSD 2
> years, Coke 12 years, Heroin 4 years, Crank one year, Pot the entire
> 25 years, Crack the last 5 years, and anything else that could push
> the effect that alcohol gave me.

These drugs all had different effects when you were taking them, no?
(Else why not just take one). So why are they all identical in
recovery?

--
AB5DB9CC

[Julie LaRue]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message news:z6qVb.4750$QA2.11513@attbi_s52...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:30:09 GMT, Julie LaRue <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> > There is no difference except the chemical make up when it comes to
> > addiction.
>
> That's a big difference.
>
> > I started drinking at 15 and continued to do so while I used LSD 2
> > years, Coke 12 years, Heroin 4 years, Crank one year, Pot the entire
> > 25 years, Crack the last 5 years, and anything else that could push
> > the effect that alcohol gave me.
>
> These drugs all had different effects when you were taking them, no?
> (Else why not just take one). So why are they all identical in
> recovery?

Because the solution is all the same, put the plug in the jug, smash the
crack pipe, toss the syringe, pitch the pot and work the steps. It doesn't
matter if you pick AA, NA, or CA, the steps are the same for all, and each
big book has been written so we might find a power greater than ourselves.

A Lack of power, that was our dilemma. We had to find a power by which we
could live, and it had to be a Power greater than ourselves. Obviously. But
where and how were we to find this Power?
Well, that's exactly what this book is about. Its main object is to enable
you to find a Power greater than yourself which will solve your problem.
That means we have written a book which we believe to be spiritual as well
as moral. And it means, of course, that we are going to talk about God. Here
difficulty arises with agnostics. Many times we talk to a new man and watch
his hope rise as we discuss his alcoholic problems and explain our
fellowship. But his face falls when we speak of spiritual matters,
especially when we mention God, for we have re-opened a subject which our
man thought he had neatly evaded or entirely ignored.

[Blue Moon]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:27:30 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message news:z6qVb.4750$QA2.11513@attbi_s52...
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:30:09 GMT, Julie LaRue <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> > There is no difference except the chemical make up when it comes to
>> > addiction.
>>
>> That's a big difference.
>>
>> > I started drinking at 15 and continued to do so while I used LSD 2
>> > years, Coke 12 years, Heroin 4 years, Crank one year, Pot the entire
>> > 25 years, Crack the last 5 years, and anything else that could push
>> > the effect that alcohol gave me.
>>
>> These drugs all had different effects when you were taking them, no?
>> (Else why not just take one). So why are they all identical in
>> recovery?
>
>Because the solution is all the same, put the plug in the jug, smash the
>crack pipe, toss the syringe, pitch the pot and work the steps. It doesn't
>matter if you pick AA, NA, or CA,

It does matter. Very much so. If you never had a problem with
alcohol you really do NOT qualify for AA membership The short-form
Tradition 3 is just an excuse some people use to get in, but it's the
long form they should really be looking at.

> the steps are the same for all

Apart from Steps 1 and 12, you mean?

The SOLUTION is the same, but the problem is different. That's why
the AA program has never said, and will never say, "we admitted we
were powerless over all forms of drug, food, sex, gambling, person,
etc. etc.". Whilst I am certainly alcoholic, might qualify for one or
two other fellowships as well, I have never had a problem with pills
and had little difficulty kicking tobacco without any recovery
program, despite that substance being one of the most addictive. Yet
others cannot even tolerate aspirin without abusing the stuff. My
problem is different from that of someone who rarely drank but is
hooked on valium, even if the solution to both addictions is the same.

> and each big book has been written so we might find a power greater than ourselves.

Hmm. If all addiction is exactly the same, why not have just the one
book? Seems to me that, whilst the solution is the same, the problems
discussed are so profoundly different as to warrant not only different
fellowships, but different literature as well.

--
Blue Moon

[rosie]

> If you never had a problem with
> alcohol you really do NOT qualify for AA membership


as you have pointed out, the ONLY requirement is a "desire to stop
drinking"........................
if a DRUG ADDICT believes that alcohol is a drug, and has that
desire, he/she qualifies.

[Blue Moon]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:04:27 GMT, " rosie"
<readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> If you never had a problem with
>> alcohol you really do NOT qualify for AA membership
>
>as you have pointed out, the ONLY requirement is a "desire to stop
>drinking"........................

I don't recall making any such qualification. Quite the contrary.
Despite popular opinion based on the wording plastered up on too many
walls, that is actually NOT the only requirement for AA membership at
all. The long form of Tradition 3 makes no mention of "drinking", yet
is equally (if not more) valid to establish the real membership
qualifications. The only reason the short form exists was the concern
that newcomers wouldn't understand what "alcoholic" means, therefore
wouldn't know whether or not they qualify. And, of course, most
newcomers would be too impatient to hang around long enough to find
out.

>if a DRUG ADDICT believes that alcohol is a drug, and has that
>desire, he/she qualifies.

No, if a drug addict is not alcoholic and is not in an AA group for
the purpose of sobriety (from alcohol), they do not qualify. That's
not simply my opinion, it's clearly written in Tradition 3.

--
Blue Moon

[JB]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1832cd2ce22eb2c3ef997c1e69a44bb@news.teranew s.com...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:04:27 GMT, " rosie"
> <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you never had a problem with
> >> alcohol you really do NOT qualify for AA membership
> >
> >as you have pointed out, the ONLY requirement is a "desire to stop
> >drinking"........................
>
> I don't recall making any such qualification. Quite the contrary.
> Despite popular opinion based on the wording plastered up on too
many
> walls, that is actually NOT the only requirement for AA membership
at
> all. The long form of Tradition 3 makes no mention of "drinking",
yet
> is equally (if not more) valid to establish the real membership
> qualifications. The only reason the short form exists was the
concern
> that newcomers wouldn't understand what "alcoholic" means, therefore
> wouldn't know whether or not they qualify. And, of course, most
> newcomers would be too impatient to hang around long enough to find
> out.
<snip>

Blue Moon

Blue,

I've posted more than once that the only requirement for AA
membership is a desire to stop drinking. When I did this, I only knew
about the short form of Tradition 3.

Best regards

JB

[Robert McGregor]

"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:c0l4k8$iok$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> Blue,
>
> I've posted more than once that the only requirement for AA
> membership is a desire to stop drinking. When I did this, I only
knew
> about the short form of Tradition 3.
>
> Best regards
>
> JB
>

The only requirement for AAspeak is a forked tongue! Only then need
only not really mean only, alcoholic not really mean alcoholic,
recovering not really mean recovering, and religious not really mean
religious, at all:-)

Bob;-)

[JB]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c0l6ih$18gchl$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:c0l4k8$iok$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> >
> > Blue,
> >
> > I've posted more than once that the only requirement for AA
> > membership is a desire to stop drinking. When I did this, I only
> knew
> > about the short form of Tradition 3.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > JB
> >
>
> The only requirement for AAspeak is a forked tongue! Only then need
> only not really mean only, alcoholic not really mean alcoholic,
> recovering not really mean recovering, and religious not really mean
> religious, at all:-)
>
> Bob;-)

Do you remember telling me that your father used to say that you were
that sharp you kept cutting yourself ? Do you think that if he was
alive today, he might still be saying it ? :^)

JB:

[Robert McGregor]

"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:c0l7td$i34$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:c0l6ih$18gchl$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> > news:c0l4k8$iok$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > >
> > > Blue,
> > >
> > > I've posted more than once that the only requirement for AA
> > > membership is a desire to stop drinking. When I did this, I
only
> > knew
> > > about the short form of Tradition 3.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > JB
> > >
> >
> > The only requirement for AAspeak is a forked tongue! Only then
need
> > only not really mean only, alcoholic not really mean alcoholic,
> > recovering not really mean recovering, and religious not really
mean
> > religious, at all:-)
> >
> > Bob;-)
>
> Do you remember telling me that your father used to say that you
were
> that sharp you kept cutting yourself ? Do you think that if he was
> alive today, he might still be saying it ? :^)
>
> JB:
>

He is still alive, but, he's far too sharp to talk with me!

Bob;-)

[rosie]

> No, if a drug addict is not alcoholic and is not in an AA group
for
> the purpose of sobriety (from alcohol), they do not qualify.
That's
> not simply my opinion, it's clearly written in Tradition 3.
>
> --
> Blue Moon


your right, its not your OPINION, its your INTERPRETATION!

if a drug addict believes alcohol is a drug, and wishes to be sober,
he qualifies.
PERIOD!

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:11:19 GMT, " rosie"
<readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:

>your right, its not your OPINION, its your INTERPRETATION!
>
>if a drug addict believes alcohol is a drug, and wishes to be sober,
>he qualifies.
>PERIOD!

Utter nonsense.

Interpret this:

"3. Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism.
Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A.
membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three
alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A.
group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation."

If someone has never suffered from alcoholism, they do not "suffer
from alcoholism". They cannot recover from a condition they never
had. If they are not alcoholics gathered together for sobriety, they
cannot be "alcoholics gathered together for sobriety". It doesn't say
"people gathered together for sobriety" it says, very specifically,
"alcoholics gathered...".

AA membership is undisputably for alcoholics only. "PERIOD!" If
anyone has no problem with alcohol, whilst they are more than welcome
to attend open AA meetings they should never seek, nor be encouraged
to seek, to become a member of that group or any other AA group.

--
Blue Moon

[rosie]

> AA membership is undisputably for alcoholics only. "PERIOD!" If
> anyone has no problem with alcohol, whilst they are more than
welcome
> to attend open AA meetings they should never seek, nor be
encouraged
> to seek, to become a member of that group or any other AA group.
>
> --
> Blue Moon


AA membership is for ALL alcoholics............................

[Robert McGregor]

" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KzvXb.11775$_66.2537@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> > AA membership is undisputably for alcoholics only. "PERIOD!" If
> > anyone has no problem with alcohol, whilst they are more than
> welcome
> > to attend open AA meetings they should never seek, nor be
> encouraged
> > to seek, to become a member of that group or any other AA group.
> >
> > --
> > Blue Moon
>
>
> AA membership is for ALL alcoholics............................
>
>

Not according to AA's own website (Where the discarded form of their
Traditions has already been deleted)

http://blank.org/link/?q=1076791128
"3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop
drinking."

Bob, who should drink more water, but desires to drink coffee or tea
instead!

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:28:59 -0600, " rosie"
<readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>> AA membership is undisputably for alcoholics only. "PERIOD!" If
>> anyone has no problem with alcohol, whilst they are more than
>welcome
>> to attend open AA meetings they should never seek, nor be
>encouraged
>> to seek, to become a member of that group or any other AA group.
>
>AA membership is for ALL alcoholics............................

I didn't say otherwise. Didn't even IMPLY otherwise! I said, quite
specifically, AA membership is ONLY for alcoholics. Sneaking in with
some thinly-veiled "I have a desire to stop drinking (even though I
never had a desire to drink in the first place)" just will not do.

--
Blue Moon

[Robert McGregor]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a82c5e7ef8c4e765b28a2e33256d76a@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:28:59 -0600, " rosie"
> <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> AA membership is undisputably for alcoholics only. "PERIOD!" If
> >> anyone has no problem with alcohol, whilst they are more than
> >welcome
> >> to attend open AA meetings they should never seek, nor be
> >encouraged
> >> to seek, to become a member of that group or any other AA group.
> >
> >AA membership is for ALL alcoholics............................
>
> I didn't say otherwise. Didn't even IMPLY otherwise! I said, quite
> specifically, AA membership is ONLY for alcoholics. Sneaking in
with
> some thinly-veiled "I have a desire to stop drinking (even though I
> never had a desire to drink in the first place)" just will not do.
>
> --
> Blue Moon

Wot a visual!

"Blues Bouncers," religiously guarding the doors to the hallowed
halls, while Rosie's recruits are sneaked in the back passage:)

Been there, Bob.

[rosie]

>................... Sneaking in with
> some thinly-veiled "I have a desire to stop drinking (even though
I
> never had a desire to drink in the first place)" just will not do.
>
> --
> Blue Moon


LOL!
again with your interpretation......................

[JB]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c0m4f8$1930js$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3a82c5e7ef8c4e765b28a2e33256d76a@news.teranew s.com...
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:28:59 -0600, " rosie"
> > <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> AA membership is undisputably for alcoholics only. "PERIOD!"
If
> > >> anyone has no problem with alcohol, whilst they are more than
> > >welcome
> > >> to attend open AA meetings they should never seek, nor be
> > >encouraged
> > >> to seek, to become a member of that group or any other AA
group.
> > >
> > >AA membership is for ALL alcoholics............................
> >
> > I didn't say otherwise. Didn't even IMPLY otherwise! I said,
quite
> > specifically, AA membership is ONLY for alcoholics. Sneaking in
> with
> > some thinly-veiled "I have a desire to stop drinking (even though
I
> > never had a desire to drink in the first place)" just will not do.
> >
> > --
> > Blue Moon
>
> Wot a visual!
>
> "Blues Bouncers," religiously guarding the doors to the hallowed
> halls, while Rosie's recruits are sneaked in the back passage:)
>
> Been there, Bob.
>
It's a pity you no longer attend AA meetings. Had you been going to
them, you could serve coffee at the same time as asking attendees to
complete a questionnaire you've devised for the purpose of
ascertaining how many of those who attend AA meetings are "real
alcoholics" :^)

JB

[Robert McGregor]

"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:c0mi8r$728$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> It's a pity you no longer attend AA meetings. Had you been going to
> them, you could serve coffee at the same time as asking attendees to
> complete a questionnaire you've devised for the purpose of
> ascertaining how many of those who attend AA meetings are "real
> alcoholics" :^)
>
> JB

That's absurd!

I'm far too opinionated on alcoholism to bother with a questionnaire.
Making and serving the coffee is, and has always been, wimmens (and/or
pseudo wimmens) work!
Where I live, the odds are, if they are at an AA meeting, they are not
real alcoholics anyway.

Bob

[Julie LaRue]

You are right Rosie.
Every AA group is responsible for the format of their meeting and how they
apply the traditions to their group. Groups have business meetings to
decided just such things.
I have gone to well over 200 different AA meeting in the greater Raleigh,
NC area and NO ONE would EVER consider asking someone to leave if they
referred to themselves as an "addict" or an "alcoholic and addict."
You need to get out and actually attend more meetings Moon. Not all
alcoholic use other DRUGS, but I have yet to meet an addict who didn't drink
alcoholically along with the drugs they took.
Julie

" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rUqXb.12757$fW.9651@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
> > No, if a drug addict is not alcoholic and is not in an AA group
> for
> > the purpose of sobriety (from alcohol), they do not qualify.
> That's
> > not simply my opinion, it's clearly written in Tradition 3.
> >
> > --
> > Blue Moon
>
>
> your right, its not your OPINION, its your INTERPRETATION!
>
> if a drug addict believes alcohol is a drug, and wishes to be sober,
> he qualifies.
> PERIOD!
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:29:48 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You are right Rosie.

No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
Tradition 3 either.

>Every AA group is responsible for the format of their meeting and how they
>apply the traditions to their group. Groups have business meetings to
>decided just such things.

Absolutely. And they have a clear responsibility under Traditions 3
and 4 to keep their AA group membership to alcoholics.

> I have gone to well over 200 different AA meeting in the greater Raleigh,
>NC area and NO ONE would EVER consider asking someone to leave if they
>referred to themselves as an "addict" or an "alcoholic and addict."

Really? I suggest you go to some AA district meetings and GSR
workshops, the question of "how to deal with addicts" seems to arise
frequently. Curiously, most who raise the question seem to be
alcoholic/addicts themselves, but who understand AA's Traditions and
are just seeking guidance on how to best apply them with minimal fuss.

Perhaps yours is one area where NA has not adequately taken off yet?
That might be different, if AA is meeting a need that NA is not yet
able to meet. However group membership should still be restricted to
alcoholics.

>You need to get out and actually attend more meetings Moon.

I attend quite enough for my needs, thank you.

>Not all alcoholic use other DRUGS, but I have yet to meet an addict
>who didn't drink alcoholically along with the drugs they took.

Then maybe it's you who needs to get around more? I'm aware of drug
addicts who rarely, if ever, drank - alt.support.depression has plenty
such cases. There's plenty of documented cases of prozac or paxil
survivors who never drank. I am also aware of one hopeless case who
only eventually turned to booze when her drug (benzo's) stopped
working. Why? For no other reason than because booze is by far the
most readily available substance that will achieve unconsciousness,
despite the inconvenience of waking in a pool of vomit later. She
doesn't drink for the effect of booze, she drinks for general
anaesthesia She moved on to trying other shit like fungicide, but
that didn't work. Surgical general anaesthetic worked quite well, she
asked for more of that.

Despite what you say, and despite what you observe in your own small
circle of acquaintances, far from all who are addicted to substances
are also addicted to alcohol by default.

--
Blue Moon

[Julie LaRue]

You have yet to share ANY of your own recovery experiences Moon. All you do
make comments about AA, most of which are negative and discouraging to
anyone who might be trying to get sober. Please read my responses to your
comments below. They will be the last of my responses to you.

I wish you well and will pray for you daily.

Julie

"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5c1c1c5f74ef4f1527f244c0572c9ed@news.teranew s.com...

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:29:48 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
> <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You are right Rosie.
>
> No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
> Tradition 3 either.
>
> >Every AA group is responsible for the format of their meeting and how
they
> >apply the traditions to their group. Groups have business meetings to
> >decided just such things.

> Absolutely. And they have a clear responsibility under Traditions 3
> and 4 to keep their AA group membership to alcoholics.



So why does AA have OPEN meetings and Speaker Meetings Moon?

They are for ANYONE to attend, alcoholic, drug addict, or even you.

You are following the letter of the law and missing the spirit of it
completely.


> > I have gone to well over 200 different AA meeting in the greater
Raleigh,
> >NC area and NO ONE would EVER consider asking someone to leave if they
> >referred to themselves as an "addict" or an "alcoholic and addict."
> Really? I suggest you go to some AA district meetings and GSR
> workshops, the question of "how to deal with addicts" seems to arise
> frequently.



LOL, I am a GSR Moon, and we use our money and time for workshops that deal
with reaching suffering alcoholics in our area (prisons, treatment centers,
and shut ins). I have also served as an Intergroup Rep, Coffee maker, and
Janitor over the last 13 years that I have been in the PROGRAM called AA.



>Curiously, most who raise the question seem to be
> alcoholic/addicts themselves, but who understand AA's Traditions and
> are just seeking guidance on how to best apply them with minimal fuss.
>

This topic is never brought up because the vast majority (I never said all)
of alcoholics are cross addicted NOW!


> Perhaps yours is one area where NA has not adequately taken off yet?
> That might be different, if AA is meeting a need that NA is not yet
> able to meet. However group membership should still be restricted to
> alcoholics.



There you go with your assumptions and shoulds again. Such comments are your
opinion and not fact.

We have numerous meeting for NA, CA, and AA in my area. Shocking as it
might be for you, they even meet in the same buildings sometimes.

AA - over 450 meeting a month, NA - over 150 meeting a month, CA - over 90
meeting a month.
>
> >You need to get out and actually attend more meetings Moon.
>
> I attend quite enough for my needs, thank you.



Really? Me thinks you have misjudged your needs Moon.

Just how many meetings DO you go to a week if any?




> >Not all alcoholic use other DRUGS, but I have yet to meet an addict
> >who didn't drink alcoholically along with the drugs they took.
>

Please notice that I shared my experience and NOT what I think. I said "I
have yet to meet an addict
who didn't drink alcoholically along with the drugs they took."


> Then maybe it's you who needs to get around more? I'm aware of drug
> addicts who rarely, if ever, drank - alt.support.depression has plenty
> such cases. There's plenty of documented cases of prozac or paxil
> survivors who never drank.



People who are depressed and on these drugs are not addicts Moon. Are you
insane?



>I am also aware of one hopeless case who



In other words this isn't your experience either because you heard of it you
didn't LIVE it or SEE it happen.

You don't even know if this person had the ability to tell the truth about
this!

Have you ever lied about what and how much you drank?


> only eventually turned to booze when her drug (benzo's) stopped
> working. Why? For no other reason than because booze is by far the
> most readily available substance that will achieve unconsciousness,
> despite the inconvenience of waking in a pool of vomit later. She
> doesn't drink for the effect of booze, she drinks for general
> anaesthesia She moved on to trying other shit like fungicide, but
> that didn't work. Surgical general anaesthetic worked quite well, she
> asked for more of that.
> Despite what you say, and despite what you observe in your own small
> circle of acquaintances, far from all who are addicted to substances
> are also addicted to alcohol by default.
>

Small circle of friends? What do you know about who or how many friends I
have Moon?

Your comments have nothing to do with your experience as usual.

I only said, "I have yet to meet an addict who didn't drink alcoholically
along with the drugs they took."



> --
> Blue Moon

[rosie]

> "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f5c1c1c5f74ef4f1527f244c0572c9ed@news.teranew s.com...
>
> > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:29:48 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
> > <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >You are right Rosie.
> >
> > No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
> > Tradition 3 either.



BM,
are you STILL posting on and on about this?
if you have such a problem with "addicts" and the fact that they
believe alcohol is a drug, i suggest that you go to a meeting where
you can personally SCREEN each member!

meanwhile, out here in the "REAL" world, we in AA will continue on,
and welcome EVERYONE who believes they have a problem with alcohol,
no matter how they define it!

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((BM)))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))

[Julie LaRue]

thank you for your honesty.
Julie
" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:POoYb.18693$_66.8563@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
> > "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f5c1c1c5f74ef4f1527f244c0572c9ed@news.teranew s.com...
> >
> > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:29:48 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
> > > <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >You are right Rosie.
> > >
> > > No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
> > > Tradition 3 either.
>
>
>
> BM,
> are you STILL posting on and on about this?
> if you have such a problem with "addicts" and the fact that they
> believe alcohol is a drug, i suggest that you go to a meeting where
> you can personally SCREEN each member!
>
> meanwhile, out here in the "REAL" world, we in AA will continue on,
> and welcome EVERYONE who believes they have a problem with alcohol,
> no matter how they define it!
>
> ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((BM)))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))
> ))))))))))))))
>
>

[Kai]

Julie LaRue wrote:

> You have yet to share ANY of your own recovery experiences Moon. All you do
> make comments about AA, most of which are negative and discouraging to
> anyone who might be trying to get sober. Please read my responses to your
> comments below. They will be the last of my responses to you.
>
> I wish you well and will pray for you daily.
>
> Julie
>

Ohmygawd you're a condescending ignoramus, aren't you. And a good
friend of Rosie, what a surprise.

Go away, you Demon of Stupidity.

Kai

[Kai]

rosie wrote:

>>"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:f5c1c1c5f74ef4f1527f244c0572c9ed@news.teranew s.com...
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:29:48 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
>>><Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are right Rosie.
>>>
>>>No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
>>>Tradition 3 either.
>
>
>
>
> BM,
> are you STILL posting on and on about this?
> if you have such a problem with "addicts" and the fact that they
> believe alcohol is a drug, i suggest that you go to a meeting where
> you can personally SCREEN each member!

He hasn't said a word about believing that alcohol is a drug or not.
But that doesn't stop you now that you've found a fellow crusader
willing to attack one of your numerous "adversaries" here.

>
> meanwhile, out here in the "REAL" world, we in AA will continue on,
> and welcome EVERYONE who believes they have a problem with alcohol,
> no matter how they define it!
>
> ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((BM)))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))
> ))))))))))))))
>

Try to get some help, Rosie. I mean it sincerely.

Kai

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:14:23 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You have yet to share ANY of your own recovery experiences Moon.

My own recovery experiences are far more widely documented in the
archives of this newsgroup than yours, Rosie's and many others' put
together.

> All you do make comments about AA, most of which are negative
> and discouraging to anyone who might be trying to get sober.

How am I discouraging anyone from getting sober? You have no clue
what people I am helping to get sober. My thankless task in this
thread is to try to bring AA to alcoholics.

>Please read my responses to your comments below. They will be the
> last of my responses to you.

I see. So you'll say your piece and then avoid any backlash. This
should be interesting.

>> No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
>> Tradition 3 either.
>>
>> >Every AA group is responsible for the format of their meeting and how
>they
>> >apply the traditions to their group. Groups have business meetings to
>> >decided just such things.
>
>> Absolutely. And they have a clear responsibility under Traditions 3
>> and 4 to keep their AA group membership to alcoholics.
>
>So why does AA have OPEN meetings and Speaker Meetings Moon?

You're confusing groups with meetings. Group membership is for
alcoholics only. My home group has both closed and open AA meetings.
Anyone is welcome to attend an open meeting, but only alcoholics can
be members of the group. As such, group conscience meetings should
only ever be considered closed meetings, and thus not be timed to
coincide with open AA meetings.

As a GSR you really shouldn't need me saying these things.

>They are for ANYONE to attend, alcoholic, drug addict, or even you.

I am alcoholic, therefore am entitled to become a member of any AA
group, and attend any AA meeting whether it be open or closed.

>You are following the letter of the law and missing the spirit of it
>completely.

On the contrary. The spirit is to keep AA to alcoholics so as to
avoid the same fate as the Washingtonians. That's what AA's
Traditions were written for in the first place. Why else would they
exist?

I find it funny how people can almost consider Bill Wilson a saint and
yet disregard the Traditions he worked so hard to bring about, whereas
those who respect the Traditions can also see and accept Bill as a
human being complete with human failings.

>> > I have gone to well over 200 different AA meeting in the greater
>Raleigh,
>> >NC area and NO ONE would EVER consider asking someone to leave if they
>> >referred to themselves as an "addict" or an "alcoholic and addict."
>> Really? I suggest you go to some AA district meetings and GSR
>> workshops, the question of "how to deal with addicts" seems to arise
>> frequently.
>
>LOL, I am a GSR Moon, and we use our money and time for workshops that deal
>with reaching suffering alcoholics in our area (prisons, treatment centers,
>and shut ins).

So you've not attended a GSR workshop organised by your area? I'm
suggesting you do. You can learn about the Traditions, and about the
differences between groups and meetings.

>> Perhaps yours is one area where NA has not adequately taken off yet?
>> That might be different, if AA is meeting a need that NA is not yet
>> able to meet. However group membership should still be restricted to
>> alcoholics.
>
>There you go with your assumptions and shoulds again. Such comments are your
>opinion and not fact.

Check out Bill's opinions and "shoulds" as written in the Traditions.

>We have numerous meeting for NA, CA, and AA in my area. Shocking as it
>might be for you, they even meet in the same buildings sometimes.

Why would that be shocking?

>> >You need to get out and actually attend more meetings Moon.
>>
>> I attend quite enough for my needs, thank you.
>
>Really? Me thinks you have misjudged your needs Moon.
>
>Just how many meetings DO you go to a week if any?

That's really none of your business. As GSR of a group, it's clear
that I attend meetings and am an active member of the fellowship.

>> Then maybe it's you who needs to get around more? I'm aware of drug
>> addicts who rarely, if ever, drank - alt.support.depression has plenty
>> such cases. There's plenty of documented cases of prozac or paxil
>> survivors who never drank.
>
>People who are depressed and on these drugs are not addicts Moon.

Really? You own "contempt prior to investigation" is not my problem.

>Are you insane?

I'd have to be to endure such a ridiculous conversation for so long!
But I guess you must be too if you really believe there are not
serious dependency and withdrawal symptoms with many such drugs.

>>I am also aware of one hopeless case who
>
>In other words this isn't your experience either because you heard of it you
>didn't LIVE it or SEE it happen.

That's one huge presumptuous leap!

>You don't even know if this person had the ability to tell the truth about
>this!

You don't have a clue who I'm talking about, so how do you pretend to
know what I do or don't know?

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:33:03 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>thank you for your honesty.
>Julie
>" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:POoYb.18693$_66.8563@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>
>>
>> > "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:f5c1c1c5f74ef4f1527f244c0572c9ed@news.teranew s.com...
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:29:48 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
>> > > <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >You are right Rosie.
>> > >
>> > > No, she's not. Apparently you've not read the long-form of AA's
>> > > Tradition 3 either.
>>
>>
>>
>> BM,
>> are you STILL posting on and on about this?
>> if you have such a problem with "addicts" and the fact that they
>> believe alcohol is a drug, i suggest that you go to a meeting where
>> you can personally SCREEN each member!

I have made no mention of the fact that alcohol is a drug. However,
are you really suggesting that all drugs act the same, physically and
mentally, as alcohol?

>> meanwhile, out here in the "REAL" world, we in AA will continue on,
>> and welcome EVERYONE who believes they have a problem with alcohol,
>> no matter how they define it!

I made no mention of those who believe they have a problem with
alcohol. Check out your perception. We are discussing, specifically,
those who don't.

--
Blue Moon

[rosie]

> I have made no mention of the fact that alcohol is a drug.
However,
> are you really suggesting that all drugs act the same, physically
and
> mentally, as alcohol?
>


no, i'm not saying that, i am addressing the issue of "a desire to
stop drinking"................you don't even HAVE to reveal yourself
as an alcoholic, in order to be part of AA, remember BM, its all
about "a desire to stop drinking" PERIOD!

you remind me of some GOOD OLD BOYS, who use to host (for 20+yrs) an
AA meeting out here in my little burb, and when folks FINALLY got
them to agree to a GROUP CONSCIENCE, after YEARS without one, and
they got some basic structure changes, the GOOD OLD BOYS, picked up
their balls, and left....................

BM, in your youth (time in recovery) don't forget how well the
traditions, concepts, and steps were written, WITHOUT your
expertise!

rosie

[Robert McGregor]

" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HLqZb.25808$_66.3204@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> > I have made no mention of the fact that alcohol is a drug.
> However,
> > are you really suggesting that all drugs act the same, physically
> and
> > mentally, as alcohol?
> >
>
>
> no, i'm not saying that, i am addressing the issue of "a desire to
> stop drinking"................you don't even HAVE to reveal yourself
> as an alcoholic, in order to be part of AA, remember BM, its all
> about "a desire to stop drinking" PERIOD!
>
> you remind me of some GOOD OLD BOYS, who use to host (for 20+yrs) an
> AA meeting out here in my little burb, and when folks FINALLY got
> them to agree to a GROUP CONSCIENCE, after YEARS without one, and
> they got some basic structure changes, the GOOD OLD BOYS, picked up
> their balls, and left....................
>
> BM, in your youth (time in recovery) don't forget how well the
> traditions, concepts, and steps were written, WITHOUT your
> expertise!
>
> rosie

hahahahahah,

http://blank.org/link/?q=1077295541

"1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends
upon A.A. unity. "

and

"hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy. "

Seems Bill imagined there would be no public controversy as long as
"outside issues" were avoided. He never predicted the rosies of AA
lauding the so called Traditions, while compulsively washing AA's
dirty linen in public.

That the two forms of Tradition Three are contradictory is inarguable,
hence the public arguments.

Bob

[Julie LaRue]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c15e48$1edos7$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> " rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:HLqZb.25808$_66.3204@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> > > I have made no mention of the fact that alcohol is a drug.
> > However,
> > > are you really suggesting that all drugs act the same, physically
> > and
> > > mentally, as alcohol?
> > >
> >
> >
> > no, i'm not saying that, i am addressing the issue of "a desire to
> > stop drinking"................you don't even HAVE to reveal yourself
> > as an alcoholic, in order to be part of AA, remember BM, its all
> > about "a desire to stop drinking" PERIOD!
> >
> > you remind me of some GOOD OLD BOYS, who use to host (for 20+yrs) an
> > AA meeting out here in my little burb, and when folks FINALLY got
> > them to agree to a GROUP CONSCIENCE, after YEARS without one, and
> > they got some basic structure changes, the GOOD OLD BOYS, picked up
> > their balls, and left....................
> >
> > BM, in your youth (time in recovery) don't forget how well the
> > traditions, concepts, and steps were written, WITHOUT your
> > expertise!
> >
> > rosie
>
> hahahahahah,
>
> http://blank.org/link/?q=1077295541
>
> "1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends
> upon A.A. unity. "
>
> and
>
> "hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy. "
>
> Seems Bill imagined there would be no public controversy as long as
> "outside issues" were avoided. He never predicted the rosies of AA
> lauding the so called Traditions, while compulsively washing AA's
> dirty linen in public.

1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - so they are
still annonomus.
2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here has
create a public controversy.
Therefore, Bob, your nasty comment and unfounded point is NULL.

1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - they are
still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or AA
spokesperson.

2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here has
created a public controversy.

Therefore, Bob, your nasty comment and unfounded point is NULL.

May Gods wisdon brighten your life,
Julie


> That the two forms of Tradition Three are contradictory is inarguable,
> hence the public arguments.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>

[Blue Moon]

My news server seems to be skipping some posts. However,

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:09:28 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:c15e48$1edos7$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> " rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:HLqZb.25808$_66.3204@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

>> > no, i'm not saying that, i am addressing the issue of "a desire to
>> > stop drinking"................you don't even HAVE to reveal yourself
>> > as an alcoholic, in order to be part of AA, remember BM, its all
>> > about "a desire to stop drinking" PERIOD!

If you had bothered to read the original, long form, of Tradition 3 as
suggested, you'll notice that no mention is made of drinking
whatsoever. If you can convince me that the only requirement for
membership really is "a desire to stop drinking" then I will happily
cancel my AA membership on the grounds that I have already achieved
the objective and thus no longer qualify.

>> > BM, in your youth (time in recovery) don't forget how well the
>> > traditions, concepts, and steps were written, WITHOUT your
>> > expertise!

In my youth (time in recovery) I am ceaselessly amazed at the
ignorance portrayed by people such as yourself.

>> "hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy. "
>>
>> Seems Bill imagined there would be no public controversy as long as
>> "outside issues" were avoided. He never predicted the rosies of AA
>> lauding the so called Traditions, while compulsively washing AA's
>> dirty linen in public.
>
>1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - so they are
>still annonomus.

What's that got to do with anything?

>2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here has
>create a public controversy.

Surely you jest?!

>1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - they are
>still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or AA
>spokesperson.

Erm.... Rosie has.

>2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here has
>created a public controversy.

You continue to insist on creating public controversy by your own
refusal to acknowledge AA Traditions 3 and 12 as they were originally
written, and intended. Then, when you can't think of anything else
useful to say, you adopt Rosie's ploy of insulting the speaker
instead.

--
Blue Moon

[Robert McGregor]

"Julie LaRue" <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IswZb.13403$hm4.5662@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:c15e48$1edos7$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > hahahahahah,
> >
> > http://blank.org/link/?q=1077295541
> >
> > "1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery
depends
> > upon A.A. unity. "
> >
> > and
> >
> > "hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
"
> >
> > Seems Bill imagined there would be no public controversy as long
as
> > "outside issues" were avoided. He never predicted the rosies of AA
> > lauding the so called Traditions, while compulsively washing AA's
> > dirty linen in public.
>
> 1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - so
they are
> still annonomus.

Membership? here, and anonymity, is germane to what? Neither Rosemary
Barrett, AKA rosie, (Amongst other names) nor I, Robert McGregor, AKA
Bob (Amongst other names) are "members" of this newsgroup?

> 2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here
has
> create a public controversy.

That opinion is absurd.

> Therefore, Bob, your nasty comment and unfounded point is NULL.
>

Given your recent opining on opinion here, you're insane.

Bob

[Julie LaRue]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd652178bf1d943d4328c4c2e07550d9@news.teranew s.com...
> My news server seems to be skipping some posts. However,
>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:09:28 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
> <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:c15e48$1edos7$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >> " rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:HLqZb.25808$_66.3204@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
> >> > no, i'm not saying that, i am addressing the issue of "a desire to
> >> > stop drinking"................you don't even HAVE to reveal yourself
> >> > as an alcoholic, in order to be part of AA, remember BM, its all
> >> > about "a desire to stop drinking" PERIOD!
>
> If you had bothered to read the original, long form, of Tradition 3 as
> suggested, you'll notice that no mention is made of drinking
> whatsoever. If you can convince me that the only requirement for
> membership really is "a desire to stop drinking" then I will happily
> cancel my AA membership on the grounds that I have already achieved
> the objective and thus no longer qualify.
>
> >> > BM, in your youth (time in recovery) don't forget how well the
> >> > traditions, concepts, and steps were written, WITHOUT your
> >> > expertise!
>
> In my youth (time in recovery) I am ceaselessly amazed at the
> ignorance portrayed by people such as yourself.
>
> >> "hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy. "
> >>
> >> Seems Bill imagined there would be no public controversy as long as
> >> "outside issues" were avoided. He never predicted the rosies of AA
> >> lauding the so called Traditions, while compulsively washing AA's
> >> dirty linen in public.
> >
> >1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - so they
are
> >still annonomus.
>
> What's that got to do with anything?
>
> >2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here has
> >create a public controversy.
>
> Surely you jest?!
>
> >1) Members of this news group have not made their names known - they are
> >still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or AA
> >spokesperson.
>
> Erm.... Rosie has.
>
> >2) This group is no more public than any AA meeting AND no one here has
> >created a public controversy.
>
> You continue to insist on creating public controversy by your own
> refusal to acknowledge AA Traditions 3 and 12 as they were originally
> written, and intended. Then, when you can't think of anything else
> useful to say, you adopt Rosie's ploy of insulting the speaker
> instead.
>
If my pointing misconceptions has insulted anyone they need to stop taking
everything personally. My intension is only to discuss and educate when
possible.

> Blue Moon

I dont see anyone creating a "public" controversy here. This news group is
very simular to an open AA meeting. Anyone can attend IF they decide to
subscribe to this group and no one is required to give there real name
unless they wish.

Traditionally, A.A. members have always taken care to preserve their
anonymity at the "public" level: press, radio, television, and films. In
the early days of A.A., when more stigma was attached to the term
"alcoholic" than is the case today, this reluctance to be identified - and
publicized - was easy to understand. As the Fellowship of A.A. grew, the
positive values of anonymity soon became apparent. First, we know from
experience that many problem drinkers might hesitate to turn to A.A. for
help if they thought their problem might be discussed publicly, even
inadvertently, by others. Newcomers should be able to seek help with
assurance that their identities will not be disclosed to anyone OUTSIDE the
Fellowship. Then, too, we believe that the concept of personal anonymity
has a spiritual significance for us - that it discourages the drives for
personal recognition, power, prestige, or profit that have caused
difficulties in some societies. Much of our relative effectiveness in
working with alcoholics might be impaired if we sought or accepted public
recognition.
While each member of A.A. is free to make his or her own interpretations of
A.A. tradition (read this again MOON), no individual member is ever
recognized as a spokesperson for the Fellowship locally, nationally, or
internationally. Each member speaks only for himself or herself (their
exsperiance).
This is A.A. General Service Conference-approved literature.
Copyright © 1952 by Works Publishing, Inc.
(Now known as A.A. World Services, Inc.)
All Right Reserved

[Robert McGregor]

"Julie LaRue" <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xPAZb.13707$hm4.10808@newsread3.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
>
> I dont see anyone creating a "public" controversy here. This news
group is
> very simular to an open AA meeting. Anyone can attend IF they
decide to
> subscribe to this group and no one is required to give there real
name
> unless they wish.
>

While identity is not a requirement for controversy, there is no
subscription requirement to read this group. Our opinionated and
controversial indulgence is archived for posterity @
http://blank.org/link/?q=1077342266

Ps, BTW, there is a more appropriate wipe than the AA Traditions.
http://blank.org/link/?q=1077343555

Bob ... the controversial one.

[rosie]

> >1) Members of this news group have not made their names known -
they are
> >still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or AA
> >spokesperson.
>
"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd652178bf1d943d4328c4c2e07550d9@news.teranew s.com...

> Erm.... Rosie has.


ah, no........................you, MOONIE, and JB, did that for me,
remember?

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

"how wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before
starting to improve the world.
...................................anne frank

[Julie LaRue]

You tell them Rosie.
Julie
" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J9LZb.31127$fW.3725@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > >1) Members of this news group have not made their names known -
> they are
> > >still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or AA
> > >spokesperson.
> >
> "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fd652178bf1d943d4328c4c2e07550d9@news.teranew s.com...
>
> > Erm.... Rosie has.
>
>
> ah, no........................you, MOONIE, and JB, did that for me,
> remember?
>
> --
> read and post daily, it works!
> rosie
>
> "how wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before
> starting to improve the world.
> ..................................anne frank
>
>
>
>

[JB]

"Julie LaRue" <Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NfNZb.13605$W74.13130@newsread1.news.atl.eart hlink.net...
> You tell them Rosie.
> Julie

Do you know what Rosie's talking about ?

JB

" rosie" <readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:J9LZb.31127$fW.3725@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > >1) Members of this news group have not made their names known -
> > they are
> > > >still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or
AA
> > > >spokesperson.
> > >
> > "Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fd652178bf1d943d4328c4c2e07550d9@news.teranew s.com...
> >
> > > Erm.... Rosie has.
> >
> >
> > ah, no........................you, MOONIE, and JB, did that for
me,
> > remember?
> >
> > --
> > read and post daily, it works!
> > rosie
> >
> > "how wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before
> > starting to improve the world.
> > ..................................anne frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:53:13 GMT, " rosie"
<readandpostNO-NO@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >1) Members of this news group have not made their names known -
>they are
>> >still anonymous and NO ONE has said they are an AA official or AA
>> >spokesperson.
>>
>"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fd652178bf1d943d4328c4c2e07550d9@news.teranew s.com...
>
>> Erm.... Rosie has.
>
>
>ah, no........................you, MOONIE, and JB, did that for me,
>remember?

I suggest you do what you so often suggest others do .... "google
yourself".
--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 18:16:13 GMT, "Julie LaRue"
<Sissi_Julie@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You tell them Rosie.

Unless you have read the history of Rosie's behaviour here, you don't
have a clue what we're talking about.

--
Blue Moon