Letter to a brainwashed AA
tedw
ByTor, and pepped up Pepperoni prompt to re-post the following.
Letter to a brainwashed AA
I drank and used drugs for 14 years. I was a very heavy drinker and
sometimes substited my drug use entirely with alcohol use. I drank in
bars and I drank at home.
I was sober from 1976 to 1982. I had been 12th stepped in a California
Prison. I became a secretary of an AA meeting in Orange California, and
an intergroup rep for the meeting. All agreed after hearing my drinking
stories I was indeed an "alcoholic".
In 1982 I went on about a 1 week bender (because of resentment) . From
1982 to approx. 1992 I did totally abstain from alcohol. In 1992 I
experimented with alcohol to see if I could take a drink ( a glass of
beer with a meal actually) in moderation without ill effects. I tried
the experment several times. In fact, I realized that AA teaching that
no "real alcoholic" ever
regains control is FALSE. From 1992 to 2006 I went long periods of
time, sometimes several years without drinking at all. During that time
I very occasionally had several ounces of wine before bedtime and
always in moderation. .
I have not drank alcohol regularly from 1992 until 2006 except on rare
special occsasions:ie: weddings. It has always been in moderation and
never involved drunkeness.
Now you might ask why an "Alcoholic" would attempt this. Especially one
with decades of AA experience.
I was taught in Chuch that AA's teaching that no real alcoholic ever
regains control was false. I decided to put it to the test. In fact, I
found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
All the being said, I do not encoureage people in early sobriety to
drink even in moderation. However, at some point if they have resolved
the traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol with a
spiritual awakening, they can drink in moderation if so desired. They
dont have to live in constant fear of taking a drink.
AA has taught "abstinence" is the only course for an "Alcoholic" for
the last 70 years. The only trouble is that AA teaching is false.
There is no allergy and "Alcoholics" are not bodily different than
anyone else.
And its not just me saying this. Herbert Fingarette, " The Myth of
Alcoholism as a Disease", Stanton Peele "The Diseasing of America", and
William Playfair ,"The Useful Lie" are well known authors in the
Alcholism field. All agree that "Alcoholcs" can learn to control their
drinking. Groups like Moderation Management also teach the same thing.
Of course, Alcoholics Anonymous is not going to admit what it has
taught about alcoholism for the last 70 years is wrong.
And BTW I currently dont drink except for a ounce or two on very rare
occasions. . I have stage 3 liver disease due to Hep C virus, probably
contracted during 14 years of IV drug use and drunkeness. However,
the virus is being cleared by treatment and I expect my liver disease
to reverse itself. I have proven time and time again I can take a drink
in moderation and I have no fear of doing so.
When the liver disease has reversed, I may indeed take a small glass of
wine on a special occasion or with a meal. . However, at the present
time I choose not to do that for health reasons. You see, I have
something that AA says is not possible: Control over my drinking. Of
course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
Their ususal response is "You were not an Alcoholic". Despite my
drinking carreer and being a "low bottom" drunk, decades long
involvement in AA, and answering 19 of the 20 AA questions "yes",
they will just write people like me off as not "being alcoholic". Over
3 decades I have listened to literally thousands of AA stories and
very few of those people drank any more than I did. Low bottom is an
accurate depiction of my alcoholic drinking.
Of course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
They have humungous Egos and just are unwilling to admit they are
wrong, and that AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
Alcoholism is false.
ByTor
@earthlink.net says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer and
running like a lunatic screaming save me!!
> Some of the lies and distortions by Mark "The Liar" Warner, Bad Boy
> ByTor, and pepped up Pepperoni prompt to re-post the following.
ROTFLMAO.........Yer on a roll now..........
Here boy, fetch fetch......Rollover now, sit, beg, play DEAD now!!!!
Mark Warner
> In fact, I realized that AA teaching
> that no "real alcoholic" ever regains control is FALSE.
> I decided to put it to the test. In fact, I
> found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
> The only trouble is that AA teaching is false.
> AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
> Alcoholism is false.
Yet you insist that you are a member.
You're a sick bastiid, tedw.
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
tedw
Been drinking Mark, bastiid?
I am a member. I just dont accept the lies like you.
dougwa
I drank and used drugs for 14 years. I was a very heavy drinker and
sometimes substited my drug use entirely with alcohol use. I drank in
bars and I drank at home.
I was sober from 1976 to 1982. I had been 12th stepped in a California
Prison. I became a secretary of an AA meeting in Orange California, and
an intergroup rep for the meeting. All agreed after hearing my drinking
stories I was indeed an "alcoholic".
In 1982 I went on about a 1 week bender (because of resentment) . From
1982 to approx. 1992 I did totally abstain from alcohol. In 1992 I
experimented with alcohol to see if I could take a drink ( a glass of
beer with a meal actually) in moderation without ill effects. I tried
the experment several times. In fact, I realized that AA teaching that
no "real alcoholic" ever
regains control is FALSE. From 1992 to 2006 I went long periods of
time, sometimes several years without drinking at all. During that time
I very occasionally had several ounces of wine before bedtime and
always in moderation. .
I have not drank alcohol regularly from 1992 until 2006 except on rare
special occsasions:ie: weddings. It has always been in moderation and
never involved drunkeness.
Now you might ask why an "Alcoholic" would attempt this. Especially one
with decades of AA experience.
I was taught in Chuch that AA's teaching that no real alcoholic ever
regains control was false. I decided to put it to the test. In fact, I
found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
wrong, and that AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
Alcoholism is false.
Mark Warner
> Letter to a brainwashed AA
Looks like the MPD is kicking in.
Scot...@gmail.com
Again: "traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol".
That's the reverse of the process. It's the alcohol that gives rise to
trauma and immorality.
If you're able to drink moderately because God has cured you of your
alcoholism, why is it that you don't claim to be able to do drugs
again, too? Not that you'd want to, but you'd be able to handle a
little crack or dope now too, right? Just a little?
Mark Warner
>
> I am a member. I just dont accept the lies like you.
How 'bout this: how 'bout I claim to be a Christian, except that I don't
believe the lies about the divinity of Jesus Christ?
ByTor
te...@earthlink.net says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer
> Letter to a brainwashed AA
>
>
> I drank and used drugs for 14 years. I was a very heavy drinker and
> sometimes substited my drug use entirely with alcohol use. I drank in
> bars and I drank at home.
And your story is of concern to who?? Gettin a little *caught up* there
Teddyboy........
F.H.
snip boring predictable recital / / / / /
> Of course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
> The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
YOU ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, IF IT HAPPENED TO YOU IT IS BY
DEFAULT A UNIVERSAL TRUTH.
> They have humungous Egos and just are unwilling to admit they are
> wrong,
Without irony, life would be like totally boring.
ByTor
Scot...@gmail.com says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer
>
Because Jaysus also believes in the legality of alcohol & practices
law......Illegal drug use is immoral and therefore a sin, in legal
Christian terms of course.......
tedw
Its not the same and you know it. Your not being exactly honest now.
See the post I made to Bytor on the subject.
And actually, I had my spleen removed during an accident in 1978. They
gave me demerol at the hospital for pain. At first, I refused it but
they insisted as I was bleeding internally. After the operation they
gave me demerol for about a week.
I experienced no adverse effects. You gonna say I wasnt clean then?
Mark Warner
>
> Again: "traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol".
> That's the reverse of the process. It's the alcohol that gives rise
> to trauma and immorality.
tedw blames his mother. No, I am not kidding.
tedw
Scotty, did you have traumatic incidents in your childhood before you
started drinking?
TaraG
"Mark Warner" <mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4miuckF...@individual.net...
> Scot...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Again: "traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol".
>> That's the reverse of the process. It's the alcohol that gives rise
>> to trauma and immorality.
>
> tedw blames his mother. No, I am not kidding.
That he does....not that I agree with *either* of the categorical statements
made above.
Tara
Mark Warner
> Scot...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> If you're able to drink moderately because God has cured you of your
>> alcoholism, why is it that you don't claim to be able to do drugs
>> again, too? Not that you'd want to, but you'd be able to handle a
>> little crack or dope now too, right? Just a little?
>
> Because Jaysus also believes in the legality of alcohol & practices
> law......Illegal drug use is immoral and therefore a sin, in legal
> Christian terms of course.......
I wonder what Gawd though back in the early 1900s when cocaine wasn't
illegal.
Scot...@gmail.com
Well then I wonder why God made drugs? I mean, they can't be evil,
since he's incapable of creating evil, yet he created everything, and
everything he creates is good, therefore, drugs = good, right?
Scot...@gmail.com
I'm being completely honest. Alcohol is a drug. I'm wondering why you
think otherwise. And I'm wondering why, if you've been freed from the
bondage of alcoholism, the same hasn't occurred with respect to other
drugs.
Yes, you were clean when you were in the hospital. You were prescribed
a pain-killing drug in the hospital by a medical doctor and didn't
abuse it. Nothing wrong with that. There's an AA brochure called "We
Are Not Doctors". We are not to consider that honestly obtained drugs
of any kind should not be taken if medically indicated. (I would
advise against the use of benzodiazepines for incoming recovering
alcoholics, however, as the neural pathway is so similar to that of
alcohol it, in my experience, almost always leads one right back to the
bottle.)
Please indicate for us why you choose to separate alcohol out from the
class of substances we call "drugs". And why God chose to cure you of
only one addiction, and not the others.
Mark Warner
>
> Please indicate for us why you choose to separate alcohol out from the
> class of substances we call "drugs". And why God chose to cure you of
> only one addiction, and not the others.
Because he doesn't have a desire to stop drinking.
Scot...@gmail.com
Oh, I see what you're saying. It's the LAW that dictates morality.
That means, then, that it really IS immoral to put up Nativity scenes
on public land. Because that's illegal. And therefore immoral. And
teaching religion in public schools would also be immoral, because
that's against the law too. But since abortion is legal, that IS
moral!!
I think I'm catching on!
Scot...@gmail.com
No.
I grew up in a four-bedroom house on a lake 60 miles outside of
Minneapolis. The older of two children. My parents were monogamous
and loving. I rarely saw them argue and never saw violence. I
remember getting spanked once (and I remember laughing afterward, cuz
it didn't hurt). I travelled from a very early age -- before I even
have memory, I know I was out in Washington state visiting
grandparents. I got good grades in school, went on to a private
college on a partial scholarship. My parents let me go to Spain as a
teenager. I was considered good looking, funny, evenly tempered,
insightful, highly responsible and intelligent by my peers (and
teachers, for that matter). I've always been able to get along with
any group I happen to encounter: black or white, English speaking or
not, gay or straight or undecided, male or female, working class or
upper class, religious or not. This characteristic has greatly
enhanced my life experience. (I will say that during my drinking days
I stayed away from non-drinkers. I wasn't comfortable at all around
them.)
But I became an alcoholic. And one of the most severely addicted
you'll ever encounter. (It runs on both sides of my family -- both of
my mother's parents were alcoholic, and my father's father, and my
father as well, but not the "garden variety" alcoholic while I was
growing up. When he started drinking, he would drink all night. Never
violent, though. And drinking was rare, probably because my mother
grew up with it and didn't want it around.)
If I had to think of a reason, I could come up with two. Since it
tends to run in families, and since it runs on both sides of mine,
heredity might be a factor. In fact, I'm certain of that as part of
it, for me -- I had a tremendous tolerance from the very first drunk,
at age eleven. I remember feeling that I had found something that had
been missing, but didn't know it was missing until I found it. At that
young age!
The other would be my social shyness -- I was PAINFULLY shy, and
alcohol greatly helped that. For a long time. Then it turned on me.
In the end, it doesn't matter HOW I became an alcoholic, it matters
only that I AM an alcoholic. At the point of that realization,
causation is a moot point.
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
> Some of the lies and distortions by Mark "The Liar" Warner, Bad Boy
> ByTor, and pepped up Pepperoni prompt to re-post the following.
>
>
>
> Letter to a brainwashed AA
>
>
> I drank and used drugs for 14 years. I was a very heavy drinker and
> sometimes substited my drug use entirely with alcohol use. I drank in
> bars and I drank at home.
>
> I was sober from 1976 to 1982. I had been 12th stepped in a California
> Prison. I became a secretary of an AA meeting in Orange California, and
> an intergroup rep for the meeting. All agreed after hearing my drinking
> stories I was indeed an "alcoholic".
>
it should be noted that the treatment industry, in an attempt to "raise
the bottom," will examine the way a person drank in order to decide
whether or not he/she is an alcoholic. Unfortunately, many members of AA
have picked up on this and it is the drinking itself which is looked at.
This is a flawed methodology since the way a person drinks is not what
determines whether he/she is an alcoholic or not. Rather it is what
happens when that person comes to a sincere decision to control thier
drinking or abstain.
This is addressed in the Big Book.
> In 1982 I went on about a 1 week bender (because of resentment) . From
> 1982 to approx. 1992 I did totally abstain from alcohol. In 1992 I
> experimented with alcohol to see if I could take a drink ( a glass of
> beer with a meal actually) in moderation without ill effects. I tried
> the experment several times. In fact, I realized that AA teaching that
> no "real alcoholic" ever
> regains control is FALSE. From 1992 to 2006 I went long periods of
> time, sometimes several years without drinking at all. During that time
> I very occasionally had several ounces of wine before bedtime and
> always in moderation. .
>
So, when you decided t control your drinking, you were successful.
Congratulations.
> I have not drank alcohol regularly from 1992 until 2006 except on rare
> special occsasions:ie: weddings. It has always been in moderation and
> never involved drunkeness.
>
> Now you might ask why an "Alcoholic" would attempt this. Especially one
> with decades of AA experience.
>
> I was taught in Chuch that AA's teaching that no real alcoholic ever
> regains control was false. I decided to put it to the test. In fact, I
> found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
>
I'm not sure which "Chuch" you went to, but I would challenge your
contention - though there is no way for either you or me to
prove/disprove your claim.
> All the being said, I do not encoureage people in early sobriety to
> drink even in moderation. However, at some point if they have resolved
> the traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol with a
> spiritual awakening, they can drink in moderation if so desired. They
> dont have to live in constant fear of taking a drink.
>
And most of us in AA don't live with such fear either... we simply don't
drink. I don't know why that threatens you...
Again, it is not the drinking career that indicates alcohlism, it is how
you handle the career change that does so.
> Of course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
> The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
>
> They have humungous Egos and just are unwilling to admit they are
> wrong, and that AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
> Alcoholism is false.
>
Leggo my Ego...
Mark Warner
> tedw wrote:
>>
>> All the being said, I do not encoureage people in early sobriety to
>> drink even in moderation. However, at some point if they have
>> resolved the traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of
>> alcohol with a spiritual awakening, they can drink in moderation if
>> so desired. They dont have to live in constant fear of taking a
>> drink.
>
> And most of us in AA don't live with such fear either... we simply
> don't drink. I don't know why that threatens you...
It threatens him because it challenges his continuing obsession with
alcohol. And his desire to continue drinking, which he justifies and
promotes as a goal for others to aspire to.
Maybe tedw should name his group Drinkers For Christ.
tedw
"I don't know why that threatens you"----
It doesnt threaten me at all. Im just pointing out the truth. I think
the reverse is true. Most AA's are threatened when you point out that
AA teaching is false.
If its not a disease, if the "Alcoholic" is not bodily differnt, if the
truly recovered "Alcoholic" can drink in moderation, then it brings up
the follow question to
AA's:
"Whats wrong with me, then?"
And that is threatening to the AA's that are still asleep.
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
It doesn't threaten me though I found your method of dodging my points
by recycling a few paragraphs from your prepared statements to be pretty
transparent.
TaraG
<Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157911356.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> I'm being completely honest. Alcohol is a drug. I'm wondering why you
> think otherwise.
And I always wonder what makes people classify it as a drug, while
selectively deciding that caffeine (which ROCKS) and nicotine somehow
aren't..
Tara
ByTor
mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com says...while attaching C4 explosives
He, He.......Good point!......... ;0)
tedw
I dodged nothing
F.H.
LOL, "most?" Are these the ones you are joined at the hip with?
> If its not a disease, if the "Alcoholic" is not bodily differnt, if the
> truly recovered "Alcoholic" can drink in moderation, then it brings up
> the follow question to AA's:
> "Whats wrong with me, then?"
Apparently it brought up this question with you. Have you talked it
over with mom? Maybe *she* can help.
ByTor
Christians like Ted boy there decides what is right & wrong
period.........It's the ultimate *trutha*....Amen bruddha!
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
Of course you did, it is readily apparent that you did and you saying
that you didn't changes nothing.
The only thing that would change it is for you to go back to my post and
address my points. I won't hold my breath.
Pepperoni
"ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:LFWMg.9519$yT2....@fe14.usenetserver.com...
> In article <1157903711.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, tedw2
> @earthlink.net says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer and
> running like a lunatic screaming save me!!
>
> > ByTor, and pepped up Pepperoni prompt to re-post the following.
>
>
> Here boy, fetch fetch......Rollover now, sit, beg, play DEAD now!!!!
>
Now, now. Give "T-Bird" Tedx a chance to explain the TedswAAy Alternative.
Pepperoni
"tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1157905378.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark Warner wrote:
> > tedw wrote:
> >
> > > In fact, I realized that AA teaching
> > > that no "real alcoholic" ever regains control is FALSE.
> >
> > > found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
> >
> >
> > > Alcoholism is false.
> >
> >
> > You're a sick bastiid, tedw.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Warner
> > lose .inhibitions when replying
>
>
> I am a member. I just dont accept the lies like you.
>
Right Teddy. Weed out the sober ones...................
ByTor
@earthlink.net says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer and
running like a lunatic screaming save me!!
> Scotty, did you have traumatic incidents in your childhood before you
> started drinking?
BULLSHIT Teddy............Stop playing the blame game already!
Scot...@gmail.com
Good definition of "drug": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug
ByTor
lunatic screaming save me!!
>
> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
> news:LFWMg.9519$yT2....@fe14.usenetserver.com...
> > In article <1157903711.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, tedw2
> > @earthlink.net says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer and
> > running like a lunatic screaming save me!!
> >
> > > Some of the lies and distortions by Mark "The Liar" Warner, Bad Boy
> > > ByTor, and pepped up Pepperoni prompt to re-post the following.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO.........Yer on a roll now..........
> >
> > Here boy, fetch fetch......Rollover now, sit, beg, play DEAD now!!!!
> >
>
> Now, now. Give "T-Bird" Tedx a chance to explain the TedswAAy Alternative.
>
Yeah your right.........I can see him though sitting at his keyboard,
typing with one hand of course, gettin his panties(probably moms) in a
bunch........HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, what a vision!
TaraG
<Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157922528.3...@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
I guess, but it covers so broad a spectrum as to render the word almost
meaningless in the context of addiction.
Or is it then a matter of inflection? Caffiene is a drug, but said in a non
judgemental, or even happy tone (Yay drugs!), whereas alcohol is also a
drug, but this is suddenly said as though Judy is carefully working her way
down the darkened basement stairs to better inspect the creepy noises she's
hearing (eeeeeek! Drugs!!!!)
In that context, pointing out that alcohol is a drug becomes a non point in
and of itself, unless you choose to elaborate on exactly what that might
mean in a practical sense to you and to the context you brought it up in.
I say this because the phrase "alcohol is a drug" is often spouted by the
"all or nothing" crowd to mean "you can't ingest alcohol and still be
clean", with no irony present at all.....even though those same people will
happily trot off to the local starbucks for three venti lattes and a sugar
cookie and never change their clean time.
Tara
Mark Warner
> <Scot...@gmail.com> wrote
>> I'm being completely honest. Alcohol is a drug. I'm wondering why you
>> think otherwise.
>
> And I always wonder what makes people classify it as a drug, while
> selectively deciding that caffeine (which ROCKS) and nicotine somehow
> aren't..
Must be a bad translation.
--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS 6.0
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying
Scot...@gmail.com
You'd have had to have read it in context (and I find that sometimes
difficult to do, on Google, anyway).
It was mentioned in the context of "substances" with which Ted has had
a history of addiction. He has insisted on separateness of the drugs
to which he became addicted, at least he has separated out alcohol from
the other drugs he's been addicted to. And that's fine, I understand
that. Because if nicotine were one of them, or caffeine, I can
definitely see the difference. Or crack. Or heroin. No problem.
So, let's say that Ted claims addiction to substances X, Y, and Z.
(And none of these are caffeine or nicotine, but rather substances,
addictions to which lead one to the specific programs of AA and NA.)
Ted saying he's achieved such a state of spirituality and such close
contact with God, that he no longer has a problem with X. That is
wonderful. Truly, it is. He can consume X without ill effect. He
uses X only in moderation. It's a wonderful thing. And he claims he
is able to do this because of his new-found and very strong spiritual
connection to God. And he says the rest of us can do it too. I can't
WAIT to get that close to God... really, I can't!!
Yet, he will NOT say that this very strong spiritual connection to God
relieved him of his addiction to substances Y and Z. And I want to
know why. Why was addiction to X cured, but not addictions to Y and Z?
Or has he been cured and just doesn't know it yet? Is he actually NOT
close enough to God to relieve the addiction to substances Y and Z? If
that's the case, does he think the day will come when that will be the
case?
He attempted an explanation by mistakenly making the terms illegal and
immoral coterminous, which I quickly corrected him on (not all that is
illegal would Ted consider immoral, and not all that Ted would consider
to be immoral is illegal). And I am still awaiting a response that
makes sense.
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
TaraG
<Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157927570.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> He attempted an explanation by mistakenly making the terms illegal and
> immoral coterminous, which I quickly corrected him on (not all that is
> illegal would Ted consider immoral, and not all that Ted would consider
> to be immoral is illegal). And I am still awaiting a response that
> makes sense.
You won't get one. Its Ted. He's obsessed. One of the hallmarks of the
obsessed is an inability (as distinct from an unwillingness) to internalize
viewpoints or even information that doesn't support or bolster the position
of the obsession. So, I don't discuss him, its pointless and he's
irrelevant.
My only comment was to your statement of
"'I'm being completely honest. Alcohol is a drug. I'm wondering why you
think otherwise"
And that's what my comment was a response to.
Tara
Mark Warner
>
> He attempted an explanation by mistakenly making the terms illegal and
> immoral coterminous, which I quickly corrected him on (not all that is
> illegal would Ted consider immoral, and not all that Ted would consider
> to be immoral is illegal). And I am still awaiting a response that
> makes sense.
You don't really think you'll get one, do you?
ByTor
mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com says...while attaching C4 explosives
> Scot...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > He attempted an explanation by mistakenly making the terms illegal and
> > immoral coterminous, which I quickly corrected him on (not all that is
> > illegal would Ted consider immoral, and not all that Ted would consider
> > to be immoral is illegal). And I am still awaiting a response that
> > makes sense.
>
> You don't really think you'll get one, do you?
>
>
I think he has to WHIP out his bible for that one........
Damn, I like this guy Scotty even more...........
Scot...@gmail.com
Yeah, right! ;-)
Robert McGregor
> ByTor wrote:
>> Scot...@gmail.com says...
>>> If you're able to drink moderately because God has cured you of your
>>> alcoholism, why is it that you don't claim to be able to do drugs
>>> again, too? Not that you'd want to, but you'd be able to handle a
>>> little crack or dope now too, right? Just a little?
>> Because Jaysus also believes in the legality of alcohol & practices
>> law......Illegal drug use is immoral and therefore a sin, in legal
>> Christian terms of course.......
>
> illegal.
>
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=174&id=1326642006
--
Bob.
"I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very often
they are the same thing" ... Paul Theroux.
~Tim~
Mark Warner wrote:
> dougwa wrote:
> > Letter to a brainwashed AA
>
LOL - If its not ted's wine, then it must be his thorozine,
Peace,
Tim
Andy F.
> Some of the lies and distortions by Mark "The Liar" Warner, Bad Boy
> ByTor, and pepped up Pepperoni prompt to re-post the following.
>
>
>
>
>
> sometimes substited my drug use entirely with alcohol use. I drank in
> bars and I drank at home.
>
> I was sober from 1976 to 1982. I had been 12th stepped in a California
> Prison. I became a secretary of an AA meeting in Orange California, and
> an intergroup rep for the meeting. All agreed after hearing my drinking
> stories I was indeed an "alcoholic".
>
> 1982 to approx. 1992 I did totally abstain from alcohol. In 1992 I
> experimented with alcohol to see if I could take a drink ( a glass of
> beer with a meal actually) in moderation without ill effects. I tried
> the experment several times. In fact, I realized that AA teaching that
> no "real alcoholic" ever
> regains control is FALSE. From 1992 to 2006 I went long periods of
> time, sometimes several years without drinking at all. During that time
> I very occasionally had several ounces of wine before bedtime and
> always in moderation. .
>
> special occsasions:ie: weddings. It has always been in moderation and
> never involved drunkeness.
>
> Now you might ask why an "Alcoholic" would attempt this. Especially one
> with decades of AA experience.
>
> I was taught in Chuch that AA's teaching that no real alcoholic ever
> regains control was false. I decided to put it to the test. In fact, I
> found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
>
> drink even in moderation. However, at some point if they have resolved
> the traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol with a
> spiritual awakening, they can drink in moderation if so desired. They
> dont have to live in constant fear of taking a drink.
>
> The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
>
> They have humungous Egos and just are unwilling to admit they are
> wrong, and that AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
> Alcoholism is false.
>
You've got a humungous ego yourself.You can't admit that you might have made
a mistake when you said you were an alcoholic.And because you can't be
wrong, everyone else in AA has to be.
tedw
Well, I dare say Andy I drank more than you.And besides, THERE IS NO
SUCH THING AS AN ALCOHOLIC, at least in the sense of being bodily
different. Its a figment of the AA recovery movement. You were just a
drunk, so was I.
te...@earthlink.net
Greg P. wrote:
> This is all fine and good Ted, but what I really need is a gameplan
> for how I can shoot crank in moderation. Any experience you have in
> this would be appreciated.
>
> Greg P.
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2006 09:24:40 -0700, "dougwa" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I have not drank alcohol regularly from 1992 until 2006 except on rare
> >special occsasions:ie: weddings. It has always been in moderation and
> >never involved drunkeness.
>
> I want to feel what Mary felt when God spent his seed.
Nope, I dont think thats possible.
JoeRaisin
>>>They have humungous Egos and just are unwilling to admit they are
>>>wrong, and that AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
>>>Alcoholism is false.
>>>
>>
>>You've got a humungous ego yourself.You can't admit that you might have made
>>a mistake when you said you were an alcoholic.And because you can't be
>>wrong, everyone else in AA has to be.
>
>
> Well, I dare say Andy I drank more than you.And besides, THERE IS NO
> SUCH THING AS AN ALCOHOLIC, at least in the sense of being bodily
> different. Its a figment of the AA recovery movement. You were just a
> drunk, so was I.
>
the blather that it is.
At least orange had the decency to leave when confronted by arguments he
couldn't counter, he didn't stay here endlessly repeating a mantra that
has been effectively negated.
Since your next response will likely be that you 'didn't see it' I'll
copy and paste it here:
"It should be noted that the treatment industry, in an attempt to "raise
the bottom," will examine the way a person drank in order to decide
whether or not he/she is an alcoholic. Unfortunately, many members of AA
have picked up on this and it is the drinking itself which is looked at.
This is a flawed methodology since the way a person drinks is not what
determines whether he/she is an alcoholic or not. Rather it is what
happens when that person comes to a sincere decision to control their
drinking or abstain.
This is addressed in the Big Book."
So it doesn't matter if you frank more than Andy. The difference is
that when you made the sincere decision to stop drinking abusively you
were successful.
tedw
I'll try and explain it to you Joe, although I dont think you really
want to understand. I think you want to justify what you already
believe.
"it should be noted that the treatment industry, in an attempt to
"raise
the bottom," will examine the way a person drank in order to decide
whether or not he/she is an alcoholic. Unfortunately, many members of
AA
have picked up on this and it is the drinking itself which is looked
at.
This is a flawed methodology since the way a person drinks is not what
determines whether he/she is an alcoholic or not. Rather it is what
happens when that person comes to a sincere decision to control thier
drinking or abstain. "
30 years ago when I tried to stop drinking I could not stop. I drank
compulsivey. No mental defense against the first drink as The Big Book
correctly states.
At 5 years sober I got drunk again as a result of my spiritual
condition (resentment), I was unable to control my drinking still.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that is a permanent condition. After 10
years, with the help of my church, I found I could even take a drink in
moderation if I so desired.
In other words, I was restored to sanity to that extent.
You make the mistake of believing that the condition a person finds
themself in during early recovery is the same condition is the same
condition they will be in 10 years from now. Depending on their
spiritual condition, this is not necessarily true.
In other words, you believe "We are like men who have lost their legs.
We never grow new ones". This is just not true, Joe. Very likely,
there are many AA's with decades of sobriety who, if they choose and if
they have really given their lives to God, could take a
drink in moderation. Most dont however. They believe they cant do it,
or they just prefer not to take a chance. I can respect the latter
propostion.
Also you stated the follwing: "I'm not sure which "Church" you went to,
but I would challenge your contention - though there is no way for
either you or me to
prove/disprove your claim"
If you want the name of the Church, send me an e-mail privately and I
will give you the name. You can call them yourself and ask them if they
say an alcoholic can eventually drink in a normal fashion.
JoeRaisin
For most of use (16 years for me) the idea of drinking is simply not
important enough for me to try it. Not only do I not drink, but I have
no desire to drink.
I have found myself at patries or cookout or whatnot and wondering if I
could have a beer or two but then realize that i am having a good time
without it and there is no reason for me to try and 'enhance' the
experience.
Alcohol is just not that important to me.
I only wonder why it is so important to you.
People's belief systems are strange things. If a person has remained
sober for a long time and has stopped being a drain on society and
become a contributing member becasue he/she believes that he/she has an
allergy to alcohol, why are you so determined to undermine that belief?
I am curious. (just because you don't believe it isn't a good enough reason)
Good luck.
> Also you stated the follwing: "I'm not sure which "Church" you went to,
> but I would challenge your contention - though there is no way for
> either you or me to
> prove/disprove your claim"
>
> If you want the name of the Church, send me an e-mail privately and I
> will give you the name. You can call them yourself and ask them if they
> say an alcoholic can eventually drink in a normal fashion.
>
Actually I stated that I'm not sure which "Chuch" you went to but if
they are actively encouraging alcoholics to drink then I rather doubt it
is a mainstream one.
Andy F.
that) but, unlike you, I spent a long time trying very hard to control my
drinking, and finding that I couldn't.So it's quite possible that you
weren't the same type of alcoholic as I was.
tedw
When you are truly restored to sanity, you can.
tedw
"I only wonder why it is so important to you"---------That's your
interpretation of things. Its not important to me at all.
"Actually I stated that I'm not sure which "Chuch" you went to but if
they are actively encouraging alcoholics to drink then I rather doubt
it
is a mainstream one." ------------- Another example of people reading
stuff into what I write that I don't say. I never said the Church
actively encouraged drunks to drink. I said they just taught when you
get right with God that you could if you wanted.
"because he/she believes that he/she has an allergy to alcohol, why
are you so determined to undermine that belief?"---------Because its
not true. And if you believe that your problem was an allergy with
alcohol, you have not really realized what was wrong and you don't
understand "Alcoholism" in the slightest. In other words, you are
still asleep and need to wake up.
Here is what "alcoholism" really is:
9 For the good which I desire, I don't do; but the evil which I don't
desire, that I practice.
20 But if what I don't desire, that I do, it is no more I that do it,
but sin which dwells in me.
21 I find then the law, that, to me, while I desire to do good, evil is
present.
22 For I delight in God's law after the inward man,
23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of
my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is
in my members.
24 What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of
this death?
Pepperoni
> > >
> > > Well, I dare say Andy I drank more than you.And besides, THERE IS NO
> > > SUCH THING AS AN ALCOHOLIC, at least in the sense of being bodily
> > > different. Its a figment of the AA recovery movement. You were just a
> > > drunk, so was I.
> > >
> > You may have drunk more than I did (although I don't see how you could
know
> > that) but, unlike you, I spent a long time trying very hard to control
my
> > drinking, and finding that I couldn't.So it's quite possible that you
> > weren't the same type of alcoholic as I was.
>
> When you are truly restored to sanity, you can.
>
When *truly* "restored to sanity", you will not want to drink.
Crazy is just a drink away.
Sane people don't do crazy things.
Crazy people try to hide it.
Stuart
>
Tedw, fuck off. Why would you advocate a person with a long history of
getting burnt start playing with fire again.
Are you a moron?
JoeRaisin
If not, then why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time on this
news group? You could bedeviting your time to things you DO find important.
>
> "Actually I stated that I'm not sure which "Chuch" you went to but if
>
> they are actively encouraging alcoholics to drink then I rather doubt
> it
> is a mainstream one." ------------- Another example of people reading
> stuff into what I write that I don't say. I never said the Church
> actively encouraged drunks to drink. I said they just taught when you
> get right with God that you could if you wanted.
>
Sounds to me like they are encouraging alcoholics to drink.
> "because he/she believes that he/she has an allergy to alcohol, why
> are you so determined to undermine that belief?"---------Because its
> not true. And if you believe that your problem was an allergy with
> alcohol, you have not really realized what was wrong and you don't
> understand "Alcoholism" in the slightest. In other words, you are
> still asleep and need to wake up.
>
No. Because YOU believe it's not true.
If they are happy, contributing members of society doing good things,
who cares if they are asleep?
Your insistence that you are the only one who is right is an extremely
arrogant position.
Many people have incorrect beliefs. Some of them are harmful (NAMBLA)
and some of them are neutral (crossing fingers for good luck). But some,
even though they MAY be wrong are actually beneficial.
So if someone has a belief that is wrong, yet they do no harm to
themsleves or others and in some cases even do good things for others -
why is it so important to you that they convert to your way of thinking?
Only someone unsure of his position is so intolerant to dissent.
> Here is what "alcoholism" really is:
>
> 9 For the good which I desire, I don't do; but the evil which I don't
> desire, that I practice.
>
> 20 But if what I don't desire, that I do, it is no more I that do it,
> but sin which dwells in me.
>
> 21 I find then the law, that, to me, while I desire to do good, evil is
> present.
>
> 22 For I delight in God's law after the inward man,
>
> 23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of
> my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is
> in my members.
>
> 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of
> this death?
>
Great. And through AA I, and many like me, have found deliverance from
drunkeness through the grace of God. So, what's the problem?
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
If Andy is wrong yet continues to remain abstinent, nothing bad happens.
If you are wrong and he drinks, then goes on a bender, the list of bad
tings that could happen is nearly endless.
I think that, at least for today, I won't drink.
tedw
dissent"------Exactly right. And Im not the one intolerant of dissent.
Dissent all you want. Its not me thats putting up signs saying
"Alcoholism is a disease, thats settled". Intolerant of dissent is an
accurate description of AA.
tedw
Heres an uncomfortable truth for you. Your not going to believe
drinking is a disease and find salvation.
tedw
BTW, I didnt say Andy could safely take a drink yet. That depends on
his spiritual conditon.
ByTor
te...@earthlink.net says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer
> Heres an uncomfortable truth for you. Your not going to believe
> drinking is a disease and find salvation.
>
>
<cough cough gag> I think I'm gunna puke!
Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeck!!
F.H.
> BTW, I didnt say Andy could safely take a drink yet. That depends on
> his spiritual conditon.
Gawd help him if he should get to *your* spiritual condition. Cuckoo,
Cuckoo, Cuckoo...
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
So that's the only part of my post you could even try to argue with?
My only intolerance is with your intolerance.
JoeRaisin
tedw wrote:
Only according to your cult.
Andy F.
>
>
> Heres an uncomfortable truth for you. Your not going to believe
> drinking is a disease and find salvation.
>
Andy F.
have a drink?
TaraG
"JoeRaisin" <joer...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ry2Og.536$Xf7...@newsfe07.lga...
>
<snipped hundreds of lines of text just to get here>
> Only according to your cult.
Joe, you're going to have to start snipping ted's nonsense or I'm going to
have to hit you with a brick.
Tara
imb...@mindspring.com
tedw wrote:
> [ . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]
> BTW, I didnt say Andy could safely take a drink yet.
> That depends on his spiritual conditon.
Ted, you're going to have to start snipping your nonsense
or I'm going to have to hit you with a lead pipe.
.
.
--
TaraG
<imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1158206750.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Or you could just borrow my brick.
Tara
F.H.
We can't stone him, that would be *too* religious.
ByTor
imb...@mindspring.com says...while attaching C4 explosives to the
>
Put some vaseline on it, I think he'll prefer it that way instead......
ByTor
lunatic screaming save me!!
> TaraG wrote:
LOL........
JoeRaisin
Yeah, I got lazy.
I've been trying to snip out the extraneous crap.
Scot...@gmail.com
tedw wrote:
> Heres an uncomfortable truth for you. Your not going to believe
> drinking is a disease and find salvation.
It's not THAT that makes me uncomfortable. It's the CARROT I have up
my nose.
Teddy, we're gonna have a party in Hell. Bring your box of wine. See
ya there.
Scot...@gmail.com
ByTor wrote:
> > Ted, you're going to have to start snipping your nonsense
> > or I'm going to have to hit you with a lead pipe.
> >
>
> Put some vaseline on it, I think he'll prefer it that way instead......
Teddy doesn't need Vaseline. IF ya know what I mean...
ByTor
Scot...@gmail.com says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer
>
Sure do..........Yoweeeeeeeeeeeee!
Scot...@gmail.com
ByTor wrote:
> Sure do..........Yoweeeeeeeeeeeee!
OK... gonna give ya minute here... "Teddy doesn't need Vaseline".
TaraG
<Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158357731.4...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> ByTor wrote:
>
>> Sure do..........Yoweeeeeeeeeeeee!
>
> OK... gonna give ya minute here... "Teddy doesn't need Vaseline
I just keep getting an image of santorum......just not Rick.
Tara
F.H.
ByTor
lunatic screaming save me!!
Oh cmon now..........Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!
ByTor
lunatic screaming save me!!
> ByTor <By...@snowdog.com> wrote:
> > > http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
> > >
> >
> > Oh cmon now..........Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!
>
> Oh, YIK! the web page said 'continue' but I didn't dare ....
>
Me neither........... ;0)
F.H.
Pussies. Ain't you ever heard of Rick? It got more down to earth after
that. Ex:
Senator Rick Santorum is trying to rush a bill to the Senate floor that
is so badly written that it could undermine civil rights protections in
the workplace -- and make health care less accessible, more
discriminatory and riskier.
This legislation would make it easier for individuals to impose their
religious beliefs on their coworkers or customers. Unless stopped or
amended, Senator Santorum's bill would increase the likelihood that
employees could ignore an employer's policies against racial or
religious harassment of coworkers.
F.H.
> ByTor <By...@snowdog.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
>>>
>> Oh cmon now..........Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!
>
Try this one:
ByTor
lunatic screaming save me!!
> ByTor wrote:
> > In article <20060915195829.265$L...@newsreader.com>, biljo...@yahoo.com
> > says...while attaching C4 explosives to the computer and running like a
> > lunatic screaming save me!!
> >
> >> ByTor <By...@snowdog.com> wrote:
> >>>> http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/
> >>>>
> >>> Oh cmon now..........Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!
> >> Oh, YIK! the web page said 'continue' but I didn't dare ....
> >>
> >
> > Me neither........... ;0)
>
> Pussies. Ain't you ever heard of Rick? It got more down to earth after
> that. Ex:
Okay will have a look.......Geeeeez...... ;0)
Robert McGregor
Jeez, that explains the "Gay Pride" hyperbole.
--
Bob ;)
"I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very often
they are the same thing" ... Paul Theroux.
Tommy
> In>>>>> [ . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]
>>>>> BTW, I didnt say Andy could safely take a drink yet.
>>>>> That depends on his spiritual conditon.
>>>> Ted, you're going to have to start snipping your nonsense
>>>> or I'm going to have to hit you with a lead pipe.
>>> Or you could just borrow my brick.
>>> Tara
>>
>> We can't stone him, that would be *too* religious.
> LOL........
Okay then. What about killfiling the stupid bastards crap.
Cheers
Tommy
Tim and Lisa
"Tommy" <tommyleprechaunATgmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3ed2$450c713a$59644bc0$47...@news.ntlworld.ie...
LOL!! Killfilings not allowed, Just learn some tolerance!
Craig S.
news:1157905479.9...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> You see, I have
> something that AA says is not possible: Control over my drinking.
> Of course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
> The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
That's right, it is readily apparent; *NOT* drinking never hurt anyone so
why take the risk unnecessarily if a past problem or potential problem is
indicated.
Craig S.
"dou...@hotmail.com" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1158038071.4...@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Greg P. wrote:
> > This is all fine and good Ted, but what I really need is a gameplan
> > for how I can shoot crank in moderation. Any experience you have in
> > this would be appreciated.
> >
> > Greg P.
> Nope, I dont think thats possible.
Pray harder and start practicing.
ScottyFLL
> no "real alcoholic" ever
> regains control is FALSE.
I agree that we should not apply the concept to everyone.
> All the being said, I do not encoureage people in early sobriety to
> drink even in moderation.
Good idea.
> However, at some point if they have resolved
> the traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol with a
> spiritual awakening, they can drink in moderation if so desired.
My REAL problem here is that at least SOME people will think we've
resolved these problems, but have not indeed done so, will return to
the drink, and ... need I go on? IMO, best to just go without alcohol.
> AA has taught "abstinence" is the only course for an "Alcoholic" for
> the last 70 years.
That is their right as a self-governing group whose membership is by
choice. Those who do not agree with the message are not obliged to be
members.
> Of course, Alcoholics Anonymous is not going to admit what it has
> taught about alcoholism for the last 70 years is wrong.
Because it is their own view, and it has the right to hold that view
for itself and its membership. Abstaining from alcohol for life does
not hurt anyone. Not ever. Drinking, on the other hand, does, or
might. Better to err on the side of caution, I should think.
>
> And BTW I currently dont drink except for a ounce or two on very rare
> occasions. . I have stage 3 liver disease due to Hep C virus, probably
> contracted during 14 years of IV drug use and drunkeness.
Not the drink that caused it. Transmitted through blood. You likely
got it through shared needles.
> the virus is being cleared by treatment and I expect my liver disease
> to reverse itself. I have proven time and time again I can take a drink
> in moderation and I have no fear of doing so.
Clearance of virus does not imply repair to damage done. Persons with
hepatitis C at any stage are STRONGLY advised to abstain from alcohol
and other drugs, including Tylenol.
> When the liver disease has reversed, I may indeed take a small glass of
> wine on a special occasion or with a meal. .
Be sure to talk to your doctor about this. My guess is that it will be
advised that you abstain.
> Low bottom is an
> accurate depiction of my alcoholic drinking.
Yes, it is.
>
> Of course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
> The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
>
They have a right to choose not to drink, just as you have the right TO
drink. If you do not agree with the ways of AA, there is a very simple
solution: don't go to AA and do not claim membership in the
organization.
Problem solved.
Thoughts For Today
described in the big book of AA?
You could just be an abusive user of drugs and alcohol.
Enjoy your buzz.
Love and Service,
Thoughts For Today
"dougwa" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1157905479.9...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Letter to a brainwashed AA
>
>
> I drank and used drugs for 14 years. I was a very heavy drinker and
> sometimes substited my drug use entirely with alcohol use. I drank in
> bars and I drank at home.
>
>
> I was sober from 1976 to 1982. I had been 12th stepped in a California
> Prison. I became a secretary of an AA meeting in Orange California, and
>
> an intergroup rep for the meeting. All agreed after hearing my drinking
>
> stories I was indeed an "alcoholic".
>
>
> In 1982 I went on about a 1 week bender (because of resentment) . From
> 1982 to approx. 1992 I did totally abstain from alcohol. In 1992 I
> experimented with alcohol to see if I could take a drink ( a glass of
> beer with a meal actually) in moderation without ill effects. I tried
> the experment several times. In fact, I realized that AA teaching that
>
> no "real alcoholic" ever
> regains control is FALSE. From 1992 to 2006 I went long periods of
> time, sometimes several years without drinking at all. During that time
>
> I very occasionally had several ounces of wine before bedtime and
> always in moderation. .
>
>
> I have not drank alcohol regularly from 1992 until 2006 except on rare
> special occsasions:ie: weddings. It has always been in moderation and
> never involved drunkeness.
>
>
> Now you might ask why an "Alcoholic" would attempt this. Especially one
>
> with decades of AA experience.
>
>
> I was taught in Chuch that AA's teaching that no real alcoholic ever
> regains control was false. I decided to put it to the test. In fact, I
> found that AA's teaching IS FALSE.
>
>
> All the being said, I do not encoureage people in early sobriety to
> drink even in moderation. However, at some point if they have resolved
>
> the traumas and immorality that gave rise to abuse of alcohol with a
> spiritual awakening, they can drink in moderation if so desired. They
> dont have to live in constant fear of taking a drink.
>
>
> AA has taught "abstinence" is the only course for an "Alcoholic" for
> the last 70 years. The only trouble is that AA teaching is false.
> There is no allergy and "Alcoholics" are not bodily different than
> anyone else.
>
>
> And its not just me saying this. Herbert Fingarette, " The Myth of
> Alcoholism as a Disease", Stanton Peele "The Diseasing of America", and
>
> William Playfair ,"The Useful Lie" are well known authors in the
> Alcholism field. All agree that "Alcoholcs" can learn to control their
> drinking. Groups like Moderation Management also teach the same thing.
>
>
> Of course, Alcoholics Anonymous is not going to admit what it has
> taught about alcoholism for the last 70 years is wrong.
>
>
> And BTW I currently dont drink except for a ounce or two on very rare
> occasions. . I have stage 3 liver disease due to Hep C virus, probably
> contracted during 14 years of IV drug use and drunkeness. However,
> the virus is being cleared by treatment and I expect my liver disease
> to reverse itself. I have proven time and time again I can take a drink
>
> in moderation and I have no fear of doing so.
>
>
> When the liver disease has reversed, I may indeed take a small glass of
>
> wine on a special occasion or with a meal. . However, at the present
> time I choose not to do that for health reasons. You see, I have
> something that AA says is not possible: Control over my drinking. Of
> course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
>
>
> Their ususal response is "You were not an Alcoholic". Despite my
> drinking carreer and being a "low bottom" drunk, decades long
> involvement in AA, and answering 19 of the 20 AA questions "yes",
> they will just write people like me off as not "being alcoholic". Over
> 3 decades I have listened to literally thousands of AA stories and
> very few of those people drank any more than I did. Low bottom is an
> accurate depiction of my alcoholic drinking.
>
>
> Of course, most AA's are not going to admit this is possible.
> The reason for this should be readily apparent to everyone:
>
>
> They have humungous Egos and just are unwilling to admit they are
> wrong, and that AA's entire teaching ( and their teaching ) about
> Alcoholism is false.
>
FRH F.R.H.
NOW READ THIS!!
Don't waste our time with your B.S. illogical rants! A.A. is for
admitting alcoholics with God's help. N.A. is for topers, pottie
homophobics, dopeheads and their ilk. When in doubt, call in the
Marines- they know the difference between steers and lick-lick queers!
A.A. is for problem drinkers who have a desire to be SOBER, CLEAN, AND
STRAIGHT!!
Happy + Credible + Free!
te...@earthlink.net
I dont get a buzz.
Did you ever stop to consider that the AA description of an alcoholic
having an allergy and never being able to control his drinking is just
plain false teaching.
marika
<mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> dougwa wrote:
>> Letter to a brainwashed AA
>
> Looks like the MPD is kicking in.
>
hey it's the governer of virginny
do you remember when Anthony Hopkins took time off from filming Hannibal,
sequel to The Silence of
the Lambs, to dine at the White House wiht President Clinton, who
rushed through a golf game to get there, do you remember when hopkinds was
doing
scenes at Union Station in the capital and in Richmond, Va., for
seven weeks.
--
"Karposi's is not associated with multiple myeloma.
However, it
is common in older patients of (usually) Italian ancestry
unrelated to HIV"--Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P.
beepsterz
"dou...@hotmail.com" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1158979345.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I dont get a buzz.
>
> Did you ever stop to consider that the AA description of an alcoholic
> having an allergy and never being able to control his drinking is just
> plain false teaching.
>
Of course it is false, but so is the 'spiritual disease' concept. If a
person is driven to use mind or mood altering substances because of guilt or
shame, all they have to do is change their belief system. One should take
care to not pursue any actions that may deprive another of person, property,
dignity, nor liberty. Anything else you should be able to live with.
BP
God is a drug.
you Do get a buzz.
F.H.
No, I git no buzz, but when I hear preachers rant about the wrath of God
I sometimes hear voices in my head that sound just like David Berkowitz.