Why "treatment" doesn't work
Rebecca Fransway
that treatment doesn't work very well, and discusses why.
The drinking dilemma
By calling abstinence the only cure, we ensure that the nation's
$100 billion alcohol problem won't be solved
BY NANCY SHUTE
"Would you like something to drink?" the waitress asks Elisa DeCarlo
as she plops into a chair in an Asian restaurant on Manhattan's
Upper West Side. DeCarlo, a 37-year-old actress, would love
something to drink. She has just finished a performance of her
one-woman show at an off-off-Broadway theater. Only a dozen people
showed up, and they laughed in the wrong places. After a show, when
she is thirsty and wound up, is the time she loves a drink most.
"Nothing at the moment, thank you," DeCarlo says, reaching for a
water glass and draining it. She drinks two more glasses of water
and waits for the food to arrive before ordering a good French pinot
blanc. By the end of the night, she's had three glasses of wine;
more than her usual two, but still within the limits of Moderation
Management, the controlled-drinking self-help program she has
followed for the past 16 months. A self-described problem drinker
who used to pound down so much booze after a show she felt lousy the
next morning, she had checked out Alcoholics Anonymous but was put
off by the group's famous first step: "We admitted we were powerless
over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable."
"If you choose to overdrink, you choose to overdrink and you know
it," DeCarlo says. She was happily married; she had published two
novels; she toured nationally. She didn't feel that her life was
unmanageable, just that alcohol was taking up too much of it.
Following Moderation Management guidelines, she quit drinking for 30
days and now takes no more than nine drinks a week, no more than
three a day, and never drinks and drives. (The guideline's limit for
men is 14 drinks a week, four on any given day.) "It's a really nice
feeling to know I can have a drink and stop and feel fine the next
day," she says. "It's made a tremendous difference. My life is too
interesting to mess it up with a drinking problem."
DeCarlo's strategy is, depending on how you look at it, either the
best hope for problem drinking in America or the most threatening
form of self-delusion. She and other imbibers experimenting with
controlled-drinking programs around the country have innocently
stumbled into the most hotly contested issue in alcohol treatment:
whether cutting back, as opposed to total abstinence, is an option
for some people who drink too much.
Narrow path. There are 40 million problem drinkers in the United
States--people whose drinking causes economic, physical, or family
harm but who are not technically alcoholic (defined as being
physiologically dependent on alcohol). But for the past six decades,
beginning shortly after Prohibition was repealed in 1933, treatment
for drinking problems in this country has focused almost exclusively
on alcoholics, has offered abstinence as the sole cure for their
problems, and has laid just two paths to that cure: Alcoholics
Anonymous, the spiritual self-help group founded in 1935; and a
variety of related 12-step programs, originally developed at the
Hazelden Foundation and other Minnesota clinics in the 1950s, which
combine psychological and peer counseling and AA attendance. (AA is
the granddaddy of 12-step programs, but the two approaches are not
synonymous. AA is a self-help group aimed at sobriety and spiritual
renewal; 12-step alcohol-treatment programs adopt some of AA's
tenets but include a wide array of secular treatments, from
psychotherapy to acupuncture.)
A U.S. News reporter, querying a dozen treatment centers about her
options as someone concerned about her drinking, was offered only
abstinence-based programs. The Mayo Clinic told her she was welcome
to try cutting back on her own and then to come back if she failed.
At the Betty Ford Center, a kindly woman answering the phone said,
"For people like us, one drink always leads to another. You may be
functional now, but it's progressive."
The problem with that advice is that for many people it's not true.
For at least the past decade, researchers have known that the
majority of people who drink heavily don't become alcoholics; some
experts place that number as high as 75 percent. Other drinkers may
meet the clinical criteria for alcohol dependence but can sustain
controlled drinking for months, even years, before getting into
trouble. And the majority of people who cut back or quit drinking do
so on their own. Many of those people binge drank in their 20s at
college parties, at after-work happy hours, or during Sunday
afternoon football games, then got a good job, got married, got
busy, and lost interest in getting smashed. In the researchers'
lingo, they "matured out."
Moreover, alcoholism cannot be blamed for the majority of social
ills linked to drinking in this country. Misuse of alcohol costs the
nation dearly--$100 billion a year in quantifiable costs, in
addition to untold emotional pain. Yet the bulk of these costs are
incurred not by alcoholics but by problem drinkers, who are four
times more numerous than alcoholics, are more active in society, and
usually reject abstinence as a solution. Alcohol figures in 41
percent of traffic crash fatalities and is a factor in 50 percent of
homicides, 30 percent of suicides, and 30 percent of accidental
deaths. (Last week, a 20-year-old Louisiana State University student
drank himself to death during fraternity pledge week; three other
students were hospitalized.) Heavy drinking also increases the risk
of cancer, heart disease, and stroke, long before people have to
worry about cirrhosis of the liver, brain damage, or other skid-row
ailments. A 1990 report by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the
National Academy of Sciences, concluded that the harmful
consequences of alcohol could not be reduced significantly unless
more options were offered to people with only "mild to moderate"
alcohol problems.
Threats and firings. Public-health experts recognized the social
costs of alcohol abuse long ago and have responded with programs
such as free soft drinks for designated drivers and free taxi rides
home on New Year's Eve. But because of deeply held beliefs in the
American alcohol-treatment community, this kind of pragmatic,
public-health-centered approach has rarely been applied to
individuals with drinking problems. Europe, Great Britain, and
Australia long ago defined problem drinking as a public-health
concern and have established controlled-drinking programs to reduce
its physical harm and social costs. Forty-three percent of Canadian
treatment programs deem moderate drinking acceptable for some
clients.
But in the United States, researchers and counselors who have
championed--or even tried to investigate--moderation as a treatment
strategy have been threatened, sometimes fired. "We've been accused
of murder. That we're all in denial. That we're enablers," says Alan
Marlatt, a professor of psychology and moderate-drinking proponent
who is director of the University of Washington's Addictive
Behaviors Research Center.
A big part of the problem is that it's hard to draw a clear line
between alcohol dependency and problem drinking. According to a 1996
report by the University of Connecticut's Alcohol Research Center,
20 percent of American adults are problem drinkers, compared with 5
percent who are alcohol dependent. The National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism, using much stricter criteria, puts the numbers
at 3 percent alcohol abusers, 1.7 percent alcohol dependents, and
2.7 percent drinkers who exhibit characteristics of both.
(Discrepancies in alcohol statistics abound.)
Briefly put, problem drinkers are people who have had problems
because of drinking (a DUI arrest, marital discord, showing up late
to work). But they usually don't drink steadily and don't go through
withdrawal when they stop. By contrast, someone who is alcohol
dependent (the medically preferred term for alcoholic) exhibits at
least three of the following symptoms: tolerance; withdrawal; an
inability to cut down; sacrificing work, family, or social events to
drink; devoting a lot of time to finding and consuming alcohol; or
persistence in drinking despite related health problems.
Even so, the distinctions leave plenty of diagnostic wiggle room.
The medical- and alcohol-treatment communities in the United States
have dealt with this ambiguity by applying to all drinkers the
advice appropriate for the most severely afflicted: abstinence. Any
other strategy, they feel, is too risky. "Every alcoholic would like
to drink moderately," says Douglas Talbott, a physician and
president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. "Ninety
percent have tried. This just feeds into the denial of the
alcoholic."
Moderate-drinking proponents concede that some alcoholics will seize
upon controlled drinking as an excuse to avoid abstinence. But they
say that they explicitly warn that the strategy is not for
alcoholics, only for people with less severe drinking problems; that
tests (box, Page 62) can evaluate the intensity of difficulties; and
that they regularly refer dependent drinkers to AA. Controlled
drinking, says Marc Kern, a Los Angeles psychologist, can "reduce
harm by reducing alcohol consumption" and can propel people who fail
at moderation into abstinence.
Medical or moral? America's ambivalence toward alcohol is long
standing. In the early days of the republic, we were a nation of
lushes. Per capita consumption of alcohol was three times today's.
The first temperance effort, led by Philadelphia physician Benjamin
Rush in the 1780s, prescribed moderation: Rush urged people to
switch from rum and gin to the more salubrious beer and wine.
Temperance soon moved from the doctor's office to the church. In
1826, the Rev. Lyman Beecher galvanized the movement with his Six
Sermons on Intemperance, which held that alcohol was a poison and
that abstinence was the only answer. "This is the way to death!"
Beecher said of the drinking life. Ever since, the nature of alcohol
abuse has been debated, the arguments often mixing the medical and
the moral. Is it a bad habit, a matter of will, or a disease?
The medical model that has dominated alcohol treatment for more than
a half century holds that alcohol dependence is an ailment with
biological and genetic roots. Recent research suggests there is a
genetic predisposition toward alcoholism; identical twins, for
instance, are more apt to share a drinking problem than fraternal
twins, and adopted children whose birth parents were alcoholics are
four times likelier than children adopted from nonalcoholic homes to
become alcohol dependent. This disease approach is challenged by
behaviorists, the primary advocates of controlled drinking, who say
alcohol abuse is a behavior influenced by psychological, cultural,
and environmental forces, not just physiology.
Science has yet to come up with enough information to resolve the
disease vs. behavior argument. Odds are that alcohol abuse will
prove to be a combination of both, the behavioral factors dominating
in problem drinkers and biological factors weighing more heavily in
people who are physically addicted. But in the meantime, the disease
and behavior camps have been warring as if the evidence were
absolute. A 1976 Rand report saying that a very small number of
alcoholics successfully moderate their drinking was fiercely
attacked. "It was like desecrating the altar," says Frederick
Glaser, a psychiatrist at East Carolina University School of
Medicine in Greenville, N.C., who was a researcher at the time. Mark
and Linda Sobell, two psychologists who in the 1970s published
similar findings, were accused of faking their results and were
hauled up before a congressional committee. The Sobells were later
vindicated.
Just say whoa! Though most people in the mainstream treatment
community hold tightly to the disease concept of alcoholism, the
treatment they offer is based on a combination of folklore and
personal experience rather than on science. As Robin Room, a
Canadian sociologist who is critical of American alcohol treatment,
asks: "What kind of field is it that claims a disease, but the
treatment is nonmedical?" Enoch Gordis, director of the NIAAA, wrote
in 1987 of the nation's $3.8 billion alcohol-treatment effort: "In
the case of alcoholism, our whole treatment system . . . is founded
on hunch, not evidence, and not on science."
A decade later, quality still varies widely, and anyone seeking
solid data on what treatments work best is justified in feeling
confused. In a comprehensive 1995 review of the effectiveness of
treatment programs, New Mexico psychologists Reid Hester and William
Miller concluded that, even for people with severe drinking
problems, behavioral treatments (such as brief interventions,
contracts governing drinkers' conduct, and coping-skills training)
worked significantly better than the fare routinely offered by
12-step programs: group psychotherapy, educational lectures,
confrontational counseling, and referral to AA. The gap between
those treatments shown to be effective and those that are widely
used, they found, "could hardly be larger if one intentionally
constructed treatment programs from those approaches with the least
evidence of efficacy." But the researchers cautioned that their
analysis was a "first approximation," because the quality of the
studies surveyed was uneven.
Not for everyone. Analyzing the effectiveness of Alcoholics
Anonymous is even more difficult because of the nature of the
organization. The self-help group keeps no membership records and
does not participate in research. "We're not treatment," says
Valerie O., an AA member who answered the phone in the group's New
York office. "We just sit there and tell our stories to anyone who
asks." Only three trials of AA's effectiveness have been performed,
and all three used drunk drivers and others forced to attend the
program, which violates the group's creed of voluntary membership.
None of these trials rated AA as more effective than alternatives.
In a 1990 survey, 65 percent of AA members said they had been sober
for a year or more; the survey also found that the majority of
people who start AA drop out within a year. When AA works, it works
extraordinarily well: The testimonies of lives saved by AA are
legion. But it's not for everyone.
Because alcohol treatment is so unscientific, some of the most basic
and effective standards of care are ignored. Instead of adhering to
the stepped-care protocol employed in other areas of medicine--where
the least invasive treatment is used first--alcohol treatment starts
with its most drastic remedy: lifetime abstinence, meetings, and,
until recently, a 28-day residential stay in a substance-abuse
clinic. As a result, many people who need help don't seek it. Others
try AA but feel it doesn't meet their needs.
That's what happened to Moderation Management founder Audrey
Kishline. In her 20s, she was drinking five or six glasses of wine a
night, drinking alone, drinking and driving. Diagnosed as an
alcoholic, she was sent to detoxification, to residential treatment,
and to AA. But Kishline didn't feel she had been alcohol dependent:
She had no withdrawal symptoms, and she found it easy to abstain for
months. She started researching alcohol treatment, and was outraged
to find that alternatives common in Europe were never even mentioned
here. "The public's not getting the full story," Kishline says. Now
40, married and raising two children, she occasionally has a glass
of wine with dinner. Had she initially been offered less drastic
treatment, Kishline believes, she would have reached this point of
temperance years sooner.
Other veterans of the treatment system object to AA's explicitly
spiritual focus, a reliance on God or a "higher power" that
permeates many 12-step programs as well. Last year, the New York
State Court of Appeals ruled that prisoners are constitutionally
protected from being forced to participate in AA because of its
religious orientation. Similar rulings have been made in California
and other states. And several abstinence-based self-help groups,
including Rational Recovery, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, and
SMART Recovery Self-Help Network, have been founded by people
critical either of AA's spiritual focus or of the belief that they
are powerless against alcohol.
Changing times. Gradually, however, the alcohol-treatment portfolio
is diversifying. After expanding wildly in the 1970s and 1980s,
residential 12-step programs are falling on hard times: Insurers and
employers, pressed by rising health care costs, find little benefit
to justify the programs' considerable expense and are seeking
cheaper, less intensive alternatives. Alcohol-treatment research is
moving slowly toward a more scientific, empirically based approach.
And a national trend away from heavy drinking--alcohol consumption
has fallen by 15 percent since 1980, paralleling declines in smoking
and illegal drug use--makes it, oddly enough, more acceptable to
treat those with only mild alcohol problems, not just Days of Wine
and Roses-style lushes.
Wisconsin offers a sense of what the future may hold. It is a big
drinking state; 25 percent of its residents say they binge drink.
"Every little town has a church and a bar," says Michael Fleming, a
University of Wisconsin Medical School family physician. "Most of
the patients in my practice drinking six drinks a day are not
alcoholics. But if we can get them to cut down from six drinks to
two, from a public-health perspective you've made a huge impact."
In April, Fleming published the first large U.S. study of brief
interventions for problem drinkers in the Journal of the American
Medical Association. The study, patterned on research over the past
20 years in Great Britain and Sweden, selected 774 problem drinkers
from patients at 17 Wisconsin clinics. Half the patients met for two
15-minute sessions, one month apart, with their physicians,
discussed their current health behavior and the effects of alcohol,
and signed a prescriptionlike drinking contract. A year later, the
men had reduced their alcohol use by 14 percent; the women, by 30
percent. (Women are usually more successful than men at moderating.)
The control group also reduced its drinking, but the brief
intervention group was twice as likely to reduce it by 20 percent or
more.
Other promising research is coming from Seattle, where University of
Washington psychologist Marlatt is working with a notoriously
immoderate population--college students. For the past seven years,
he has followed 350 students who were identified while still in high
school as high-risk drinkers. A year after half the students were
given a one-hour, one-on-one educational session in their freshman
year, 80 percent had reduced binge drinking substantially. Those who
didn't were given more education and counseling, with the intensity
escalating each year. "It's a harm-reduction approach," Marlatt
says, using a phrase more often applied to needle exchanges and
other drug-abuse programs. "With young people, if you only offer
abstinence, they're not going to sign up."
Another brief intervention program, offered to adults by the
University of Michigan Medical Center's DrinkWise program, is
patterned on one developed at Toronto's Addiction Research
Foundation. DrinkWise offers four one-hour educational counseling
sessions, in person or by phone, with three- and nine-month
follow-up calls, for $495. East Carolina University will launch its
own DrinkWise program later this year.
Many people enter alcohol treatment not by choice but by court order
for drunk driving and other offenses. They, too, are beginning to
gain a few more options. Last year California ruled that Los Angeles
County does not have to require offenders to attend an
abstinence-based self-help group, making room for Moderation
Management as a legal alternative to AA.
But these groups are still gnats compared to the elephant of AA.
Moderation Management has just 50 volunteer-run groups; AA has an
estimated 1.2 million members in the nation. Only 8 to 10 people
show up for the weekly Manhattan meeting of MM, which Elisa DeCarlo
runs. "We're like booze revolutionaries," she says cheerfully.
There's reason to hope today's revolutionaries will get a more open
hearing than their predecessors: The NIAAA, along with other federal
agencies, is increasing funding for different alcohol treatments.
Someday, perhaps, controlled-drinking programs will be as
commonplace as Weight Watchers and Smokenders, and problem drinking
will be recognized as a $100 billion public-health problem requiring
solutions as varied and complex as our long, tempestuous
relationship with alcohol.
With Laura Tangley
Should you worry?
No questionnaire can tell you for sure if you're a problem drinker.
But many alcohol-abuse experts use the following test.
1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?
0--Never
1--Monthly or less
2--2-4 times a month
3--2-3 times a week
4--4 or more times a week
2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day
when you are drinking?
0--1 or 2
1--3 or 4
2--5 or 6
3--7 to 9
4--10 or more
3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?
0--Never
1--Less than monthly
2--Monthly
3--Weekly
4--Daily or almost daily
4. How often during the past year have you been unable to stop
drinking once you started?
0--Never
1--Less than monthly
2--Monthly
3--Weekly
4--Daily or almost daily
5. How often during the past year have you failed to do what was
normally expected of you because of drinking?
0--Never
1--Less than monthly
2--Monthly
3--Weekly
4--Daily or almost daily
6. How often during the past year have you needed a drink in the
morning to get going after a heavy drinking session?
0--Never
1--Less than monthly
2--Monthly
3--Weekly
4--Daily or almost daily
7. How often during the past year have you had a feeling of guilt or
remorse after drinking?
0--Never
1--Less than monthly
2--Monthly
3--Weekly
4--Daily or almost daily
8. How often during the past year have you been unable to remember
what happened the night before because of drinking?
0--Never
1--Less than monthly
2--Monthly
3--Weekly
4--Daily or almost daily
9. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your
drinking?
0--No
1--
2--Yes, but not in the past year
3--
4--Yes. During the past year
10. Has a relative, friend, doctor, or other health worker been
concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?
0--No
1--
2--Yes, but not in the past year
3
4--Yes. During the past year
TOTAL
Scoring: A total score of 8-15 may indicate a problem with alcohol
use. You may want to ask your physician about cutting down or
becoming abstinent. A total score of 16 or more suggests a more
serious problem. You should contact your physician or an
alcohol-treatment program for help.
Source: Alcohol Use Disorder Inventory Test, World Health
Organization, 1987
Cutting back
These organizations and people offer help to those who want to
reduce their drinking.
DrinkWise. Brief intervention in person or by phone. At the
University of Michigan Medical Center, 800-222-5145; At East
Carolina University Medical School, 888-816-2736; E-mail:
tedmo...@brody.med.ecu.edu
Moderation Management. Self-help group with meetings, an Internet
discussion group, and Audrey Kishline's book, Moderate Drinking
(Crown, $14): 612-512-1484;
Counselors. New Mexico psychologist Reid Hester's Web page lists
behavioral counselors and links to other resources.
Have a comment? Want to read what others have to say? Click here.
CREDITS
Send comments to webm...@usnews.com
© Copyright U.S. News & World Report, Inc. All rights reserved.
This site is engineered by AGTinteractive
check this out! http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org
http://www.aadeprogramming.com
Join the 12-step free Mailing List!
http://www.egroups.com/list/12-step-free/info.html
Rebecca Fransway
says...
>
>> The drinking dilemma
>> By calling abstinence the only cure, we ensure that the nation's
>> $100 billion alcohol problem won't be solved
>
>magazine a ways back. Some valuable talking points to address how our culture
>views booze and problem drinking (*not* to be confused with alcoholism). I even
>tried the MM technique myself b/c at that time I was not committed to
>abstinence. It didn't work for me, and I think most folks in AA didn't *want*
>to come to AA at all, much less "be abstinent". I sure as hell didn't. Eh,
>today I have a life, when I drink I don't. The choice is mine. Plenty of folks
>have used MM successfully and I say more power to 'em --- I doubt very
>seriously that they are "alcoholics" though. I just can't kid myself that I'm
>one of them. How 'bout you, Rebecca? Have you used MM?
Nope, I tried enough of that years ago, and I don't like the feeling
one drink leaves me with--wanting more booze. Why wreck my whole day
for a lousy drink?
But I really don't think the label "alcholic" necessarily excludes one
from the ability to moderate. Sometimes an "alcoholic" can feel like
he's lost that ability, yet regain it. My daughter, if she'd gone into
treatment, might have had her symptoms described as "alcoholism" and
might have had abstinence recommended as the only help for her. Yet
she has, over the last couple of years, found she can moderate
successfully. Her limit is two beers or two drinks. Of course, she's
only 23.
Actually, I've known lots of folks who've learned to moderate. I don't
accept "alcoholism" simply as the Big Book definition--those who have lost
the ability to moderate. I dont think anyone really loses that ability,
although we've certainly lost the desire.
Someone in the newsgroup once asked the question "If you were paid a
million dollars to
drink one beer and that's all, could you do it?" I'll bet any of us
could answer yes to that, including myself. But most of us, when
confronted with the prospect of a beer and how we're likely to feel if
we drink it, don't have kind of motivation it would take to quit after
one.
Rebecca
JoeRaisin
this population. Care to guess how far it flew? Yeah... about that far.
I often wonder what would have happened if it had been available during my
first encounter with military counselors way back in my early 20's.
Far too late for that now... If I ever start thinking I can, well, thanks
for doing the research Julie.
JoeRaisin
Julie wrote in message <19990926212024...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>> The drinking dilemma
>> By calling abstinence the only cure, we ensure that the
nation's
>> $100 billion alcohol problem won't be solved
>
>I agreed wholeheartedly when I read this same article in I think it was
Time
>magazine a ways back. Some valuable talking points to address how our
culture
>views booze and problem drinking (*not* to be confused with alcoholism). I
even
>tried the MM technique myself b/c at that time I was not committed to
>abstinence. It didn't work for me, and I think most folks in AA didn't
*want*
>to come to AA at all, much less "be abstinent". I sure as hell didn't. Eh,
>today I have a life, when I drink I don't. The choice is mine. Plenty of
folks
>have used MM successfully and I say more power to 'em --- I doubt very
>seriously that they are "alcoholics" though. I just can't kid myself that
I'm
>one of them. How 'bout you, Rebecca? Have you used MM?
>
>Julie
>...the kingdom of heaven is within...
>
Julie
>this population. Care to guess how far it flew? Yeah... about that far.
>I often wonder what would have happened if it had been available during my
>first encounter with military counselors way back in my early 20's.
>Far too late for that now... If I ever start thinking I can, well, thanks
>for doing the research Julie.
>
>JoeRaisin
Can't say "it was my pleasure", Joe ;-), but I'm glad to hear you found my
research in MM useful as a future deterent...
The military is a perfect example of where MM might theoretically be useful
(worship and glorification of "going ashore" drinking stories and "how I got
this tattoo on my a**"), but I can see exactly why it fell on its face. MM
assumes the individual *can* and *wants* to moderate his/her intake. Seeing as
the military trains in hierarchy and black and white thinking (as far as
following orders goes), it probably wouldn't be very successful in "the
ranks"...
Craig S.
days and now takes no more than nine drinks a week, no more than
three a day, and never drinks and drives. (The guideline's limit for
men is 14 drinks a week, four on any given day.)"
I believe that I know how this would work for me. I would ingest all 14
drinks in one day then attempt to white knuckle it for a week until my next
"legal" binge. Four in one day? What's the point? No thanks. If anyone
else exhibiting alcoholic drinking can do the right about face and drink
like a gentleman, then my hat is off to you. (Ok, so I stole it.)
Craig S.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Julie
>I believe that I know how this would work for me. I would ingest all 14
>drinks in one day then attempt to white knuckle it for a week until my next
>"legal" binge.
Yep, that's *exactly* what ended up happening for me, Craig. Oh, and I used the
men's limit of 14 a week b/c I'm tall. Hahaha! 9 drinks a week...<SNORT!>
Jules
Julie
<snip>
>Actually, I've known lots of folks who've learned to moderate. I don't
>accept "alcoholism" simply as the Big Book definition--those who have lost
>the ability to moderate. I dont think anyone really loses that ability,
>although we've certainly lost the desire.
I wish I could say it was merely a matter of losing the desire --- for me it
truly was ability. It was like a bomb went off in my body after my 2 drink
limit. I HAD TO DRINK MORE. Now of course Albert Ellis would disagree, but I
was absolutely miserable after just 2 b/c of the internal battle going on in
mind *and* body. It was simply better to have had none at all. I waged that
battle for months, on again off again drinking, but always obsessed by the
thoughts of drinking. Ugh.
I think it's great that your daughter has been able to use MM successfully, and
I do think theoretically young folks probably could benefit more if you
consider the disease concept. It would be akin to "early intervention" at an
early stage of potential "disease". I'd be interested to see 1, 5 and 10 year
f/u studies to see what becomes of folks who were able to use MM, if it can
remain a viable alternative to abstinence for them.
Julie
lukey
> Other veterans of the treatment system object to AA's explicitly
> spiritual focus, a reliance on God or a "higher power" that
> permeates many 12-step programs as well.
God gave the solution to the alcoholics first, so it could "trickle up"
to everyone else suffering from selfishness and dishonesty. Of course,
everyone is suffering from selfishness and dishonesty, either directly
or as a codependent. If this were not true, then we would already have
world peace, and only the alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers,
overeaters, overspenders, sex addicts, and their codependents would be
suffering.
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Medieval Knievel
lukey <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7so17g$u58$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> God gave the solution to the alcoholics first, so it could "trickle up"
> to everyone else suffering from selfishness and dishonesty. Of course,
> everyone is suffering from selfishness and dishonesty, either directly
> or as a codependent. If this were not true, then we would already have
> world peace, and only the alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers,
> overeaters, overspenders, sex addicts, and their codependents would be
> suffering.
I sure hope your tongue is firmly in cheek with this post. I have met
people in *A who really seemed to think that gawd had given the world the
solution to all its problems with St. Bill's cash-cow Holy Book. Yeah, the
kind of god I can believe in uses a con-man failure stock broker drunk to
save the world. Uh-huh.
--
May the Peace of Medieval Knievel Be Unto You
remove NOSPAM from the e-mail address to reply
aa# 1554 ICQ # 26667824 ULC ordained minister
Rebecca Fransway
says...
>>
>I think it's great that your daughter has been able to use MM successfully, and
>I do think theoretically young folks probably could benefit more if you
>consider the disease concept. It would be akin to "early intervention" at an
>early stage of potential "disease". I'd be interested to see 1, 5 and 10 year
>f/u studies to see what becomes of folks who were able to use MM, if it can
>remain a viable alternative to abstinence for them.
She didn't use MM. She moderates on her own, using common sense. Which,
frankly, I think is better than going to any recovery organization,
including MM.
I had
a father-in-law also who whad been a lifetime drunk and was diagnosed with
cirhossis in his early 50's. The doctor told him, if he quit drinking
altogether, he might live another 5 years. He cut way down. (Didn't use
MM) His limit
was four beers. He lived another 25 years.
Rebecca
>
>Julie
>
>
>...the kingdom of heaven is within...
>
check this out! http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org
J
Medieval Knievel wrote:
Your entitled to a god of your understanding. Your an ordained minister? Wow,
you must be really spiritual and everthing, like gee whiz. You must have
personalized plates too, just so god can find you quick when he needs you.
JTS
Medieval Knievel
J <JT...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> Your entitled to a god of your understanding. Your an ordained minister?
Wow,
> you must be really spiritual and everthing, like gee whiz. You must have
> personalized plates too, just so god can find you quick when he needs you.
Nope, but it does help one to get out of traffic tickets to have that little
clergy plaque on the car. And, boy, do those little white collars ever make
a black shirt look extra smart.
Jane M Kelley
confusion she posts.
A bit of this, some of that, and scrambled together with comments of her
own. Her posts are a wonderful example of self will run riot or why there
is standardization in the field of chemical dependency.
The classic mistake made by Rebecca is made by others who believe that their
own limited experience in life is great enough to encompass all situations.
The Big Book describes several kinds of alcoholics, Rebecca, including the
mentally ill.
You are the reason why we don't tell folks what we do in treatment. Had one
client who ran around town with a paper test I gave him one day, trying to
get others to figure out if they had a problem.
The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire picture
necessary to understand and treat. After you sit your ass on a hard chair
for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones necessary to
fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the rest.
-**** Posted from RemarQ, http://www.remarq.com/?b ****-
Real Discussions for Real People
Rebecca Fransway
>The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire picture
>necessary to understand and treat.
Nonsense. Theses are the only controlled, scientific studies available,
and they point to exactly what the picture is, and what you know very
well it is. No one needs you. You're a bum.
After you sit your ass on a hard chair
>for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones necessary to
>fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the rest.
Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time sitting
on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit, while
you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night in
your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
You're a money grubbing piece of the world's worst form of uselessness.
Rebecca
jazzzman
> In article <v4SH3.57$Ey3.41821@WReNphoon3>, jmke...@juno.com says...
>
> >The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire picture
> >necessary to understand and treat.
>
> Nonsense. Theses are the only controlled, scientific studies available,
> and they point to exactly what the picture is, and what you know very
> well it is. No one needs you. You're a bum.
>
> After you sit your ass on a hard chair
> >for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones necessary to
> >fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the rest.
>
> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
>
> If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
> you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
> different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
> visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time sitting
> on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit, while
> you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night in
> your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
>
> You're a money grubbing piece of the world's worst form of uselessness.
I got it! Porkwoman is a counselor wannabe!!! Couldn't make the grade, huh?
--
jazzzman
http://home.earthlink.net/~tigernest/control.html
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep
delight to the blood.
George Santayana (1863-1952), U.S. philosopher, poet. The Life of Reason, ch. 3,
"Reason in Society" (1905-6).
Medieval Knievel
Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com> wrote in message
> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
A bit of resentment? Have you tried praying for Jane, as we are ordered to
do in "Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict?" Remember that we can absolutely not
afford to be angry!
Now, let go and let god! Own your feelings! whenever you point a finger,
you have four pointing back at you! It's more important to be happy than to
be right!
Rebecca Fransway
>
>
>
>
>Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com> wrote in message
>
>> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
>> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
>> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
>> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
>
>A bit of resentment? Have you tried praying for Jane, as we are ordered to
>do in "Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict?" Remember that we can absolutely not
>afford to be angry!
>
>Now, let go and let god! Own your feelings! whenever you point a finger,
>you have four pointing back at you! It's more important to be happy than to
>be right!
hahaahah! Jane better be telling herself that. I'll bet she's packing
a good ounce or two of resentment in double balloons.
Rebecca
>
>--
>May the Peace of Medieval Knievel Be Unto You
>remove NOSPAM from the e-mail address to reply
>aa# 1554 ICQ # 26667824 ULC ordained minister
>
>
>
>
check this out! http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org
J
Rebecca Fransway wrote:
> In article <rv09jk...@corp.supernews.com>, "Medieval says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
> >> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
> >> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
> >> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
> >
> >A bit of resentment? Have you tried praying for Jane, as we are ordered to
> >do in "Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict?" Remember that we can absolutely not
> >afford to be angry!
> >
> >Now, let go and let god! Own your feelings! whenever you point a finger,
> >you have four pointing back at you! It's more important to be happy than to
> >be right!
>
> hahaahah! Jane better be telling herself that. I'll bet she's packing
> a good ounce or two of resentment in double balloons.
>
> Rebecca
> >
> >--
> >May the Peace of Medieval Knievel Be Unto You
> >remove NOSPAM from the e-mail address to reply
> >aa# 1554 ICQ # 26667824 ULC ordained minister
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> check this out! http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org
> http://www.aadeprogramming.com
> Join the 12-step free Mailing List!
> http://www.egroups.com/list/12-step-free/info.html
Take your lithium Franny, your getting pretty manic again.
JTS
lukey
>lukey <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
>> God gave the solution to the alcoholics first, so it could "trickle up"
>> to everyone else suffering from selfishness and dishonesty. Of course,
>> everyone is suffering from selfishness and dishonesty, either directly
>> or as a codependent. If this were not true, then we would already have
>> world peace, and only the alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers,
>> overeaters, overspenders, sex addicts, and their codependents would be
>> suffering.
>I sure hope your tongue is firmly in cheek with this post.
Everyone can plainly see that the program has trickled up -- we now have
N.A., G.A., O.A., D.A., Sex A., etc. What's your point?
> I have met
>people in *A who really seemed to think that gawd had given the world the
>solution to all its problems with St. Bill's cash-cow Holy Book. Yeah, the
>kind of god I can believe in uses a con-man failure stock broker drunk to
>save the world. Uh-huh.
Are you saying that there's no selfishness or dishonesty at the highest levels
of government everywhere? Is there some other reason why governments
have been disturbing the peace since the beginning of history?
JoeRaisin
treatment mileu.
Far too many of my colleagues felt an alcohol abuser was just an alcoholic
who covered his/her tracks better.
While I didn't use the actual program of MM I did try moderation training
with about a dozen of my abuse clients during my time as a case manager.
Seemed to work for maybe 5 of 'em. (at least they stopped getting into
trouble and/or showing up for PT or work drunk or hung over.) 3 decided
they couldn't do it and quit drinking all together with 2 deciding to go to
AA. they rest.... Got more tattoos if you know what I mean.
BTW it ain't the a** anymore... these guys are getting their dogtag
information tattooed just below their armpits... OUCH! They call 'em "meat
tags".
JoeRaisin
Julie wrote in message <19990927082104...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
fke
> If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
> you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
> different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
> visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time sitting
> on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit, while
> you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night in
> your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
wow, becca...
that's soooooooooooooooooo......
ummmmmm.....retro..
btw, i know plenty of family docs that treat the problem with drugs.
hip hip hooray...
>
Al B.
> In article <v4SH3.57$Ey3.41821@WReNphoon3>, jmke...@juno.com says...
>
>
> >The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire
picture
> >necessary to understand and treat.
>
> Nonsense. Theses are the only controlled, scientific studies available,
> and they point to exactly what the picture is, and what you know very
> well it is. No one needs you. You're a bum.
>
I suppose you have a study that proves he's a bum too.
> After you sit your ass on a hard chair
> >for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones necessary
to
> >fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the rest.
>
> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
>
> If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
> you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
> different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
> visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time sitting
> on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit, while
> you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night in
> your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
>
> You're a money grubbing piece of the world's worst form of uselessness.
>
> Rebecca
Did you grow up with this person? A neighbor? Read about them in the paper?
Or just guessing?
Ell Torero
news:D549A58BB1218EDF.64C1AD19...@lp.airnews.net
...
snip>
:The need to reduce
: complexity to simplicity doesn't necessarily serve everyone, does
it?
: And unfortunately, that process also creates AAbigots (similar to
: RRbigots or MMbigots, etc) , who are hostile and intolerant of
: anything which even remotely appears to be 'other than.' How else
: could it be?
:
: Best,
: GaryE
Isn't it _all_ "a question of balance"?
--
Ell Juggler Inepto, AKA Bob.
Carpe Diem.
"And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything
on Me. And let there be Bigots, so people don't blame everything on
Satan.'"
Apologies to ........ John Wing
Julie
>information tattooed just below their armpits... OUCH! They call 'em "meat
>tags".
Ouch is right, Joe!
Just out of curiosity, how old were these folks you worked with?
So 5 were able to "moderate" in terms of tangible outcomes. My experience with
it was I could successfully moderate (i.e. 2-3 drinks) about 25% of the time,
when I was actually trying to moderate. And was absolutely miserable. My last
4-5 episodes were "f*** it" binges lasting about a day or so. Mental fall-out,
about a month. Repeat. Ugh.
Tattooless Jules
Jaime M De Castellvi
: In article <v4SH3.57$Ey3.41821@WReNphoon3>, jmke...@juno.com says...
:>The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire picture
:>necessary to understand and treat.
*: Nonsense. Theses are the only controlled, scientific studies available,
*: and they point to exactly what the picture is, and what you know very
*: well it is. No one needs you. You're a bum.
*: After you sit your ass on a hard chair
*: for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones necessary to
*: fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the rest.
*: Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
*: college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
*: addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
*: beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
*: If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
*: you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
*: different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
*: visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time sitting
*: on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit, while
*: you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night in
*: your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
*:
*: You're a money grubbing piece of the world's worst form of uselessness.
Charming! :)
Cheers,
Jaime
Jaime M De Castellvi
: Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com> wrote in message
:> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
:> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
:> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
:> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
: A bit of resentment? Have you tried praying for Jane, as we are ordered to
: do in "Doctor, Alcoholic, Addict?" Remember that we can absolutely not
: afford to be angry!
: Now, let go and let god! Own your feelings! whenever you point a finger,
: you have four pointing back at you! It's more important to be happy than to
: be right!
I think she was attempting to give us a demonstration of what she means by
"being spiritual".
I think I shall meditate and try to become one with her post.
Cheers,
Jaime
Jim
Gary E wrote
>There are a number of thoughts here. Why is the 'malady' of
>alcoholism individualized? If one had cancer, would one call oneself
>a 'cancerite?" Same is true of things like 'neurosis" and 'neurotic'.
Interesting, I have over 80 tapes of Bill W. and he never once referred to
himself as an alcoholic. IMO, the acceptance of my condition needs to be on
the "inside" not the "outside." This business of "Hi!, my name is...."
started in the early sixties. Before that, if you went to an A.A. meeting
then one assumed you were a drunk. Labeling is a powerful process that many
don't understand. This business of "my disease" is really making people much
sicker than they have claim to.
>Alcoholism may just be a nasty habit, according to some 'pundits' but
>that isn't the interpretation I would put on my own experience. Maybe
>for someone, but not for everyone, alcoholism is 'bad thinking' and
>can be 'arrested' or 'cured' by better thinking.
Putting aside the "allergy", what is in the mind is a "mental illness".
Courtney Baylor who was the first lay therapist, wrote Remaking A Man in
1911, he states "The alcoholic has a false philosophy of life. The longer
he drinks, the deeper rooted this false philosophy becomes." In "How It
works it clearly states "we had to let go of our old ideas." IME, how I
recovered is that I did the actions of a "well person" and it changed my
ideas. Being not-God allows one to experience what is.
JImb
Julie
>This business of "Hi!, my name is...."
>started in the early sixties. Before that, if you went to an A.A. meeting
>then one assumed you were a drunk. Labeling is a powerful process that many
>don't understand. This business of "my disease" is really making people much
>sicker than they have claim to.
Hi Jim, so who started this "Hi, I'm %$@& and I'm an alcoholic" and the "HI
%$@&" chorus and why? At the risk of sounding "terminally unique", I've never
liked it and I think it has left us open to a lot of jokes, many of which are
of course told by moi. ;-) OTOH, maybe it keeps us awake, or at least forces us
to acknowledge one another in meetings. Dunno.
As for the labeling thing that Gary mentioned, I thought about all the hell
people caught for being "PC" and saying I'm not an "AIDS victim", I have AIDS.
Or I'm not a cancer "victim", I have cancer. Schizophrenia vs. Schizophrenic.
Puts the emphasis on the person, not the illness. Yeah, I'm &*%&^! and I'm an
alcohol victim would go over like a turd in a punch bowl in a meeting.
Hmm...I'm so and so and I have alcoholism, yeah right. It still boils down to
alcoholism as a "moral" issue to me, and that our drinking "was but a symptom".
Forcing us to repeat "I'm an alcoholic" (i.e., not a nice thing to be) is aimed
at humbling us I suppose. I'd be curious to know how it evolved.
Julie, a sober drunk today
Jim
Julie wrote
>Hi Jim, so who started this "Hi, I'm %$@& and I'm an alcoholic" and the "HI
>%$@&" chorus and why? At the risk of sounding "terminally unique", I've
never
>liked it and I think it has left us open to a lot of jokes, many of which
are
>of course told by moi. ;-) OTOH, maybe it keeps us awake, or at least
forces us
>to acknowledge one another in meetings. Dunno.
My point is that the A.A. approach to alcoholism is that the problem lies
not in the bottle or the "drug" alcohol, but rather in the person, the
alcoholic. Many drink, perhaps 10% become alcoholic.
The A.A. recovery program is based on the experience that the alcoholic
forms a habit based on an "allergy" which limits his/her ability to control
the amount and in trying to control his/her drinking, they become obsessed
with the idea that somehow, someday they will control and enjoy their
drinking.. So whether the loss of control is caused by genetic,
psysiological or what ever, they are of no consequence.
Now, if you had a guy standing on the corner who said he was Napoleon, would
you say that he had a disease or that he was insane? OK, so A.A. says that
it can do nothing about the allergy but we will eliminate the obsession of
the mind. So, is the problem a disease or is it insanity?
So, A.A. does not treat alcoholism, it treats only one symptom of alcoholism
and that is that unless the obsession is removed he/she will drink again.
The AMA dictionary has 66 definitions of alcoholism, take your pick. So,
when people say things like, I have a disease and my disease is waiting to
jump me, my disease is doing push-ups in my driveway while I sleep. I mean,
give me a break. We're insane when it comes to alcohol.
Jimb
Julie
>My point is that the A.A. approach to alcoholism is that the problem lies
>not in the bottle or the "drug" alcohol, but rather in the person, the
>alcoholic. Many drink, perhaps 10% become alcoholic.
>The A.A. recovery program is based on the experience that the alcoholic
>forms a habit based on an "allergy" which limits his/her ability to control
>the amount and in trying to control his/her drinking, they become obsessed
>with the idea that somehow, someday they will control and enjoy their
>drinking.. So whether the loss of control is caused by genetic,
>psysiological or what ever, they are of no consequence.
>Now, if you had a guy standing on the corner who said he was Napoleon, would
>you say that he had a disease or that he was insane? OK, so A.A. says that
>it can do nothing about the allergy but we will eliminate the obsession of
>the mind. So, is the problem a disease or is it insanity?
>So, A.A. does not treat alcoholism, it treats only one symptom of alcoholism
>and that is that unless the obsession is removed he/she will drink again.
>The AMA dictionary has 66 definitions of alcoholism, take your pick. So,
>when people say things like, I have a disease and my disease is waiting to
>jump me, my disease is doing push-ups in my driveway while I sleep. I mean,
>give me a break. We're insane when it comes to alcohol.
>Jimb
Sure, that all makes sense...as for the Napolean guy, more than likely he's got
a disease (illness), too. <g>
Now my real question was who started the Hi I'm so and so - HI SO AND SO thing
and why? Do you know?
Julie
Julie
>freak out about any hint of "authority" or "having to do" anything. We're
>so sensitive about being "individualistic" that we can't just be that, but
>always need others to notice just how much so we, personally, are. Right?
>So who are we trying to convince?
Actually I'm more afraid of being called "terminally unique" which somehow
seems worse at the moment. Now, when I move back up on the hierarchical food
chain, I'll just say hi I'm Julie and please don't say hi back...HIIII
JULIEEEE...heh.
As Jim pointed out, 'twasn't always the case, and doggonit if Bill W. never
said hi I'm Bill and I'm an alcoholic then it just *can't* be AA!
Ooooh, I just *loves* a good pissing contest!
;-)
Jules
J
Gary E wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:30:45 -0500, nhoop <nh...@centurytel.net>
> wrote:
> .
> >
> >What kind of sicko hangs around a place where they are loathed?
>
> Letting yourself get bent out of shape and calling other people sicko
> and telling them they are loathed is a good example of AA finish
> school, right? This is *your* turf, right? What do you suppose a
> newcomer would think seeing you like this Nat? And seeing all these
> other serene people react so personally to a mere posting in a
> newsgroup.
>
> You are compelled to read what you know will upset you? To protect
> the newcomer, right? Right. Right.
>
> Don't you suppose that Rebecca posts here to pull chains because she
> knows how easy it is? Sucker punches? Hell, Nat, repay anger with
> kindness. Show the newcomer that AA has given you the ability to
> control your emotions, particularly when you have so much time to
> think about what to say. At least do a practiced condescend and
> tell her you will pray for her. Anger is for someone else, is it not?
> Says so in the BB, right? ? Be cool Nat, be cool. (:>
>
> Garlite
Oh I see your at it again. Someone who thinks they know the answers and an
expert on managment. Fantastic.....Whoopee.....Great! A take charge kind
of guy. Where have you been hiding....gosh almighty.....thank god your
here. Thank you Jesus.
Here's a suggestion for you. Let see how well you do when your on the
recieving end Swami G.
We'll all agree to ignore Rebecca while you handle all of the replies to
her posts. Let us know when you have her all cured and properly schooled
to give advice as golden as inspired as your own.
Anyone care to second the motion?
JTS
rosie@readandpost
>
>Now my real question was who started the Hi I'm so and so - HI SO AND SO
thing
>and why? Do you know?
>
you know, as i follow this thread, the question of "who started
this........." keeps coming up!
why not the question................"who started this and did it help to
keep him sober?"
because, if it did, i'm doing it!
alcoholic's, in recovery or not, just don't want to be
told.............................and yet, that is exactly what will save
their lives! :)
rosie
and I'm an alcoholic!
Derek M.
jazzzman <tige...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37F010B5...@earthlink.net...
> Rebecca Fransway wrote:
>
> > In article <v4SH3.57$Ey3.41821@WReNphoon3>, jmke...@juno.com says...
> >
> > >The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire
picture
> > >necessary to understand and treat.
> >
> >
to
rest.
> >
> > college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
> > addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
> > beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
> >
while
in
> >
>
huh?
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> jazzzman
her clients wouldn't pork her.
--
Derek
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://members.xoom.com/tascna
http://listen.to/recovery
Derek M.
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 06:30:45 -0500, nhoop <nh...@centurytel.net>
> wrote:
> .
> >
> >What kind of sicko hangs around a place where they are loathed?
>
> Letting yourself get bent out of shape and calling other people sicko
> and telling them they are loathed is a good example of AA finish
> school, right? This is *your* turf, right? What do you suppose a
> newcomer would think seeing you like this Nat? And seeing all these
> other serene people react so personally to a mere posting in a
> newsgroup.
>
> You are compelled to read what you know will upset you? To protect
> the newcomer, right? Right. Right.
>
> Don't you suppose that Rebecca posts here to pull chains because she
> knows how easy it is? Sucker punches? Hell, Nat, repay anger with
> kindness. Show the newcomer that AA has given you the ability to
> control your emotions, particularly when you have so much time to
> think about what to say. At least do a practiced condescend and
> tell her you will pray for her. Anger is for someone else, is it not?
> Says so in the BB, right? ? Be cool Nat, be cool. (:>
>
> Garlite
the newcomer would probably react the same way as they do when confronted
with people who tell them to get out because they are not "real alcoholics"
like the person telling them to get out.
It's the same turf war.
Derek M.
oh shit, you mean we're gonna have a 12 step group called Politicians
Anonymous?
Derek M.
Medieval Knievel <smell_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ruv330...@corp.supernews.com...> news:7so17g$u58$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > God gave the solution to the alcoholics first, so it could "trickle up"
> > to everyone else suffering from selfishness and dishonesty. Of course,
> > everyone is suffering from selfishness and dishonesty, either directly
> > or as a codependent. If this were not true, then we would already have
> > world peace, and only the alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive gamblers,
> > overeaters, overspenders, sex addicts, and their codependents would be
> > suffering.
>
> people in *A who really seemed to think that gawd had given the world the
> solution to all its problems with St. Bill's cash-cow Holy Book. Yeah,
the
> kind of god I can believe in uses a con-man failure stock broker drunk to
> save the world. Uh-huh.
any cookier than believing in the bastard son of a teenage mother as the
messiah?
--
Derek
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://members.xoom.com/tascna
http://listen.to/recovery
Derek M.
--
Derek
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://members.xoom.com/tascna
http://listen.to/recovery
Gary E <gar...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:D549A58BB1218EDF.64C1AD19...@lp.airnews.net...
> On 26 Sep 1999 19:57:16 -0700, Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >But I really don't think the label "alcholic" necessarily excludes one
> >from the ability to moderate. Sometimes an "alcoholic" can feel like
> >he's lost that ability, yet regain it.
>
> There are a number of thoughts here. Why is the 'malady' of
> alcoholism individualized? If one had cancer, would one call oneself
> a 'cancerite?" Same is true of things like 'neurosis" and 'neurotic'.
> What people believe about themselves is powerful, perhaps the most
> powerful force in our lives. Countless hours are spent on what people
> believe about themselves, not necessarily what is real. I know it may
> be a hair split of sorts but sometimes hair splits do help to put a
> perspective on things.
>
> The focus of AA is not on alcoholism but on the 'alcoholic'. To me,
> there seems to be a difference. That a person *is* this and not *has*
> this. It becomes individual and personal which of course, means that
> beliefs about oneself are in play and not the malady.
>
> The other idea is there is a common, all too common, fallacy that what
> applies to one person can or might apply to another. One, it isn't
> necessarily so and two, sometimes the whole story is not there or not
> even in yet. My own experience with alcohol, for example, shows a
> period of time in which I was able to moderate. Someone could have
> written an article about me and posted it so that someone else could
> say, 'see, I told you so.' There is a fair degree of complexity in
> alcoholism, in all its 'definitions'. It may be wiser to overrate
> it's ability to do individual damage than to underrate it. Scarcely
> anyone will get it just right, will they?
>
> Alcoholism may just be a nasty habit, according to some 'pundits' but
> that isn't the interpretation I would put on my own experience. Maybe
> for someone, but not for everyone, alcoholism is 'bad thinking' and
> can be 'arrested' or 'cured' by better thinking. The 'alcoholic
> purists' would say that person wasn't an alcoholic. Maybe they just
> had 'alcoholism.' Still,, if alcoholism involves brain chemistry or
> brain function (or malfunction) and not just mental activities,
> thoughts, then it seems to me it shouldn't be painted simply.
> Alcoholism (as we may define it) has many manifestations with some
> individual variations. Common things, sure. But the devil is in the
> details, if you will. One thing I do accept is that it is not the
> result of 'spiritual or moral' imperfection. There is absolutely
> nothing wrong, in my mind, with spiritual or moral 'rehabilitation' of
> people who suffer from alcoholism as the behavior patterns of people
> who have it do tend to group into patterns of 'immorality'. And a
> belief that spiritual or moral rehabilitation can be the catalyst for
> 'recovery' is OK. Whatever. If we really don't know the answer to
> this dilemma, whatever seems to work will have to do. The
> alternative, for most people, can be dire.
>
> The argument that one way is better than another way when we all live
> in actual ignorance of all the facts is presumptuous and maybe even a
> disservice. Ideas are then placed ahead of individuals and the
> common, all too common, 'labeling' and 'categorizing' process gets
> started and the individual may or may not be served well. Everyone
> seems to lose sight of the individual in their zeal to promote what
> applied well for them. Or for what might serve their professional or
> pecuniary interests. Hell, even AA has lost its original altruistic
> focus because it is now a platform, a more rigid 'belief system' which
> focuses more on the 'system' than on the person. It tends to lump
> everything into 'alcoholics' (despite the attempt of some of its
> members to create distinctions) and convinces a goodly number of its
> members that what happened to them is universal and therefore
> applicable to everyone who has alcoholism. The need to reduce
J
Rebecca Fransway wrote:
In article <v4SH3.57$Ey3.41821@WReNphoon3>, jmke...@juno.com says...
>The tests such as those you quoted are only a fraction of the entire picture
>necessary to understand and treat.
Nonsense. Theses are the only controlled, scientific studies available,
and they point to exactly what the picture is, and what you know very
well it is. No one needs you. You're a bum.
After you sit your ass on a hard chair
>for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones necessary to
>fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the rest.
Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months of
college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time sitting
on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit, while
you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night in
your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
You're a money grubbing piece of the world's worst form of uselessness.
LOL,
Derek,
I think she has really outdone herself here and this deserves to be in her archive. I was waiting for her to make some connection to her infamous "hopping negroes" but I guess she started choking on the foam in her mouth and ran out of empathy.
JTS
Derek M.
J <JT...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:37F150A6...@pacbell.net...
actually, I think it would be a great edition to the first page as a sort of
intro to porky so to speak.
but you gotta wonder, after all those posts she made about her dear close
friends in the profession, and then this post, what those dear close friends
of hers think of her now.
J
Gary E wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:47:54 -0700, J <JT...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >Oh I see your at it again. Someone who thinks they know the answers and an
> >expert on managment. Fantastic.....Whoopee.....Great! A take charge kind
> >of guy. Where have you been hiding....gosh almighty.....thank god your
> >here. Thank you Jesus.
> >
> >Here's a suggestion for you. Let see how well you do when your on the
> >recieving end Swami G.
> >
> >We'll all agree to ignore Rebecca while you handle all of the replies to
> >her posts. Let us know when you have her all cured and properly schooled
> >to give advice as golden as inspired as your own.
> >
> >Anyone care to second the motion?
> >
>
> hahahahaha..is that it?
>
> Overpowered,
> Gar
Well Yaaaa,
Golly gee Mr.Official Spirituality Monitor. We were really counting on
you. This is no time to toss your spine and get all overpowered and all. What
kind of example is that? Want some unsolicited advice? I didn't think so.
Neither do we. Hey I bet you feel more spiritual already................cheers.
Way to troll Gar.
JTS
Medieval Knievel
Derek M. <der...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message
> any cookier than believing in the bastard son of a teenage mother as the
> messiah?
they're about equal IMO.
--
Medieval Knievel
Derek M. <der...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message
> oh shit, you mean we're gonna have a 12 step group called Politicians
> Anonymous?
They would have to leave out that bit about "rigorous honesty," no fucking
doubt.
J
Dick M wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:47:54 -0700, J <JT...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Gary E wrote:
>
> >> Be cool Nat, be cool. (:>
> >>
> >> Garlite
> >
> >Oh I see your at it again. Someone who thinks they know the answers and an
> >expert on managment. Fantastic.....Whoopee.....Great! A take charge kind
> >of guy. Where have you been hiding....gosh almighty.....thank god your
> >here. Thank you Jesus.
> >
> >Here's a suggestion for you. Let see how well you do when your on the
> >recieving end Swami G.
> >
> >We'll all agree to ignore Rebecca while you handle all of the replies to
> >her posts. Let us know when you have her all cured and properly schooled
> >to give advice as golden as inspired as your own.
> >
> >Anyone care to second the motion?
>
> How do you expect to control these er... people of araa. Some of them
> are actually more cantankerous than Gary… well maybe not that many,
> but some. Haven’t you ever been in a steering committee meeting and
> tried to get a motion seconded to get Chock Full o Nuts instead of
> Maxwell House. These alkies will not be queued up. Probably most of
> the ones here that don’t agree with Gary or care at all for his style
> have uncharitable thoughts about you too. I find Gary’s posts like
> scotch an acquired taste. Hang in there a while If you have to take
> them with milk, the way I ended up with scotch, then just requote one
> of his war and peace contributions with :{.
> Regards
> Dick
Oh thanks Dick, but I have been to many a district commitee meeting myself and
know what goes on. The whole idea of general service is to provide a safe place
for the real sick ones to do no harm while they are getting well enough to
mingle amongst the general population......lol. I was told this by an old-timer
in general service. I think there is some truth to it unfortunately.
I don't have a problem with Gary. He just bit off more than he could chew being
a phony smart-ass with someone who isn't interested in acquiring a taste for
his crap. I already did the scotch thing and gave that up along with buttheads
like Gary. Don't worry, he's already on the run. I have the punk just where I
want him. But thanks for the kindhearted and sincere concern Dick.
JTS
Rebecca Fransway
>
>Identifying one's self as an alcoholic isn't to "humble" anyone. It's
>simply to face a problem. And is entirely a volitional thing, for anyone
>that chooses to do so for themself. And to then share with others that have
>the problem, which is a main thing about AA. At "open meetings" it's also
>useful to identify who's there to do so, and who the spectators are.
>
>After all, why are people forced to say "hello" to each other all the time?
>Of course, the "real individuals" probably use some other cute greeting to
>display how different they are. But, different from just whom?
Nonsense. This seems very dishonest. We all know how an individual who
refuses to ID himself as an alcoholic sticks out like a sore thumb. In
fact, in some closed meetings he might be asked to leave. You just
can't pretend the power of socialization is not there, and is not wholly
responsible for any motivation those in its stucture get to stay sober.
Someone who won't ID himself will eventually end up distrusted and ignored.
Rebecca
>
check this out! http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org
http://www.aadeprogramming.com
Join the 12-step free Mailing List!
http://www.egroups.com/list/12-step-free/info.html
Rebecca Fransway
><D549A58BB1218EDF.64C1AD19...@lp.airnews.net>,
>gar...@airmail.net (Gary E) wrote:
>
>> There are a number of thoughts here. Why is the 'malady' of
>> alcoholism individualized? If one had cancer, would one call oneself
>> a 'cancerite?" Same is true of things like 'neurosis" and 'neurotic'.
>
>person. Do cancer sufferers dose themselves with cancer, even as they're
>dieing of it?
No, but if they were, would they be called cancerites once they stopped
dosing themeselves? Why be tagged with a derogatory name for something
done in the past? Do you consider yourself a felon? Do you consider
yourself a drunk driver, or a wife abuser all your life because of something
you once did?
>
>> What people believe about themselves is powerful, perhaps the most
>> powerful force in our lives. Countless hours are spent on what people
>> believe about themselves, not necessarily what is real. I know it may
>> be a hair split of sorts but sometimes hair splits do help to put a
>> perspective on things.
>
>All people believe things about themselves. Often the true beliefs are not
>fully realized.
The problem is, nobody knows for sure what's true about excess drinking
and recovery.
>> The other idea is there is a common, all too common, fallacy that what
>> applies to one person can or might apply to another. One, it isn't
>> necessarily so and two, sometimes the whole story is not there or not
>> even in yet. My own experience with alcohol, for example, shows a
>> period of time in which I was able to moderate. Someone could have
>> written an article about me and posted it so that someone else could
>> say, 'see, I told you so.' There is a fair degree of complexity in
>> alcoholism, in all its 'definitions'. It may be wiser to overrate
>> it's ability to do individual damage than to underrate it. Scarcely
>> anyone will get it just right, will they?
>
>What is getting it just right? Most seem to be aware that there are spells
>of "moderate" drinking for alcoholics. But the main concern are the other
>times of woeful problems.
>
>It's why it's likened to something like an "allergy". Very similar.
In the Big book, which is woefully short of scientific data.
>
>> Alcoholism may just be a nasty habit, according to some 'pundits' but
>> that isn't the interpretation I would put on my own experience. Maybe
>> for someone, but not for everyone, alcoholism is 'bad thinking' and
>> can be 'arrested' or 'cured' by better thinking. The 'alcoholic
>> purists' would say that person wasn't an alcoholic. Maybe they just
>> had 'alcoholism.' Still,, if alcoholism involves brain chemistry or
>> brain function (or malfunction) and not just mental activities,
>> thoughts, then it seems to me it shouldn't be painted simply.
>
>And why not? There's good reason to make it even simpler: don't drink. Now
>why would that be a problem at all? If you truly believe all you're writing
>here, then now that you are over your "alcoholism" you can just resume your
>moderated drinking, right?
The whole point of this, and the reason its not good to make it simpler,
is because that "solution," is not the best solution for everyone. For many,
its much easier to succeed at moderation.
>
>> Alcoholism (as we may define it) has many manifestations with some
>> individual variations. Common things, sure. But the devil is in the
>> details, if you will. One thing I do accept is that it is not the
>> result of 'spiritual or moral' imperfection. There is absolutely
>> nothing wrong, in my mind, with spiritual or moral 'rehabilitation' of
>> people who suffer from alcoholism as the behavior patterns of people
>> who have it do tend to group into patterns of 'immorality'. And a
>> belief that spiritual or moral rehabilitation can be the catalyst for
>> 'recovery' is OK. Whatever. If we really don't know the answer to
>> this dilemma, whatever seems to work will have to do. The
>> alternative, for most people, can be dire.
>
>This is all just a wordy mitigation that insists that "what works" is not
>the "solution." But conceding that "what works" may as well be utilized
>anyway, as long as we don't mistake it for a "solution." That's alcoholic
>thinking that fixates on needing to disclaim it.
Its still highly arguable about what works. AA has never been proven to
"work" for large percentages of people who go to meetings.
>
>> The argument that one way is better than another way when we all live
>> in actual ignorance of all the facts is presumptuous and maybe even a
>> disservice.
>
>How do you figure anyone suffering from the thing is going to have a clue
>about what's going to work, before the fact? You're right, we should all
>just keep drinking until some unknown facts are found sometime by someone,
>first proving the ultimate somethingorother.
Why should you keep drinking if its screwed up your life? On the other
hand, why pretend that the abstinence solution is the best for all
alcoholics when some research hints it might not be?
>
>> Ideas are then placed ahead of individuals and the
>> common, all too common, 'labeling' and 'categorizing' process gets
>> started and the individual may or may not be served well. Everyone
>> seems to lose sight of the individual in their zeal to promote what
>> applied well for them. Or for what might serve their professional or
>> pecuniary interests. Hell, even AA has lost its original altruistic
>> focus because it is now a platform, a more rigid 'belief system' which
>> focuses more on the 'system' than on the person. It tends to lump
>> everything into 'alcoholics' (despite the attempt of some of its
>> members to create distinctions) and convinces a goodly number of its
>> members that what happened to them is universal and therefore
>> applicable to everyone who has alcoholism. The need to reduce
>> complexity to simplicity doesn't necessarily serve everyone, does it?
>
>Apparently your own penchant for this very kind of complication is what
>bothers you, at least. Yet, AA got you sober. Simple.
>
>> And unfortunately, that process also creates AAbigots (similar to
>> RRbigots or MMbigots, etc) , who are hostile and intolerant of
>> anything which even remotely appears to be 'other than.'
>
>Perhaps. People are people, aren't they? Not too different from the anti-AA
>bigots. Except we don't see them helping near as many people actually sober
>up and do better.
I have never seen a single AA member sober someone up. I've seen a lot try.
Please list the people, as per their behavior on this newsgroup, who are
doing "better" so that thier behavior might be admired, and tell me if they
are working the AA program.
Dick M
Kimba
>Hi Jim, so who started this "Hi, I'm %$@& and I'm an alcoholic" and the "HI
>%$@&" chorus and why? At the risk of sounding "terminally unique", I've never
>liked it and I think it has left us open to a lot of jokes, many of which are
>of course told by moi. ;-) OTOH, maybe it keeps us awake, or at least forces us
>to acknowledge one another in meetings. Dunno.
I dunno either. I do know that it was unheard of in Hooterville when
I first got sober. It came from "out West" sometime during the early
80's and is now embedded. It preceded holding hands at the end of the
meeting. Mercifully, we seldom get the "keep coming back it works if
you work it so work it" thing.
Kimba
--The problem is more with a sense of pride,
That keeps me thinking me instead of what it is to be.
I'm not a passenger, I am the ride. Chris Smithers, "I Am The Ride"
Julie
"rosie@readandpost" <readandpos...@yahoo.com> writes:
>why not the question................"who started this and did it help to
>keep him sober?"
Yes. And why.
;-)
Julie, in just curious mode
lukey
>lukey <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> God gave the solution to the alcoholics first, so it could "trickle up"
>> >> to everyone else suffering from selfishness and dishonesty. Of course,
>> >> everyone is suffering from selfishness and dishonesty, either directly
>> >> or as a codependent. If this were not true, then we would already
>> >> have world peace, and only the alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive
>> >> gamblers, overeaters, overspenders, sex addicts, and their codependents
>> >> would be suffering.
>>
>> >I sure hope your tongue is firmly in cheek with this post.
>>
>> Everyone can plainly see that the program has trickled up -- we now have
>> N.A., G.A., O.A., D.A., Sex A., etc. What's your point?
>>
>> > I have met people in *A who really seemed to think that gawd had given
>> > the world the solution to all its problems with St. Bill's cash-cow Holy Book.
>> > Yeah, the kind of god I can believe in uses a con-man failure stock broker
>> > drunk to save the world. Uh-huh.
>>
>> Are you saying that there's no selfishness or dishonesty at the highest levels
>> of government everywhere? Is there some other reason why governments
>> have been disturbing the peace since the beginning of history?
>oh shit, you mean we're gonna have a 12 step group called Politicians Anonymous?
If everyone is suffering, either directly or as a codependent, certainly we would
need the 12-step program, or something similar, to deal with the selfishness and
dishonesty, but why on earth would we need anonymity?
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
lukey
>Derek M. <der...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message
>> oh shit, you mean we're gonna have a 12 step group called
>> Politicians Anonymous?
>
>They would have to leave out that bit about "rigorous honesty,"
>no fucking doubt.
Do you think politicians are more dishonest than alcoholics?
JoeRaisin
guy say that at a closed meeting and nobody asked him to leave. Only wish I
had thought of it.
JoeRaisin
Rebecca Fransway wrote in message <7ss8g2$16...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <1999092816...@mail.replay.com>, Anonymous says...
>>
>>Identifying one's self as an alcoholic isn't to "humble" anyone. It's
>>simply to face a problem. And is entirely a volitional thing, for anyone
>>that chooses to do so for themself. And to then share with others that
have
>>the problem, which is a main thing about AA. At "open meetings" it's also
>>useful to identify who's there to do so, and who the spectators are.
>>
>>After all, why are people forced to say "hello" to each other all the
time?
>>Of course, the "real individuals" probably use some other cute greeting to
>>display how different they are. But, different from just whom?
>
>Nonsense. This seems very dishonest. We all know how an individual who
>refuses to ID himself as an alcoholic sticks out like a sore thumb. In
>fact, in some closed meetings he might be asked to leave. You just
>can't pretend the power of socialization is not there, and is not wholly
>responsible for any motivation those in its stucture get to stay sober.
>
>Someone who won't ID himself will eventually end up distrusted and ignored.
>
JoeRaisin
last 2 years of my drinking (coincidently, the first 2 years of my marriage
<g>) I tried like hell to control and not get drunk. Problem was, I was
miserable too. I not only counted my drinks, but everyone else's too. Boy
did that piss me off. I could drink without getting drunk as long as that
was my focus. Any time I started having fun I would forget about counting
and end up drunk.
The average clients we dealt with were usually first term Marines between 18
and 25. the ones that did it were actually (if I remember right) pretty
well dispersed along that age group.
BTW, I only tried it those clients I was sure were abusers. I gave them a
bye on their AA meetings and made them track their drinking along with
strict guidelines regarding allowable bac (<.05 figured on a bac table).
Everyone reported drinking within the limits (except of course for the ones
who ended up in AA) but I took the self reports with a grain of salt -
trust, but verify. When I heard from the unit rep that someone showed up
for PT or work stinkin' (or the one I saw drunk on a Saturday afternoon -
"yeah I was there but I wasn't drinking" <vbg>... they were back into the
regular milieu.
Very unscientific and only followed out to a year at most.
I caught holy hell at staff meetings for this but the director was willing
to indulge me.
JoeRaisin
Julie wrote in message <19990928082336...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>>BTW it ain't the a** anymore... these guys are getting their dogtag
>>information tattooed just below their armpits... OUCH! They call 'em
"meat
>>tags".
>
>Ouch is right, Joe!
>
>Just out of curiosity, how old were these folks you worked with?
>
>So 5 were able to "moderate" in terms of tangible outcomes. My experience
with
>it was I could successfully moderate (i.e. 2-3 drinks) about 25% of the
time,
>when I was actually trying to moderate. And was absolutely miserable. My
last
>4-5 episodes were "f*** it" binges lasting about a day or so. Mental
fall-out,
>about a month. Repeat. Ugh.
>
>Tattooless Jules
fke
i didnt use for 54 days..
that's how it worked for me.
all the other stuff?
well, that was ancillary to my 54 days clean.
what do we want treatment to do for us?
Craig S.
<rfr...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> Nonsense. This seems very dishonest. We all know how
> an individual who
> refuses to ID himself as an alcoholic sticks out like
> a sore thumb. In
> fact, in some closed meetings he might be asked to
> leave. You just
> can't pretend the power of socialization is not there,
> and is not wholly
> responsible for any motivation those in its stucture
> get to stay sober.
> Someone who won't ID himself will eventually end up
> distrusted and ignored.
> Rebecca
From my own experience, I believe this to be true. If
someone hangs around long enough without identifying their
malady (I'm talking months!), suspicions tend to rise. In
the fellowship, there do seem to be generally accepted
alternatives to pronouncing oneself as "alcoholic" in a
meeting. People uncomfortable with the alcoholic moniker
might try one of these on for size:
My name is _______ and...
I was powererless over alcohol.
I'm a sober drunk.
my life was unmanageable.
my problem was alcohol.
booze kicked my ass.
There shouldn't be a problem with any of these
idendifications in ANY meeting, open or closed, and each
avoids the use of that "evil" (at least some think so) word
alcoholic.
Craig S.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
rosie@readandpost
the more i said it,"hi, i'm rosie and i'm an alcoholic", the more
comfortable i became in "taking the action", that was necessary, for me to
get into recovery, and stay there!
i know its probably not too popular, but i really love and am proud to be
part of the CHOSEN PEOPLE, who call themselves alcoholics!
rosie
8-26-82
--
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves." --
W.Durant
read and post, its a commitment!
rosie
email: remember to REMOVETHIS
Julie wrote in message <19990928214021...@ngol06.aol.com>...
>In article <zacI3.14802$K3....@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net>,
>"rosie@readandpost" <readandpos...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>why not the question................"who started this and did it help to
>>keep him sober?"
>
>Yes. And why.
>
>;-)
>Julie, in just curious mode
Julie
>I first got sober. It came from "out West" sometime during the early
>80's and is now embedded. It preceded holding hands at the end of the
>meeting. Mercifully, we seldom get the "keep coming back it works if
>you work it so work it" thing.
>
>Kimba
Oh really? Well...I'll send some guys from AA Inspector General Headquarters up
there to be sure you folks are doing it correctly and by the book. Ya'll might
get struck drunk you know. ;-} Maybe Ed could send the Drinking Police for
backup...
KCB Jules
Julie
><JoeR...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How about, "My name is ^%# and I have a desire to not drink today." Heard a
>>guy say that at a closed meeting and nobody asked him to leave. Only wish I
>>had thought of it.
>>
>
>to leave, that was not *my* point. However, I am used to posting
>something, having someone else decide what I meant and then
>criticizing me for it. Almost never get a question on what I meant.
>Have concluded there is little way to carry on dialogue with those
>traits. This is not directed to your post Joe, but my point was a
>question of what the characterization might do to the individual. I
>don't know the answer to that.
>
>Pointing out that a person could or might be an individual, I fully
>understand, is not considered de rigueur in AA. It sort of flows
>against the tired party line, which is alive and well in this group
>too. It's the 12 Steps extrapolated for the Nth time and
>promulgations of new AA laws in that ritual becomes sacred too. The
>greeting is sacred. The LP is sacred. The readings are sacred.
>Sponsors are sacred. 90 meetings in 90 days is sacred. Don't
>question anyone is sacred. All those new 'laws' of conduct and
>attitude most of which are used to control other people, not to help
>but to be in control. Some people, even in this NG have only negative
>things to say about anyone who crosses their imaginary line of what is
>and what is not proper attitude or questioning. This is 'spiritual
>growth?" Practicing principles in all affairs? What's wrong with
>this picture? Just because someone runs around quoting the BB or
>defending AA to the nth degree makes them arbiters of 'right and
>wrong'? How sweet it is.
>
>
>There are questions of what is right and proper in a meeting and large
>discussions abound. And AA Omnibudsmen have all the answers complete
>with a packaged put down of any who doesn't meet their long nose
>approval. How else could it be ? What could possibly be new? Too
>much of AA has come to be about control under the guise of care for
>personal self aggrandizement. This minority of people are always
>interested in assessing other people to see if they 'fit', telling
>little if nothing about themselves but perhaps their sobriety date
>(for control purposes only) and quoting the BB as the final authority
>of which they are the enforcer. They dwell on insults and fear
>mongering. Sniping. And hiding behind their oft voiced concern for
>the 'newcomer', another way to attempt to control. I don't think
>these types are AA friends even though they certainly try to sound
>like it. I don't think that maybe they even begin to realize how many
>people they run off or turn off from the hope that AA offers and it
>does offer hope to desperate people. Of all beliefs and persuasions,
>not just particular ones.
>
>Rest,
>GaryE
Very good stuff here, Gar, as usual. In the past I would have read this and
said, yeah! what *he* said! It's all bunk! Now I've come to understand there's
only one thing wrong with AA: people. 'Course it also happens to be what's
right with AA, too...I'll pray for them...<snort!>
Love,
Julie
jazzzman
> Whose to say that the politicians *arn't* alcoholics too....
>
Many are... they have their own meetings in D.C......
--
jazzzman
http://home.earthlink.net/~tigernest/control.html
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle,
is a deep delight to the blood.
George Santayana (1863-1952), U.S. philosopher, poet. The Life of
Reason, ch. 3, "Reason in Society" (1905-6).
Medieval Knievel
jazzzman <tige...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37F21853...@earthlink.net...
> Melia wrote:
>
> > Whose to say that the politicians *arn't* alcoholics too....
> >
>
> Many are... they have their own meetings in D.C......
They do 12 step calls on Ted Kennedy
Craig S.
<4561FD9DAEA439E8.489A1008...@lp.airnews.net>,
gar...@airmail.net (Gary E) wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:01:35 +0900, "JoeRaisin"
It is possible to have a love/hate relationship with AA.
Although it is the program and fellowship that has most
likely saved my life, I, too, have certain misgivings. It
reminds me of the saying, "You can pick your friends, but
you can't pick your family." I have looked into the
writings of Rational Recovery and considered the
implications that AA is a cult, or very much like a cult.
They do have some good points, but AA just happens to be
the cult that helped me get sober. While I don't buy into
the "party line" completely, I believe it is only natural
to feel a little protective of AA.
You make some excellent points. The "sacred" dogmas you
have listed have nothing to do with the program of
Alcoholics Anonymous; these have developed in the
fellowship. The steps are THE program of AA, but the
rituals you mention are where "Take what you want and leave
the rest" comes into play.
This minority of people
> are always
> interested in assessing other people to see if they
> 'fit', telling
> little if nothing about themselves but perhaps their
> sobriety date
> (for control purposes only) and quoting the BB as the
> final authority
> of which they are the enforcer.
Can't say that I'm not guitly of quoting the Big Book (or
the 12 and 12, or As Bill Sees It, or Living Sober, or
etc.) to prove a point. What makes me uncomfortable is
someone use any book as THE FINAL word on any topic. A
book is, after all, merely a collection of words experssing
ideas and ideals. I must admit though, I bothers me less
when someone is trying to force feed me the Big Book than
when someone is trying to shove the bible down my throat.
They dwell on insults
> and fear
> mongering. Sniping. And hiding behind their oft
> voiced concern for
> the 'newcomer', another way to attempt to control. I
> don't think
> these types are AA friends even though they certainly
> try to sound
> like it. I don't think that maybe they even begin to
> realize how many
> people they run off or turn off from the hope that AA
> offers and it
> does offer hope to desperate people. Of all beliefs
> and persuasions,
> not just particular ones.
Although I haven't been participating in this newsgroup for
very long, I have been struck by the wide variety of
opinions (some decidedly mean spirited) regarding recovery
in Alcoholics Anonymous. Just as in the fellowship of AA,
anyone who has been "run off" from this Ng has left
voluntarily. Perhaps they couldn't relate, perhaps they
were uncomfortable because their views were challenged,
perhaps something was hitting a little too close to home.
Regardless, just because someone has left this forum does
not mean that they have left AA just as someone's
participation in the newsgroup does not prove their
membership and participation in AA.
Most of us have probably heard the saying that "You may be
the only (or first) Big Book someone ever reads." The
meaning is that we must work the program before we pass it
on, or more simply that we should be well versed in the
teachings of the Big Book to be able to share it with a
newcomer. (The other interpretation is that some people
never read, only repeat what they hear, therefore, we can
at least provide them with accurate quotations to repeat!)
This surely applies to this newsgroup as well. Your point
is well taken. It is easy to spout off about something
without having the facts, or at least a clear understanding.
If anyone has been "run off" from this newsgroup because
they didn't like the content, well, that is alright. It is
a free country. If anyone felt it necessary to leave AA
because of what they read on this newsgroup, they probably
felt little loyalty to AA in the first place. If anyone,
because of Ng content, decided to leave this newsgroup,
leave AA and start drinking again, then they were probably
just looking for an excuse to drink anyway.
Thanks for the post Gary. You brought up some very good
points.
Craig S.
(sobriety date omitted for lack of control)
Melia
"Derek M." wrote:
>
> I have diabetes, I call myself a diabetic.
>
> --
> Derek
> http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
> http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
> http://members.xoom.com/tascna
> http://listen.to/recovery
> Gary E <gar...@airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:D549A58BB1218EDF.64C1AD19...@lp.airnews.net...
> > On 26 Sep 1999 19:57:16 -0700, Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >But I really don't think the label "alcholic" necessarily excludes one
> > >from the ability to moderate. Sometimes an "alcoholic" can feel like
> > >he's lost that ability, yet regain it.
> >
> > There are a number of thoughts here. Why is the 'malady' of
> > alcoholism individualized? If one had cancer, would one call oneself
> > a 'cancerite?" Same is true of things like 'neurosis" and 'neurotic'.
> > What people believe about themselves is powerful, perhaps the most
> > powerful force in our lives. Countless hours are spent on what people
> > believe about themselves, not necessarily what is real. I know it may
> > be a hair split of sorts but sometimes hair splits do help to put a
> > perspective on things.
> >
> > The focus of AA is not on alcoholism but on the 'alcoholic'. To me,
> > there seems to be a difference. That a person *is* this and not *has*
> > this. It becomes individual and personal which of course, means that
> > beliefs about oneself are in play and not the malady.
> >
> > The other idea is there is a common, all too common, fallacy that what
> > applies to one person can or might apply to another. One, it isn't
> > necessarily so and two, sometimes the whole story is not there or not
> > even in yet. My own experience with alcohol, for example, shows a
> > period of time in which I was able to moderate. Someone could have
> > written an article about me and posted it so that someone else could
> > say, 'see, I told you so.' There is a fair degree of complexity in
> > alcoholism, in all its 'definitions'. It may be wiser to overrate
> > it's ability to do individual damage than to underrate it. Scarcely
> > anyone will get it just right, will they?
> >
> > Alcoholism may just be a nasty habit, according to some 'pundits' but
> > that isn't the interpretation I would put on my own experience. Maybe
> > for someone, but not for everyone, alcoholism is 'bad thinking' and
> > can be 'arrested' or 'cured' by better thinking. The 'alcoholic
> > purists' would say that person wasn't an alcoholic. Maybe they just
> > had 'alcoholism.' Still,, if alcoholism involves brain chemistry or
> > brain function (or malfunction) and not just mental activities,
> > thoughts, then it seems to me it shouldn't be painted simply.
> > Alcoholism (as we may define it) has many manifestations with some
> > individual variations. Common things, sure. But the devil is in the
> > details, if you will. One thing I do accept is that it is not the
> > result of 'spiritual or moral' imperfection. There is absolutely
> > nothing wrong, in my mind, with spiritual or moral 'rehabilitation' of
> > people who suffer from alcoholism as the behavior patterns of people
> > who have it do tend to group into patterns of 'immorality'. And a
> > belief that spiritual or moral rehabilitation can be the catalyst for
> > 'recovery' is OK. Whatever. If we really don't know the answer to
> > this dilemma, whatever seems to work will have to do. The
> > alternative, for most people, can be dire.
> >
> > The argument that one way is better than another way when we all live
> > in actual ignorance of all the facts is presumptuous and maybe even a
> > disservice. Ideas are then placed ahead of individuals and the
> > common, all too common, 'labeling' and 'categorizing' process gets
> > started and the individual may or may not be served well. Everyone
> > seems to lose sight of the individual in their zeal to promote what
> > applied well for them. Or for what might serve their professional or
> > pecuniary interests. Hell, even AA has lost its original altruistic
> > focus because it is now a platform, a more rigid 'belief system' which
> > focuses more on the 'system' than on the person. It tends to lump
> > everything into 'alcoholics' (despite the attempt of some of its
> > members to create distinctions) and convinces a goodly number of its
> > members that what happened to them is universal and therefore
> > applicable to everyone who has alcoholism. The need to reduce
> > complexity to simplicity doesn't necessarily serve everyone, does it?
> > And unfortunately, that process also creates AAbigots (similar to
> > RRbigots or MMbigots, etc) , who are hostile and intolerant of
Melia
Just heard at a meeting yesterday that there are over two hundrend and
something 12 step programs in the world today.
"Derek M." wrote:
>
> lukey <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7spjtm$lig$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Medieval Knievel" <smell_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >lukey <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> >
> > >> God gave the solution to the alcoholics first, so it could "trickle up"
> > >> to everyone else suffering from selfishness and dishonesty. Of
> course,
> > >> everyone is suffering from selfishness and dishonesty, either directly
> > >> or as a codependent. If this were not true, then we would already
> have
> > >> world peace, and only the alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive
> gamblers,
> > >> overeaters, overspenders, sex addicts, and their codependents would be
> > >> suffering.
> >
> > >I sure hope your tongue is firmly in cheek with this post.
> >
> > Everyone can plainly see that the program has trickled up -- we now have
> > N.A., G.A., O.A., D.A., Sex A., etc. What's your point?
> >
> > > I have met
> > >people in *A who really seemed to think that gawd had given the world the
> > >solution to all its problems with St. Bill's cash-cow Holy Book. Yeah,
> the
> > >kind of god I can believe in uses a con-man failure stock broker drunk to
> > >save the world. Uh-huh.
> >
> > Are you saying that there's no selfishness or dishonesty at the highest
> levels
> > of government everywhere? Is there some other reason why governments
> > have been disturbing the peace since the beginning of history?
> >
>
> oh shit, you mean we're gonna have a 12 step group called Politicians
> Anonymous?
>
Rebecca Fransway
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------5D0CC49CE07D401CF5915FFC
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Whose to say that the politicians *arn't* alcoholics too....
Also, who says 'alcoholics' are any more dishonest than the average
person?
And why does that concept get so widely accepted?
It isn't true. People who drink too much are not inherently dishonest.
Rebecca
>
>lukey wrote:
>>
>> "Medieval Knievel" <smell_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Derek M. <der...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> oh shit, you mean we're gonna have a 12 step group called
>> >> Politicians Anonymous?
>> >
>> >They would have to leave out that bit about "rigorous honesty,"
>> >no fucking doubt.
>>
>> Do you think politicians are more dishonest than alcoholics?
>>
>> =======================
>> "Endeavor to persevere"
>> =======================
>--------------5D0CC49CE07D401CF5915FFC
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="leetomas.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Melia
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="leetomas.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:;Melia
>x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>org:A true measure of a man is how he treats someone;who can do him absolutely
>no good. Ann Landers
>adr:;;;;;;
>version:2.1
>email;internet:leet...@home.com
>title:5/24/99
>note;quoted-printable:Be Sober just for today.=0D=0AWhy worry about tomorrow,
>when tomorrow will NEVER come.=0D=0AFor when tomorrow comes, it's not tomorrow
>anymore, it's Today!=0D=0ABeing sober only 24 hrs at a time, *can* make a
>difference!=0D=0ANot only in your life, but in the lives of others too.=0D=0ATo
>be sober is to live! To drink is to die!=0D=0AToday, I choose to
>live.=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A
>fn:Melia
>end:vcard
>
>--------------5D0CC49CE07D401CF5915FFC--
Melia
widely accepted b/c that's the way most alcoholics see themselves. I
know *I* do. In the beginning of my drinking days, I was never *that*
unhonest. <g> But as my drinking b/c heavier, and I became more
dependent on alcohol, (addicted) I can remember very clearly (since I've
only been sober for 4 months) how much my lying increased on a daily
basis. Not only did I lie more to my husband, and friends, but I can see
that I was also lying to myself for atleast 24 years out of the 30 that
I drank. It might not be true for you Becka, but from the experiences in
my life, it seems to be true for me.
Rebecca Fransway
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>widely accepted b/c that's the way most alcoholics see themselves. I
>know *I* do. In the beginning of my drinking days, I was never *that*
>unhonest. <g> But as my drinking b/c heavier, and I became more
>dependent on alcohol, (addicted) I can remember very clearly (since I've
>only been sober for 4 months) how much my lying increased on a daily
>basis. Not only did I lie more to my husband, and friends, but I can see
>that I was also lying to myself for atleast 24 years out of the 30 that
>I drank. It might not be true for you Becka, but from the experiences in
>my life, it seems to be true for me.
That may be your experience, Melia, but that does not mean you are
inherently dishonest just because you once had a drinking problem. Many
people who do things they are ashamed of lie about it, naturally, in
hope that others do not think badly of them or get angry. In fact, I would
wonder why anyone would go around blurting the truth about something they
shouldn't have done. Even the US government, if you are charged with
a crime, does not expect you to testify against yourself, nor do they
add perjury sentences to criminals's penalties just because they lied
when asked if they did the crime.
Also, nearly everybody lies from time to time without even being aware of
it. How often have you told someone who asked, "oh, you look fine" just
to avoid hurting their feelings? How many tell the IRS about every single
penny? Everyone tells those little kinds of lies. No one even thinks
about it unless, like some of us, we go to an abusive recovery group
or treatment center where your every word is suspected as a lie. Have you
felt yet, Melia, that if you go to a meeting and say everything in your
life is fine and wonderful, you won't be believed by some of them, and
someone might even make a snide comment about honesty directed at you?
Has that happened? I've seen that happen to people. I've been to meetings
and to treatment centers where I began to feel like it was of great importance
to try to think of something that was wrong with me or my life and tell
it at the meeting, because otherwise, I would not be "honest."
If you put anyone, no matter how honest or dishonest she is, in a situation
like that, she will soon be questioning her honesty and calling herself
'dishonest.'
I think such set-up for newcomers is a form of "alcoholic-hating," which,
unfortunately, is more rampant in recovery culture than anywhere else.
Rebecca
>--------------BF8B3DF5680F743A80CD68EF
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="leetomas.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Melia
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="leetomas.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:;Melia
>x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>org:Anything's Possible
>adr:;;;;;;
>version:2.1
>email;internet:leet...@home.com
>title:5/24/99
>note;quoted-printable:Be Sober just for today.=0D=0AWhy worry about tomorrow,
>when tomorrow will NEVER come.=0D=0AFor when tomorrow comes, it's not tomorrow
>anymore, it's Today!=0D=0ABeing sober only 24 hrs at a time, *can* make a
>difference!=0D=0ANot only in your life, but in the lives of others too.=0D=0ATo
>be sober is to live! To drink is to die!=0D=0AToday, I choose to
>live.=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A
>fn:Melia
>end:vcard
>
>--------------BF8B3DF5680F743A80CD68EF--
Bette C.
news:19990929220945...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> Don't they though! Hey, did Ed send you the one of his manly butt? Hubba
hubba!
>
> Julie
> ...the kingdom of heaven is within...
>
How come you got the butt picture, Jules, and I didn't? I feel deprived
now....
Bette C.
--
bette needs a meeting like matthew needs a sponsor
-M-
jazzzman
> <lol>
> Just heard at a meeting yesterday that there are over two hundrend and
> something 12 step programs in the world today.
Last figure I heard was 312... not sure where that came from, though....
Ell Torero
...
: On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:29:33 -0700, Craig S.
: <cspurloc...@mtneer.net.invalid> wrote:
:
: >
: >Craig S.
: >(sobriety date omitted for lack of control)
: hahahahahahaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahahaha.....Craig, you may have some
longer
: range possibilities. A man who can make humor can defuse any
: rant.....I've not missed a moment of thumping, but self inflicted
: humor, I miss. It is a sure sign of doing OK. I have a feeling I
: know where your heart lies, and I appreciate your willingness to
look
: and consider another perspective, calmly it seems.
:
: If individuals need be 'rigorously honest' with themselves, perhaps
: some of the things that go on in AA merit inspection....and I tend
to
: agree that people seem to find a way to do what they really want to
: do, somehow. And if someone really wants to sober up, pretty good
: chance they'll wade through the obstacles with at least as much
: persistence as the obstacles to the bar or liquor store. Still,
there
: are a significant number of agnostics and atheists, for example, who
: sober up in AA and I think more people ought to know about that.
The
: single most frequent question I got when I used to go weekly to
visit
: a detox center was, 'isn't AA just a religion?" The people who
think
: or believe that tend not to give it a try or if they get sent there
by
: courts or whatever, they've already made a prejudice. In my
history,
: I found out that some prejudices can outlive any dire circumstance.
:
: Best,
: GaryE
Perhaps, as in my case, rock bottom is a place without prejudice, a
place where truth can prevail. Thus, AA, in trying to be all things to
all people, a cult for some, religion for many, and honest to none,
has lost the plot.
--
Ell Torero, AKA Bob.
Carpe Diem.
"Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?" .....
George Carlin
Jaime M De Castellvi
: In article <37F24ECB...@home.NOSPAM.com>, Melia says...
:>Maybe the concept of an alcoholic being more dishonest than most is
:>widely accepted b/c that's the way most alcoholics see themselves. I
:>know *I* do. In the beginning of my drinking days, I was never *that*
:>unhonest. <g> But as my drinking b/c heavier, and I became more
:>dependent on alcohol, (addicted) I can remember very clearly (since I've
:>only been sober for 4 months) how much my lying increased on a daily
:>basis. Not only did I lie more to my husband, and friends, but I can see
:>that I was also lying to myself for atleast 24 years out of the 30 that
:>I drank. It might not be true for you Becka, but from the experiences in
:>my life, it seems to be true for me.
: That may be your experience, Melia, but that does not mean you are
: inherently dishonest just because you once had a drinking problem.
Seems to me that her experience was that she became increasingly dishonest
as her drinking got heavier, not that she feels she is "inherently
dishonest". The drinking problem and the dishonesty problem did go
together, and generally they are (or should be) overcome together through
some of the steps. But regardless of the recovery system that helped, the
very act of admitting many things we were in denial about is an act of
brutal and courageous honesty. It is also a big release.
: Many
: people who do things they are ashamed of lie about it, naturally, in
: hope that others do not think badly of them or get angry. In fact, I would
: wonder why anyone would go around blurting the truth about something they
: shouldn't have done. Even the US government, if you are charged with
: a crime, does not expect you to testify against yourself, nor do they
: add perjury sentences to criminals's penalties just because they lied
: when asked if they did the crime.
Amen to this, to an extent. I think it also depends on the relationship
you establish to different types of people. When you are younger and more
immature you are more likely to have relationships based on appearances.
In my own case, I have slowly moved away from those over the years.
People I am really close to and who know me well I never lie to (in fact,
if the person is close enough and a firm trust exists, I feel like I'm
lying even if I omit things I consider relevant to the relationship or the
other person, so I try not to).
*grin* Sometimes I find myself not saying something I should say right
away, becoming aware of this, and reaching the painful yet unavoidable
conclusion that I have to tell, soon as I can. And rarely do I not, after
having done so.
I also try to discourage people I cannot tell the truth to from becoming a
part of my life. I do not like hanging around people where I do not feel
I can express myself. But inevitably, some do pop up in a professional
arena. Sometimes you do have to lie. But I usually make a conscious
effort to only do so as a last resort. All that one can do is make an
effort to avoid making too easy a habit of it IMO.
: Also, nearly everybody lies from time to time without even being aware of
: it. How often have you told someone who asked, "oh, you look fine" just
: to avoid hurting their feelings? How many tell the IRS about every single
: penny? Everyone tells those little kinds of lies.
Yeah, white pleasant lies sometimes are inevitable. Some might argue that
many of these are more social pleasantries than they are really lies per
se.
: No one even thinks
: about it unless, like some of us, we go to an abusive recovery group
: or treatment center where your every word is suspected as a lie. Have you
: felt yet, Melia, that if you go to a meeting and say everything in your
: life is fine and wonderful, you won't be believed by some of them, and
: someone might even make a snide comment about honesty directed at you?
: Has that happened? I've seen that happen to people. I've been to meetings
: and to treatment centers where I began to feel like it was of great importance
: to try to think of something that was wrong with me or my life and tell
: it at the meeting, because otherwise, I would not be "honest."
I have met some people like that in the program, and in early days I may
have even felt prey to a few because I didn't know any better. But in my
experience, they tend to be a minority. These days, if I ran into any and
they have a problem with anything I do, I tend to tell them where to go
rather bluntly (as I do with any other guilt mongers), so they tend to
stay away.
A different thing is when you meet people who are simply concerned about
your progress. I usually find that as they get to know me and develop a
feel for me, they tend to trust me more and more.
: If you put anyone, no matter how honest or dishonest she is, in a situation
: like that, she will soon be questioning her honesty and calling herself
: 'dishonest.'
I agree, if you put anyone who is vulnerable --as a newcomer is. But as I
say, I don't think there is that much of it going around. Not in my
experience.
: I think such set-up for newcomers is a form of "alcoholic-hating," which,
: unfortunately, is more rampant in recovery culture than anywhere else.
Sounds like it was in your experience, and that is unfortunate. But I'd
be leery of overgeneralizing. You've got assholes everywhere, it just
seems as if in your own experiences with recovery, you had the misfortune
of meeting a greater proportion than the usual due one gets.
Cheers,
Jaime
Kimba
<readandpos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>i know its probably not too popular, but i really love and am proud to be
>part of the CHOSEN PEOPLE, who call themselves alcoholics!
YIKES!!!
KimbaNatural
Kimba
>Oh really? Well...I'll send some guys from AA Inspector General Headquarters up
>there to be sure you folks are doing it correctly and by the book. Ya'll might
>get struck drunk you know. ;-} Maybe Ed could send the Drinking Police for
>backup...
I got Ed and Debbie's pic by e-mail a couple of days ago - they look
like JUST the sort of people who oughta be hanging around at my home
group :)
Kimba
Julie
>like JUST the sort of people who oughta be hanging around at my home
>group :)
>
>Kimba
Don't they though! Hey, did Ed send you the one of his manly butt? Hubba hubba!
Tommy
(Kimba) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 07:35:24 -0500, "rosie@readandpost"
><readandpos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>i know its probably not too popular, but i really love and am proud to be
>>part of the CHOSEN PEOPLE, who call themselves alcoholics!
>
>YIKES!!!
>
>KimbaNatural
>
I always kinda felt like I was one of John B's chosen people .... I
didn't choose 'aa' and 'aa' didn't choose me...I screwed up enough and
was screwed up enough that I became one of the sentenced one's of
course boiled down a tad more I was actually an Option People...Opt'd
for some 'aa' instead of county bed and board. Pride didn't enter into
it at that point and neither did humiliation...more apathy than
anything else.
Tommy
lukey
>People uncomfortable with the alcoholic moniker
>might try one of these on for size:
>
>My name is _______ and...
>
>I was powererless over alcohol.
>I'm a sober drunk.
>my life was unmanageable.
>my problem was alcohol.
>booze kicked my ass.
I went to a meeting out in the country here in North Carolina
a few months ago, and one lady said: "Hi, I'm Rhonda and I'm
still fucked up!" before reading the Promises.
JoeRaisin
dealing with cults & clones in AA and some of this was talked about. I
learned early on in AA to watch out for the guru's, thumpers & gossips.
Lucky enough to have a sponsor who was a good example and few folks in my
first home group who were pretty blatant bad examples.
What can be done? I don't know. All we can do is try and be there for the
newcomers. invite them out for coffee and let them decide who has what they
want.
There are way too many "sacred cows" alive and well in AA. I like that
phrase to describe them because it always makes me think of a picture I saw
(I guess from India) of starving people in a street with 3 or 4 cows
standing by. Which is what could happen when we put personalities and trite
expressions before principles.
BTW: more true on Usenet than anywhere else - If it is possible that you can
be misunderstood, you have been.
JoeRaisin
Gary E wrote in message
<4561FD9DAEA439E8.489A1008...@lp.airnews.net>...
>On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 16:01:35 +0900, "JoeRaisin"
><JoeR...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>>How about, "My name is ^%# and I have a desire to not drink today." Heard
a
>>guy say that at a closed meeting and nobody asked him to leave. Only wish
I
>>had thought of it.
>>
>
>I've heard a lot of different phrases and I've not heard anyone asked
>to leave, that was not *my* point. However, I am used to posting
>something, having someone else decide what I meant and then
>criticizing me for it. Almost never get a question on what I meant.
>Have concluded there is little way to carry on dialogue with those
>traits. This is not directed to your post Joe, but my point was a
>question of what the characterization might do to the individual. I
>don't know the answer to that.
>
>Pointing out that a person could or might be an individual, I fully
>understand, is not considered de rigueur in AA. It sort of flows
>against the tired party line, which is alive and well in this group
>too. It's the 12 Steps extrapolated for the Nth time and
>promulgations of new AA laws in that ritual becomes sacred too. The
>greeting is sacred. The LP is sacred. The readings are sacred.
>Sponsors are sacred. 90 meetings in 90 days is sacred. Don't
>question anyone is sacred. All those new 'laws' of conduct and
>attitude most of which are used to control other people, not to help
>but to be in control. Some people, even in this NG have only negative
>things to say about anyone who crosses their imaginary line of what is
>and what is not proper attitude or questioning. This is 'spiritual
>growth?" Practicing principles in all affairs? What's wrong with
>this picture? Just because someone runs around quoting the BB or
>defending AA to the nth degree makes them arbiters of 'right and
>wrong'? How sweet it is.
>
>
>There are questions of what is right and proper in a meeting and large
>discussions abound. And AA Omnibudsmen have all the answers complete
>with a packaged put down of any who doesn't meet their long nose
>approval. How else could it be ? What could possibly be new? Too
>much of AA has come to be about control under the guise of care for
>personal self aggrandizement. This minority of people are always
>interested in assessing other people to see if they 'fit', telling
>little if nothing about themselves but perhaps their sobriety date
>(for control purposes only) and quoting the BB as the final authority
>of which they are the enforcer. They dwell on insults and fear
>mongering. Sniping. And hiding behind their oft voiced concern for
>the 'newcomer', another way to attempt to control. I don't think
>these types are AA friends even though they certainly try to sound
>like it. I don't think that maybe they even begin to realize how many
>people they run off or turn off from the hope that AA offers and it
>does offer hope to desperate people. Of all beliefs and persuasions,
>not just particular ones.
>
>Rest,
>GaryE
>
>
Julie
>now....
>
>Bette C.
I bribed him for some articles on nicotine addiction and cessation. I told him
if he wanted to save his a** he'd better show me the money...heh.
LoanSharkJules
Beta P
> Melia wrote:
>
> > <lol>
> > Just heard at a meeting yesterday that there are over two hundrend and
> > something 12 step programs in the world today.
>
> Last figure I heard was 312... not sure where that came from, though....
Why from TSA (12 steps anonymous) prolly.
BP
tara...@my-deja.com
Rebecca Fransway <rfr...@ivillage.com> wrote:
> Nonsense. Theses are the only controlled, scientific studies
available,
> and they point to exactly what the picture is, and what you know very
> well it is. No one needs you. You're a bum.
>
> After you sit your ass on a hard chair
> >for at least 18 months in a college and take some of the ones
necessary to
> >fill in the rest of the blanks, you might be able to figure out the
rest.
>
> Haw! Haw! Haw! So you think you're really something with 18 months
of
> college and some kind of paper that says you're qualified to "help"
> addicts and alcoholics. You're nothing but a welfare momma with a
> beaureacrat's absolutely ineffective job.
>
> If they put all you drug/alcohol bloodsuckers on an oceanliner and let
> you languish out in the middle of the Pacific, the world would be no
> different, except drunks and druggers would get detoxed more safely by
> visiting their family doctors, and they'd waste a lot less time
sitting
> on your miserable little folding chairs listening to your horseshit,
while
> you lounge around in your hippie clothes, sneak a beer or two at night
in
> your filthy apartments, and fuck your clients.
>
> You're a money grubbing piece of the world's worst form of
uselessness.
>
> Rebecca
I admit that I am pretty new to this NG, but I am detecting a defintite
scent of Eau do Troll around here.
What's your point, Rebecca?
If you dislike AA and dependency counselors, there is a very *simple*
solution:
*Don't go to them*
I have read quite a few of your posts, and quite frankly, I don't get
it. You seem to have a mission to convince people of the "evils" of
something or other.
Tell you what.
Stay on your side of the playpen, and the "AAers" can stay on ours.
I subscribed to an "AA" newsgroup, not a "why *Rebecca* thinks AA is
evil" newsgroup.
People who post in a newsgroup with the sole purpose putting down the
topic on which a newsgroup is *based* are generally called *trolls*
(please note my first sentence).
It is generally considered rude and inappropriate to participate in
"trolling" behavior.
Had to vent there. That's all (I hope....I'm only human ;-) Iwill
write on this topic.
I didn't want this to be my first post, but....there it is. I just had
to de-lurk for this one.
Tara
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
railro...@my-deja.com
tara...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> I admit that I am pretty new to this NG, but I am detecting a defintite
> scent of Eau do Troll around here.
>
> What's your point, Rebecca?
>
> If you dislike AA and dependency counselors, there is a very *simple*
> solution:
> *Don't go to them*
>
> I have read quite a few of your posts, and quite frankly, I don't get
> it. You seem to have a mission to convince people of the "evils" of
> something or other.
>
> Tell you what.
>
> Stay on your side of the playpen, and the "AAers" can stay on ours.
>
> I subscribed to an "AA" newsgroup, not a "why *Rebecca* thinks AA is
> evil" newsgroup.
>
> People who post in a newsgroup with the sole purpose putting down the
> topic on which a newsgroup is *based* are generally called *trolls*
> (please note my first sentence).
>
> It is generally considered rude and inappropriate to participate in
> "trolling" behavior.
>
> Had to vent there. That's all (I hope....I'm only human ;-) Iwill
> write on this topic.
>
> I didn't want this to be my first post, but....there it is. I just had
> to de-lurk for this one.
>
> Tara
>
>
Two things, Tara --
(1) This thread is being crossposted to several different NG's. I happen
to be viewing it from Arf12s. Since you're posting to Arf12s, that would
make YOU a "troll" according to your definition.
(2) Many people who are disenchanted with "treatment", AA, and CD
counselors CAN'T just "take the simple solution and don't go to them" -- some
of us were forced to attend and participate in these things against our will,
to keep our jobs, custody of our children, etc. I was required to attend
unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9 months. I am
presently working to stop this practice, and ensure a system of checks and
balances, as well as choices in tx approaches. I do NOT practice
"acceptance" in the face of fraud and injustice.
Welcome to Arf12s, Tara, nice seeing you here.
--
Railroad Rita
Julie
>I didn't want this to be my first post, but....there it is. I just had
>to de-lurk for this one.
>
>Tara
Hi Tara, and welcome to araa. Your points are pretty much well-taken...however,
this is Usenet (don't shoot me, Buddy!) and Rebecca does have a right to be
here as much as any of us. Personally, she and I have tangled in the past, but
she does raise some valid points on occasion. I may not agree with the tone of
her posts, but if nothing else they often get me thinking, mostly about human
nature, not necessarily about AA. As a reader of araa, we all have the option
of skipping over certain posters, and my newsreader allows for filtering some
posters out entirely --- I use it. My favorite made-up quote is "Filters: The
Greatest Thing Since Scoopable Kitty Litter"...and one woman's litter box might
well be another's treasure trove.
Again, welcome. There are some good things to be found here if you get yourself
a system.
Best,
Julie
damian
>I was required to attend
>unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9 months.
Is your fat ass still clean?
Just checking.
-
Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian. -- Herman Melville
Derek M.
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:40:42 -0400, "Derek M." <der...@zdnetmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have diabetes, I call myself a diabetic.
>
it doesn't change anything, how I feel or the fact that I am a diabetic.
Derek M.
Melia <leet...@home.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:37F23127...@home.NOSPAM.com...
> And there is probably a program, 12 Steps of the Diabetic. <g>
actually there, you can get to it's web page from http://recovery.alano.org
Personally I think a non-diabetic came up with the idea because it doesn't
make any sense.
Derek M.
damian <dam...@damomen.com> wrote in message
news:7t2mlh$27...@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:22:21 GMT, railro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I was required to attend
> >unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9 months.
>
> Is your fat ass still clean?
> Just checking.
>
>
she still doesn't take responsibility for drinking on a lunch break.
damian
wrote:
>damian <dam...@damomen.com> wrote in message
>news:7t2mlh$27...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:22:21 GMT, railro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >I was required to attend
>> >unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9 months.
>>
>> Is your fat ass still clean?
>> Just checking.
>>
>>
>
>she still doesn't take responsibility for drinking on a lunch break.
That's why the fucking loser had to go to treatment.
Derek M.
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:40:45 -0400, "Derek M." <der...@zdnetmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >damian <dam...@damomen.com> wrote in message
> >news:7t2mlh$27...@news2.newsguy.com...
> >> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:22:21 GMT, railro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >I was required to attend
> >> >unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9
months.
> >>
> >> Is your fat ass still clean?
> >> Just checking.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >she still doesn't take responsibility for drinking on a lunch break.
>
> That's why the fucking loser had to go to treatment.
>
>
yep, and after drinking she went back to work, in public transportation.
You do notice of course, that she never once mentions the violated rights of
those people who's lives she put at risk.
rita is the victim here, not her employer who could have been sued in the
millions if anyone got hurt, or the people themselves who could have been
hurt and their families. and her evil employers had no right to do what
they did, when she chose to drink and then return to work. all the while
rita was bitching and moaning and looking for a way out of the things that
her employer required of her for breaking company rules. but, we all know
that people have a constitutional right to drink, even on the job, even if
it places others at risk, and no-one has the right to hold these drunks
accountable for their actions, on someone elses property and time.
--
Derek
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://members.xoom.com/tascna
http://listen.to/recovery
>
Beta P
commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the umpteenth
time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit the
'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
And most of all you don't want to know that studies have shown that the
level of alcohol that was in her body has been shown to actually improve
motor skills, mental reaction times, etc. It may not be germaine, but it is
a fact.
Someone doesn't agree with the methods of indoctrination, you are jealous
that she is not an addict, so you blame the victim and cast aspersions. Lame
lame lame ah say, lame.
Derek M. <der...@zdnetmail.com> wrote in message
news:7t4tn7$93s$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
damian
wrote:
>
>damian <dam...@damomen.com> wrote in message
>news:7t3vta$6...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 20:40:45 -0400, "Derek M." <der...@zdnetmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >damian <dam...@damomen.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7t2mlh$27...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:22:21 GMT, railro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I was required to attend
>> >> >unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9
>months.
>> >>
>> >> Is your fat ass still clean?
>> >> Just checking.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >she still doesn't take responsibility for drinking on a lunch break.
>>
>> That's why the fucking loser had to go to treatment.
>>
>>
>
>yep, and after drinking she went back to work, in public transportation.
>You do notice of course, that she never once mentions the violated rights of
>those people who's lives she put at risk.
Loooooooser.
>rita is the victim here, not her employer who could have been sued in the
>millions if anyone got hurt, or the people themselves who could have been
>hurt and their families. and her evil employers had no right to do what
>they did, when she chose to drink and then return to work. all the while
>rita was bitching and moaning and looking for a way out of the things that
>her employer required of her for breaking company rules. but, we all know
>that people have a constitutional right to drink, even on the job, even if
>it places others at risk, and no-one has the right to hold these drunks
>accountable for their actions, on someone elses property and time.
It can't be said enough:
What a fucking loser.
Derek M.
Beta P <an...@herefornow.net> wrote in message
news:7t5bp7$e8s$1...@news.cyberhighway.net...
> You guys really ought to get the facts of her case right if your going to
be
> commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the
umpteenth
> time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
> were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit the
> 'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
> COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
no *A fellowship or member made rita drink and then return to work.
as far as the crime fitting the punishment, you are absolutely right, she
should have been fired.
>
> And most of all you don't want to know that studies have shown that the
> level of alcohol that was in her body has been shown to actually improve
> motor skills, mental reaction times, etc. It may not be germaine, but it
is
> a fact.
I have never heard of any study that said any such thing. You can of course
back this up?
>
> Someone doesn't agree with the methods of indoctrination, you are jealous
> that she is not an addict, so you blame the victim and cast aspersions.
Lame
> lame lame ah say, lame.
and you did what differently? how?
Beta P
> > COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
>
> no *A fellowship or member made rita drink and then return to work.
No but you will 'be there for her' if she does.
>
> as far as the crime fitting the punishment, you are absolutely right, she
> should have been fired.
Her offense was not terminatable or she would have been after all the
trouble she caused her coercers.
>
>
> >
> > And most of all you don't want to know that studies have shown that the
> > level of alcohol that was in her body has been shown to actually improve
> > motor skills, mental reaction times, etc. It may not be germaine, but it
> is
> > a fact.
>
> I have never heard of any study that said any such thing. You can of
course
> back this up?
It is from Milam's 'Under the Influence', I no longer own the book.
>
>
> >
> > Someone doesn't agree with the methods of indoctrination, you are
jealous
> > that she is not an addict, so you blame the victim and cast aspersions.
> Lame
> > lame lame ah say, lame.
>
> and you did what differently? how?
I don't understand.
Reese
wrote:
>You guys really ought to get the facts of her case right if your going to be
>commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the umpteenth
>time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
>were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit the
>'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
>COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
Don't break the law, dipshit, and the courts can't force you to a damn
thing.
You ever think of that?
Reese
damian
wrote:
>You guys really ought to get the facts of her case right if your going to be
>commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the umpteenth
>time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
>were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit the
>'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
>COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
For the umpteenth time:
Don't drink and drive, you won't get caught, yuo have nothing to worry
about vis-a-vis 'coercion'.
>And most of all you don't want to know that studies have shown that the
>level of alcohol that was in her body has been shown to actually improve
>motor skills, mental reaction times, etc. It may not be germaine, but it is
>a fact.
Yeah, I did that study.
When I was a drunk.
>Someone doesn't agree with the methods of indoctrination, you are jealous
>that she is not an addict, so you blame the victim and cast aspersions. Lame
>lame lame ah say, lame.
Someone breaks the law, gets caught, and blames the courts.
Lame, lame, lame.
Lame fucking loser, that is.
railro...@my-deja.com
"Derek M." <der...@zdnetmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:22:21 GMT, railro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >I was required to attend
> > >unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9 months.
> >
> > Is your fat ass still clean?
> > Just checking.
> >
> >
>
> she still doesn't take responsibility for drinking on a lunch break.
>
> --
> Derek
>
----------------------
Of course I take responsibility, Derek, and did so from the beginning. I
also said I would never behave in such a manner again, and offered to be
tested daily to demonstrate my "fitness for duty".
It seems to me the EAP was forbidding me from taking responsibility, by
saying repeatedly:
"You mustn't blame yourself, Rita; you have a disease that prevents you
from making choices about drinking."
No doctor or psychologist has EVER found any evidence that I have such a
"disease".
Beta P
Reese <x...@briefcase.com> wrote in message
news:38074843...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:28:18 -0600, "Beta P" <an...@herefornow.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You guys really ought to get the facts of her case right if your going to
be
> >commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the
umpteenth
> >time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
> >were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit
the
> >'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
> >COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
>
> thing.
>
> You ever think of that?
Yippers. But we aren't talking about me, are we? Or the 'justice' of some
laws... I thought we were talking about you guys wanting to argue about
things you choose to not acknowledge the facts about. And the fact that govt
and other power's coercion of religion is not an outside issue to the
fellowships, but a direct result of members carrying the message in overt
and covert ways. But, hey, I could be wrong.
BP
>
>
> Reese
railro...@my-deja.com
dam...@damomen.com (damian) wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:22:21 GMT, railro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I was required to attend
> >unnecessary and unhelpful "treatment" at taxpayer expense for 9 months.
>
> Is your fat ass still clean?
> Just checking.
>
I'm still not an "alcoholic" or in need of "treatment", if that's what you
mean.
Why do you address women by derogatory references to body shape? That's
very childish. Is it a character defect of yours?
Rebecca Fransway
>
>yep, and after drinking she went back to work, in public transportation.
>You do notice of course, that she never once mentions the violated rights of
>those people who's lives she put at risk.
Paffle. You're just a bitter old bimbo.
So its perfectly okay to force religion on someone for having a drink--
AA according to Derek.
Look at the impending winner of another Worst of the Web Hate Site
be hateful.
How's Jabba the Hut?
Rebecca
>--
>Derek
>http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
>http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
>http://members.xoom.com/tascna
>http://listen.to/recovery
>>
>> -
>> Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian. -- Herman
>Melville
>
>
check this out! http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org
http://www.aadeprogramming.com
Join the 12-step free Mailing List!
http://www.egroups.com/list/12-step-free/info.html
Reese
wrote:
>
>Reese <x...@briefcase.com> wrote in message
>news:38074843...@news.newsguy.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:28:18 -0600, "Beta P" <an...@herefornow.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You guys really ought to get the facts of her case right if your going to
>be
>> >commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the
>umpteenth
>> >time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
>> >were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit
>the
>> >'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
>> >COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
>>
>> Don't break the law, dipshit, and the courts can't force you to a damn
>> thing.
>>
>> You ever think of that?
>
>Yippers. But we aren't talking about me, are we?
Yeah, dipshit, we are talking about you. You broke the law and got
court ordered, didn't you?
>Or the 'justice' of some
>laws... I thought we were talking about you guys wanting to argue about
>things you choose to not acknowledge the facts about. And the fact that govt
>and other power's coercion of religion is not an outside issue to the
>fellowships, but a direct result of members carrying the message in overt
>and covert ways. But, hey, I could be wrong.
Like I said, dipshit: Don't break the law and the courts can't order
you to do a damn thing.
That's something, ain't it?
Reese
Reese
>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 10:28:18 -0600, "Beta P" <an...@herefornow.net>
>wrote:
>
>>You guys really ought to get the facts of her case right if your going to be
>>commenting on it. I wouldn't blame her for not restating them the umpteenth
>>time.... you don't want to know. You don't want to know what the rules
>>were, you don't want to know that the 'helpful' punishement didn't fit the
>>'crime', you don't want to know that it is *A's FAULT that people are
>>COERCED into the religion by EAPs Courts, etc...
>
>For the umpteenth time:
>Don't drink and drive, you won't get caught, yuo have nothing to worry
>about vis-a-vis 'coercion'.
We've been explaining that to this dumbass for more than a year now.
We even told the dipshit that if he had problems with what the courts
had ordered him to do, just don't get the fucken slips signed, but the
chickenshit didn't want to hear that.
Reese