Re: Where are you guys coming from

[Guest guest]

On 30 Nov 1998 22:16:22 -0000, " Lawrence Deneault Jr "

> wrote:

>

> >I am a little confused here.. I joined this little

> >place to find out what the ruckus with 12 step groups

> >is all about. To date, the only thing I have read from you guys

> >reads like spoiled little grown up children who have been told

> >that they can't play with their toys when they want them.

>

> I've highlighted that, because the juiciest quote...the one about

> liberal feminism running amok in the good old Us of A, has been

> well-used.

>

> He's right, though, in that a lot of complaint comes from people who

> are currently in the throes of the judicial system.

>

> There are others of us, though, who are not under any penalty to

> attend AA, who attended for years, and are now asking if this is the

> right way to handle the very very serious problem of alcoholism.

>

> But you're not going to see much day-to-day posting from us unless one

> of us suddenly has a flash of brilliance and solves the problem that

> ol' Bill W. wrestled with all his life.

>

> There ought to be a better way to understand and handle alcoholism,

> because AA doesn't work for an overwhelming number of people...

>

> There's nothing wrong with a 12-step program for one who wants to

> believe in it.

>

> There is something wrong with the government forcing us to either

> believe or act like we do.

>

>

> --Jerry Trowbridge

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

On 3 Dec 1998 03:45:14 -0000, " L. Hobbs "

wrote:

>Your post appears to be a good example of one who has been steeped

>in the sacred dogma of 12-steppism.

Quite the contrary. My post is steeped in the dogma that people can

decide for themselves what they like and dislike, and need neither the

help of the well-intentioned 12-steppers telling them that they must

find god now...nor the help of L. Hobbs telling them that they

have undergone severe psychological damage at the hands of the

12-steppers.

--Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

<<<Quite the contrary. My post is steeped in the dogma that people can

decide for themselves what they like and dislike, and need neither the

help of the well-intentioned 12-steppers telling them that they must

find god now...nor the help of L. Hobbs telling them that they

have undergone severe psychological damage at the hands of the

12-steppers.>>>

Dear Jerry,

I think people voluntarily join this list, unlike the manner in which we were

-- it appears in the majority -- brought into XA. I do not feel as if I have

undergone any psychological damage from XA. But I NEVER accepted XA doctrine.

If anything, XA wasted my time and pissed me off. And they pay for that

regularly, still. If more people here had the courage to fight back rather

than debate amonst themselves, XA would notice. They notice me, closing

message boards, punting them offline, stopping their online meetings, etc.

Yriondo

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 98-12-03 13:10:51 EST, you write:

<<

>And they pay for that

>regularly, still. If more people here had the courage to fight back rather

>than debate amonst themselves, XA would notice. They notice me, closing

>message boards, punting them offline, stopping their online meetings, etc.

I'll bet they do. Do you feel you have the right to do this, yet we

all have the right to be secure in 12-steps-free without suffering

vigilante tactics from the hardcore 12-steppers?

If AA is truly a religion, and I believe that it is, then they are

protected, at least in the US by the 1st amendment. Trying to shout

them down in their own venues or attacking their internet connections

is reprehensible behavior. Its wrong when they do it and its wrong

when we do.

I understand that you are angry. I was very angry when I realized how

much of my life I had given to AA, but I also realized it was MY

fault, because I took their pronouncements as gospel without ever a

critical thought.

You may see what you're doing as courageous behaviour, and my response

as just us " debate amongst ourselves, " but your actions are cowardly

and childish; its just the kind of behaviour the 12-steppers engaged

in that brought about this very mail list.

----------------

Jerry Trowbridge

--------------------------- >>

Dear Jerry,

I appreciate your having created and filled the position of " Mail List

Conscience. " We need you here, so we'll never forget the sanctimonious

nonsense that XA forced down out throats. The " protection " afforded AA as a

religion ceased to exist when they began their complicity with the government

in the forced religious inculcation of others.

Unlike you, I never fell for XA dogma as " gospel. " Accordingly, I do not

blame myself for staying there. Maybe this is the better part of our

differences. Tell ya what: YOU beat up yourself for having joined XA and for

having blindly followed without using your brain and I'LL beat up XA, rather

than myself, because they were an accessory to my being coerced to attend.

Deal?

Have you no conception of justice? Do you understand the word (and concept

of) " backlash " ?

Yriondo

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

>And they pay for that

>regularly, still. If more people here had the courage to fight back rather

>than debate amonst themselves, XA would notice. They notice me, closing

>message boards, punting them offline, stopping their online meetings, etc.

I'll bet they do. Do you feel you have the right to do this, yet we

all have the right to be secure in 12-steps-free without suffering

vigilante tactics from the hardcore 12-steppers?

If AA is truly a religion, and I believe that it is, then they are

protected, at least in the US by the 1st amendment. Trying to shout

them down in their own venues or attacking their internet connections

is reprehensible behavior. Its wrong when they do it and its wrong

when we do.

I understand that you are angry. I was very angry when I realized how

much of my life I had given to AA, but I also realized it was MY

fault, because I took their pronouncements as gospel without ever a

critical thought.

You may see what you're doing as courageous behaviour, and my response

as just us " debate amongst ourselves, " but your actions are cowardly

and childish; its just the kind of behaviour the 12-steppers engaged

in that brought about this very mail list.

----------------

Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

> I understand that you are angry. I was very angry when I realized how

> much of my life I had given to AA, but I also realized it was MY

> fault, because I took their pronouncements as gospel without ever a

> critical thought.=20

------------------------------------------------

Do you think, then, that others who have bad

experiences in AA are to blame, and AA or its

members are not? I recall being sent to AA by

therapists on three occasions, and each time,

I hung onto my own critical thinking, and continued to do it " My way. " I found

that

unpopular not only with AA members, but with

my therapists. One of them, who is now dead of

an OD, started yelling at me when he found out

I wasn't going to meetings.

During my last stint in AA, I finally gave in.

I decided to suspend critical judgement, as nearly

all newcomers are enouraged to do-- " you can't

rely on your mind, " my sponsor used to tell

newcomers, with no censure. I " completely gave

myself to the simple program, " and ended up with

worse depression than ever. I could have died.

The therapists should have been treating me for

depression.

I don't know who to blame more--AA or therapists.

I don't have to courts to blame, because I never

got into trouble with the law.

But frankly, I think its possible more people die because of AA than get saved,

because most

people who go to AA end up leaving. How many

leave with a bellyfull of the idea they're

powerless and that " the disease " will eventually

get them? Do you think its possible that many

could end up more obsessed with drinking than

ever, and less likely to even try to moderate?

-----

See the original message at /list/12-step-free/?start=987

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 3 Dec 1998 22:26:51 -0000, " Fransway "

wrote:

>Do you think, then, that others who have bad

>experiences in AA are to blame, and AA or its

>members are not?

What kind of " blame " are we talking about here?

Did anyone in AA force me to stay there? I seem to recall having my

own free will to go to all those meetings, and some good things did

come from the experience for me.

Is each and every member still in AA responsible for the collective

doctrine of the group to the extent that they must weather having pot

shots taken at their internet connections while they're discussing AA?

That's what I read is being endorsed here, and that's what I'm

condemning.

How much responsibility must any one of us take for sitting in those

rooms? Or are we allowed to blame it on AA and all its worldwide

members because they somehow deluded us or clouded our minds like some

institutionalized " shadow " so that we could not see the truth?

For some of us, that's not true, and we were sentenced to AA, but it

seems that the courts are primarily responsible for that. The

suggestions about signing slips at the start of meetings are good, but

they don't really address the basic question.

Judges want you to go to meetings. If you're under their jurisdiction,

they can simply ask you, or have their agents ask you if you went to

meetings or not. AA does have some complicity in signing slips

against, in my opinion, their own traditions, but let's be reasonable

here; if judges want to sentence people to AA, they're damn well going

to do it whether or not the groups sign their stinkin' slips, and if

it becomes well known that the signing is taking place before the

dogma is ladeled out, judges will start asking the right questions of

the convicted.

Just how much blame should the folks remaining in AA shoulder?

--Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

In message , Fransway

writes

>But frankly, I think its possible more people die because of AA than get

saved,

>because most

>people who go to AA end up leaving. How many

>leave with a bellyfull of the idea they're

>powerless and that " the disease " will eventually

>get them? Do you think its possible that many

>could end up more obsessed with drinking than

>ever, and less likely to even try to moderate?

>

>

Hi , I had to pick up on this point. For me that was the reality

of it. Spending day after day talking about booze, thinking about it and

working (12steps) it was making me more and more obsessed with the

stuff. Luckily for me I caught one of your msg's on araa which led me to

ar12s and here. There is every possibility that I would have been the

one who left with a belly full of the idea that I am powerless and that

I would more than likely die. Blimey, that must mean that I might well

owe my life to you LOL. Will you accept a cheque or is it cash ;-)

Seriously though, I'm thankful that my mind was still open enough at

that time to be able to stand back and look at the dogma and to see it

for what it really is!

Take care,

(still here and still doing fantastically well on my own!)

--

Bristol

England

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 30 Nov 1998 22:16:22 -0000, " Lawrence Deneault Jr "

> wrote:

>

> >I am a little confused here.. I joined this little

> >place to find out what the ruckus with 12 step groups

> >is all about. To date, the only thing I have read from you guys

> >reads like spoiled little grown up children who have been told

> >that they can't play with their toys when they want them.

>

> I've highlighted that, because the juiciest quote...the one about

> liberal feminism running amok in the good old Us of A, has been

> well-used.

>

> He's right, though, in that a lot of complaint comes from people who

> are currently in the throes of the judicial system.

>

> There are others of us, though, who are not under any penalty to

> attend AA, who attended for years, and are now asking if this is the

> right way to handle the very very serious problem of alcoholism.

>

> But you're not going to see much day-to-day posting from us unless one

> of us suddenly has a flash of brilliance and solves the problem that

> ol' Bill W. wrestled with all his life.

>

> There ought to be a better way to understand and handle alcoholism,

> because AA doesn't work for an overwhelming number of people...

>

> There's nothing wrong with a 12-step program for one who wants to

> believe in it.

>

> There is something wrong with the government forcing us to either

> believe or act like we do.

>

>

> --Jerry Trowbridge

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

>When and if AA ever matures to the point that it realizes that it can be a

useful transitory

> tool, arming people with positive insights and attitudes needed to cope with

the world around

>them and sustain long-term " sobriety " - then encourage them to " move ahead "

with their

>lives without eternal dependence on the " group " - THEN the " fellowship " may

have

>realized itself as an effective and meaningful recovery tool.

The tragic thing in all this is that the " fellowship " could do this.

It learned from its mistakes very well in the 40s and 50s, but when

the old guard died off, the trusted servants decided they were there

to protect the past, not face the future.

At the time AA came " of age " in the fifties, there were people who had

remained sober in the program only about 20 years, so since AA hasn't

made any substantial changes (not even down to removing the stilted

prose of the 30s), the program was never tailored for how to handle

long term sobriety. They never had such a problem.

In my last years in AA, I was fascinated when people came back to the

program after a " slip. " I don't mean people that were sober months or

a few years, I mean people who went out drinking after 15 years or so

of going to meetings and taking one day at a time.

They'd come back for a meeting or two, and then they'd not be seen

again. I had a hard time believing that these people went out and died

immediately from alcoholism or some alcohol-related calamity. yet they

never came back, which was distinctly different from the newbies who

drank and came back, and drank and came back with stories of what

befell them.

I now suspect for a lot of these people, their " slip " was one of the

best things that ever happened to them...they found out they did not

immediately die, and while they may have gotten drunk, it didn't

destroy their lives.

It is obvious that AA is an unfinished work. It may die that way,

locked in a battle between the traditions and the march of time.

Or it may try to rewrite itself, the way it did so many times during

its first 20 years, this time in a language that 21st century readers

can understand. and with the journalistic device every good story

contains: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

----------------

Jerry Trowbridge

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hobbs says:

> Jerry;

> You seem to be unaware of the psychological damage that 12-step

> philosophy can do vulnerable addicts. Anyone trying to recove from a

> serious addictionshould never be indoctrinated with " powerlessness " ,

> " humility " , and the dogma that they have an " incurable disease " that

> only a lifetime of meeting attendance can hold at bay. This philosophy

> is very destructive to an individuals self-worth, and will handicap them

> in this highly competitive world. People need to be toldthat tey are

> worthwhile human beings, and that they can indeed manage their own

> lives, and their own sobriety. They need to be strengthened, not

> weakened. !2-step philosophy is one of denial of personal responsibility

> for ones behaviour in everything from what caused the problem (Faulty

> Genes, " disease " , " alcoholic personality " , " Character defects " , and lack

> of " spirituality " ) to the solution (The Group, appealing to a " higher

> power " , and becoming " spiritually fit " ) These are all philosopies

> designed to foster a dependence on the group, rather tan ones own

> resources. Your post appears to be a good example of one who has been

> steeped in the sacred dogma of 12-steppism. Robt.L.Hobbs

>

>

>

> -----

> See the original message at

> /list/12-step-free/?start=973

>

I've always felt there was something wrong with AA. As I looked around meeting

rooms, I'd think to myself, " How many of these people have a high self-esteem

level? How many are really successful and happy with their existence? " In all

honesty, I can say, " Very few. " It has been my experience that 12-steppers

change jobs, locations, significant others, and moods more than any other

segment of society. Mediocrity seems to be the norm. I can't imagine many

AAers rushing off to a network marketing semina, a place where high self-esteem

and very high positive attitudes are the norm. I suppose that I've outgrown AA

to a large degree, even though it is hard for me to break away from the friends

I've made along the way. I have learned much about myself through my AA

experience and today do feel I have a much more focused " attitude and outlook on

life. " But I think part of the reason is I've " outgrown " AA and feel that I'm

no longer like the big book says, " We are like men who have lost their legs; we

don't grow new ones. " Wow! Talk about an insurmountable handicap!

When and if AA ever matures to the point that it realizes that it can be a

useful transitory tool, arming people with positive insights and attitudes

needed to cope with the world around them and sustain long-term " sobriety " -

then encourage them to " move ahead " with their lives without eternal dependence

on the " group " - THEN the " fellowship " may have realized itself as an effective

and meaningful recovery tool.

Until then, it's not what I would consider - beyond what it has given me - a

useful positive recovery tool.

-----

See the original message at /list/12-step-free/?start=1012

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/6/98 5:15:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jtlist@... writes:

Jerry said...

>

> I now suspect for a lot of these people, their " slip " was one of the

> best things that ever happened to them...they found out they did not

> immediately die, and while they may have gotten drunk, it didn't

> destroy their lives.

I don't believe that would be true for me. My drug of choice was marijuana,

and if I smoked one again, I could easily see myself obsessive waiting for the

next one. I don't want to go back there.

Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------------