Re: Anti/Pro

[Guest guest]

Gaudman,

One thing I hate about my email is that my tone comes across as so damn

serious. Perhaps the high volume on this list will make me a better

writer. Anyway, it's my not at all humble opinion that by only knowing a

person from 12 step free could give a narrow viewpoint of that person. I

find that this is always the case when the subject is limited to one

topic.

But, you see, I think that is understood when all know before hand that

this is a one topic list. Therefore, when I or someone else in their

emails says they are anti AA, they are not, I would imagine say that

their lives are anti AA. This board is a place to explore that aspect of

their lives. If you read those posts, most of us on this board lead full

lives that have nothing to do with fighting the ghost of Bill .

I think the confusion comes from the fact that AA is " way of life. " 12

Step Free is not a way of life, it is a viewpoint. While a few on their

list have the time and energy to spend a great deal of time offering the

" anti AA " viewpoint " I think that most just don't have that time or

energy, or may choose not to.

The same , I think holds true for our Big Book conversation. AAers think

that they have a new Bible. How many times have I heard all the answers

are in the big Book. Well, unless you believe that there is a God who

does things for you, like keep you sober and takes away your defects,

which I do not, there are few answers in the Big Book. Which, I admit

was quite a feat for a first time author, kinda like Baker Eddy's

tome, which I have also read. You know there are similarities, and they

were both form New England, (sorry I digress)

So perhaps I should close now. However, I urge you to keep posting,

Guadman. While I may disagree with some of your points, I do ponder

them. Who would have thought that I would have scanned the Big Book

again last night?

Your 12 step free friend,

[Guest guest]

> Guadman wrote:

>

> >Everytime I picture Stanton Peele in my mind, he always has horns

> >and a long cape.

Jim here: Many of you are no doubt aware of this, but I wanted to point

out that Peele's Website (last time I checked, anyway) had an actual

foto of Stanton wearing devil horns and a cape. I believe this was a

whimsical response to Trimpey's calling Peele " Dr. Beast Personified "

or something like that.

n.b.: If you take a " t " and an " n " out of " Stanton, " you get " Saton. "

Also, you can rearrange the letters to spell " ant snot. " I would share

more, but I've already put all our lives in grave peril by disclosing

this much information.

[Guest guest]

Jim.

LOL.

I have a teeny Jack Trimpey story myself.

When i was in the early stages of my search to hear some outside

confirmation of my ideas of how screwey the AA experience is, I

discovered the Rational Recovery website and wrote to Jack Trimpey

asking him a question (can't exactly remember what it was).

He wrote back a quite dismissive, wave of the hand ( " go away boy, ya

bother me " )response to write to his wife about that.

And....after the end of the email...after his name....was the quote

" Rational Recovery - We believe in people, not meetings "

LOL.

guadman

" jim hankins " wrote:

> Jim here: Many of you are no doubt aware of this, but I wanted to

point

> out that Peele's Website (last time I checked, anyway) had an actual

> foto of Stanton wearing devil horns and a cape. I believe this was a

> whimsical response to Trimpey's calling Peele " Dr. Beast Personified "

> or something like that.

>

> n.b.: If you take a " t " and an " n " out of " Stanton, " you get " Saton. "

> Also, you can rearrange the letters to spell " ant snot. " I would share

> more, but I've already put all our lives in grave peril by disclosing

> this much information.

>

[Guest guest]

I'd say that AA is FOR alcoholism. They practically invented it, and they

have to keep people convinced that it exists in order to suck in new

members.

A list of things that AA is anti- would obviously include alcohol. I think

it should also include the following: truth, reason, freedom, peace,

thought, and joy. Just a start...

-- wally

Anti/Pro

>> To be quite honest, I think being " anti-AA " is sicker then being an

>> AA member. At least, in theory anyway, they are FOR something.

>

>You are quite wrong. AA is no more FOR something than we are. AA is FOR

>sobriety, which means that they have to be AGAINST alcoholism. Our little

>group here is FOR the healthy and humane treatment of people in need. We

>just happen to be AGAINST one of the numerous groups out there that have

>abusive practices and ideas. For every pro-movement there has to be an

>antithesis. We all have enemies.

>

>Louree

>

>

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

>@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.

>Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:

>http://click./1/2345/1/_/4324/_/953203405/

>

>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!

>-- /cal?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

[Guest guest]

I wonder if you could say AA is anti-abstinence, because until you got

sobriety, baby, you ain't nothin but a dry drunk. (sorry, I was briefly

possessed by the ghost of Sinatra.)

Judith

" wally t. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13456

> I'd say that AA is FOR alcoholism. They practically invented it, and

they

> have to keep people convinced that it exists in order to suck in new

> members.

>

> A list of things that AA is anti- would obviously include alcohol. I

think

> it should also include the following: truth, reason, freedom, peace,

> thought, and joy. Just a start...

>

> -- wally

>

> Anti/Pro

>

>

> >> To be quite honest, I think being " anti-AA " is sicker then

being an

> >> AA member. At least, in theory anyway, they are FOR something.

> >

> >You are quite wrong. AA is no more FOR something than we are. AA is

FOR

> >sobriety, which means that they have to be AGAINST alcoholism. Our

little

> >group here is FOR the healthy and humane treatment of people in

need. We

> >just happen to be AGAINST one of the numerous groups out there that

have

> >abusive practices and ideas. For every pro-movement there has to be

an

> >antithesis. We all have enemies.

> >

> >Louree

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I am sorry Louree, but I cannot and will never agree with you.

I am FOR health..and living honestly and doing the best we can

and....etc etc

WHEREVER that can be learned and made use of.

Be careful lest you become the very thing you seem to despise.

guadman

" snazy " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13452

> > To be quite honest, I think being " anti-AA " is sicker then being

an

> > AA member. At least, in theory anyway, they are FOR something.

>

> You are quite wrong. AA is no more FOR something than we are. AA is

FOR

> sobriety, which means that they have to be AGAINST alcoholism. Our

little

> group here is FOR the healthy and humane treatment of people in need.

We

> just happen to be AGAINST one of the numerous groups out there that

have

> abusive practices and ideas. For every pro-movement there has to be an

> antithesis. We all have enemies.

>

> Louree

>

[Guest guest]

Wally.

I figured the things I said were going to cause contraversy. It reminds

me of what Harry Truman said when he was being assailed by congress and

a reporter yelled at him " Give'em hell Harry! " .

He said, " I didn't give them hell. I just told them the truth, and they

thought it was hell " .

When people say, " I experienced this lie, deceit, abuse, etc (in AA or

anywhere), they are telling a painful ad real thing.

That is quite different then saying " I experienced this lie, deceit,

abuse, etc...SO EVERYTHING about that entire person, place or thing is

bad and needs to be destryoyed. This is a sign of mental illness, NOT

recovery.

Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick as the very

thing you condemn in them.

These kinds of postings, remind me EXACTLY of the responses we get when

we confront people in AA with ideas contrary to what they like to think.

If I am against anything..it is lying, cheating and stealing

etc...WHEREVER that ocurrs.

AA claims to be " for sobriety " , just like this place claims to be " 12

step-free " NOT " anti-AA " .

You can easily see contradictions to these ideas in EACH place.

guadman

" wally t. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13456

> I'd say that AA is FOR alcoholism. They practically invented it, and

they

> have to keep people convinced that it exists in order to suck in new

> members.

>

> A list of things that AA is anti- would obviously include alcohol. I

think

> it should also include the following: truth, reason, freedom, peace,

> thought, and joy. Just a start...

>

> -- wally

>

> Anti/Pro

>

>

> >> To be quite honest, I think being " anti-AA " is sicker then

being an

> >> AA member. At least, in theory anyway, they are FOR something.

> >

> >You are quite wrong. AA is no more FOR something than we are. AA is

FOR

> >sobriety, which means that they have to be AGAINST alcoholism. Our

little

> >group here is FOR the healthy and humane treatment of people in

need. We

> >just happen to be AGAINST one of the numerous groups out there that

have

> >abusive practices and ideas. For every pro-movement there has to be

an

> >antithesis. We all have enemies.

> >

> >Louree

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

So as far as that goes, if I drink and DON'T get drunk, I'm still sober?

" judith stillwater " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13457

> I wonder if you could say AA is anti-abstinence, because until you got

> sobriety, baby, you ain't nothin but a dry drunk. (sorry, I was

briefly

> possessed by the ghost of Sinatra.)

>

> Judith

>

> " wally t. " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=134

56

> > I'd say that AA is FOR alcoholism. They practically invented it, and

> they

> > have to keep people convinced that it exists in order to suck in new

> > members.

> >

> > A list of things that AA is anti- would obviously include alcohol. I

> think

> > it should also include the following: truth, reason, freedom, peace,

> > thought, and joy. Just a start...

> >

> > -- wally

> >

> > Anti/Pro

> >

> >

> > >> To be quite honest, I think being " anti-AA " is sicker then

> being an

> > >> AA member. At least, in theory anyway, they are FOR something.

> > >

> > >You are quite wrong. AA is no more FOR something than we are. AA is

> FOR

> > >sobriety, which means that they have to be AGAINST alcoholism. Our

> little

> > >group here is FOR the healthy and humane treatment of people in

> need. We

> > >just happen to be AGAINST one of the numerous groups out there that

> have

> > >abusive practices and ideas. For every pro-movement there has to be

> an

> > >antithesis. We all have enemies.

> > >

> > >Louree

> > >

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

I promise that, if I contribute more to this thread, I will begin

trimming. But at this point I think all the previous posts are

relevant in understanding mine.

It's a matter of perspective, isn't it ? Sober and abstinent mean

the same things to me. I don't need to morally load either word to

influence people to accept my beliefs. I don't give a flying farewell

if I'm in the majority. For that matter, to me a " victim " of AA and a

" survivor " of AA mean the same thing: someone who was hurt by the

experience but didn't die.

We exist. Call us survivors, victims, or don't affix any label to us.

We exist and what happened to us really happened. I don't want to take

away anyone else's belief system, so I talk about it here, and I think

I probably come across pretty militant. About this one subject, I am

militant and unapologetic, at least right now. I reserve the right to

keep an open mind, and to change my mind if and when evidence comes

along that proves me wrong.

Till then, I believe I'm right. It's a good feeling.

Judith

" wendy rose " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13460

> So as far as that goes, if I drink and DON'T get drunk, I'm still

sober?

>

>

>

> " judith stillwater " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=134

57

> > I wonder if you could say AA is anti-abstinence, because until you

got

> > sobriety, baby, you ain't nothin but a dry drunk. (sorry, I was

> briefly

> > possessed by the ghost of Sinatra.)

> >

> > Judith

> >

> > " wally t. " wrote:

> > original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=1

34

> 56

> > > I'd say that AA is FOR alcoholism. They practically invented it,

and

> > they

> > > have to keep people convinced that it exists in order to suck in

new

> > > members.

> > >

> > > A list of things that AA is anti- would obviously include

alcohol. I

> > think

> > > it should also include the following: truth, reason, freedom,

peace,

> > > thought, and joy. Just a start...

> > >

> > > -- wally

> > >

> > > Anti/Pro

> > >

> > >

> > > >> To be quite honest, I think being " anti-AA " is sicker then

> > being an

> > > >> AA member. At least, in theory anyway, they are FOR something.

> > > >

> > > >You are quite wrong. AA is no more FOR something than we are. AA

is

> > FOR

> > > >sobriety, which means that they have to be AGAINST alcoholism.

Our

> > little

> > > >group here is FOR the healthy and humane treatment of people in

> > need. We

> > > >just happen to be AGAINST one of the numerous groups out there

that

> > have

> > > >abusive practices and ideas. For every pro-movement there has to

be

> > an

> > > >antithesis. We all have enemies.

> > > >

> > > >Louree

> > > >

> > > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

sean p cashin wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13462

> So perhaps I should close now. However, I urge you to keep posting,

> Guadman. While I may disagree with some of your points, I do ponder

> them. Who would have thought that I would have scanned the Big Book

> again last night?

hehe, I still have my big book and 12 x 12. I consider snipping them

up for confetti or art projects but...they're books. Books are sacred.

Ideas, even ideas that make me angry, are what being human is all

about for me. Learning about someone else's ideas gives me information

that is, I imagine, similar to what a dog gets from sniffing another

dog.

Judith, who has been on 2 walkies today

[Guest guest]

" judith stillwater " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13457

> I wonder if you could say AA is anti-abstinence, because until you got

> sobriety, baby, you ain't nothin but a dry drunk. (sorry, I was

briefly

> possessed by the ghost of Sinatra.)

>

Sorry, I can't imagine in an AA meeting. For one thing, look at

what happened to him in " From Here to Eternity. " He had a little

drinking problem, the Army sent him to get treatment, and Sgt. Fatso

(the very embodiment of an AA bully, played by Earnest Borgnine) kills

him!

And then there's " The Manchurian Candidate, " about which I've already

expounded.

[Guest guest]

Eliz.

I have to tell ya, reading what you wrote sounds like a whole bunch of

double-talk.

It possible to " go through stages " and be angry..yet still be HONEST.

guadman

" elizabeth b. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13478

> guadman,

> I agree that it is way too easy to become what you abhor ...

hypocrisy seems

> inevitable if I use all of my energy to denigrate someone else. Kind

of

> Animal Farm. When I was writing my undergrad thesis (medieval female

> religious imagery, blah blah) my wonderful mentor told me " great,

you've

> identified a lot of stuff to be angry about. What are you going to

find

> that is positive and forward moving? " She helped change the focus of

my

> writing from whining about misogyny to actively finding positive and

> life-affirming images. This change of focus did not in any way let

any of

> those I disagreed with off the hook. This issue came up again when I

> rejected my family's religion, and most recently with this XA

controversy.

>

> However, I believe that there are stages to go through in rejecting

> something that is as manipulative and as soul-sucking as intolerant

> religious dogma. What I love about this place is we don't have to

pretend

> that we've reached that calm, accepting serenity about those who

oppose us

> before it's really true. Fake serenity reads smug and infuriating.

Yes, we

> are prey to make the same blunders in argument that the steppers do.

I find

> myself using my mother's tactics right back at her to support MY

agenda.

> I'm not proud of that.

>

> I guess what I'm saying is that in the big picture I agree that my

goal is

> not to AA-bash forever (being married to one will make that a

> self-destructive choice). I do want to hone my arguments and

strengthen my

> ability to maintain my equilibrium in the face of AA-speak. That's

why I'm

> here and I appreciate everyone's input.

> Thanks,

>

>

> >When people say, " I experienced this lie, deceit, abuse, etc (in AA

or

> >anywhere), they are telling a painful ad real thing.

> >That is quite different then saying " I experienced this lie, deceit,

> >abuse, etc...SO EVERYTHING about that entire person, place or thing

is

> >bad and needs to be destryoyed. This is a sign of mental illness,

NOT

> >recovery.

> >

> >Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick as the very

> >thing you condemn in them.

> >

> >These kinds of postings, remind me EXACTLY of the responses we get

when

> >we confront people in AA with ideas contrary to what they like to

think.

> >

> >If I am against anything..it is lying, cheating and stealing

> >etc...WHEREVER that ocurrs.

> >

> >AA claims to be " for sobriety " , just like this place claims to be " 12

> >step-free " NOT " anti-AA " .

> >You can easily see contradictions to these ideas in EACH place.

> >

> >guadman

> >

> >

> >

>

> ______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Wally.

So, I guess, exactly like in AA, you can't question AYTHING anyone says

here eh?

Congratulations...you are back in AA.

guadman

" wally t. " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13480

> Say what? Our " constitution " , or whatever you want to call it, says

this is

>

> 'the first place where many can dare be critical and not be accused

by a

> " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one " defect of

character "

> or another for doing so.'

>

> So then I dare to be critical, and you respond '...This is a sign of

mental

> illness, NOT

> recovery. Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick

as the

> very

> thing you condemn in them.'

>

> Hmmmmm.

>

> Since I happen to be a very serene dude, I will refrain from defending

> myself or arguing. In fact, allow me to disclose more evidence of my

mental

> illness: there are other things than AA that I am 'against'! These

include,

> but are not limited to, torture, slavery, nuclear war, the grand jury

system

> in state Superior Courts, excessive clear-cutting in National

Forests, and

> the use of the Holland Rule in backgammon tournaments.

>

> But perhaps I am misinterpreting your intent. Were you asserting a

general

> principle, i. e., " if you oppose anything then you are automatically

> equivalent to whatever you oppose " or would you care to give us

reasons why

> you think AA is a special case?

>

> All the best,

> wally

>

> Re: Anti/Pro

>

>

> >Wally.

> >

> >I figured the things I said were going to cause contraversy. It

reminds

> >me of what Harry Truman said when he was being assailed by congress

and

> >a reporter yelled at him " Give'em hell Harry! " .

> >He said, " I didn't give them hell. I just told them the truth, and

they

> >thought it was hell " .

> >

> >When people say, " I experienced this lie, deceit, abuse, etc (in AA

or

> >anywhere), they are telling a painful ad real thing.

> >That is quite different then saying " I experienced this lie, deceit,

> >abuse, etc...SO EVERYTHING about that entire person, place or thing

is

> >bad and needs to be destryoyed. This is a sign of mental illness,

NOT

> >recovery.

> >

> >Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick as the very

> >thing you condemn in them.

> >

> >These kinds of postings, remind me EXACTLY of the responses we get

when

> >we confront people in AA with ideas contrary to what they like to

think.

> >

> >If I am against anything..it is lying, cheating and stealing

> >etc...WHEREVER that ocurrs.

> >

> >AA claims to be " for sobriety " , just like this place claims to be " 12

> >step-free " NOT " anti-AA " .

> >You can easily see contradictions to these ideas in EACH place.

> >

> >guadman

> >

> [snippage]

>

[Guest guest]

Joe B. wrote:

>Funny that it really works against some of the things it claims itself to

>be FOR, isn't it. I understood the things we talk about here progressively,

>and although I got the idea early on that AA wasn't the only or the best

>way, it was a bit longer before it clicked for me that AA might actually be

>doing a lot of harm, and that it might have affected me badly. It was

>comforting to hold onto (for a while) the idea that AA is really helping

>lots of people. But that too went, eventually. The idea that AA causes

> " alcoholism " seems outrageous at first, but it is largely true. All these

>people sitting in meetings night after night, year after year, talking

>about " alcoholism " , keeping the idea alive for the next generation of

> " alcoholics " , so that they too, when they grow out of drinking, can then

>sit in the same hard plastic chairs night after night, year after year,

>keeping the memory green....

>

>Joe B.

Recently I obtained a copy of the book " The Cured Alcoholic, " by Arthur

Cain. You may remember " DrDry " having mentioned it in a post some time back.

The book was published in 1964, and one of the things that struck me from my

reading it was that according to Cain's account the 'disease theory' -- at

least the version of the disease theory that emphasizes a hypothetical

physical component -- came to prominence only as a result of intensive

lobbying by AA members, many of whom had infiltrated the 'treatment'

pseudo-professions in the 50's. I had either not known this or had forgotten

it. What it seems to boil down to is that alcoholism, as it is generally

understood by the public (disease with a major underlying physical

component) is, indeed, literally an AA invention.

Yes, it's true that the people sitting around the tables are doing their bit

to 'pass it on', but the bulk of the work is done outside, with AAers

exercising their social and political clout, anonymously of course, to lobby

the public, get favorable legislation passed, stifle dissenting research,

and so on.

It's common sense that advertising the disease theory causes people to 'lose

control' of their drinking. Folks who drink too much do so because the

drinking benefits them in some way, perhaps by giving them pleasure or

relief from anxiety. When they get to the point of experiencing conflict

over it they already 'know' from TV, the movies, Ann Landers, etc. that if

they 'have a problem' then they 'have the disease of alcoholism' and can't

do anything about it until they 'hit bottom' and are ready to 'get help.'

Undoubtedly there are many who get to this point and decide that it's all a

lot of bull, and just quit on their own. Some may immediately try to find an

appropriate counselor or just check themselves into 'treatment' -- with the

result that they either become step-zombies or go through a relapse phase,

with the benefit of graduate-level training in how to drink like a 'real

alcoholic.' Others will resist treatment for a while, in which case you have

the swell combination of someone who likes to drink anyway, has an

established habit, believes that he is really out of control, and now has

the anxiety-provoking belief that it's only a matter of time before

something dreadful happens and he 'hits bottom.'

Aside from being common sense, this is what I have observed happening to

people in treatment and around AA over what is now a period of 19 years. I

didn't even start to figure it out until I had been messed up for 5 years.

From that point I began noticing that if you pay close attention to the

drinking histories of people in AA, especially if they at some point had

turned into truly florid drunkards, quite often there was some kind of

treatment experience or significant AA contact BEFORE the really damaging

drinking got going. Usually this is not readily disclosed -- you have to

hear people tell their story or talk about their drinking several times in

meetings, and outside of meetings as well, before the key facts slip into

place. It's as though they know at some level that AA caused their

'alcoholism' and are torn between a need to deny this and the supposed

requirement of 'rigorous honesty.'

--wally

[Guest guest]

" wally t. " wrote:

> It's common sense that advertising the disease theory causes people

to 'lose

> control' of their drinking.

Jim here. There was a time when I unquestioning believed the disease

theory because I read about it in Ann Landers and Dear Abby -- the

ultimate sources of sane advice. I was a believer before I took my

first drink. First time I got drunk I remember thinking " I must be an

alcoholic because I'm having so much fun.

One time, during a 14-year stretch when I wasn't drinking (but also

wasn't in AA), Tommy LaSorda was on the Larry King radio show and

somehow they got to talking about alcoholism. Lasorda said he didn't

believe it was a disease, that it was a lack of character or discipline

or something.

Boy, I thought, Tommy's the world's biggest buffoon! Everybody knew it

was a disease! He was just clinging to the old-fashioned bigoted

notions about addiction!

But now I have to wonder if believing I had some kind of disease might

have made me think that it was worthless to try to control my drinking

and doping.

Like, if I have the disease, I'm " fated " to be an addict and it won't

do any good to try to moderate my using and drinking.

If this makes it sound like I'm blaming the " disease " advocates for

making me a drunk and junky, I'm not. I take full responsibility for my

actions, but I also wonder how the disease theory affected me.

Of course, it's all academic to me because I'd be a total moron to try

to indulge in " controlled " heroin use. The only way that's gonna happen

is if I'm on a distant island all by myself and someone drops me one

dose a week by parachute. At times I think I might be a moderate

drinker one day, but I'd probably worry so much that it'd spoil the fun

anyway.

[Guest guest]

" wally t. " wrote:

> From that point I began noticing that if you pay close attention to

the

> drinking histories of people in AA, especially if they at some point

had

> turned into truly florid drunkards, quite often there was some kind of

> treatment experience or significant AA contact BEFORE the really

damaging

> drinking got going.

Now this really makes me think, because my heroin use did get quite a

bit worse after I was exposed to 12-Step treatment. My case doesn't

prove anything, though, because I'd only been using a few months when

my shrink got worried about me and sent me to an outpatient program.

However:

1. Being exposed to the obvious nonsense in the Step approach really

destroyed my faith in the treatment professionals. I figured if they

believed in the Steps, they'd believe in anything, so I began to think

that perhaps all the shit I'd been told about heroin might just be a

bunch of alarmism and pseudoscience. Well a lot of it was, but not all

of it. If I'd gotten credible warnings from credible people, who knows?

Maybe I'd have quit before I got physically addicted.

2. They told me any drug abuser who continues to be an atheist is

screwed because they can't work the Steps right. I was an atheist and I

was sure I wasn't going to change (still am), so I figured " treatment "

just wouldn't work on me. I hope the people we pay to treat addiction

will eventually realize that the Step approach is probably not

appropriate for most atheists and agnostics.

[Guest guest]

Hi Joe;

I found my AA books in my shop of all places. I don't recall how

they got there since it has been less than two years since I moved

here. Possibly Rose put them there. They were taking up

bookshelf space which is in short supply in the shop so I boxed

them to go to recycle. Maybe they'll come back as Jehovah's

Witness Tracts or the Book of Mormon, or better yet the board for

Trivial Pursuit or Monopoly.

[Guest guest]

Guad.

I have to tell you that think the " I'm more HONEST than U " tack might be

better received at an AA meeting.

I'm a bit tired, so I'm not sure I'm getting how what I said was promoting

anger without honesty. I do tend to be wishywashy in my agenda for peace,

moderation and all those idealistic middle-child fantasies.

I was refering to emotional stages that I have experienced when removing

myself from groups like XA. I try not to think in absolutes, so the word

honesty to me is somewhat relative. Just like absolute truth, absolute

honesty is not something I think I can judge, or something I feel anyone

else can judge for me.

I believe that ANY group of people who care about and believe in anything

are prey to blind spots and mistakes. And therefore to the criticism of

others. I expect to find problems in any group. My focus is on allying

myself only with those groups whose overall mission and world view I can

stomach, keeping in mind that individuals will let me down, and that I will

not always exemplify the ideals of the group myself. I prefer to spend my

time discussing things with a group where tolerance and freethought is at

least the goal. My experience in religious groups tells me that tolerance

and honesty are quite the exception, sometimes considered totally irrelevant

to the goals of the group.

>Eliz.

>I have to tell ya, reading what you wrote sounds like a whole bunch of

>double-talk.

>

>It possible to " go through stages " and be angry..yet still be HONEST.

>

>guadman

>

>

>

> " elizabeth b. " wrote:

>original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13478

> > guadman,

> > I agree that it is way too easy to become what you abhor ...

>hypocrisy seems

> > inevitable if I use all of my energy to denigrate someone else. Kind

>of

> > Animal Farm. When I was writing my undergrad thesis (medieval female

> > religious imagery, blah blah) my wonderful mentor told me " great,

>you've

> > identified a lot of stuff to be angry about. What are you going to

>find

> > that is positive and forward moving? " She helped change the focus of

>my

> > writing from whining about misogyny to actively finding positive and

> > life-affirming images. This change of focus did not in any way let

>any of

> > those I disagreed with off the hook. This issue came up again when I

> > rejected my family's religion, and most recently with this XA

>controversy.

> >

> > However, I believe that there are stages to go through in rejecting

> > something that is as manipulative and as soul-sucking as intolerant

> > religious dogma. What I love about this place is we don't have to

>pretend

> > that we've reached that calm, accepting serenity about those who

>oppose us

> > before it's really true. Fake serenity reads smug and infuriating.

>Yes, we

> > are prey to make the same blunders in argument that the steppers do.

>I find

> > myself using my mother's tactics right back at her to support MY

>agenda.

> > I'm not proud of that.

> >

> > I guess what I'm saying is that in the big picture I agree that my

>goal is

> > not to AA-bash forever (being married to one will make that a

> > self-destructive choice). I do want to hone my arguments and

>strengthen my

> > ability to maintain my equilibrium in the face of AA-speak. That's

>why I'm

> > here and I appreciate everyone's input.

> > Thanks,

> >

> >

> > >When people say, " I experienced this lie, deceit, abuse, etc (in AA

>or

> > >anywhere), they are telling a painful ad real thing.

> > >That is quite different then saying " I experienced this lie, deceit,

> > >abuse, etc...SO EVERYTHING about that entire person, place or thing

>is

> > >bad and needs to be destryoyed. This is a sign of mental illness,

>NOT

> > >recovery.

> > >

> > >Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick as the very

> > >thing you condemn in them.

> > >

> > >These kinds of postings, remind me EXACTLY of the responses we get

>when

> > >we confront people in AA with ideas contrary to what they like to

>think.

> > >

> > >If I am against anything..it is lying, cheating and stealing

> > >etc...WHEREVER that ocurrs.

> > >

> > >AA claims to be " for sobriety " , just like this place claims to be " 12

> > >step-free " NOT " anti-AA " .

> > >You can easily see contradictions to these ideas in EACH place.

> > >

> > >guadman

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > ______________________________________________________

>

>

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

>Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup

>Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.

>Install today:

>http://click./1/2344/1/_/4324/_/953260515/

>

>eGroups.com Home: /group/12-step-free/

> - Simplifying group communications

>

>

______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

" judith stillwater " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13461

> Sober and abstinent mean

> the same things to me. I don't need to morally load either word to

> influence people to accept my beliefs. I don't give a flying farewell

> if I'm in the majority.

So, are you saying that anyone who has a had a drink recently isnt

sober? Isnt that rather an odd thing to say, and emotive, and just a

bit silly, as you could easily have someone therefore 'not sober' who

could still legally drive? You may not " morally load " the words, but

you have redefined one of them, removing a meaning to no advantage.

Why make two words mean the same thing when you have more

expressiveness with different ones? How do you describe someone who has

had a little alcohol and is not drunk?

IIRC Humpty Dumpty claimed the right to declare a word meant whatever

he wanted it to mean. If no-one ever cared abt common usage, then we

could never communicate.

Sober P.

[Guest guest]

Guadman,

Imo ppl ought not to be allowed to directly advocate AA here. If they

are, then we definitely WILL be back in AA.

" guadman " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13506

> Wally.

> So, I guess, exactly like in AA, you can't question AYTHING anyone

says

> here eh?

> Congratulations...you are back in AA.

>

> guadman

>

>

> " wally t. " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=134

80

> > Say what? Our " constitution " , or whatever you want to call it, says

> this is

> >

> > 'the first place where many can dare be critical and not be accused

> by a

> > " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one " defect of

> character "

> > or another for doing so.'

> >

> > So then I dare to be critical, and you respond '...This is a sign of

> mental

> > illness, NOT

> > recovery. Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick

> as the

> > very

> > thing you condemn in them.'

> >

> > Hmmmmm.

> >

> > Since I happen to be a very serene dude, I will refrain from

defending

> > myself or arguing. In fact, allow me to disclose more evidence of my

> mental

> > illness: there are other things than AA that I am 'against'! These

> include,

> > but are not limited to, torture, slavery, nuclear war, the grand

jury

> system

> > in state Superior Courts, excessive clear-cutting in National

> Forests, and

> > the use of the Holland Rule in backgammon tournaments.

> >

> > But perhaps I am misinterpreting your intent. Were you asserting a

> general

> > principle, i. e., " if you oppose anything then you are automatically

> > equivalent to whatever you oppose " or would you care to give us

> reasons why

> > you think AA is a special case?

> >

> > All the best,

> > wally

> >

> > Re: Anti/Pro

> >

> >

> > >Wally.

> > >

> > >I figured the things I said were going to cause contraversy. It

> reminds

> > >me of what Harry Truman said when he was being assailed by congress

> and

> > >a reporter yelled at him " Give'em hell Harry! " .

> > >He said, " I didn't give them hell. I just told them the truth, and

> they

> > >thought it was hell " .

> > >

> > >When people say, " I experienced this lie, deceit, abuse, etc (in AA

> or

> > >anywhere), they are telling a painful ad real thing.

> > >That is quite different then saying " I experienced this lie,

deceit,

> > >abuse, etc...SO EVERYTHING about that entire person, place or thing

> is

> > >bad and needs to be destryoyed. This is a sign of mental illness,

> NOT

> > >recovery.

> > >

> > >Living life as an " ant-AA'er " is every single bit as sick as the

very

> > >thing you condemn in them.

> > >

> > >These kinds of postings, remind me EXACTLY of the responses we get

> when

> > >we confront people in AA with ideas contrary to what they like to

> think.

> > >

> > >If I am against anything..it is lying, cheating and stealing

> > >etc...WHEREVER that ocurrs.

> > >

> > >AA claims to be " for sobriety " , just like this place claims to be

" 12

> > >step-free " NOT " anti-AA " .

> > >You can easily see contradictions to these ideas in EACH place.

> > >

> > >guadman

> > >

> > [snippage]

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" pete watts " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13548

> " judith stillwater " wrote:

> original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=134

61

>

> > Sober and abstinent mean

> > the same things to me. I don't need to morally load either word to

> > influence people to accept my beliefs. I don't give a flying

farewell

> > if I'm in the majority.

>

> So, are you saying that anyone who has a had a drink recently isnt

> sober? Isnt that rather an odd thing to say, and emotive, and just a

> bit silly, as you could easily have someone therefore 'not sober' who

> could still legally drive? You may not " morally load " the words, but

> you have redefined one of them, removing a meaning to no advantage.

> Why make two words mean the same thing when you have more

> expressiveness with different ones? How do you describe someone who

has

> had a little alcohol and is not drunk?

OK, I see your point. Abstinent would mean abstaining from drinking,

and sober would mean not drunk but not necessarily totally abstinent.

Am I on track?

Judith

[Guest guest]

> So as far as that goes, if I drink and DON'T get drunk, I'm still

sober?

>

>

>

Yes, I believe so and probably most people in the world do too. AA

defines sobriety as walkin' talkin' 12 steps, slogans and meetings

meetings meetings. Anything else is a dry drunk. Also if you have ever

sat in a meeting and said 'hi I'm xxxx, I'm an alcoholic " and you stop

going to meetings and after a period of time you find you can have a

drink now and then without reverting to your old habits, to AA, you're

drinking again and it is assumed that you are drinking alcoholically.

jan

[Guest guest]

" judith stillwater " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13553

>

> OK, I see your point. Abstinent would mean abstaining from drinking,

> and sober would mean not drunk but not necessarily totally abstinent.

> Am I on track?

ABSOLUTETY! ly, I am dismayed that the AA/Temperance types have

managed to bend the word " sober " so much that this needss to be talked

abt.

P.

[Guest guest]

My step-son has been taken to meetings since he was a baby and he's 10

now and Dad is still taking him. He commented on a great lead one of

the guru's gave to me recently. It's rather scary. He's being raised

on AAism's. Should be interesting to see how he turns out considering

his dad (my future ex-husband) is so highly thought of at the meetings

('he says such wonderful and helpful things') and is an ogre at home.

jan

ly be

> doing a lot of harm, and that it might have affected me badly. It was

> comforting to hold onto (for a while) the idea that AA is really

helping

> lots of people. But that too went, eventually. The idea that AA

causes

> " alcoholism " seems outrageous at first, but it is largely true. All

these

> people sitting in meetings night after night, year after year,

talking

> about " alcoholism " , keeping the idea alive for the next generation of

> " alcoholics " , so that they too, when they grow out of drinking, can

then

> sit in the same hard plastic chairs night after night, year after

year,

> keeping the memory green....

>

> Joe B.

>

[Guest guest]

Been there done that and yes, they do think I'm drinking alcoholically.

I think it very sad to see people I used to consider my friends making

a judgment as absolute as that. And I used to be one of them. But it

is true; how they think.

Thanks for your response and support.

" janice m. young " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13557

> > So as far as that goes, if I drink and DON'T get drunk, I'm still

> sober?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> Yes, I believe so and probably most people in the world do too. AA

> defines sobriety as walkin' talkin' 12 steps, slogans and meetings

> meetings meetings. Anything else is a dry drunk. Also if you have

ever

> sat in a meeting and said 'hi I'm xxxx, I'm an alcoholic " and you stop

> going to meetings and after a period of time you find you can have a

> drink now and then without reverting to your old habits, to AA, you're

> drinking again and it is assumed that you are drinking alcoholically.

>

> jan

>