Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol use/vs.helplessness

[Guest guest]

Fear Ken,

I very much respect you and all you've written that I've seen on the net.

My message you responded to was the first I ever wrote, I'm new to this.

You needed attach me, you don't even know me.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, that was not my intent. I do feel, for

me abstinence is best. Being malicious was not what I wanted to be. I do

believe there are those for which moderate drinking is possible, I think

they must decide that, not me.

I am a recovering alcoholic forced into an AA treatment center by the

courts.

I will not participate on the list again if something is wrong with me that

you need to be so stern toward my comment.

I will still read your material and work on staying sober.

Sincerely,

Ken wrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > The lady to heads MM Moderate Management also thought she mastered

> > moderate drinking, but look what happened.

> >

>

> ,

>

> What would you think of someone who suggested to someone who believed

> they were doing well abstaining that they would inevitably drink? Do

> you think _that_ would help anyone? What is wrong with you that you

> have to tear down someone's efforts, work to destroy their

> self-confidence, try to place images of failure in their heads? What in

> the world motivates you to try to sabotague other peoples' efforts?

>

> And Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management, also thought she

> could abstain so she left MM and joined AA a few months before the

> accident. Might she (and the family she killed) have been better off if

> she had never tried abstinence? Probably.

>

> Of course, that doesn't make either goal, moderation or abstinence, the

> right goal for everyone or for anyone in particular. But sabotaguing

> others' efforts for either goal is just plain malicious and won't be

> tolerated on this list.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

[Guest guest]

Fear Ken,

I very much respect you and all you've written that I've seen on the net.

My message you responded to was the first I ever wrote, I'm new to this.

You needed attach me, you don't even know me.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, that was not my intent. I do feel, for

me abstinence is best. Being malicious was not what I wanted to be. I do

believe there are those for which moderate drinking is possible, I think

they must decide that, not me.

I am a recovering alcoholic forced into an AA treatment center by the

courts.

I will not participate on the list again if something is wrong with me that

you need to be so stern toward my comment.

I will still read your material and work on staying sober.

Sincerely,

Ken wrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > The lady to heads MM Moderate Management also thought she mastered

> > moderate drinking, but look what happened.

> >

>

> ,

>

> What would you think of someone who suggested to someone who believed

> they were doing well abstaining that they would inevitably drink? Do

> you think _that_ would help anyone? What is wrong with you that you

> have to tear down someone's efforts, work to destroy their

> self-confidence, try to place images of failure in their heads? What in

> the world motivates you to try to sabotague other peoples' efforts?

>

> And Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management, also thought she

> could abstain so she left MM and joined AA a few months before the

> accident. Might she (and the family she killed) have been better off if

> she had never tried abstinence? Probably.

>

> Of course, that doesn't make either goal, moderation or abstinence, the

> right goal for everyone or for anyone in particular. But sabotaguing

> others' efforts for either goal is just plain malicious and won't be

> tolerated on this list.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

[Guest guest]

Fear Ken,

I very much respect you and all you've written that I've seen on the net.

My message you responded to was the first I ever wrote, I'm new to this.

You needed attach me, you don't even know me.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, that was not my intent. I do feel, for

me abstinence is best. Being malicious was not what I wanted to be. I do

believe there are those for which moderate drinking is possible, I think

they must decide that, not me.

I am a recovering alcoholic forced into an AA treatment center by the

courts.

I will not participate on the list again if something is wrong with me that

you need to be so stern toward my comment.

I will still read your material and work on staying sober.

Sincerely,

Ken wrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > The lady to heads MM Moderate Management also thought she mastered

> > moderate drinking, but look what happened.

> >

>

> ,

>

> What would you think of someone who suggested to someone who believed

> they were doing well abstaining that they would inevitably drink? Do

> you think _that_ would help anyone? What is wrong with you that you

> have to tear down someone's efforts, work to destroy their

> self-confidence, try to place images of failure in their heads? What in

> the world motivates you to try to sabotague other peoples' efforts?

>

> And Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management, also thought she

> could abstain so she left MM and joined AA a few months before the

> accident. Might she (and the family she killed) have been better off if

> she had never tried abstinence? Probably.

>

> Of course, that doesn't make either goal, moderation or abstinence, the

> right goal for everyone or for anyone in particular. But sabotaguing

> others' efforts for either goal is just plain malicious and won't be

> tolerated on this list.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

[Guest guest]

Trippel wrote:

>

> Re: Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

> use/vs.helplessness

>

> > And Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management, also thought she

> > could abstain so she left MM and joined AA a few months before the

> > accident. Might she (and the family she killed) have been better off if

> > she had never tried abstinence? Probably.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

> >

> >

> >

>

> Is it unrealistic for a person to believe they can abstain?

Dave,

Certainly not, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone who has ever

had any problem associated with alcohol to do so, which it seems like

many are after, I would imagine because of their own insecurity with

their own abstinence. It seems to be a primary feature of the Steppers.

> What does it mean to " try abstinence " ? Doesn't that depend on the degree of

> conditionality? I will abstain IF x,y,z,... .

I remember the instructor in a hypnotherapy class I took years ago who

lectured about the use of the word try -- the hypnotist uses it in order

to suggest failure, a way of communication to the person one is

hypnotized what you don't want them to do -- " The more you _try_ to open

your eyes, the tighter they lock shut. "

" Try, " as you've noted, has the implication of failure and as you note

below, that is exactly what people who go to AA do, _try_ to abstain.

That is one of the things I like about RR. There is no suggestion of

failure.

> AA abstinence can only be " tried " . It can never be " achieved " . In fact

> there are so many absurd conditions it could be considered a form of

> moderation. Step 3, and 4. Step 8, 9. Do step 10. Do it again. Step 11

> never ends, nor does step 12. OH $#!% !!!! THIS IS A BUNCH OF CRAP! LET

> ME OUTTA HERE!! AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

I don't know that it can be considered a form of moderation. The idea

is to make the drinking worse, to " till the black soil of

hopelessness. " Rather than problems resulting from drinking being seen

as great motivation to choose to abstain, it is used as proof abstention

(or moderation) is impossible without God's intervention through one

working the Steps.

> What about unconditional abstinence? Is that something that can be " tried " ?

> How many times can a person make a commitment to unconditional abstinence?

But the issue in this thread is a troll coming in suggesting failure to

someone whose goal is moderating their alcohol consumption. To me, it

is sort of like that old timer from AA on a tape from one of Jack

Trimpey's radio interviews insisting that Jack couldn't be secure in his

abstinence, that he would eventually drink again, because he wasn't (for

his 13 years or so) going to AA. The old timer, with 30, was speaking

from the authority his Time granted him. Jack appropriately ripped into

him.

Many people successfully abstain. Many people successfully moderate.

None of them have been helped by the suggestion of or images of failure

growing out of someone else's attempts to foist their own ahuman

theology on them. That's what makes my blood boil.

Ken Ragge

> Dave Trippel

>

[Guest guest]

Trippel wrote:

>

> Re: Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

> use/vs.helplessness

>

> > And Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management, also thought she

> > could abstain so she left MM and joined AA a few months before the

> > accident. Might she (and the family she killed) have been better off if

> > she had never tried abstinence? Probably.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

> >

> >

> >

>

> Is it unrealistic for a person to believe they can abstain?

Dave,

Certainly not, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone who has ever

had any problem associated with alcohol to do so, which it seems like

many are after, I would imagine because of their own insecurity with

their own abstinence. It seems to be a primary feature of the Steppers.

> What does it mean to " try abstinence " ? Doesn't that depend on the degree of

> conditionality? I will abstain IF x,y,z,... .

I remember the instructor in a hypnotherapy class I took years ago who

lectured about the use of the word try -- the hypnotist uses it in order

to suggest failure, a way of communication to the person one is

hypnotized what you don't want them to do -- " The more you _try_ to open

your eyes, the tighter they lock shut. "

" Try, " as you've noted, has the implication of failure and as you note

below, that is exactly what people who go to AA do, _try_ to abstain.

That is one of the things I like about RR. There is no suggestion of

failure.

> AA abstinence can only be " tried " . It can never be " achieved " . In fact

> there are so many absurd conditions it could be considered a form of

> moderation. Step 3, and 4. Step 8, 9. Do step 10. Do it again. Step 11

> never ends, nor does step 12. OH $#!% !!!! THIS IS A BUNCH OF CRAP! LET

> ME OUTTA HERE!! AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

I don't know that it can be considered a form of moderation. The idea

is to make the drinking worse, to " till the black soil of

hopelessness. " Rather than problems resulting from drinking being seen

as great motivation to choose to abstain, it is used as proof abstention

(or moderation) is impossible without God's intervention through one

working the Steps.

> What about unconditional abstinence? Is that something that can be " tried " ?

> How many times can a person make a commitment to unconditional abstinence?

But the issue in this thread is a troll coming in suggesting failure to

someone whose goal is moderating their alcohol consumption. To me, it

is sort of like that old timer from AA on a tape from one of Jack

Trimpey's radio interviews insisting that Jack couldn't be secure in his

abstinence, that he would eventually drink again, because he wasn't (for

his 13 years or so) going to AA. The old timer, with 30, was speaking

from the authority his Time granted him. Jack appropriately ripped into

him.

Many people successfully abstain. Many people successfully moderate.

None of them have been helped by the suggestion of or images of failure

growing out of someone else's attempts to foist their own ahuman

theology on them. That's what makes my blood boil.

Ken Ragge

> Dave Trippel

>

[Guest guest]

Trippel wrote:

>

> Re: Re: I've mastered moderate alcohol

> use/vs.helplessness

>

> > And Audrey Kishline, founder of Moderation Management, also thought she

> > could abstain so she left MM and joined AA a few months before the

> > accident. Might she (and the family she killed) have been better off if

> > she had never tried abstinence? Probably.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

> >

> >

> >

>

> Is it unrealistic for a person to believe they can abstain?

Dave,

Certainly not, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone who has ever

had any problem associated with alcohol to do so, which it seems like

many are after, I would imagine because of their own insecurity with

their own abstinence. It seems to be a primary feature of the Steppers.

> What does it mean to " try abstinence " ? Doesn't that depend on the degree of

> conditionality? I will abstain IF x,y,z,... .

I remember the instructor in a hypnotherapy class I took years ago who

lectured about the use of the word try -- the hypnotist uses it in order

to suggest failure, a way of communication to the person one is

hypnotized what you don't want them to do -- " The more you _try_ to open

your eyes, the tighter they lock shut. "

" Try, " as you've noted, has the implication of failure and as you note

below, that is exactly what people who go to AA do, _try_ to abstain.

That is one of the things I like about RR. There is no suggestion of

failure.

> AA abstinence can only be " tried " . It can never be " achieved " . In fact

> there are so many absurd conditions it could be considered a form of

> moderation. Step 3, and 4. Step 8, 9. Do step 10. Do it again. Step 11

> never ends, nor does step 12. OH $#!% !!!! THIS IS A BUNCH OF CRAP! LET

> ME OUTTA HERE!! AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

I don't know that it can be considered a form of moderation. The idea

is to make the drinking worse, to " till the black soil of

hopelessness. " Rather than problems resulting from drinking being seen

as great motivation to choose to abstain, it is used as proof abstention

(or moderation) is impossible without God's intervention through one

working the Steps.

> What about unconditional abstinence? Is that something that can be " tried " ?

> How many times can a person make a commitment to unconditional abstinence?

But the issue in this thread is a troll coming in suggesting failure to

someone whose goal is moderating their alcohol consumption. To me, it

is sort of like that old timer from AA on a tape from one of Jack

Trimpey's radio interviews insisting that Jack couldn't be secure in his

abstinence, that he would eventually drink again, because he wasn't (for

his 13 years or so) going to AA. The old timer, with 30, was speaking

from the authority his Time granted him. Jack appropriately ripped into

him.

Many people successfully abstain. Many people successfully moderate.

None of them have been helped by the suggestion of or images of failure

growing out of someone else's attempts to foist their own ahuman

theology on them. That's what makes my blood boil.

Ken Ragge

> Dave Trippel

>

[Guest guest]

> > Alcohol & drugs have a negative effect on both the mind & body.

If

a

> > person values his or her life, then alcohol & drugs are a

disvalue.

>

> What ever happened to " the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit

of

> happiness " ? I have no problem with anyone choosing not to smoke

> cigarettes, pot or opiates, drink coffee or beer, snort cocaine or

take

> hallucinogens. As a matter of fact, most people when they decide

to

do

> so are obviously making the right decision for themselves.

>

> I never cease to be appalled by the arrogance of some people who

know

> what is good for everybody else, what everyone else needs and

everyone

> else doesn't need.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

> P.S. What about red meat?

The human organism has objective needs. Some of these needs include

oxygen, water, protein, carbohydrate, fat. These are not edicts from

someone's moral code or personal opinions; they are facts of man

based

on his biological composition and can be determined scientifically.

If one or more of these needs are not met, the human organism will

die. This is because life is conditional; certain conditions have to

be met for survival.

Now, there are substances that can damage or kill the human organism.

Those substances include reality-altering drugs and alcohol. If taken

in excess or over a long time period, the human organism's survival

capacity will be diminished, possibly to the point of death. This can

be proven scientifically; it is not someone's arbitrary assertion or

personal opinion.

Hunter

PS. Red meat is good because it is a source of protein, which is an

objective need of the human body. We are carnivores. The only

possible

problem with red meat is its high level of fat, so perhaps low-fat

sources of protein such as chicken or fish are healthier. See the

Zone

diet for more information at http://www.enterthezone.com

[Guest guest]

> > Alcohol & drugs have a negative effect on both the mind & body.

If

a

> > person values his or her life, then alcohol & drugs are a

disvalue.

>

> What ever happened to " the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit

of

> happiness " ? I have no problem with anyone choosing not to smoke

> cigarettes, pot or opiates, drink coffee or beer, snort cocaine or

take

> hallucinogens. As a matter of fact, most people when they decide

to

do

> so are obviously making the right decision for themselves.

>

> I never cease to be appalled by the arrogance of some people who

know

> what is good for everybody else, what everyone else needs and

everyone

> else doesn't need.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

> P.S. What about red meat?

The human organism has objective needs. Some of these needs include

oxygen, water, protein, carbohydrate, fat. These are not edicts from

someone's moral code or personal opinions; they are facts of man

based

on his biological composition and can be determined scientifically.

If one or more of these needs are not met, the human organism will

die. This is because life is conditional; certain conditions have to

be met for survival.

Now, there are substances that can damage or kill the human organism.

Those substances include reality-altering drugs and alcohol. If taken

in excess or over a long time period, the human organism's survival

capacity will be diminished, possibly to the point of death. This can

be proven scientifically; it is not someone's arbitrary assertion or

personal opinion.

Hunter

PS. Red meat is good because it is a source of protein, which is an

objective need of the human body. We are carnivores. The only

possible

problem with red meat is its high level of fat, so perhaps low-fat

sources of protein such as chicken or fish are healthier. See the

Zone

diet for more information at http://www.enterthezone.com

[Guest guest]

> > Alcohol & drugs have a negative effect on both the mind & body.

If

a

> > person values his or her life, then alcohol & drugs are a

disvalue.

>

> What ever happened to " the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit

of

> happiness " ? I have no problem with anyone choosing not to smoke

> cigarettes, pot or opiates, drink coffee or beer, snort cocaine or

take

> hallucinogens. As a matter of fact, most people when they decide

to

do

> so are obviously making the right decision for themselves.

>

> I never cease to be appalled by the arrogance of some people who

know

> what is good for everybody else, what everyone else needs and

everyone

> else doesn't need.

>

> Ken Ragge

>

> P.S. What about red meat?

The human organism has objective needs. Some of these needs include

oxygen, water, protein, carbohydrate, fat. These are not edicts from

someone's moral code or personal opinions; they are facts of man

based

on his biological composition and can be determined scientifically.

If one or more of these needs are not met, the human organism will

die. This is because life is conditional; certain conditions have to

be met for survival.

Now, there are substances that can damage or kill the human organism.

Those substances include reality-altering drugs and alcohol. If taken

in excess or over a long time period, the human organism's survival

capacity will be diminished, possibly to the point of death. This can

be proven scientifically; it is not someone's arbitrary assertion or

personal opinion.

Hunter

PS. Red meat is good because it is a source of protein, which is an

objective need of the human body. We are carnivores. The only

possible

problem with red meat is its high level of fat, so perhaps low-fat

sources of protein such as chicken or fish are healthier. See the

Zone

diet for more information at http://www.enterthezone.com

[Guest guest]

> you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining aa...

Here is another good reason to quit drinking alcohol: to avoid

killing people in drunk-driving accidents. Perhaps the most effective

way to stop drinking is to make a conscious decision to forgo alcohol

and then stick to that decision. For most people, this will culminate

in a much better life over the long-run.

[Guest guest]

> you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining aa...

Here is another good reason to quit drinking alcohol: to avoid

killing people in drunk-driving accidents. Perhaps the most effective

way to stop drinking is to make a conscious decision to forgo alcohol

and then stick to that decision. For most people, this will culminate

in a much better life over the long-run.

[Guest guest]

> you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining aa...

Here is another good reason to quit drinking alcohol: to avoid

killing people in drunk-driving accidents. Perhaps the most effective

way to stop drinking is to make a conscious decision to forgo alcohol

and then stick to that decision. For most people, this will culminate

in a much better life over the long-run.

[Guest guest]

maybe we shoud also stop driving cars, the thier would be no

car accidents! or make all buildings one story, so people can

escape from fires easier. dont build towns near rivers or fault

lines. we accept the risks in chocies we make as humans.

i cant say i disagree that the quality of life for most people would

improve without consumption of toxins, and i also have made a

" conscious decision to forgo alcohol " and stuck with it. i see no

reason to put toxins in my body or to damage my body and mind

when it clealry isnt required.

but in all things we do, there is a risk assesment vs potential

rewards. if i take enough of most common vitamins, i could die,

but i dont, there is no reward for that. but in moderation , there

are benefits.

pleasure people feel while using drugs, while not reqiuired for

life, cannot be dismissed as irrerealant either. people are

pleasure seeking creatures. and its not just people, monkeys

and elephants have been observed drunk in nature from eating

fruit. in the case of the elephants, the tree which create the fruit

benefit from the elephants spreading the seeds in thier

droppings. the elephants seem to just likebeing drunk, and

actualy wait till the fruit is fermented enought before they eat it.

>

> > you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining

aa...

>

> Here is another good reason to quit drinking alcohol: to avoid

> killing people in drunk-driving accidents. Perhaps the most

effective

> way to stop drinking is to make a conscious decision to forgo

alcohol

> and then stick to that decision. For most people, this will

culminate

> in a much better life over the long-run.

[Guest guest]

maybe we shoud also stop driving cars, the thier would be no

car accidents! or make all buildings one story, so people can

escape from fires easier. dont build towns near rivers or fault

lines. we accept the risks in chocies we make as humans.

i cant say i disagree that the quality of life for most people would

improve without consumption of toxins, and i also have made a

" conscious decision to forgo alcohol " and stuck with it. i see no

reason to put toxins in my body or to damage my body and mind

when it clealry isnt required.

but in all things we do, there is a risk assesment vs potential

rewards. if i take enough of most common vitamins, i could die,

but i dont, there is no reward for that. but in moderation , there

are benefits.

pleasure people feel while using drugs, while not reqiuired for

life, cannot be dismissed as irrerealant either. people are

pleasure seeking creatures. and its not just people, monkeys

and elephants have been observed drunk in nature from eating

fruit. in the case of the elephants, the tree which create the fruit

benefit from the elephants spreading the seeds in thier

droppings. the elephants seem to just likebeing drunk, and

actualy wait till the fruit is fermented enought before they eat it.

>

> > you mean she killed 2 people within 3 months of rejoining

aa...

>

> Here is another good reason to quit drinking alcohol: to avoid

> killing people in drunk-driving accidents. Perhaps the most

effective

> way to stop drinking is to make a conscious decision to forgo

alcohol

> and then stick to that decision. For most people, this will

culminate

> in a much better life over the long-run.

[Guest guest]

> maybe we shoud also stop driving cars, the thier would be no

> car accidents! or make all buildings one story

You are dropping context here. Cars are a value and serve a vital

role in an industrial & information society. We can efficiently

transport materials and people via cars. Skyscrapers are also a

value, saving much needed ground space for other building purposes.

But alcohol use does not serve any vital or rational purpose. Put

another way, if cars were suddenly removed from civilization, our

civilization would grind to a halt. But if alcohol was suddenly

removed from civilization, our civilization would continue prospering

-- possibly to even greater levels.

> pleasure people feel while using drugs, while not reqiuired for

> life, cannot be dismissed as irrerealant either.

People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve pleasures. But

there are always negative consequences: hangovers, disorientation,

bodily destruction. If people learn how to attain pleasure through

natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures -- then

they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at the expense of

personal damage.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net/public/quotes

[Guest guest]

> maybe we shoud also stop driving cars, the thier would be no

> car accidents! or make all buildings one story

You are dropping context here. Cars are a value and serve a vital

role in an industrial & information society. We can efficiently

transport materials and people via cars. Skyscrapers are also a

value, saving much needed ground space for other building purposes.

But alcohol use does not serve any vital or rational purpose. Put

another way, if cars were suddenly removed from civilization, our

civilization would grind to a halt. But if alcohol was suddenly

removed from civilization, our civilization would continue prospering

-- possibly to even greater levels.

> pleasure people feel while using drugs, while not reqiuired for

> life, cannot be dismissed as irrerealant either.

People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve pleasures. But

there are always negative consequences: hangovers, disorientation,

bodily destruction. If people learn how to attain pleasure through

natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures -- then

they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at the expense of

personal damage.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net/public/quotes

[Guest guest]

> maybe we shoud also stop driving cars, the thier would be no

> car accidents! or make all buildings one story

You are dropping context here. Cars are a value and serve a vital

role in an industrial & information society. We can efficiently

transport materials and people via cars. Skyscrapers are also a

value, saving much needed ground space for other building purposes.

But alcohol use does not serve any vital or rational purpose. Put

another way, if cars were suddenly removed from civilization, our

civilization would grind to a halt. But if alcohol was suddenly

removed from civilization, our civilization would continue prospering

-- possibly to even greater levels.

> pleasure people feel while using drugs, while not reqiuired for

> life, cannot be dismissed as irrerealant either.

People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve pleasures. But

there are always negative consequences: hangovers, disorientation,

bodily destruction. If people learn how to attain pleasure through

natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures -- then

they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at the expense of

personal damage.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net/public/quotes

[Guest guest]

t be dismissed as irrerealant either.

> > People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve

pleasures. But> there are always negative consequences:

hangovers, disorientation, > bodily destruction.

but they accept that risk for themselves, as intelligent, adults,

capable of free will and responsbile drinking, and so does

society, for most part.

If people learn how to attain pleasure through

> natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures --

then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at

the expense of personal damage

people do that as well. aerobic, highs, well thats exercise, you

can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

can cause harm. thats what you fail to acknowledge. it

has been shown that those who have one glasses of red win a

day have lower cholesterol, with no measurable or

significant damage. alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life for

people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

on scincere concern for anyones well being.

also, as i shown with the other species, attaining pleasure from

outside sources, such as alcohol IS natural. unless you

think these animals are some how not being true to their nature?

hell, i could argue eating or drinking substances for the natural

highs they cause is more of a natural act than running a

marathon for that high.

what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

does that fit into your views?

>

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net/public/quotes

[Guest guest]

t be dismissed as irrerealant either.

> > People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve

pleasures. But> there are always negative consequences:

hangovers, disorientation, > bodily destruction.

but they accept that risk for themselves, as intelligent, adults,

capable of free will and responsbile drinking, and so does

society, for most part.

If people learn how to attain pleasure through

> natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures --

then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at

the expense of personal damage

people do that as well. aerobic, highs, well thats exercise, you

can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

can cause harm. thats what you fail to acknowledge. it

has been shown that those who have one glasses of red win a

day have lower cholesterol, with no measurable or

significant damage. alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life for

people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

on scincere concern for anyones well being.

also, as i shown with the other species, attaining pleasure from

outside sources, such as alcohol IS natural. unless you

think these animals are some how not being true to their nature?

hell, i could argue eating or drinking substances for the natural

highs they cause is more of a natural act than running a

marathon for that high.

what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

does that fit into your views?

>

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net/public/quotes

[Guest guest]

t be dismissed as irrerealant either.

> > People do take drugs and drink alcohol to achieve

pleasures. But> there are always negative consequences:

hangovers, disorientation, > bodily destruction.

but they accept that risk for themselves, as intelligent, adults,

capable of free will and responsbile drinking, and so does

society, for most part.

If people learn how to attain pleasure through

> natural means -- e.g., aerobic highs and sexual pleasures --

then they will not need or desire pleasure that comes at

the expense of personal damage

people do that as well. aerobic, highs, well thats exercise, you

can injury yourself exercising. most people who exercise

will, and do injury themselves many times in pursuit of their

goals. i should know. sex can spread disease. with all of

these things, there are responsibilities which if take for granted

can cause harm. thats what you fail to acknowledge. it

has been shown that those who have one glasses of red win a

day have lower cholesterol, with no measurable or

significant damage. alcohol may kill brain cells, but unless you

can demonstrate there is signiifcant reduction in quality of life for

people, one which they arent willing to accept, your argument

comes across as arrogant and self righteous, rather than based

on scincere concern for anyones well being.

also, as i shown with the other species, attaining pleasure from

outside sources, such as alcohol IS natural. unless you

think these animals are some how not being true to their nature?

hell, i could argue eating or drinking substances for the natural

highs they cause is more of a natural act than running a

marathon for that high.

what do you think of anti-depressant drugs? psychiatry? how

does that fit into your views?

>

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net/public/quotes

[Guest guest]

AA shrink Floyd Garret, while lambasting Stanton Peele for endorsing

her moderatin and then (in his terms) abandoning her after the

disaster, has written that she is guilty of nothing but having the

disease of alcoholism. When I asked if he thought tha she should not

be imprisoned, he wrote " Yes, we are alcoholics are dangerous. Lock us

all up! " . Apart from the obvious insincerity, this is the man who

didnt like just being in Talbott.

P.

> >

> > > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also dangerous?

> > >

[Guest guest]

AA shrink Floyd Garret, while lambasting Stanton Peele for endorsing

her moderatin and then (in his terms) abandoning her after the

disaster, has written that she is guilty of nothing but having the

disease of alcoholism. When I asked if he thought tha she should not

be imprisoned, he wrote " Yes, we are alcoholics are dangerous. Lock us

all up! " . Apart from the obvious insincerity, this is the man who

didnt like just being in Talbott.

P.

> >

> > > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also dangerous?

> > >

[Guest guest]

who is floyd agian? i recall his name being mention ere years

ago. isnt he a AA nazi shrink who is on one of treatment mailing

lists right? he jsut got out of talbot recently? geez, and this guy

think he has more expertise than stanton? lol.

> > >

> > > > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also

dangerous?

> > > >

[Guest guest]

who is floyd agian? i recall his name being mention ere years

ago. isnt he a AA nazi shrink who is on one of treatment mailing

lists right? he jsut got out of talbot recently? geez, and this guy

think he has more expertise than stanton? lol.

> > >

> > > > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also

dangerous?

> > > >

[Guest guest]

who is floyd agian? i recall his name being mention ere years

ago. isnt he a AA nazi shrink who is on one of treatment mailing

lists right? he jsut got out of talbot recently? geez, and this guy

think he has more expertise than stanton? lol.

> > >

> > > > What about whoopie cushions? Aren't they also

dangerous?

> > > >