Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html Recovery Group Movement Cancelled " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend 12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary. Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore, Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom. We are merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others. Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You don't have to go to meetings! " RR/AA > > >RR is for people who want to quit, not moderate, and what you call " strident > >militancy " is simply AVRT effortlessly at work. Your choice of words is > >revealing. Of course AVRT is going to be " off-putting " to any alternative to > >immediately taking full responsibility to quit once and for all. > > Actually, that's not at all what I mean. You missed it entirely. > > Many alcoholics have problems with anger management, temper control, etc. > They find self-help groups to be very helpful. We all find talking through > our problems to be helpful--that's what we do with friends.(Well, some > people, including alcoholics, don't talk through their problems--they sit > and stew, and then they go get drunk.) > > Rational Recovery is offputting and strident in " cancelling the 12 step > movement " . While the 12 step m ovement isn't for everyone, it has helped > many people. I'm not sure all those people would be able to learn and > implement AVRT. RR should chill a bit and let people decide what works for > them. You know, I think this whole relgion/God thing is a bunch of BS, but > I'm not going around " cancelling Christianity " . Christianity has caused a > hell of a lot of damage, but it's also helped many a folk. Many people > can't handle life without a crutch. So they have their religion. Well, I'm > not going to try to 'cancel' it and tell them they can't have it! > > RR wastes too much time railing against AA. they need to learn to co-exist > peacefully, just like the Muslims and Jews and Christians need to learn to > coexist peacefully. Yes, people need to be more aware of AA alternatives. > Yes, there should be greater choices. Yes, yes, yes. But AA is not wholly > evil--it has saved the lives of many a person. I don't think Rational > Recovery is for everyone. I know that people need to share experiences and > talk things out--in fact, I think that's about the biggest value people get > from AA. That' missing in RR. RR may work fine on its own for people who > are mentally healthy, financially successful, and just have an addiction, > but I don't t hink RR on its own is sufficient for the many t housands of > alcoholics who have coexisting mental health issues. > > I have suffered from serious depression, I have been in a mentally and > emotionally abusive relationship, and my self esteem was such that I wasn't > able to do shit. It takes a certain amount of " having it togetherness " to > be able to do the RR program. Now, one of the problems I have with AA is > the whole powerlessness schtick, but I also know that people need > encouragement, they need suggestions, they need ideas. > > You say my choice of words is revealing. So too is your choice of words. RR > is guilty of the same lack of tolerance and single-mindedness that it > accuses AA of. Can neither group realize that we are not cut from the same > cookie cutter mold, that different modalities help different people? Is > neither group willing to admit that each group contains both good and > negative elements, and that a person should be free to craft a recovery > program out of what is available? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html > >Recovery Group Movement Cancelled > > " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is >presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend >12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary. >Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult >using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations >tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their >programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore, >Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group >meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can >lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery >organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom. Yep--see how effective their cancellation is? Is RR getting any money from Shrub? No, but the Victory Outreach Fellowship is. We are >merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to >enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That >is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This >is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others. >Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across >the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You >don't have to go to meetings! " Yes, the force of all this is, well, rather silly. RR doesn't have the power to do crap. In San , the US's 9th largest city, there is ONE RR meeting per week, and it's poorly attended. Compare that with 150 to 200 AA meetings per week. What is RR doing? Instituting lawsuits against judges who require AA? No. Allowing RR to be taught in institutions, which is where many people are sentenced to? (A large number of the people in the Salvation Army ARC are there because they've been sent their by the courts.) No, they don't allow it to be taught in institutions. So RR is forever going to remain a tiny minority that only a select few know about. To proclaim that they are " cancelling " the 12 step movement effective immediately reeks of childishness and silliness, not to mention grandiose delusions. If RR wants to be the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty, it needs to take action, which in this country means lawsuits. BTW, when talking about pseudo-science, I think Jack Trimpey's ideas rank up with most pseudo-scientists. That doesn't mean the program doesn't work--I know chiropractic works for me, though I don't buy into th schtick lock stock and barrel. Some people say acupuncture and holistic medicines work for them. (I have had lousy luck with acupuncture and homeopathic remedies.) So acupun. and homeop. work for some--fine, they can use them. I'm not going to say they don't work, because for these people, they do. Even if it's all in their heads, if they feel better and their pain is gone, more power to them. But I don't think RRs have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking about pseudoscience. Trimpey has claims, has theories, which are unproven at best. His program works for some people, but it is not the end all and be all, the way the truth and the life, for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html > >Recovery Group Movement Cancelled > > " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is >presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend >12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary. >Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult >using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations >tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their >programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore, >Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group >meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can >lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery >organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom. Yep--see how effective their cancellation is? Is RR getting any money from Shrub? No, but the Victory Outreach Fellowship is. We are >merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to >enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That >is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This >is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others. >Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across >the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You >don't have to go to meetings! " Yes, the force of all this is, well, rather silly. RR doesn't have the power to do crap. In San , the US's 9th largest city, there is ONE RR meeting per week, and it's poorly attended. Compare that with 150 to 200 AA meetings per week. What is RR doing? Instituting lawsuits against judges who require AA? No. Allowing RR to be taught in institutions, which is where many people are sentenced to? (A large number of the people in the Salvation Army ARC are there because they've been sent their by the courts.) No, they don't allow it to be taught in institutions. So RR is forever going to remain a tiny minority that only a select few know about. To proclaim that they are " cancelling " the 12 step movement effective immediately reeks of childishness and silliness, not to mention grandiose delusions. If RR wants to be the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty, it needs to take action, which in this country means lawsuits. BTW, when talking about pseudo-science, I think Jack Trimpey's ideas rank up with most pseudo-scientists. That doesn't mean the program doesn't work--I know chiropractic works for me, though I don't buy into th schtick lock stock and barrel. Some people say acupuncture and holistic medicines work for them. (I have had lousy luck with acupuncture and homeopathic remedies.) So acupun. and homeop. work for some--fine, they can use them. I'm not going to say they don't work, because for these people, they do. Even if it's all in their heads, if they feel better and their pain is gone, more power to them. But I don't think RRs have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking about pseudoscience. Trimpey has claims, has theories, which are unproven at best. His program works for some people, but it is not the end all and be all, the way the truth and the life, for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 Re: RR/AA > >an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html > > > >Recovery Group Movement Cancelled > > > > " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is > >presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend > >12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary. > >Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult > >using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations > >tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their > >programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore, > >Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group > >meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can > >lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery > >organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom. > > Yep--see how effective their cancellation is? Is RR getting any money from > Shrub? No, but the Victory Outreach Fellowship is. > > We are > >merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to > >enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That > >is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This > >is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others. > >Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across > >the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You > >don't have to go to meetings! " > > Yes, the force of all this is, well, rather silly. RR doesn't have the > power to do crap. In San , the US's 9th largest city, there is ONE > RR meeting per week, and it's poorly attended. Compare that with 150 to 200 > AA meetings per week. > What is RR doing? Instituting lawsuits against judges who require AA? No. > Allowing RR to be taught in institutions, which is where many people are > sentenced to? (A large number of the people in the Salvation Army ARC are > there because they've been sent their by the courts.) No, they don't allow > it to be taught in institutions. So RR is forever going to remain a tiny > minority that only a select few know about. To proclaim that they are > " cancelling " the 12 step movement effective immediately reeks of > childishness and silliness, not to mention grandiose delusions. > > If RR wants to be the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty, it needs > to take action, which in this country means lawsuits. > > BTW, when talking about pseudo-science, I think Jack Trimpey's ideas rank > up with most pseudo-scientists. That doesn't mean the program doesn't > work--I know chiropractic works for me, though I don't buy into th schtick > lock stock and barrel. Some people say acupuncture and holistic medicines > work for them. (I have had lousy luck with acupuncture and homeopathic > remedies.) So acupun. and homeop. work for some--fine, they can use them. > I'm not going to say they don't work, because for these people, they do. > Even if it's all in their heads, if they feel better and their pain is > gone, more power to them. > But I don't think RRs have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking about > pseudoscience. Trimpey has claims, has theories, which are unproven at > best. His program works for some people, but it is not the end all and be > all, the way the truth and the life, for everyone. > > I would go even further and state that it is not " the way the truth and the life " for anyone. The technique of Addictive Voice Recognition is a simple and effortless skill. Your " the way the truth and the life " is XA and the RGM. AVRT is strictly limited to " plans for the future use of unprescribed mind altering alcohol/drugs " . It turns recovery into an event. How much scientific proof is necessary to justify teaching the importance of recognizing something in one's thinking that is contrary to their better judgement? Dave Trippel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >I would go even further and state that it is not " the way the truth and the >life " for anyone. The technique of Addictive Voice Recognition is a simple >and effortless skill. Your " the way the truth and the life " is XA and the >RGM. AVRT is strictly limited to " plans for the future use of unprescribed >mind altering alcohol/drugs " . It turns recovery into an event. Then they don't need to " cancel " the recovery movement. They need to learn to coexist next to it. But recovery is not just an event. People need to learn to deal with the depression and triggers which lead them to drink. Most alcoholics are very troubled people who don't know how to deal with life issues. Simply not drinking is not going to make their troubles go away. I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse. I tried to just " get over it " . You know, it's gone, it's past, don't focus on it. Well, at 33, it kicked me in the butt. And actually, I have not been terribly functional sexually for my entire adult life; that is, I have not had a " normal " healthy adult sex life. So now I'm having to go back and deal with this shit that I had thought I had put behind me. But it's there, it's just under the surface, ready to rear its ugly head at the first opportunity. Simply stopping the sexual abuse, which I did 20 years ago, did not make my problems go away--they've tormented me for 20 years, and when they reared up again recently, I became non-functional for several months, spending most of my time in bed, unable to perform such simple tasks as showering and dressing. The problems persisted even though the abuse ended. Likewise, an alcholic's problems don't magically go away when he quits drinking. The problems are still there and need to be addressed. Sure, there are frat boys whose lives are basically okay, but who drink too much. RR may be all they need. But there's a hell of a lot of people who can't hold a job because they're too depressed to get out of bed, or they go around in a mental fog all day, or they're physically disabled but get $500 per month in disability, which is supposed to pay for rent, food, and utilities, and they self-medicate with alcohol. Simply learning to stop drinking, to say no to alcohol and the desire to drink, is not going to make their problems go away. Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily leading a life of sobriety. >How much scientific proof is necessary to justify teaching the importance of >recognizing something in one's thinking that is contrary to their better >judgement? Like I said, I'm not questioning that RR works for many people. But it is wrong for RRs to accuse psychiatrists of pseudoscience when RR itself is based on pseudoscience. I feel a hell of a lot better when I go to the chiropractor. I even feel better when I do yoga and chant mantras. Do I believe in the chakras, the meridians, do I believe you can tell a great deal about the state of a person's health by looking at their tongue? No. Do I believe in acupunture? Depends. I believe it didn't do anything for me, but I know people whom it has helped tremendously. That doesn't mean I accept the underlying tenets of acupunture. But if it works for you, go for it. I *really* gotta go. I'm running way late. TTYL. Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >I would go even further and state that it is not " the way the truth and the >life " for anyone. The technique of Addictive Voice Recognition is a simple >and effortless skill. Your " the way the truth and the life " is XA and the >RGM. AVRT is strictly limited to " plans for the future use of unprescribed >mind altering alcohol/drugs " . It turns recovery into an event. Then they don't need to " cancel " the recovery movement. They need to learn to coexist next to it. But recovery is not just an event. People need to learn to deal with the depression and triggers which lead them to drink. Most alcoholics are very troubled people who don't know how to deal with life issues. Simply not drinking is not going to make their troubles go away. I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse. I tried to just " get over it " . You know, it's gone, it's past, don't focus on it. Well, at 33, it kicked me in the butt. And actually, I have not been terribly functional sexually for my entire adult life; that is, I have not had a " normal " healthy adult sex life. So now I'm having to go back and deal with this shit that I had thought I had put behind me. But it's there, it's just under the surface, ready to rear its ugly head at the first opportunity. Simply stopping the sexual abuse, which I did 20 years ago, did not make my problems go away--they've tormented me for 20 years, and when they reared up again recently, I became non-functional for several months, spending most of my time in bed, unable to perform such simple tasks as showering and dressing. The problems persisted even though the abuse ended. Likewise, an alcholic's problems don't magically go away when he quits drinking. The problems are still there and need to be addressed. Sure, there are frat boys whose lives are basically okay, but who drink too much. RR may be all they need. But there's a hell of a lot of people who can't hold a job because they're too depressed to get out of bed, or they go around in a mental fog all day, or they're physically disabled but get $500 per month in disability, which is supposed to pay for rent, food, and utilities, and they self-medicate with alcohol. Simply learning to stop drinking, to say no to alcohol and the desire to drink, is not going to make their problems go away. Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily leading a life of sobriety. >How much scientific proof is necessary to justify teaching the importance of >recognizing something in one's thinking that is contrary to their better >judgement? Like I said, I'm not questioning that RR works for many people. But it is wrong for RRs to accuse psychiatrists of pseudoscience when RR itself is based on pseudoscience. I feel a hell of a lot better when I go to the chiropractor. I even feel better when I do yoga and chant mantras. Do I believe in the chakras, the meridians, do I believe you can tell a great deal about the state of a person's health by looking at their tongue? No. Do I believe in acupunture? Depends. I believe it didn't do anything for me, but I know people whom it has helped tremendously. That doesn't mean I accept the underlying tenets of acupunture. But if it works for you, go for it. I *really* gotta go. I'm running way late. TTYL. Dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. bill wilson admitted in 1943 and really, all through BB Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles in March,1943: " Divine Aid was A.A.'s greatest asset... " " An alcoholic is a fellow who is " trying to get his religion out of a bottle, " when what he really wants is unity within himself, unity with God. . . . " " There is adefinite religious element here,), aa lies when it says alcoholism is incurable disease AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for life or die (as told by bill wilson) AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking like one. AA does harm by teaching people they should take responsibility or credit for their own sobriety, that this is god doing. when was last time you saw someone at a celebration say that they were proud of what they achieved and give credit for their sobriety to anyone but themselves? there is a reason for this: " But, as a people who have nearly always learned the hard way, we shall certainly not congratulate ourselves. We shall perceive these assets to be God's gifts, which have been in part matched by an increasing willingness on our part to find & do His will for us. " - AA does harm by teaching people they cant quit forever or be cured , but can only manage day to day thru spirituality. and of course if they dont, they " die " . " We are not cured of alcoholism.What we really have is a daily reprieve contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition. " AA lies when they say a higher power is of " our " understanding, when it its clearly understanding from the oxford group of a god which is a faith healing god. all facts about " Him " were offered by bill in Big Book and 12-steps Bill tells us god is of our understanding, but he cant seem to help himself from filling in the blanks for us as to how god works for us though. i guess if my understanding of god is one which doesn't restore sanity, listens to my prayers and removes defects, i cant do steps. and if i dont do steps, wilson threatens i will " die " and sign my " own death warrant " .(1) These were found in minutes in a scan of a few chapters. It would take a week to pull all the specific ideals expressed to describe how god of " our " understanding is, and how this god of " our " understanding will work for us from the over 400 references to " God " in BB. restores sanity listens to our prayers removes defects is a living creator and whom we are its children is male has conscious contact with us has relationships with us, has a will intended us to carry. Does for us what we could not do for ourselves. he is a " Creative Intelligence " " Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things " He doesn't make too hard terms with those who seek Him the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive is a All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence we are " intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation " is the Spirit of the Universe Presence of Infinite Power and Love AA does harm by limiting them to be dependent upon groups and higher powers for their sanity (bill wilson referred to steppers as " groupers " borrowing from oxford group tradition) aa lies whenthey say they are 'suggestions " only problem if you dont follow bills suggestion you sign your " owndeath warrant " . wrote: " The moment Twelfth Step work forms a group, a discovery is made -- that most individuals cannot recover unless there is a group. Realization dawns on each member that he is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too great for preservation of the Fellowship. He learns that the clamor of desires and ambitions within him must be silenced whenever these could damage the group. " AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and portraying them as: evasive biased stubborn unreasonable close minded spiritually obsolete ignorant touchy deluded antagonistic vain illogical " less " sane dishonest narrow in vision/backward thinking " soft and mushy " thinkers worshippers of " people, sentiment, things, money, and ourselves " " handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack non believers. AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in 90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment. aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? because it works? AA was started on a foundation of 40 people (wilson liedwhen he claimed it was 100), most were already believers when they went in. not all of them stayed sober in the couple years before he wrote big book. AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in AA. AA harm because it teaches people their ego's are somehow bad and that their own will is insane.( " any life run on self-will can hardly be a success " ). and then proceeds to break them down. but of course they do, that was a Oxford group belief because non believers were seen as literally insane and " public enemies " . you dont need god if you can manage your own life with your own will. AA does harm because the whole text of bb and the Program has nothing to do with alcoholism ,but rather convincing people their own will is wrong and they need to believe in gods will for themand to look to " Him " for the answers from 1939 BB: page 29 Our description of the alcoholic, the chapter to the agnostic, and our personal adventures before and after, have been designed to sell you three pertinent ideas: (a) That you are alcoholic and cannot manage your own life. ( That probably no human power can relieve your alcoholism. © That God can and will. The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success chapter 6 " We feel a man is unthinking when he says that sobriety is enough " " the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over 60 years, its laughable. AA has nothing to do with alcoholism and at best it applies to small slice of people, and those who dont fit into that slice, or who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you dont see any other group do that. when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor, hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija board while we're at it? i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a 75% success rate). no one would seriously suggest either of these models was legitimate, but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and legitimate. also, for some reason, the people who point out the obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making the criticism. just so you know my position on this, i have never used RR, but i dont care for equal room for both or with AA and any other program, and neither would AA. AA would dry up and blow away if people were given equal access to all the other programs, because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces people into religious cult. not to mention, all the steppers working in treatment centers wouldn't have anything to teach if a program was based on anything other than " hitting your knees and praying " . but people want to over look this because they have bought the propaganda that AA has " helped so many " . if you put enough people in any group and say this will get you sober, some will get sober, probably as many as aa achieves. the only deference is people dont see one aa harms when they tell those newcomers if they leave AA, there is no other alternative and they will die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. bill wilson admitted in 1943 and really, all through BB Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles in March,1943: " Divine Aid was A.A.'s greatest asset... " " An alcoholic is a fellow who is " trying to get his religion out of a bottle, " when what he really wants is unity within himself, unity with God. . . . " " There is adefinite religious element here,), aa lies when it says alcoholism is incurable disease AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for life or die (as told by bill wilson) AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking like one. AA does harm by teaching people they should take responsibility or credit for their own sobriety, that this is god doing. when was last time you saw someone at a celebration say that they were proud of what they achieved and give credit for their sobriety to anyone but themselves? there is a reason for this: " But, as a people who have nearly always learned the hard way, we shall certainly not congratulate ourselves. We shall perceive these assets to be God's gifts, which have been in part matched by an increasing willingness on our part to find & do His will for us. " - AA does harm by teaching people they cant quit forever or be cured , but can only manage day to day thru spirituality. and of course if they dont, they " die " . " We are not cured of alcoholism.What we really have is a daily reprieve contingent on the maintenance of our spiritual condition. " AA lies when they say a higher power is of " our " understanding, when it its clearly understanding from the oxford group of a god which is a faith healing god. all facts about " Him " were offered by bill in Big Book and 12-steps Bill tells us god is of our understanding, but he cant seem to help himself from filling in the blanks for us as to how god works for us though. i guess if my understanding of god is one which doesn't restore sanity, listens to my prayers and removes defects, i cant do steps. and if i dont do steps, wilson threatens i will " die " and sign my " own death warrant " .(1) These were found in minutes in a scan of a few chapters. It would take a week to pull all the specific ideals expressed to describe how god of " our " understanding is, and how this god of " our " understanding will work for us from the over 400 references to " God " in BB. restores sanity listens to our prayers removes defects is a living creator and whom we are its children is male has conscious contact with us has relationships with us, has a will intended us to carry. Does for us what we could not do for ourselves. he is a " Creative Intelligence " " Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things " He doesn't make too hard terms with those who seek Him the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive is a All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence we are " intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation " is the Spirit of the Universe Presence of Infinite Power and Love AA does harm by limiting them to be dependent upon groups and higher powers for their sanity (bill wilson referred to steppers as " groupers " borrowing from oxford group tradition) aa lies whenthey say they are 'suggestions " only problem if you dont follow bills suggestion you sign your " owndeath warrant " . wrote: " The moment Twelfth Step work forms a group, a discovery is made -- that most individuals cannot recover unless there is a group. Realization dawns on each member that he is but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too great for preservation of the Fellowship. He learns that the clamor of desires and ambitions within him must be silenced whenever these could damage the group. " AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and portraying them as: evasive biased stubborn unreasonable close minded spiritually obsolete ignorant touchy deluded antagonistic vain illogical " less " sane dishonest narrow in vision/backward thinking " soft and mushy " thinkers worshippers of " people, sentiment, things, money, and ourselves " " handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack non believers. AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in 90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment. aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? because it works? AA was started on a foundation of 40 people (wilson liedwhen he claimed it was 100), most were already believers when they went in. not all of them stayed sober in the couple years before he wrote big book. AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in AA. AA harm because it teaches people their ego's are somehow bad and that their own will is insane.( " any life run on self-will can hardly be a success " ). and then proceeds to break them down. but of course they do, that was a Oxford group belief because non believers were seen as literally insane and " public enemies " . you dont need god if you can manage your own life with your own will. AA does harm because the whole text of bb and the Program has nothing to do with alcoholism ,but rather convincing people their own will is wrong and they need to believe in gods will for themand to look to " Him " for the answers from 1939 BB: page 29 Our description of the alcoholic, the chapter to the agnostic, and our personal adventures before and after, have been designed to sell you three pertinent ideas: (a) That you are alcoholic and cannot manage your own life. ( That probably no human power can relieve your alcoholism. © That God can and will. The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success chapter 6 " We feel a man is unthinking when he says that sobriety is enough " " the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over 60 years, its laughable. AA has nothing to do with alcoholism and at best it applies to small slice of people, and those who dont fit into that slice, or who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you dont see any other group do that. when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor, hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija board while we're at it? i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a 75% success rate). no one would seriously suggest either of these models was legitimate, but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and legitimate. also, for some reason, the people who point out the obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making the criticism. just so you know my position on this, i have never used RR, but i dont care for equal room for both or with AA and any other program, and neither would AA. AA would dry up and blow away if people were given equal access to all the other programs, because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces people into religious cult. not to mention, all the steppers working in treatment centers wouldn't have anything to teach if a program was based on anything other than " hitting your knees and praying " . but people want to over look this because they have bought the propaganda that AA has " helped so many " . if you put enough people in any group and say this will get you sober, some will get sober, probably as many as aa achieves. the only deference is people dont see one aa harms when they tell those newcomers if they leave AA, there is no other alternative and they will die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 i really should proof read my posts... some minor corrections, only mentioning it becuase they effected the meaning of what i wrote " : " AA does harm by teaching people they should'nt (was should) take responsibility or credit for their own sobriety,... " > last time you saw someone at a celebration say that they were proud of what they achieved and gave credit for their sobriety to Everyone (was anyone) but themselves? " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > > Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A > man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily > leading a life of sobriety. Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry- drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean anything. Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed for that. I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug- alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the rest of my problems like any other adult. Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from the kind of thinking that was harming me. If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly. As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and not buy into any recovery program without that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > > Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A > man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily > leading a life of sobriety. Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry- drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean anything. Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed for that. I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug- alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the rest of my problems like any other adult. Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from the kind of thinking that was harming me. If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly. As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and not buy into any recovery program without that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > > Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A > man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily > leading a life of sobriety. Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry- drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean anything. Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed for that. I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug- alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the rest of my problems like any other adult. Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from the kind of thinking that was harming me. If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly. As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and not buy into any recovery program without that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. Yes, I agree. AA is blatantly, obviously religious. But for RR to say it is " canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly. And RR insists that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for support groups; indeed, it wants people to promise never to attend another support group meeting, ever. AA and RR both want you to believe that their way is the only way, and every other way will get you nowhere. >AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for >life or die (as told by bill wilson) I agree. But RR does harm by insisting that it's the only way to sobriety. RR does not recognize that AA has helped many people, some of whom might indeed need to work AA for life, just as they work their religion for life. You know, if you stop going for your weekly or biweekly brainwashing session (church), if you start reading documents critical of the kind of brainwashing you've been receiving, you might fall from the flock, you might lose your Christianity. But you know what? Some people NEED the crutch of religion. They can't deal with the truth, they can't deal with the possibility that there isn't a supreme being watching over their every move and saving their stupid butt. So just as some people NEED religion, some people NEED AA. >AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to >believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking >like one. I agree. <major snippage> >AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text >to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a >choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and >portraying them as: I agree. >not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack >non believers. From the RR literature I've read, and the videos I've watched, I conclude that RR is very hostile and attacks non-believers in RR. If you mean that no other group feels the need to attck atheists/agnostics, oh yes they do. Damn near every group there is. When I got up at a Texas Farm Bureau meeting and said I felt it was inappropriate to open the platform of the TFB with a prayer, I was booed off the stage. When I tried to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. I couldn't even get them to include me as a person worth respecting--the platform says " We believe in the right of every man to choose his own occupation; to be rewarded according to his contribution to society... " I pointed out to the delegates, many of them women, that according to these words, the TFB doesn't believe in the right of every WOMAN to choose her own occupation--what are we, slaves? I asked that 'person' be substituted for 'man'--my resolution was resoundly defeated. The Texas Farm Bureau promotes and provides services to farmers and ranchers. Yet they made it very clear to me that if I am not a Christian, and a Christian woman willing to let my husband control my life, that I am excluded. And yes, they most definitely attacked me. When I was a delegate to the state Republican convention, I was very much attacked because I objected to the same imposition of faith. When Shrub was sworn in as president, the person giving the invocation said, " Say 'Amen' if you believe in Jesus. " I guess Shrub doesn't want to be my president, because I sure as hell didn't say amen. >AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for > " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in >90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any >better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment. Well, I strongly disagree that it's worse than no treatment. AA has helped thousands. I object to it being the standard for treatment. But RR does harm when it says that no one needs self-help discussion groups, that AVRT is the only thing you need to know, that you just have to decide not to drink. RR does harm by denying the benefits of AA. > aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be >be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? Because humans have been looking to a god or gods to cure their problems for thousands of years. >AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and >spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in >AA. And you don't think the same thing is true of RR? It has a built in model for verbal abuse for people who don't abandon AA, who say that AA has helped them. The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success I know an alcoholic who has a lot of self-will, or at least a lot of ego, in that he keeps saying he's in control of his life, he doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, etc etc etc. Yet he was kicked out of the Navy for drunkenness in 1976 or 78 and has been going downhill ever since. He doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, he keeps saying he's a grown man and can make his own decisions--but his own decisions keep leading him to alcohol. Likewise, my BF said that all he needed to do was not drink and drive. But of course when he drank, he got behind the wheel of a car. His will didn't keep him from doing that. I 'will' myself to lose weight. Have been for over 20 years now. But I keep gaining weight. Willpower isn't enough. >the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a >religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only >applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was >wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many >flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over >60 years, its laughable. I agree. >AA has nothing to do with alcoholism I disagree. Any group of alcoholics seeking to combat their addiction has a lot to do with alcoholism. and at best it applies to >small slice of people, I'd say it applies to quite a large number of people. People who are free to choose still choose AA over any other method, and AA works for many of them. and those who dont fit into that slice, or >who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to >be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you >dont see any other group do that. Oh, I've seen lots of groups do that. School groups, farming and ranching groups, 4-H groups, neighborhood groups, groups purporting to help people out of crises---I've seen that attitude in tons of groups. Currently, that attitude can be seen in the Republican party. >when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than >practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor, >hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija >board while we're at it? I agree, that kind of " advice " sucks. But they do receive some practical advice in testimonies from others. And many times, people will get up and say, " Well this is what worked for me.... " or some such. So they do sometimes receive advice. But the advice to read the BB, pray, and call your sponsor--well, that sucks. >i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more >than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more >successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for >mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a >75% success rate). You should be tolerant of what works for other people. Rational Recovery is guilty of the same intolerance for which it condemns AA. That is intolerable. >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was >legitimate, Why not? If it keeps people sober....... The State of Texas funds the Victory Outreach Fellowship rehab program, which consists of nothing but Bible study and prayer. No AA, no analysis or discussion of addiction, no nothing but bible study and prayer. I strongly object to my tax dollars going to brainwash people, but you know what? It works for some folks. And it's better to be high on Jesus than high on cocaine. I just think that Christians should pay to brainwash other people for Christianity and not expect the government to pay them to do it. but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult >manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and >legitimate. But cult manipulation and faith healing are all around us--as close as your Christian church, as close as your Bible. This is simply a sign of how much influence Christians have on our government and our lifestyle. also, for some reason, the people who point out the >obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are >accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue >the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making >the criticism. A major flaw, I agree. But then again, alcoholics are famous for finding reasons why things don't work for them, or for finding excuses why such and such doesn't work so they might as well keep on drinking. AA would dry up and blow away if >people were given equal access to all the other programs, Well, RR refuses to allow RR to have equal access with AA, by its insistence that RR not be used in treatment centers. And, people who can choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? >because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces >people into religious cult. Many thousands of people have benefited from AA. To say it did not work for them is to ignore the truth. Many Christians have not wavered in their beliefs by going to AA. Some atheists/agnosts have made it work for them. I know a lot of people who don't feel part of a religious cult, who haven't been to AA in years, but who AA helped get sober. So yes, it can work, and no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. Yes, I agree. AA is blatantly, obviously religious. But for RR to say it is " canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly. And RR insists that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for support groups; indeed, it wants people to promise never to attend another support group meeting, ever. AA and RR both want you to believe that their way is the only way, and every other way will get you nowhere. >AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for >life or die (as told by bill wilson) I agree. But RR does harm by insisting that it's the only way to sobriety. RR does not recognize that AA has helped many people, some of whom might indeed need to work AA for life, just as they work their religion for life. You know, if you stop going for your weekly or biweekly brainwashing session (church), if you start reading documents critical of the kind of brainwashing you've been receiving, you might fall from the flock, you might lose your Christianity. But you know what? Some people NEED the crutch of religion. They can't deal with the truth, they can't deal with the possibility that there isn't a supreme being watching over their every move and saving their stupid butt. So just as some people NEED religion, some people NEED AA. >AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to >believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking >like one. I agree. <major snippage> >AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text >to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a >choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and >portraying them as: I agree. >not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack >non believers. From the RR literature I've read, and the videos I've watched, I conclude that RR is very hostile and attacks non-believers in RR. If you mean that no other group feels the need to attck atheists/agnostics, oh yes they do. Damn near every group there is. When I got up at a Texas Farm Bureau meeting and said I felt it was inappropriate to open the platform of the TFB with a prayer, I was booed off the stage. When I tried to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. I couldn't even get them to include me as a person worth respecting--the platform says " We believe in the right of every man to choose his own occupation; to be rewarded according to his contribution to society... " I pointed out to the delegates, many of them women, that according to these words, the TFB doesn't believe in the right of every WOMAN to choose her own occupation--what are we, slaves? I asked that 'person' be substituted for 'man'--my resolution was resoundly defeated. The Texas Farm Bureau promotes and provides services to farmers and ranchers. Yet they made it very clear to me that if I am not a Christian, and a Christian woman willing to let my husband control my life, that I am excluded. And yes, they most definitely attacked me. When I was a delegate to the state Republican convention, I was very much attacked because I objected to the same imposition of faith. When Shrub was sworn in as president, the person giving the invocation said, " Say 'Amen' if you believe in Jesus. " I guess Shrub doesn't want to be my president, because I sure as hell didn't say amen. >AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for > " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in >90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any >better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment. Well, I strongly disagree that it's worse than no treatment. AA has helped thousands. I object to it being the standard for treatment. But RR does harm when it says that no one needs self-help discussion groups, that AVRT is the only thing you need to know, that you just have to decide not to drink. RR does harm by denying the benefits of AA. > aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be >be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? Because humans have been looking to a god or gods to cure their problems for thousands of years. >AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and >spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in >AA. And you don't think the same thing is true of RR? It has a built in model for verbal abuse for people who don't abandon AA, who say that AA has helped them. The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success I know an alcoholic who has a lot of self-will, or at least a lot of ego, in that he keeps saying he's in control of his life, he doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, etc etc etc. Yet he was kicked out of the Navy for drunkenness in 1976 or 78 and has been going downhill ever since. He doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, he keeps saying he's a grown man and can make his own decisions--but his own decisions keep leading him to alcohol. Likewise, my BF said that all he needed to do was not drink and drive. But of course when he drank, he got behind the wheel of a car. His will didn't keep him from doing that. I 'will' myself to lose weight. Have been for over 20 years now. But I keep gaining weight. Willpower isn't enough. >the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a >religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only >applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was >wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many >flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over >60 years, its laughable. I agree. >AA has nothing to do with alcoholism I disagree. Any group of alcoholics seeking to combat their addiction has a lot to do with alcoholism. and at best it applies to >small slice of people, I'd say it applies to quite a large number of people. People who are free to choose still choose AA over any other method, and AA works for many of them. and those who dont fit into that slice, or >who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to >be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you >dont see any other group do that. Oh, I've seen lots of groups do that. School groups, farming and ranching groups, 4-H groups, neighborhood groups, groups purporting to help people out of crises---I've seen that attitude in tons of groups. Currently, that attitude can be seen in the Republican party. >when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than >practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor, >hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija >board while we're at it? I agree, that kind of " advice " sucks. But they do receive some practical advice in testimonies from others. And many times, people will get up and say, " Well this is what worked for me.... " or some such. So they do sometimes receive advice. But the advice to read the BB, pray, and call your sponsor--well, that sucks. >i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more >than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more >successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for >mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a >75% success rate). You should be tolerant of what works for other people. Rational Recovery is guilty of the same intolerance for which it condemns AA. That is intolerable. >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was >legitimate, Why not? If it keeps people sober....... The State of Texas funds the Victory Outreach Fellowship rehab program, which consists of nothing but Bible study and prayer. No AA, no analysis or discussion of addiction, no nothing but bible study and prayer. I strongly object to my tax dollars going to brainwash people, but you know what? It works for some folks. And it's better to be high on Jesus than high on cocaine. I just think that Christians should pay to brainwash other people for Christianity and not expect the government to pay them to do it. but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult >manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and >legitimate. But cult manipulation and faith healing are all around us--as close as your Christian church, as close as your Bible. This is simply a sign of how much influence Christians have on our government and our lifestyle. also, for some reason, the people who point out the >obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are >accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue >the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making >the criticism. A major flaw, I agree. But then again, alcoholics are famous for finding reasons why things don't work for them, or for finding excuses why such and such doesn't work so they might as well keep on drinking. AA would dry up and blow away if >people were given equal access to all the other programs, Well, RR refuses to allow RR to have equal access with AA, by its insistence that RR not be used in treatment centers. And, people who can choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? >because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces >people into religious cult. Many thousands of people have benefited from AA. To say it did not work for them is to ignore the truth. Many Christians have not wavered in their beliefs by going to AA. Some atheists/agnosts have made it work for them. I know a lot of people who don't feel part of a religious cult, who haven't been to AA in years, but who AA helped get sober. So yes, it can work, and no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. Yes, I agree. AA is blatantly, obviously religious. But for RR to say it is " canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly. And RR insists that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for support groups; indeed, it wants people to promise never to attend another support group meeting, ever. AA and RR both want you to believe that their way is the only way, and every other way will get you nowhere. >AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for >life or die (as told by bill wilson) I agree. But RR does harm by insisting that it's the only way to sobriety. RR does not recognize that AA has helped many people, some of whom might indeed need to work AA for life, just as they work their religion for life. You know, if you stop going for your weekly or biweekly brainwashing session (church), if you start reading documents critical of the kind of brainwashing you've been receiving, you might fall from the flock, you might lose your Christianity. But you know what? Some people NEED the crutch of religion. They can't deal with the truth, they can't deal with the possibility that there isn't a supreme being watching over their every move and saving their stupid butt. So just as some people NEED religion, some people NEED AA. >AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to >believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking >like one. I agree. <major snippage> >AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text >to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a >choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and >portraying them as: I agree. >not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack >non believers. From the RR literature I've read, and the videos I've watched, I conclude that RR is very hostile and attacks non-believers in RR. If you mean that no other group feels the need to attck atheists/agnostics, oh yes they do. Damn near every group there is. When I got up at a Texas Farm Bureau meeting and said I felt it was inappropriate to open the platform of the TFB with a prayer, I was booed off the stage. When I tried to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. I couldn't even get them to include me as a person worth respecting--the platform says " We believe in the right of every man to choose his own occupation; to be rewarded according to his contribution to society... " I pointed out to the delegates, many of them women, that according to these words, the TFB doesn't believe in the right of every WOMAN to choose her own occupation--what are we, slaves? I asked that 'person' be substituted for 'man'--my resolution was resoundly defeated. The Texas Farm Bureau promotes and provides services to farmers and ranchers. Yet they made it very clear to me that if I am not a Christian, and a Christian woman willing to let my husband control my life, that I am excluded. And yes, they most definitely attacked me. When I was a delegate to the state Republican convention, I was very much attacked because I objected to the same imposition of faith. When Shrub was sworn in as president, the person giving the invocation said, " Say 'Amen' if you believe in Jesus. " I guess Shrub doesn't want to be my president, because I sure as hell didn't say amen. >AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for > " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in >90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any >better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment. Well, I strongly disagree that it's worse than no treatment. AA has helped thousands. I object to it being the standard for treatment. But RR does harm when it says that no one needs self-help discussion groups, that AVRT is the only thing you need to know, that you just have to decide not to drink. RR does harm by denying the benefits of AA. > aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be >be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? Because humans have been looking to a god or gods to cure their problems for thousands of years. >AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and >spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in >AA. And you don't think the same thing is true of RR? It has a built in model for verbal abuse for people who don't abandon AA, who say that AA has helped them. The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success I know an alcoholic who has a lot of self-will, or at least a lot of ego, in that he keeps saying he's in control of his life, he doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, etc etc etc. Yet he was kicked out of the Navy for drunkenness in 1976 or 78 and has been going downhill ever since. He doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, he keeps saying he's a grown man and can make his own decisions--but his own decisions keep leading him to alcohol. Likewise, my BF said that all he needed to do was not drink and drive. But of course when he drank, he got behind the wheel of a car. His will didn't keep him from doing that. I 'will' myself to lose weight. Have been for over 20 years now. But I keep gaining weight. Willpower isn't enough. >the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a >religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only >applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was >wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many >flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over >60 years, its laughable. I agree. >AA has nothing to do with alcoholism I disagree. Any group of alcoholics seeking to combat their addiction has a lot to do with alcoholism. and at best it applies to >small slice of people, I'd say it applies to quite a large number of people. People who are free to choose still choose AA over any other method, and AA works for many of them. and those who dont fit into that slice, or >who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to >be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you >dont see any other group do that. Oh, I've seen lots of groups do that. School groups, farming and ranching groups, 4-H groups, neighborhood groups, groups purporting to help people out of crises---I've seen that attitude in tons of groups. Currently, that attitude can be seen in the Republican party. >when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than >practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor, >hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija >board while we're at it? I agree, that kind of " advice " sucks. But they do receive some practical advice in testimonies from others. And many times, people will get up and say, " Well this is what worked for me.... " or some such. So they do sometimes receive advice. But the advice to read the BB, pray, and call your sponsor--well, that sucks. >i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more >than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more >successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for >mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a >75% success rate). You should be tolerant of what works for other people. Rational Recovery is guilty of the same intolerance for which it condemns AA. That is intolerable. >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was >legitimate, Why not? If it keeps people sober....... The State of Texas funds the Victory Outreach Fellowship rehab program, which consists of nothing but Bible study and prayer. No AA, no analysis or discussion of addiction, no nothing but bible study and prayer. I strongly object to my tax dollars going to brainwash people, but you know what? It works for some folks. And it's better to be high on Jesus than high on cocaine. I just think that Christians should pay to brainwash other people for Christianity and not expect the government to pay them to do it. but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult >manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and >legitimate. But cult manipulation and faith healing are all around us--as close as your Christian church, as close as your Bible. This is simply a sign of how much influence Christians have on our government and our lifestyle. also, for some reason, the people who point out the >obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are >accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue >the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making >the criticism. A major flaw, I agree. But then again, alcoholics are famous for finding reasons why things don't work for them, or for finding excuses why such and such doesn't work so they might as well keep on drinking. AA would dry up and blow away if >people were given equal access to all the other programs, Well, RR refuses to allow RR to have equal access with AA, by its insistence that RR not be used in treatment centers. And, people who can choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? >because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces >people into religious cult. Many thousands of people have benefited from AA. To say it did not work for them is to ignore the truth. Many Christians have not wavered in their beliefs by going to AA. Some atheists/agnosts have made it work for them. I know a lot of people who don't feel part of a religious cult, who haven't been to AA in years, but who AA helped get sober. So yes, it can work, and no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >> >> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not >drinking. A >> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not >necessarily >> leading a life of sobriety. > >Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry- >drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean >anything. Hah. did drugs. went to prison for 8 years. In prison, didn't do drugs. When got out of prison, he was still addicted. started using again. went into a treatment program and cleaned up for a while but he was still addicted. started using again. If it was simply a matter of choice, would not choose to lose. He faces prison again, another 8 to 10 years. He doesn't want prison. He wants to be a part of his son's life and watch his son grow up. wants to be on the outside, working and playing and making love to women. But is an addict. Until conquers his addiction, he will continue to use if he's around the drug, and if he starts using he won't be able to stop. He will do anything--*anything*--to get more cocaine. My BF has been in jail 3 times, the longest length of time was for a year. He didn't drink in jail. But he was still an alcoholic. He was still addicted to alcohol. When he got out, he continued abusing. If all he had to do was to stop drinking, then the first stint in jail would have cured him. It didn't. He could't stay away from alcohol, couldn't say no to it, couldn't put the bottle down once he began drinking. And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems. Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not learned healthy outlets for them. >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed >for that. So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-up anger in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. Indeed, I think some personalities (type As, for example) are more apt to become alcoholics than other personalities. I think some people need to *learn* how to solve problems without alcohol. Some of them do indeed need a special program. YOU may not have needed a special program (on the other hand, maybe you're a control freak jerk and don't realize it) but that doesn't mean that NO ONE needs such a program. Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-alcoholic coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. He's 42, and he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and reacts like an alcoholic. >I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with >problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or >nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug- >alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for >depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship >problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the >rest of my problems like any other adult. I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do. (There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem solving, t hings like that.) I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues. (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly Joes--they use people.) Unfortunately, few alcoholics have insurance or other access to any kind of useful therapy. I notice that most people who have used Rational Recovery are middle to upper class, college educated, and most have been able to carry on some semblance of normal life. Many, if not most have gotten a college degree. Many have access to other means of therapy. For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, that no other alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at worst. How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her problems? People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most likely to need counseling. You don't even need to take a 23 year old female crack addict. Heck, I know of men, Vietnam vets, non vets, whatever--who need some kind of therapy. Like Robby, they think and react like an alcoholic, even though they're 40, 50, even 60 years old, even if they've had periods of non-drinking. They have quick tempers which they find very hard to control. Homelessness and joblessness are big issues amongst this population. Even if they get a job, their quick temper and lack of ability to deal with the frustrations of working for someone else quickly get them fired or cause them to storm off the job in anger. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for them? My understanding is that Jack Trimpey has always been gainfully employed, he's always had a roof over his head, he's been a functioning alcoholic. I think that goes for most of the people for whom RR has worked. In short, their alcohol problem wasn't so bad that it ended in joblessness and homelessness. So they found it easier to stop drinking than someone who's entire life is consumed by alcohol. No surprise there. But it doesn't give them license to dictate to the disadvantaged population what will and will not work for them. >Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and >his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when >I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading >Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I >had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from >the kind of thinking that was harming me. > >If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's >deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly. I find it a big turn-off, as big of a turn-off as AA's attempts at programming. >As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone >is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but >the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and >not buy into any recovery program without that. I totally agree with you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >> >> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not >drinking. A >> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not >necessarily >> leading a life of sobriety. > >Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry- >drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean >anything. Hah. did drugs. went to prison for 8 years. In prison, didn't do drugs. When got out of prison, he was still addicted. started using again. went into a treatment program and cleaned up for a while but he was still addicted. started using again. If it was simply a matter of choice, would not choose to lose. He faces prison again, another 8 to 10 years. He doesn't want prison. He wants to be a part of his son's life and watch his son grow up. wants to be on the outside, working and playing and making love to women. But is an addict. Until conquers his addiction, he will continue to use if he's around the drug, and if he starts using he won't be able to stop. He will do anything--*anything*--to get more cocaine. My BF has been in jail 3 times, the longest length of time was for a year. He didn't drink in jail. But he was still an alcoholic. He was still addicted to alcohol. When he got out, he continued abusing. If all he had to do was to stop drinking, then the first stint in jail would have cured him. It didn't. He could't stay away from alcohol, couldn't say no to it, couldn't put the bottle down once he began drinking. And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems. Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not learned healthy outlets for them. >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed >for that. So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-up anger in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. Indeed, I think some personalities (type As, for example) are more apt to become alcoholics than other personalities. I think some people need to *learn* how to solve problems without alcohol. Some of them do indeed need a special program. YOU may not have needed a special program (on the other hand, maybe you're a control freak jerk and don't realize it) but that doesn't mean that NO ONE needs such a program. Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-alcoholic coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. He's 42, and he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and reacts like an alcoholic. >I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with >problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or >nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug- >alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for >depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship >problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the >rest of my problems like any other adult. I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do. (There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem solving, t hings like that.) I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues. (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly Joes--they use people.) Unfortunately, few alcoholics have insurance or other access to any kind of useful therapy. I notice that most people who have used Rational Recovery are middle to upper class, college educated, and most have been able to carry on some semblance of normal life. Many, if not most have gotten a college degree. Many have access to other means of therapy. For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, that no other alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at worst. How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her problems? People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most likely to need counseling. You don't even need to take a 23 year old female crack addict. Heck, I know of men, Vietnam vets, non vets, whatever--who need some kind of therapy. Like Robby, they think and react like an alcoholic, even though they're 40, 50, even 60 years old, even if they've had periods of non-drinking. They have quick tempers which they find very hard to control. Homelessness and joblessness are big issues amongst this population. Even if they get a job, their quick temper and lack of ability to deal with the frustrations of working for someone else quickly get them fired or cause them to storm off the job in anger. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for them? My understanding is that Jack Trimpey has always been gainfully employed, he's always had a roof over his head, he's been a functioning alcoholic. I think that goes for most of the people for whom RR has worked. In short, their alcohol problem wasn't so bad that it ended in joblessness and homelessness. So they found it easier to stop drinking than someone who's entire life is consumed by alcohol. No surprise there. But it doesn't give them license to dictate to the disadvantaged population what will and will not work for them. >Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and >his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when >I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading >Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I >had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from >the kind of thinking that was harming me. > >If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's >deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly. I find it a big turn-off, as big of a turn-off as AA's attempts at programming. >As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone >is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but >the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and >not buy into any recovery program without that. I totally agree with you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 >> >> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not >drinking. A >> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not >necessarily >> leading a life of sobriety. > >Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry- >drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean >anything. Hah. did drugs. went to prison for 8 years. In prison, didn't do drugs. When got out of prison, he was still addicted. started using again. went into a treatment program and cleaned up for a while but he was still addicted. started using again. If it was simply a matter of choice, would not choose to lose. He faces prison again, another 8 to 10 years. He doesn't want prison. He wants to be a part of his son's life and watch his son grow up. wants to be on the outside, working and playing and making love to women. But is an addict. Until conquers his addiction, he will continue to use if he's around the drug, and if he starts using he won't be able to stop. He will do anything--*anything*--to get more cocaine. My BF has been in jail 3 times, the longest length of time was for a year. He didn't drink in jail. But he was still an alcoholic. He was still addicted to alcohol. When he got out, he continued abusing. If all he had to do was to stop drinking, then the first stint in jail would have cured him. It didn't. He could't stay away from alcohol, couldn't say no to it, couldn't put the bottle down once he began drinking. And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems. Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not learned healthy outlets for them. >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed >for that. So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-up anger in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. Indeed, I think some personalities (type As, for example) are more apt to become alcoholics than other personalities. I think some people need to *learn* how to solve problems without alcohol. Some of them do indeed need a special program. YOU may not have needed a special program (on the other hand, maybe you're a control freak jerk and don't realize it) but that doesn't mean that NO ONE needs such a program. Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-alcoholic coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. He's 42, and he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and reacts like an alcoholic. >I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with >problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or >nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug- >alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for >depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship >problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the >rest of my problems like any other adult. I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do. (There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem solving, t hings like that.) I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues. (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly Joes--they use people.) Unfortunately, few alcoholics have insurance or other access to any kind of useful therapy. I notice that most people who have used Rational Recovery are middle to upper class, college educated, and most have been able to carry on some semblance of normal life. Many, if not most have gotten a college degree. Many have access to other means of therapy. For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, that no other alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at worst. How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her problems? People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most likely to need counseling. You don't even need to take a 23 year old female crack addict. Heck, I know of men, Vietnam vets, non vets, whatever--who need some kind of therapy. Like Robby, they think and react like an alcoholic, even though they're 40, 50, even 60 years old, even if they've had periods of non-drinking. They have quick tempers which they find very hard to control. Homelessness and joblessness are big issues amongst this population. Even if they get a job, their quick temper and lack of ability to deal with the frustrations of working for someone else quickly get them fired or cause them to storm off the job in anger. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for them? My understanding is that Jack Trimpey has always been gainfully employed, he's always had a roof over his head, he's been a functioning alcoholic. I think that goes for most of the people for whom RR has worked. In short, their alcohol problem wasn't so bad that it ended in joblessness and homelessness. So they found it easier to stop drinking than someone who's entire life is consumed by alcohol. No surprise there. But it doesn't give them license to dictate to the disadvantaged population what will and will not work for them. >Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and >his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when >I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading >Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I >had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from >the kind of thinking that was harming me. > >If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's >deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly. I find it a big turn-off, as big of a turn-off as AA's attempts at programming. >As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone >is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but >the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and >not buy into any recovery program without that. I totally agree with you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. They attempt to get around this by claiming that you can choose any " God " or " Higher Power " that you desire. They would never get away with it if they were preaching that everyone had to be baptists, for example. However, I do believe that they have evolved into a religion of their own. There are concrete ways that the " higher power " works and the people involved are told specifically what to pray for and what to expect in return. The AAs in sobriety, working their program become the " chosen " ones (a concept that is personally repugnant to me, no matter what religion it crops its ugly head in). If it weren't for the alcoholism that led the person to the program, they'd be just like any other schmoe! Yay for alcoholism and hallelujah!!!! You gotta sin to be saved........... When I was still trying to fit in there, I started conceptualizing the HP as my own personal little genie or demon, since the idea of a REAL god stooping to all this shit was impossible for me. This one had nothing better to do than harp at me and throw cunning obstacles in my path. I'm so glad I got sick of the beggar and killed it off! Of course, I didn't get around to mentioning in my meetings that this is what the HP had disintegrated into. It wouldn't have been seemly. But I couldn't hide that I just wasn't buying it. > AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for > life or die (as told by bill wilson) And yet, everyone knows that this is untrue and that the membership is pretty darned fluid. They come in, they go out, they binge, they come back, they repent, are forgiven again and again. Some drink all the while they go to meetings and sit there and spout it anyway. Yet, I suppose that AA stills sees these people as " working their program " and learning even more humility through their repeated trials and their " self-will run riot. " They have an answer for everything. Usually this answer tends to make the questioner feel like shit for saying anything. Even one of my non-alcoholic, non-AA friends cautioned me about " having too much ego, " when I began to more publicly question the dogma. > > AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to > believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking > like one. I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling and humiliting myself that was really getting to me. ============== Thanks for the great post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. They attempt to get around this by claiming that you can choose any " God " or " Higher Power " that you desire. They would never get away with it if they were preaching that everyone had to be baptists, for example. However, I do believe that they have evolved into a religion of their own. There are concrete ways that the " higher power " works and the people involved are told specifically what to pray for and what to expect in return. The AAs in sobriety, working their program become the " chosen " ones (a concept that is personally repugnant to me, no matter what religion it crops its ugly head in). If it weren't for the alcoholism that led the person to the program, they'd be just like any other schmoe! Yay for alcoholism and hallelujah!!!! You gotta sin to be saved........... When I was still trying to fit in there, I started conceptualizing the HP as my own personal little genie or demon, since the idea of a REAL god stooping to all this shit was impossible for me. This one had nothing better to do than harp at me and throw cunning obstacles in my path. I'm so glad I got sick of the beggar and killed it off! Of course, I didn't get around to mentioning in my meetings that this is what the HP had disintegrated into. It wouldn't have been seemly. But I couldn't hide that I just wasn't buying it. > AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for > life or die (as told by bill wilson) And yet, everyone knows that this is untrue and that the membership is pretty darned fluid. They come in, they go out, they binge, they come back, they repent, are forgiven again and again. Some drink all the while they go to meetings and sit there and spout it anyway. Yet, I suppose that AA stills sees these people as " working their program " and learning even more humility through their repeated trials and their " self-will run riot. " They have an answer for everything. Usually this answer tends to make the questioner feel like shit for saying anything. Even one of my non-alcoholic, non-AA friends cautioned me about " having too much ego, " when I began to more publicly question the dogma. > > AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to > believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking > like one. I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling and humiliting myself that was really getting to me. ============== Thanks for the great post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious. They attempt to get around this by claiming that you can choose any " God " or " Higher Power " that you desire. They would never get away with it if they were preaching that everyone had to be baptists, for example. However, I do believe that they have evolved into a religion of their own. There are concrete ways that the " higher power " works and the people involved are told specifically what to pray for and what to expect in return. The AAs in sobriety, working their program become the " chosen " ones (a concept that is personally repugnant to me, no matter what religion it crops its ugly head in). If it weren't for the alcoholism that led the person to the program, they'd be just like any other schmoe! Yay for alcoholism and hallelujah!!!! You gotta sin to be saved........... When I was still trying to fit in there, I started conceptualizing the HP as my own personal little genie or demon, since the idea of a REAL god stooping to all this shit was impossible for me. This one had nothing better to do than harp at me and throw cunning obstacles in my path. I'm so glad I got sick of the beggar and killed it off! Of course, I didn't get around to mentioning in my meetings that this is what the HP had disintegrated into. It wouldn't have been seemly. But I couldn't hide that I just wasn't buying it. > AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for > life or die (as told by bill wilson) And yet, everyone knows that this is untrue and that the membership is pretty darned fluid. They come in, they go out, they binge, they come back, they repent, are forgiven again and again. Some drink all the while they go to meetings and sit there and spout it anyway. Yet, I suppose that AA stills sees these people as " working their program " and learning even more humility through their repeated trials and their " self-will run riot. " They have an answer for everything. Usually this answer tends to make the questioner feel like shit for saying anything. Even one of my non-alcoholic, non-AA friends cautioned me about " having too much ego, " when I began to more publicly question the dogma. > > AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to > believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking > like one. I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling and humiliting myself that was really getting to me. ============== Thanks for the great post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional > attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems. > Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is > to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has > not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of > alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not > learned healthy outl Do you think his anger and frustrations are keeping him from staying motivated to stop drinking? If someone is going to use AVRT successfully, s/he needs to be motivated and stay motivated to stay away from alcohol. What I'm saying here is that you have to separate the technique AVRT from the other problems folks might have. I still think AVRT is enough to actually stay off the sauce. Therapy, anger management, and other help may be necessary to stay motivated. I agree that once someone is homeless or has little or no social support or reason to stay sober, AVRT alone is difficult. You need to have a life to stay motivated. Again, it's a matter of desire. You have to want to quit and stay quit to use it. I think that most people in AA are using AVRT naively to stay sober, and the rest of the stuff they do is just extra--stuff designed to keep them in AA. > >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their > >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving > >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed > >for that. > > So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a > lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent- up anger > in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. The thing is, there's a lot of them in AA, a lot of them who have been in therapy, and a lot of jerks and control freaks who never drank at all. The world is full of jerks. I happen to think there's a higher concentration of them in AA, because the AA program suppresses anger and worsens depression in a lot of it's adherents. RR doesnt' pretend to deal with such things. AVRT is just as basic as you can get, and folks who want to quit drinking are free to use it are free to try anything else to help them solve their other problems. > Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped > drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non- alcoholic > coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to > be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not > have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in > RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only > how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. Again, people with emotional problems don't need a drug-alcohol program to deal with them. >He's 42, and > he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not > teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and > reacts like an alcoholic. I don't understand what " react like an alcoholic " means. Is he still drinking? > I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address > how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do. Which ones? And why would a drug-alcohol treatment program have to deal with depression and other problems, except perhaps to make referrals to the proper help for such problems, the same types of help available to anyone? > (There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed > mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but > I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem > solving, t hings like that.) > I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of > them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues. I'm with you on that. But alcohol-drug treatment isn't going to help these people. They need to go to mental health practicioners. And someone who is treated for mental illness *can* use AVRT. > (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now > what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples > that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to > communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out > disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means > of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are > unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many > alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly > Joes--they use people.) See, I just can't agree with any of that, except to say that a lot of folks in AA are like that but I think that's directly due to the AA program and not because they've stopped drinking. One of the most destructive dogmas floating around today is the notion that folks who once had drinking problems are by nature more selfish, dishonest, and angry and lacking social skills than non- problem drinkers. That's dogma, not fact. It's the acceptance of just this kind of dogma that underlies willingness of society to force the 12-steps down the throats of anyone they can get their lunchooks into. >For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college > educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that > Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, may I add " to quit drinking. " that no other > alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help > group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at > worst. I was not aware that RR said adults can't get talk therapy if they need it, or treatment for depression, or any other help or therapy. Can you show me where in Jack's writings he says this? How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and > an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low > self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and > her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her > problems? I wouldn't tell her that, and I doubt RR would either. RR would help her arm herself with AVRT to stay off crack. Then she could avail herself of help at the local women's shelter, mental health services, college, and other services to solve the rest of her problems. It would be a long row to hoe, but she'd have a lot more time to fix her problems since she wouldn't have nightly meetings to waste her time at and meet criminals in. >People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they > can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded > facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still > charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all > the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her > questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which > were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate > them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go. > Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real > counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most > likely to need counseling. Some counselors donate time out of the local clinics. That's how I found one. I lucked out though--she was good. At the same time I got treament for depression at the local clinic as well. I did all this while using AVRT to stay off the sauce. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their > heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his > master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for > them? I'm not sure Jack Trimpey is telling them what to do about homelessness, anger, and instability. I'm not sure any method of getting off the sauce can do that, or should do that, since not everyone who drinks is homeless, angry, or unstable. Why is it so important to see these problems as falling under the auspices of " alcoholism? " best, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional > attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems. > Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is > to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has > not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of > alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not > learned healthy outl Do you think his anger and frustrations are keeping him from staying motivated to stop drinking? If someone is going to use AVRT successfully, s/he needs to be motivated and stay motivated to stay away from alcohol. What I'm saying here is that you have to separate the technique AVRT from the other problems folks might have. I still think AVRT is enough to actually stay off the sauce. Therapy, anger management, and other help may be necessary to stay motivated. I agree that once someone is homeless or has little or no social support or reason to stay sober, AVRT alone is difficult. You need to have a life to stay motivated. Again, it's a matter of desire. You have to want to quit and stay quit to use it. I think that most people in AA are using AVRT naively to stay sober, and the rest of the stuff they do is just extra--stuff designed to keep them in AA. > >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their > >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving > >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed > >for that. > > So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a > lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent- up anger > in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. The thing is, there's a lot of them in AA, a lot of them who have been in therapy, and a lot of jerks and control freaks who never drank at all. The world is full of jerks. I happen to think there's a higher concentration of them in AA, because the AA program suppresses anger and worsens depression in a lot of it's adherents. RR doesnt' pretend to deal with such things. AVRT is just as basic as you can get, and folks who want to quit drinking are free to use it are free to try anything else to help them solve their other problems. > Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped > drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non- alcoholic > coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to > be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not > have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in > RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only > how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. Again, people with emotional problems don't need a drug-alcohol program to deal with them. >He's 42, and > he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not > teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and > reacts like an alcoholic. I don't understand what " react like an alcoholic " means. Is he still drinking? > I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address > how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do. Which ones? And why would a drug-alcohol treatment program have to deal with depression and other problems, except perhaps to make referrals to the proper help for such problems, the same types of help available to anyone? > (There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed > mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but > I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem > solving, t hings like that.) > I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of > them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues. I'm with you on that. But alcohol-drug treatment isn't going to help these people. They need to go to mental health practicioners. And someone who is treated for mental illness *can* use AVRT. > (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now > what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples > that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to > communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out > disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means > of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are > unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many > alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly > Joes--they use people.) See, I just can't agree with any of that, except to say that a lot of folks in AA are like that but I think that's directly due to the AA program and not because they've stopped drinking. One of the most destructive dogmas floating around today is the notion that folks who once had drinking problems are by nature more selfish, dishonest, and angry and lacking social skills than non- problem drinkers. That's dogma, not fact. It's the acceptance of just this kind of dogma that underlies willingness of society to force the 12-steps down the throats of anyone they can get their lunchooks into. >For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college > educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that > Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, may I add " to quit drinking. " that no other > alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help > group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at > worst. I was not aware that RR said adults can't get talk therapy if they need it, or treatment for depression, or any other help or therapy. Can you show me where in Jack's writings he says this? How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and > an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low > self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and > her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her > problems? I wouldn't tell her that, and I doubt RR would either. RR would help her arm herself with AVRT to stay off crack. Then she could avail herself of help at the local women's shelter, mental health services, college, and other services to solve the rest of her problems. It would be a long row to hoe, but she'd have a lot more time to fix her problems since she wouldn't have nightly meetings to waste her time at and meet criminals in. >People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they > can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded > facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still > charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all > the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her > questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which > were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate > them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go. > Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real > counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most > likely to need counseling. Some counselors donate time out of the local clinics. That's how I found one. I lucked out though--she was good. At the same time I got treament for depression at the local clinic as well. I did all this while using AVRT to stay off the sauce. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their > heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his > master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for > them? I'm not sure Jack Trimpey is telling them what to do about homelessness, anger, and instability. I'm not sure any method of getting off the sauce can do that, or should do that, since not everyone who drinks is homeless, angry, or unstable. Why is it so important to see these problems as falling under the auspices of " alcoholism? " best, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 its a masochistic thing to do, even more so thanks to aa than it would be to just lable yourself based on a previous condition or past behavior. AA atatches all the supposed bagage they say goes with being an alcohlic, selfish, decepetive, dishonest, ego driven, etc.. and since you never are cured of it, to stand up and say it in a meeting is slaping your own face publically, only it seems ok becuase everyone is happy to see you do it. funny we dont attach that shit on to smokers, and smoking is harder to quit than drinking for most. (actualy msot people who die in AA , die from smoking related ilness according one study). peopel dont getin same trouble alcholics get into from smoking, so they do it longer, and untill 15 yaers ago or so, most people could ahev found aplace at work where they could smoke. but we dont place the same baggage bill wilson would ahev us place on alcoholics as we do other addctions, unless your in NA i suppose > > I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My > name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every > time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about > actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling > and humiliting myself that was really getting to me. > ============== > Thanks for the great post! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 its a masochistic thing to do, even more so thanks to aa than it would be to just lable yourself based on a previous condition or past behavior. AA atatches all the supposed bagage they say goes with being an alcohlic, selfish, decepetive, dishonest, ego driven, etc.. and since you never are cured of it, to stand up and say it in a meeting is slaping your own face publically, only it seems ok becuase everyone is happy to see you do it. funny we dont attach that shit on to smokers, and smoking is harder to quit than drinking for most. (actualy msot people who die in AA , die from smoking related ilness according one study). peopel dont getin same trouble alcholics get into from smoking, so they do it longer, and untill 15 yaers ago or so, most people could ahev found aplace at work where they could smoke. but we dont place the same baggage bill wilson would ahev us place on alcoholics as we do other addctions, unless your in NA i suppose > > I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My > name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every > time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about > actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling > and humiliting myself that was really getting to me. > ============== > Thanks for the great post! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.