Re: New here

August 9, 2001

>

>Where did the concept of denial as used in reference to alcoholism and drug

>addiction come from? Denial of sin is being used as proof of guilt. Your

>supposition that there is corroborating evidence is just that, a

>supposition.

I never called alcoholism a sin. When I was talking about denial, I was

merely referring to an individual possbly being seen by a judge as denying

he or she is an alcoholic. Never, never used the word " sin, " Ken. Nor did I

use " guilt " in any but a legal sense. Never used it in a religious sense.

Your own imagination inserted those thoughts.

Second, judges make presuppositions all the time. That's why some people get

deferred adjudiation and others don't on all sorts of crimes, not just

alcohol-related ones. Again, it's perfectly legal and that's simply the way

the courts work.

>

> >

> > And speaking of that, nice slur.... just because I don't agree with you

>on

> > this issue, and just because your grasp of the legal system and how it

>works

> > isn't the same as mine.... I must be an AAer.

>

>No, because you use the same language and concepts as the AAers do. Even

>your

>argument about " choice " is identical to what most Steppers present when

>confronted with coercion into AA -- " It's okay, they have a choice. "

>Believe it

>or not, their are people who believe authority (the government) should be

>challenged on doing certain things it has the power to do because they are

>wrong. Just because I have the _power_ to do something does not make it

>right.

>That is an extremely authoritarian world view which, again, you seem to

>share

>with the Steppers.

Just because I have the same view as other people on some issues doesn't

make me one of " them. " Otherwise, I would peg you squarely as an anarchist.

On this issue, I don't think mandating non-religious treatment is wrong.

Pure and simple. As I've said before, it happens on all sorts of crimes

other than alcohol-related ones.

Again, the guilty can do the time if they don't like it. Or, they can

**choose** to not do the action in the first place.

That's not AA language, by the way. That's just taking a purely behavioral

view of drinking alcohol, one that doesn't like the word " alcoholism, " to

its logical conclusion.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 9, 2001

Remorse and denial? Please explain.

> They may be different in circumstances, but not in kind, I don't

think.

> Steve

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 9, 2001

Oh, gosh! Watch out, everyone -- Steve used the " b " word, he must be

a behaviorist!

>

> >

> >Where did the concept of denial as used in reference to alcoholism

and drug

> >addiction come from? Denial of sin is being used as proof of

guilt. Your

> >supposition that there is corroborating evidence is just that, a

> >supposition.

>

> I never called alcoholism a sin. When I was talking about denial, I

was

> merely referring to an individual possbly being seen by a judge as

denying

> he or she is an alcoholic. Never, never used the word " sin, " Ken.

Nor did I

> use " guilt " in any but a legal sense. Never used it in a religious

sense.

> Your own imagination inserted those thoughts.

> Second, judges make presuppositions all the time. That's why some

people get

> deferred adjudiation and others don't on all sorts of crimes, not

just

> alcohol-related ones. Again, it's perfectly legal and that's simply

the way

> the courts work.

> >

> > >

> > > And speaking of that, nice slur.... just because I don't agree

with you

> >on

> > > this issue, and just because your grasp of the legal system and

how it

> >works

> > > isn't the same as mine.... I must be an AAer.

> >

> >No, because you use the same language and concepts as the AAers do.

Even

> >your

> >argument about " choice " is identical to what most Steppers present

when

> >confronted with coercion into AA -- " It's okay, they have a

choice. "

> >Believe it

> >or not, their are people who believe authority (the government)

should be

> >challenged on doing certain things it has the power to do because

they are

> >wrong. Just because I have the _power_ to do something does not

make it

> >right.

> >That is an extremely authoritarian world view which, again, you

seem to

> >share

> >with the Steppers.

>

> Just because I have the same view as other people on some issues

doesn't

> make me one of " them. " Otherwise, I would peg you squarely as an

anarchist.

> On this issue, I don't think mandating non-religious treatment is

wrong.

> Pure and simple. As I've said before, it happens on all sorts of

crimes

> other than alcohol-related ones.

> Again, the guilty can do the time if they don't like it. Or, they

can

> **choose** to not do the action in the first place.

> That's not AA language, by the way. That's just taking a purely

behavioral

> view of drinking alcohol, one that doesn't like the word

" alcoholism, " to

> its logical conclusion.

> Steve

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 9, 2001

In both cases, it's a psychological state, or perceived psychological state,

the judge is taking into account. So that's how they're the same kind. The

actual emotions involved, and the circumstances behind them, are different.

Whether it's something judges " should " do or not, they do it. They take

psychological states into consideration all the time. And, of course, juries

do to.

Steve

\

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 9, 2001

>Oh, gosh! Watch out, everyone -- Steve used the " b " word, he must be

>a behaviorist!

The use of the " b " word was for illustrative purposes only. Do not attempt

this at home.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 9, 2001

I agree that both denial and remorse are psychological, or emotional,

states. The ways in which they are inferred by observers is

completely different -- in one case you are in that state because you

deny it, in the other it is likely the reverse.

I don't think judges should be making those kinds of judgments. I

know that they do it all the time, but I don't think it's their job.

They have many an advisor to assist them in determining whether or not

someone who has been convicted is in either state, and typically,

judges rely on those people -- or should. For the most part, judges

are expected to be experts on the law, and nothing more. In bench

trials they are also called on to be triers of fact. But this doesn't

mean that they should ignore experts on issues about which they know

nothing.

> In both cases, it's a psychological state, or perceived

psychological state,

> the judge is taking into account. So that's how they're the same

kind. The

> actual emotions involved, and the circumstances behind them, are

different.

> Whether it's something judges " should " do or not, they do it. They

take

> psychological states into consideration all the time. And, of

course, juries

> do to.

> Steve

> \

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 9, 2001

Commander Holland:

Sometimes, I have thought your posts were rather mean. Other times,

refreshingly well informed and intelligent, but frequently I just enjoy your

whit and use of sarcasm - you are so very good at it. Best luck on your

move. I will check out unhooked.com as soon as I finish reading my

voluminous email.

Jan

In a message dated 8/8/01 5:35:18 PM Central Daylight Time,

MonaHolland1@... writes:

<< You are misaken. If I wished to be " divisive " I could have sent marching

orders to Duaine privately, and the LSR plot would now be running smoothly

and clandestinely.

--Commander Holland--

>>

August 9, 2001

I'm going to start SYOS - Sign Your Own Slips. I know I'm not the only one

to have come up with this alternative. Just get a " Where and When " , identify

which meetings you supposedly attend, take a piece of loose leaf paper and

set it up like this.

DATE MEETING CHAIRPERSON SIGNATURE

00/00/00 #000 fake a signature here

Takes less time than a meeting and it worked for me. Parole officers are

overworked and underpaid, and likely not going to investigate further.

Besides, they can't without violating aa precious anonymity. This isn't

rocket science, just common sense.

Jan

August 9, 2001

Doesn't make sense. I don't see

breathalizer's as coercion... it creates a situation where that vehicle will

NOT be driven by a drunk.

I have noooo problem with that. If we can put a man on he moon, we should be able to devise a non-intrusive way to keep an ignition from starting if the driver has had too many.

--Mona--

August 9, 2001

>

> Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to act on

> what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a

judgment

> call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's what

> haapens.

Arrrgghh! Possible " future behavior " . Give me a break. Now judges belong

to the psychic network?

NO! Bullshit. Punish the crime that took place already. Someone who knows

about these things PLEASE tell me I can't be punished for something I MIGHT

do??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

My VIEW and OPINION is JUDGES don't belong in the " treatment " arena. I

think judges would agree. I think they hate it too.

> And, as far as a judge knows (not meaning to sound like AA), a person

could

> be in denial, or sound like thy're in denial about having a drug or

alcohol

> problem. That's not always the case, but it sure as hell is at times.

> And it a judge thinks that person is going to drive drunk or impaired

again,

> that's not nannyism to protect society in the future.

Steve!!!!!! DENIAL? What the FUCK is denial? Lying to oneself? Bullshit

and poppy-fucking-cock. I'm sorry folks but this just burns me. Unless

people are totally mentally OUT of it, they know exactly what they are

doing. Do they know WHY they are doing it? WHO cares!?! There is NO such

thing as denial in the sense of the word you are referring to. These people

don't give two shits about being responsible. They want to get high. They

want to get stoned. Who can blame them? it's pleasurable. As is sex. If

I have sex too much and throw out my hubby's back, can he sue me? Will I be

in denial if I say I didn't KNOW I wanted sex too much and that it would

harm him. Okay dumb analogy... but you know what? this doesn't need an

analogy. It is clear and self-evidiently stupid on it's own. Denial....

Steve... you might not have meant to sound AA, but you did.

> >

> > > >It is not the place of a judge to say whether or not someone is an

> > > >alcoholic

> > > >(as we understand it), or that someone needs freaking

> > treatment!!!!!!!!!!!

> > >

> > > To the degree that rehabilitation as well as punishment is part of the

> > > correctional system, yes, it may well be that it's the place of a

judge

> to

> > > make such a call.

> >

> > Again, I still see that forced treatment by a judge is punishment, not

> > treatment.

>

> Well, it could be both. But that's a lesser point. Most judges don't give

a

> rat's ass about that point of view either, the idea that coerced treatment

> is punishment, and wouldn't in a " should " situation rather than actual

> present day circumstances either.

> > >

> > > People can engage in self-recovery even if being " coerced " to a

recovery

> > > group. They aren't mutually exclusive. LSR and SOS do not mandate a

> > certain

> > > way to recover. And even if it were AA... you could ignore most of

what

> > they

> > > say.

> >

> > But that isn't the point really, is it? Fake it til you make it? What

is

> > the point of that? People are not going to get their shit together

until

> > they want to get their shit together. The " crime " is DUI... punish the

> > crime... don't punish the cause of the crime... (hmmm.. not sure that

> reads

> > as I mean... but am getting tired... )

>

> Like I said before, sentencing involves (theoretically) rehabilitation as

> well. Judges have the perfect right to make treatment part of

> rehabilitation.

And I guess my point is, once again, why is it a judges place? This is a

MEDICAL and or MENTAL thing we are dealing with when we talk treatment. If

the crime is DUI, then punish the DRIVING part and leave the self medication

" issue " to someone else. It doesn't make sense ,even say, from the disease

theorists POV, to have a judge punish someone for having a disease. Yet

that is the justification used to allow judges to that very thing. It

doesnt make sense. I'm not saying it isn't happening... I'm saying HELLO

STEVE does this make SENSE?

> >

> > True. But my problem is with XA-Nazi PO's like my husband's. If

someone

> is

> > on parole or probation for a violent crime, they are lucky to get out

> early,

> > and I agree with you and Mona and the conditions of probation and parole

> in

> > that arena. But I don't agree in the drug and alcohol arena.

>

> So, you think the drug and alcohol arena deserves special treatment? I'm

> sure there are burglars, forgers and other criminals who have the exact

same

> bitches about POs as drug and alcohol offenders.

> If this is what you meant, this gets back to my " people stomping their

inner

> emotional feet. " And, even if drugs were decriminalized, we'd still have

> DUI-type offenses. Nope, I don't want to see drug/alcohol cases getting

any

> special treatment.

" Special Treatment " Is that a play on words? I am talking violent vs.

non-violent crimes. Who would you want living next door to you? Joe-shmo

who smokes a hooter once in a while and has a six pack on the weekends but

had a DUI 4 years ago, or Charlie-child-molester-need-I-say-more? SPECIAL?

No. Appropriate? Yes.

By the way, what do you care if I'm stomping my inner emotional feet for

anyways? I agree with and Rita (I think I've got you two gals correct

here) in that you sound like someone who just read about their inner child

for the first time in Reader's digest and think's it's some kinda

breakthrough. Look I didn't want this to get personal, but some of the

things you are saying make it SO hard for me to not want to poke you with my

finger in your forehead.

If drugs were decriminalized we'd still have DUI-Type offenses. No kidding.

What is your point? Do you feel drinking is a crime (I'm not asking IF it's

a crime, as we all know we can buy it over the counter), but do YOU feel

it's a crime (morally or otherwise?).... same question for drugs...

have you ever been pulled over for DUI? Have you gone through that process?

Have you ever driven even a little bit on the " tipsey " side such that you'd

have gotten popped if you'd been caught? Have you thought about a year in

jail... have you ever spent a year in jail?

Yes it's a dangerous act. Yes it puts other people's lives in danger... but

so do the stupid assholes I had the mispleasure of having to share the

roadway with today... at a stop sign, 2nd car in line, gets impatient and

pulls into ONCOMING lane to go around car 1 to take a right in FRONT of car

1 and in so doing comes withing inches of ME. who is trying to turn left in

front of car 1.. ASSHOLE FUCKER shoulda been arrested. Then there was

little miss lipstick who thought that my going 7 miles over the speedlimit

wasn't fast enough for her so she decided to pass me on curve... I prayed

for her to hit a semi but my prayers were not answered so she'll probably do

it again some other day and kill some poor innocent. Get a clue Steve...

Its about the DRIVING....

rapists, murderers, childmolesters, and the like are a different population

of people than your average DUI person. Repeat DUI offenders? You bet,

stiffen the penalty...

>

August 9, 2001

>

> Steve,

>

> Hate to say this, but you do sound exactly like an AA here. Why don't you

tell

> us " de-nial " isn't a river in Egypt? Anyone in violation of the law or

subject

> to sanction from others, even a wife, friend, etc. is very likely to

minimize

> unapproved behavior. Is a man who in court says, " I only had two drinks "

yet

> when his drinking buddies ask him responds, " I drank so much and got so

drunk I

> lost complete track after about ten drinks " suffering denial? Or is

denial just

> denial that one needs " a support group " in spite of the fact there is no

> evidence that _any_ of them work?

>

> Where is the " protection " against drunk drivers in mandating " treatment "

when

> the only methodologically sound study of such shows those sent to

treatment at

> random are re-arrested for drunk driving more often?

>

> Ken Ragge

>

Ken all I want to say is I agree with you 1000000000000000000000% times

infinity.

lisak

August 9, 2001

Looking forward... wish he'd came talk to our state legislature. (White that is... I think Trimpey would turn them off before he could turn them on)

lisak

Attending a GROUP is relying on others..... thus, not SELF help, but GROUP help..... (as is so well stated in the White Essay off of "unhooked.com" that I want everyone to read for homework tonite as there WILL be a test tomorrow...

Last April we tried to get Bill White to attend an online chat, which he graciously agreed to do. Unfortunately, freakin yahoo did not cooperate and the man could not get into the chatroom. Ditto when we invited Jack TRimpey, who made a yeoman's effort to storm the cyber-barricades. We have a new chat provider now, and later in the fall will be trying again to recruit guest speakers. I'd like to see Bill White, and Jack Trimpey, invited to try again. --Mona--

August 9, 2001

>

> >

> > Yes, EXACTLY! And since studies show that only about 1/3 of those

> >arrested for DUI are " alcoholic " i.e. meet the criteria for alcohol

> >dependence, it becomes even more clear that " recovery " from alcoholism is

> >not appropriate or necessary in most DUI cases -- what's needed in

> >addressing/preventing DUI, is taking responsibility for safe driving,

> >especially not driving after drinking.

> >

> > There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that coerced attendance at

> > " recovery " groups is effective at preventing DUI. Many DUI's are

committed

> >by people who have been in recovery groups for years. Use of an

> >ignition-interlock breath device has proven to be I think 3 times more

> >effective at reducing recidivism rates than ordering people to attend AA.

>

> Of course, earlier this week, Pete questioned the " coercion " of

breathalyzer

> ignition locks. Anybody else questioning that?

> Steve

FWIW:

Hubby had it for 6 months... I think it's the perfect marriage. But of

course, the person who is so intent on driving anyways will just find a way

to drive another car...Hell, I think all car's should have them. I'm sure

that infringes on at least one of these rights we've been yakking about!...

but really... if it's illegal to drink and drive, then make it impossible to

drink and drive. Hell, the speed limit is 60 around here... I wouldn't care

if my " pedel to the metal " speed was 60. Going faster is against the law.

Why can cars go faster than 60? Doesn't make sense. I don't see

breathalizer's as coercion... it creates a situation where that vehicle will

NOT be driven by a drunk. If these victims want to cop out and say they

have " compulsions " they " cant control " after they drink, then the ignition

interlock will help them through their little crisis.

lisak

August 10, 2001

Arrrgghh! Possible "future behavior". Give me a break. Now judges belong

to the psychic network?

NO! Bullshit. Punish the crime that took place already. Someone who knows

about these things PLEASE tell me I can't be punished for something I MIGHT

do??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

My VIEW and OPINION is JUDGES don't belong in the "treatment" arena. I

think judges would agree. I think they hate it too.

, knowing Steve, I very much doubt (and would be willing to bet) he was not advocating that judges should punish people for future crimes. But that is different from deciding how to require a criminal to proceed in rehabilitation for a present crime he *DID* commit. If this person addresses the issues that brought him before the bench in the first place, it is less likely he'll be back. In that situation, everyone benefits.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

Kayleigh writes, " Whereas sexual harassment in the workplace is deemed wrong, in

part

because it creates a " hostile work environment, " no other workplace

behavior (so far as I know) is banned for that reason. "

There's something weird here. They ban sexual harassment but not other

behaviors on the

grounds that they create a hostile work environment?

I worked in a hostile environment right before I moved. I got a job in a

jewelry factory

in Ithaca. (I got it via VESID, and that is yet another post about an agency

making

promises, breaking promises, making aid dependent on " therapy " which the

therapist agreed

I didn't need, etc)

The environment was stressful and hostile. While there were women working up

front doing

clerical stuff, there were only two of us women who were actually doing the

factory work.

Now, I never had any sexual harassment, but the environment was hostile for two

main

reasons. One was that Boss has this Jekyll-Hyde personality, and one moment

you're doing

okay, and the next moment Boss is yelling. And I do mean angry voices, shouting

throughout the factory. Some of the men would shout back, and there was a lot

of tension

and anger in the factory. Boss didn't shout at me (I wasn't there very long,

and sooner

or later I would have been on the receiving end), but he shouted at the other

woman

worker, called her " Girlie " , and " Stupid " and yelled till she cried. It made

for an

anxious environment, and I was always uncomfortable and watching Boss out of the

corner of

my eye and trying to fade into the background. The other reason was my

co-worker in the

casting room. Had he been welcoming of me and willing to work with me we could

have been

such a good team. But he was very territorial about the casting room and went

out of his

way to be sullen and unpleasant. He'd sabotage me as much as he could by

withholding

information I needed and giving me wrong information so that I would do the

wrong thing

and look stupid. One day he set me up to make a mistake. He ordered me to do

something,

but didn't give me certain crucial information. When things went wrong he said

loudly,

" Now look what you did. Come and see what you did. You're so stupid.

made a

mess. " He said it loudly so as to attract attention.

Work was stressful, and I always came home burned out and tired and drained.

And then I discovered our factory was stealing copyrighted designs. It was

taken for

granted that I would participate in the theft. This is something I cannot prove

in court.

The paper with the design to copy? Gone. The written order for the job?

Gone. The wax

for casting? Promptly melted away. The $10,000 ring made? Sold to a customer

who didn't

know what had happened and was now gone. I knew what it was that I was being

asked to do,

and I knew that the evidence would quickly disappear. And nobody would back me

up. It

would be only the word of a discredited worker who got the job via VESID,

Vocational and

Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, therefore a disabled and

invalid

worker earning $6.00 an hour (to steal a design for a $10,000 ring).

(I picked at the wax for a couple minutes, then told my co-worker that I didn't

know how

to carve the setting. I asked him to give me an different task to do. I didn't

want to

steal the design. But I didn't feel safe saying anything.)

I quit the job and put my house up for sale. And I moved here.

To turn to Kayleigh (saw your picture in the files, nice to put a face to a

name), " And I

have similar problems with the idea that a hostile workplace is only one in

which people

are asked to engage in sex acts against their will, or harassed sexually in

other ways. "

I agree. I found the workplace hostile and stressful and anxiety producing, but

legally

there wasn't anything wrong with the hostility of the atmosphere. (The

copyright

violations and theft of designs were another matter. I believe that if I had

gone along

with the theft and the factory had been caught at it and the owner of the

copyright had

prosecuted, I would have been vulnerable to prosecution, too. Not that there is

much

prosecution, so I'm told. This kind of theft of design happens a lot, and it

costs a

company more to prosecute than to lose just one $10,000 ring. As long as the

thief is

careful about how much is stolen and doesn't take too much, s/he can get away

with it.)

Cheers,

nz

August 10, 2001

At 09:00 PM 8/9/01 -0700, you wrote:

>Hubby had it for 6 months... I think it's the perfect marriage. But of

>course, the person who is so intent on driving anyways will just find a way

>to drive another car...Hell, I think all car's should have them. I'm sure

>that infringes on at least one of these rights we've been yakking about!...

>but really... if it's illegal to drink and drive, then make it impossible to

>drink and drive. Hell, the speed limit is 60 around here... I wouldn't care

>if my " pedel to the metal " speed was 60. Going faster is against the law.

>Why can cars go faster than 60? Doesn't make sense.

[snip]

I've pondered this myself, and concluded that it's because " they "

make a good deal of money from speeding tickets and from

DWI fines. I read an analysis of the situation in Ohio which

concluded that the state government's finances would utterly

collapse if traffic fines disappeared. I'm certain Ohio is far

from unique in this respect.

They don't really want DWI (or driving faster than the speed

limit) to go away. It's too lucrative for that. Why kill the

cash cow?

August 10, 2001

methinks Steve has caught a litle of the paranois he sees in others

No, Steve has been reading a lot of posts and misread or misremembered the exact contents of one on the subject of breathalyser locks. An error is not the same thing as paranoia.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

When I say legally, I don't mean constitutionally, or correctly. Lots of people have lots of second thoughts about laws that permit sex offenders to be held indefinitely in hospitals for the criminally insane....

Absolutely. this is a violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws, as well as of due process, and has established a pernicious precedent.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

An employee could also try to sue for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, but I have never heard of that happening except in the context of a supervisor insisting on having an affair with an employee. Perhaps Mona knows more.

Almost always a loser claim. In general, the courts take a dim view of intentional inflection of emotional distress regardless of context.

Surviving a motion for summary judgment is a real challenge, and so finding a (decent) lawyer who wold press such a claim on contingency is extremely unlikely.

--Mona--

August 10, 2001

> > Arrrgghh! Possible " future behavior " . Give me a break. Now judges

>belong

> > to the psychic network?

> > NO! Bullshit. Punish the crime that took place already. Someone who

>knows

> > about these things PLEASE tell me I can't be punished for something I

>MIGHT

> > do??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

> > My VIEW and OPINION is JUDGES don't belong in the " treatment " arena. I

> > think judges would agree. I think they hate it too.

> >

>

>, knowing Steve, I very much doubt (and would be willing to bet) he was

>not advocating that judges should punish people for future crimes. But

>that

>is different from deciding how to require a criminal to proceed in

>rehabilitation for a present crime he *DID* commit. If this person

>addresses

>the issues that brought him before the bench in the first place, it is less

>likely he'll be back. In that situation, everyone benefits.

>

>--Mona--

, read Mona's post to Pete. I was speaking about judge's making an

assessment of possible future behavior BASED ON PAST KNOWN BEHAVIOR. Judges

do it ALL THE TIME with all sorts of criminals with all sorts of behavior.

Another example of how I see that some people on this list may wish that

alcohol-related offenses may get different treatment than other criminal

offenses.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 10, 2001

Sorry to hear your husband's PO is such an aa Nazi prick. I would suggest

your husband make up stories about what was discussed and how it applies to

his life, if he feels he can get away with it. I have no problem lying in a

situation like that, with a very straight face. Since leaving aa, I find I

am 99% less susceptible to continually questioning myself, and have recovered

my self esteem enough to not give a rat's ass what people think of me, unless

I'm in a situation where it behooves me to do so, such as work.

Jan

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

In a message dated 8/10/01 3:01:19 PM Central Daylight Time,

kasperkarma@... writes:

<< wellllll, it's a good idea, but I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss P

Officers... My husband's PO is an AA- NAZI in the highest order. He

questions my husband about what meeting, what did they cover, what did my

husband learn, how does it apply to his life...... and from this grilling

the PO determines wether my husband is " working the steps hard enough " ...

and if the thinks my husband ISN'T, then he tells the judge my husband is in

violation of probation. He's a son of a bitch... and he gets away with it.

BUT, I suppose in GENERAL, one could sign their own slips... as has been

stated, 2 or more alchy's in a room an AA meetings doth make... and sign

each others slips, and off you go. Everyone must assume their own risk and

be willing to take whatever shit comes their way for not doing it by the

bigbook (BTBB).

lisak >>

August 10, 2001

The only people who are currently legally penalized for something they

might do in the future, to my knowledge, are sex offenders. When I

say legally, I don't mean constitutionally, or correctly. Lots of

people have lots of second thoughts about laws that permit sex

offenders to be held indefinitely in hospitals for the criminally

insane....

>

> >

> > Well, a judge still has the right and I believe the obligation to

act on

> > what he or she sees as society's behalf. If that includes making a

> judgment

> > call as to possible future behavior of the person arrested, that's

what

> > haapens.

>

> Arrrgghh! Possible " future behavior " . Give me a break. Now judges

belong

> to the psychic network?

> NO! Bullshit. Punish the crime that took place already. Someone

who knows

> about these things PLEASE tell me I can't be punished for something

I MIGHT

> do??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

> My VIEW and OPINION is JUDGES don't belong in the " treatment "

arena. I

> think judges would agree. I think they hate it too.

August 10, 2001

I'm not up-to-date on employment law, but I believe what I said is

correct. An employee could also try to sue for intentional or

negligent infliction of emotional distress, but I have never heard of

that happening except in the context of a supervisor insisting on

having an affair with an employee. Perhaps Mona knows more.

Yes, there are many, many abusive work environments, and I have never

known of any remedy against them.

> Kayleigh writes, " Whereas sexual harassment in the workplace is

deemed wrong, in part

> because it creates a " hostile work environment, " no other workplace

> behavior (so far as I know) is banned for that reason. "

>

> There's something weird here. They ban sexual harassment but not

other behaviors on the

> grounds that they create a hostile work environment?

>

August 10, 2001

> >

>

>No, Steve has been reading a lot of posts and misread or misremembered the

>exact contents of one on the subject of breathalyser locks. An error is

>not

>the same thing as paranoia.

>

>--Mona--

And, tho my memory's not perfect (and I'm ready to admit that), I don't

believe I misremembered the gist of taht post. But if anybody thinks I'm

wading through 200 posts from an approximate time of 2 weekends ago, wrong.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

August 10, 2001

wellllll, it's a good idea, but I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss P