Re: New here

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

In a message dated 8/8/01 12:44:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

arroyoh@... writes:

A quick check and I emphasize a

" quick check " indicates the first time you talked about leaving the list was

almost a month ago Mona.

-------

M:

What post? I don't recall ever posting that I was going to leave the list.

The only thing I can fathom you mean is my saying something about not liking

it here with Diener posts swamping my mailbox. I don't think I was alone in

that.

------

H:

Another quick check turned up these Mona:

" For every who leaves (and she actually said it was

not because of l'affaire Deiner) how many others already effectively have

left? I know at least one semi-regular who did, and have been on the verge

of doing so myself. "

" However, if people on this list are so sensitive to message volume that

they would

impose arbitrary limits, I''ll take a hike. "

And for the record I already know I'm going to take hell for this exchange

with alot of the regulars here whether or not you believe it Mona.

---------

[Guest guest]

Ok conversations over. Good Night Mona.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

That's too fucking bad, .

[Guest guest]

Ok conversations over. Good Night Mona.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

That's too fucking bad, .

[Guest guest]

Ok conversations over. Good Night Mona.

-----Original Message-----

From: MonaHolland1@...

That's too fucking bad, .

[Guest guest]

PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

Jan, if you go to unhooked.com that is the web site of Lifering Secular Recovery. LSR is an unstructured support organization for anyone who wants to abstain from mood-altering chemicals of any sort. We believe the individual gets him or herself sober, and that this is easier done for many with the support of others getting themselves sober. No higher powers, no god talk -- except as may incidentally come up in normal conversation.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

Jan, if you go to unhooked.com that is the web site of Lifering Secular Recovery. LSR is an unstructured support organization for anyone who wants to abstain from mood-altering chemicals of any sort. We believe the individual gets him or herself sober, and that this is easier done for many with the support of others getting themselves sober. No higher powers, no god talk -- except as may incidentally come up in normal conversation.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

Jan, if you go to unhooked.com that is the web site of Lifering Secular Recovery. LSR is an unstructured support organization for anyone who wants to abstain from mood-altering chemicals of any sort. We believe the individual gets him or herself sober, and that this is easier done for many with the support of others getting themselves sober. No higher powers, no god talk -- except as may incidentally come up in normal conversation.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mona:

I think I already asked you this and forgot about it. I'll be sure to look

into it. I think support helpful. There's woman who emailed the list today

who might benefit from LSR.

Jan

In a message dated 8/8/01 7:22:35 AM Central Daylight Time,

MonaHolland1@... writes:

<<

Jan, if you go to unhooked.com that is the web site of Lifering Secular

Recovery. LSR is an unstructured support organization for anyone who wants

to abstain from mood-altering chemicals of any sort. We believe the

individual gets him or herself sober, and that this is easier done for many

with the support of others getting themselves sober. No higher powers, no

god talk -- except as may incidentally come up in normal conversation.

--Mona-- >>

[Guest guest]

One thing I found most offensive was a statement of yours to the effect

that the only thing to be critical of AA about is the forced religion

part. You seem to deny entirely the "socialization process" (thought

reform/coercive persuasion or, yes, "brainwashing") and its effects.

Nothing to criticize about AA other than the coerced religion?

You cannot find one post of mine in which I ever came anywhere near close to saying anything as absurd as that the only thing to be critical of AA about is religion. However, given that AA is a religious organization, even if I had said that, that is pretty much enough. Much of the problem with AA actually does lie in its full religous doctrine, not just the mere fact that they expect one to believe in God.

Moreover, I have at all times not only agreed, but insisted that in some AA groups thought reform and/or undue pressure occurs. Don't take my word for it. Go to About.com Current Events - Law and see my first ten posts in the "Sober Without 12 Step Religion Thread." There you will find me setting forth what are essentially indictments against AA for "thought reform" techniques, as well as such insidious practices as telling people to stop taking their psychiatric medication. You'll see my same arguments three months ago in the Acloholism forum.

Your problem, Ken, seems to be that I endorse accurate use of terminology, and that I seek to avoid unrestrained hysterics. There is plenty to criticize AA for that it does do, without depicting it in as overwrought a manner as some fundamentalists vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic Church.

LSR does not tell people to stop taking medication. LSR does not tell them they will die, go insane or end up in prison without it. LSR does not tell people how to get or stay sober, but rather encourages them to craft/collect their own tools for doing so. LSR has no "time" hierarchy. Lsr doesn't tell people to *DO* *anything*. No sponsors. No bullshit. No kidding, Ken.

You are the one who said LSR is AA without God. Well, what is your evidence that this is so? That is a very strong accusation, and one would hope you have something with which to back it up.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

One thing I found most offensive was a statement of yours to the effect

that the only thing to be critical of AA about is the forced religion

part. You seem to deny entirely the "socialization process" (thought

reform/coercive persuasion or, yes, "brainwashing") and its effects.

Nothing to criticize about AA other than the coerced religion?

You cannot find one post of mine in which I ever came anywhere near close to saying anything as absurd as that the only thing to be critical of AA about is religion. However, given that AA is a religious organization, even if I had said that, that is pretty much enough. Much of the problem with AA actually does lie in its full religous doctrine, not just the mere fact that they expect one to believe in God.

Moreover, I have at all times not only agreed, but insisted that in some AA groups thought reform and/or undue pressure occurs. Don't take my word for it. Go to About.com Current Events - Law and see my first ten posts in the "Sober Without 12 Step Religion Thread." There you will find me setting forth what are essentially indictments against AA for "thought reform" techniques, as well as such insidious practices as telling people to stop taking their psychiatric medication. You'll see my same arguments three months ago in the Acloholism forum.

Your problem, Ken, seems to be that I endorse accurate use of terminology, and that I seek to avoid unrestrained hysterics. There is plenty to criticize AA for that it does do, without depicting it in as overwrought a manner as some fundamentalists vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic Church.

LSR does not tell people to stop taking medication. LSR does not tell them they will die, go insane or end up in prison without it. LSR does not tell people how to get or stay sober, but rather encourages them to craft/collect their own tools for doing so. LSR has no "time" hierarchy. Lsr doesn't tell people to *DO* *anything*. No sponsors. No bullshit. No kidding, Ken.

You are the one who said LSR is AA without God. Well, what is your evidence that this is so? That is a very strong accusation, and one would hope you have something with which to back it up.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

One thing I found most offensive was a statement of yours to the effect

that the only thing to be critical of AA about is the forced religion

part. You seem to deny entirely the "socialization process" (thought

reform/coercive persuasion or, yes, "brainwashing") and its effects.

Nothing to criticize about AA other than the coerced religion?

You cannot find one post of mine in which I ever came anywhere near close to saying anything as absurd as that the only thing to be critical of AA about is religion. However, given that AA is a religious organization, even if I had said that, that is pretty much enough. Much of the problem with AA actually does lie in its full religous doctrine, not just the mere fact that they expect one to believe in God.

Moreover, I have at all times not only agreed, but insisted that in some AA groups thought reform and/or undue pressure occurs. Don't take my word for it. Go to About.com Current Events - Law and see my first ten posts in the "Sober Without 12 Step Religion Thread." There you will find me setting forth what are essentially indictments against AA for "thought reform" techniques, as well as such insidious practices as telling people to stop taking their psychiatric medication. You'll see my same arguments three months ago in the Acloholism forum.

Your problem, Ken, seems to be that I endorse accurate use of terminology, and that I seek to avoid unrestrained hysterics. There is plenty to criticize AA for that it does do, without depicting it in as overwrought a manner as some fundamentalists vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic Church.

LSR does not tell people to stop taking medication. LSR does not tell them they will die, go insane or end up in prison without it. LSR does not tell people how to get or stay sober, but rather encourages them to craft/collect their own tools for doing so. LSR has no "time" hierarchy. Lsr doesn't tell people to *DO* *anything*. No sponsors. No bullshit. No kidding, Ken.

You are the one who said LSR is AA without God. Well, what is your evidence that this is so? That is a very strong accusation, and one would hope you have something with which to back it up.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

What is the value of fighting coercion government coercion into one

ideology in favor of another ideology? You think that is a favor to

anyone except the group people are coerced into

Do you read the postings here, Ken? I told Rita some time ago that I oppose coerced attendance at recovery meetings. I would permit it to be given as an option for persons with clear alcohol dependency issues who are on parole or probation, however. What is wrong with permitting reasonable conditions for probation or parole? These persons have been convicted, and the state is therefore entitled to interfere with their liberty to some extent.

P.S. Elsewhere you suggested that my criticism of LSR was that it was an

abstinence-based group. That sounds _so_ AA.

Too bad. Unless and until you have set forth some reason for your hostility to LSR that has a basis in reason and reality, one can only speculate. Well?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

What is the value of fighting coercion government coercion into one

ideology in favor of another ideology? You think that is a favor to

anyone except the group people are coerced into

Do you read the postings here, Ken? I told Rita some time ago that I oppose coerced attendance at recovery meetings. I would permit it to be given as an option for persons with clear alcohol dependency issues who are on parole or probation, however. What is wrong with permitting reasonable conditions for probation or parole? These persons have been convicted, and the state is therefore entitled to interfere with their liberty to some extent.

P.S. Elsewhere you suggested that my criticism of LSR was that it was an

abstinence-based group. That sounds _so_ AA.

Too bad. Unless and until you have set forth some reason for your hostility to LSR that has a basis in reason and reality, one can only speculate. Well?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

What is the value of fighting coercion government coercion into one

ideology in favor of another ideology? You think that is a favor to

anyone except the group people are coerced into

Do you read the postings here, Ken? I told Rita some time ago that I oppose coerced attendance at recovery meetings. I would permit it to be given as an option for persons with clear alcohol dependency issues who are on parole or probation, however. What is wrong with permitting reasonable conditions for probation or parole? These persons have been convicted, and the state is therefore entitled to interfere with their liberty to some extent.

P.S. Elsewhere you suggested that my criticism of LSR was that it was an

abstinence-based group. That sounds _so_ AA.

Too bad. Unless and until you have set forth some reason for your hostility to LSR that has a basis in reason and reality, one can only speculate. Well?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at "recovery" meetings but

you are in favor of it.

That's right Ken, kind of like I'm in favor of denying people the right to carry weapons if they are convicted violent felons, or on probation or parole. Or just like I am in favor of locking people up in cells, if they are convicted violent criminals. One loses some rights when one is a convicted criminal. It does not follow, however, that I favor coercion for non-criminals.

Do you believe the state should not be permitted to punish criminals, Ken?

>>It is reasonable for those who commit crimes to not commit crimes

without more severe sanctions while on parole.  Is the state entitled?

It certainly has the power, but in my book might doesn't make right.<<

You display a fundamental ignorance of what parole is. A parolee's ass belongs to the state, which is entitled to keep him/her locked up. If they are good risks, the state lets them out upon certain conditions, conditions it imposes until the expiration of the full sentence. Which is worse, Ken, sitting in a cell with Bubba, or being let out but having to check in with one's PO, stay clean and sober, and attend recovery meetings? The state has the *right to impose either scenario, during the length of the sentence.

Duh. But see below.

>>You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group<<

As a condition of probation or parole, yes. But see below.

>>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology,

language and world view.<<

Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to stay sober.

>>  I don't think that is okay at all, but since

you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of

LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step

doctrine without God<<

I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous to AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe anything you want in LSR. The only thing you cannot do is proselytize for the use of mood-altering substances. So, is that what bothers you about LSR, the abstinence doctrine?

>> can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based

program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is

just because they want to drink.  Am I reading you correctly?<<

And here is what I mean about see below: ****LSR has no position on whether criminals on parole or probation -- whose liberty is properly in the hands of the state -- are properly required to attend its meetings.**** Everything I have said about that is my own opinion. So, what is your reason for objecting to LSR, given that your purported objection is based solely on my personal opinion, and not on LSR policy or doctrine? In light of the fact that you have conflated my personal opinion for LSR policy, how is LSR "AA without God"? Hmm?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at "recovery" meetings but

you are in favor of it.

That's right Ken, kind of like I'm in favor of denying people the right to carry weapons if they are convicted violent felons, or on probation or parole. Or just like I am in favor of locking people up in cells, if they are convicted violent criminals. One loses some rights when one is a convicted criminal. It does not follow, however, that I favor coercion for non-criminals.

Do you believe the state should not be permitted to punish criminals, Ken?

>>It is reasonable for those who commit crimes to not commit crimes

without more severe sanctions while on parole.  Is the state entitled?

It certainly has the power, but in my book might doesn't make right.<<

You display a fundamental ignorance of what parole is. A parolee's ass belongs to the state, which is entitled to keep him/her locked up. If they are good risks, the state lets them out upon certain conditions, conditions it imposes until the expiration of the full sentence. Which is worse, Ken, sitting in a cell with Bubba, or being let out but having to check in with one's PO, stay clean and sober, and attend recovery meetings? The state has the *right to impose either scenario, during the length of the sentence.

Duh. But see below.

>>You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group<<

As a condition of probation or parole, yes. But see below.

>>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology,

language and world view.<<

Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to stay sober.

>>  I don't think that is okay at all, but since

you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of

LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step

doctrine without God<<

I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous to AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe anything you want in LSR. The only thing you cannot do is proselytize for the use of mood-altering substances. So, is that what bothers you about LSR, the abstinence doctrine?

>> can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based

program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is

just because they want to drink.  Am I reading you correctly?<<

And here is what I mean about see below: ****LSR has no position on whether criminals on parole or probation -- whose liberty is properly in the hands of the state -- are properly required to attend its meetings.**** Everything I have said about that is my own opinion. So, what is your reason for objecting to LSR, given that your purported objection is based solely on my personal opinion, and not on LSR policy or doctrine? In light of the fact that you have conflated my personal opinion for LSR policy, how is LSR "AA without God"? Hmm?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at "recovery" meetings but

you are in favor of it.

That's right Ken, kind of like I'm in favor of denying people the right to carry weapons if they are convicted violent felons, or on probation or parole. Or just like I am in favor of locking people up in cells, if they are convicted violent criminals. One loses some rights when one is a convicted criminal. It does not follow, however, that I favor coercion for non-criminals.

Do you believe the state should not be permitted to punish criminals, Ken?

>>It is reasonable for those who commit crimes to not commit crimes

without more severe sanctions while on parole.  Is the state entitled?

It certainly has the power, but in my book might doesn't make right.<<

You display a fundamental ignorance of what parole is. A parolee's ass belongs to the state, which is entitled to keep him/her locked up. If they are good risks, the state lets them out upon certain conditions, conditions it imposes until the expiration of the full sentence. Which is worse, Ken, sitting in a cell with Bubba, or being let out but having to check in with one's PO, stay clean and sober, and attend recovery meetings? The state has the *right to impose either scenario, during the length of the sentence.

Duh. But see below.

>>You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group<<

As a condition of probation or parole, yes. But see below.

>>where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology,

language and world view.<<

Wrong. We aren't AA. And our only ideology is to find your own way to stay sober.

>>  I don't think that is okay at all, but since

you think it is okay, the only reason for someone to be critical of

LSR's alliance with government agencies and LSR's regurgitation of Step

doctrine without God<<

I defy you, Ken, to show one tenet or doctrine in LSR that is analogous to AA. One. We have none. Zero. We are not a religion. You can believe anything you want in LSR. The only thing you cannot do is proselytize for the use of mood-altering substances. So, is that what bothers you about LSR, the abstinence doctrine?

>> can only be because LSR is an abstinence-based

program just as the Steppers are sure anyone who is critical of them is

just because they want to drink.  Am I reading you correctly?<<

And here is what I mean about see below: ****LSR has no position on whether criminals on parole or probation -- whose liberty is properly in the hands of the state -- are properly required to attend its meetings.**** Everything I have said about that is my own opinion. So, what is your reason for objecting to LSR, given that your purported objection is based solely on my personal opinion, and not on LSR policy or doctrine? In light of the fact that you have conflated my personal opinion for LSR policy, how is LSR "AA without God"? Hmm?

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

>

> > M:

> > Constant threads about the ostensibly evil

> > cyber-machinations of Jim Shirk, or whatever-his-name is, do not

> > interest me, and if that is to be the substance of this list, you would

> not

> > want me here -- I'd just be spewing frustration and disgust at the

> absurdity

> > of such a focus.

> >

> > ---------

> > H:

> >

> > Mona it's ridiculous to even attempt to indicate that the these people

or

> > subjects are the main focus of what " anyone " posts here. They are a

> > temporary nuisance. That's all.

>

> Have you done a " quick check " to see how often Jim Shirk's name is

> mentioned... he seems to be a focus of a fair number of regular posters to

> this list. People who, IMO, are what I call AA conspiracy theorists.

That's

> shown up on the NY judicial ruling... people indicating that it's all some

> diabolical plot by AA to twist the previous religion rulings to AA's

> advantage.

I've also heard the " AA's advantage " theory indicated in the mass media - an

obvious conclusion of such an otherwise stupid judgement.

DT

> >

> > ---------

> > M:

> > I remain angry and perplexed at the hostility Ken has exhibited toward

> LSR,

> > and that is now coming from others.

> >

> > ---------

> > H:

> > I don't see that Ken exhibited hostility towards LSR. And to a certain

> > extent I don't see where you believe others are displaying the same

level

> of

> > hostility (whatever that is) towards LSR. What I'm saying I'm directing

> at

> > 'you' not at LSR. There are some issues that I would like clarification

> on

> > about LSR but I'll wait until we both get this out of our systems.

> >

> As to it's being an abstinence group, I believe he has indicated hostility

> toward LSR. Another " quick check, " back to his 'resignation' post, will

> spell that out clearly enough, IMO.

> > ---------

> > M:

> > What did any person in our group ever

> > say or do to merit such neurotic and, frankly, paranoid suspicions?

That

> > the

> > majority of us (my guess here) would rather be dead than go to an AA

> meeting

> > isn't good enough for you?

> >

> > ---------

> > H:

> > What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> > because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

> See my comments above.

> >

> > ---------

> > M:

> > Is it, at the end of the day, that we are asbtinence-based?

> >

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

> > H:

> > Why would that have any effect on anything? Mona do you understand what

> it

> > means to be on a 12 step free list that has as a list owner a sometime

OA

> > member? The people on this list are very tolerant of alternate views

> > whether or not you believe it.

>

> Including LSRers being likened by Ken, in essence, to a " secular " version

of

> AA evangelists? I know not everybody holds that view, but I doubt Ken is

the

> only one.

> Steve

[Guest guest]

Re: New here

>

> > M:

> > Constant threads about the ostensibly evil

> > cyber-machinations of Jim Shirk, or whatever-his-name is, do not

> > interest me, and if that is to be the substance of this list, you would

> not

> > want me here -- I'd just be spewing frustration and disgust at the

> absurdity

> > of such a focus.

> >

> > ---------

> > H:

> >

> > Mona it's ridiculous to even attempt to indicate that the these people

or

> > subjects are the main focus of what " anyone " posts here. They are a

> > temporary nuisance. That's all.

>

> Have you done a " quick check " to see how often Jim Shirk's name is

> mentioned... he seems to be a focus of a fair number of regular posters to

> this list. People who, IMO, are what I call AA conspiracy theorists.

That's

> shown up on the NY judicial ruling... people indicating that it's all some

> diabolical plot by AA to twist the previous religion rulings to AA's

> advantage.

I've also heard the " AA's advantage " theory indicated in the mass media - an

obvious conclusion of such an otherwise stupid judgement.

DT

> >

> > ---------

> > M:

> > I remain angry and perplexed at the hostility Ken has exhibited toward

> LSR,

> > and that is now coming from others.

> >

> > ---------

> > H:

> > I don't see that Ken exhibited hostility towards LSR. And to a certain

> > extent I don't see where you believe others are displaying the same

level

> of

> > hostility (whatever that is) towards LSR. What I'm saying I'm directing

> at

> > 'you' not at LSR. There are some issues that I would like clarification

> on

> > about LSR but I'll wait until we both get this out of our systems.

> >

> As to it's being an abstinence group, I believe he has indicated hostility

> toward LSR. Another " quick check, " back to his 'resignation' post, will

> spell that out clearly enough, IMO.

> > ---------

> > M:

> > What did any person in our group ever

> > say or do to merit such neurotic and, frankly, paranoid suspicions?

That

> > the

> > majority of us (my guess here) would rather be dead than go to an AA

> meeting

> > isn't good enough for you?

> >

> > ---------

> > H:

> > What paranoid suspicions would those be Mona? That's a serious question

> > because I honestly don't know to what you're referring here.

> See my comments above.

> >

> > ---------

> > M:

> > Is it, at the end of the day, that we are asbtinence-based?

> >

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

> > H:

> > Why would that have any effect on anything? Mona do you understand what

> it

> > means to be on a 12 step free list that has as a list owner a sometime

OA

> > member? The people on this list are very tolerant of alternate views

> > whether or not you believe it.

>

> Including LSRers being likened by Ken, in essence, to a " secular " version

of

> AA evangelists? I know not everybody holds that view, but I doubt Ken is

the

> only one.

> Steve

[Guest guest]

I am very much interested in the work you are doing (planning on doing?) with the 12 step lawyer clearing house and would like to know where you'll be in cyberspace so that I may keep my finger on the pulse of your activities...

, you will certainly always be able to track me via LSR, at unhooked.com. I'll change my email address there when I have a new one. Thank you very much for the encouragement and support.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

I am very much interested in the work you are doing (planning on doing?) with the 12 step lawyer clearing house and would like to know where you'll be in cyberspace so that I may keep my finger on the pulse of your activities...

, you will certainly always be able to track me via LSR, at unhooked.com. I'll change my email address there when I have a new one. Thank you very much for the encouragement and support.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland1@... wrote:

>

> Add to all of this bizarre paranoia Ken's parting shot that we in

> LSR are " among the worst " sort who are nothing but AA without God, and

> I

> think I well see that this list is largely constituted of ... " unusual "

> people.

>

Mona,

I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God.

What particular stands critical of the Step groups' vast network of

belief is LSR/SOS critical of other than the directly religious ones?

Where does LSR diverge from alcoholism as defined in the literature the

groupers wrote (alcoholism " Science " today)? How is LSR less

oversensitive to criticism? Where are the studies that show that

LSR/SOS even has a better treatment outcome than no " treatment "

whatsoever?

One thing I found most offensive was a statement of yours to the effect

that the only thing to be critical of AA about is the forced religion

part. You seem to deny entirely the " socialization process " (thought

reform/coercive persuasion or, yes, " brainwashing " ) and its effects.

Nothing to criticize about AA other than the coerced religion?

>

> Kaleigh I will miss; she is a very bright woman with much insight.

> also

> makes some fine and provocative contributions. And, I share Pete's

> disgust

> with those who dismiss the value of medication -- whether such idiocy

> comes

> from AA or any other quarter. is intelligent and posts

> substantively,

> too. I'm sure I'm leaving out worthy and interesting others.

>

> It is my hope to be instrumental in pulling together a national

> clearinghouse

> for lawyers who will fight 12 Step coercion. But I'm not going to do

> so in

> an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy.

What is the value of fighting coercion government coercion into one

ideology in favor of another ideology? You think that is a favor to

anyone except the group people are coerced into?

Ken Ragge

P.S. Elsewhere you suggested that my criticism of LSR was that it was an

abstinence-based group. That sounds _so_ AA.

>

>

> --Mona--

>

[Guest guest]

MonaHolland1@... wrote:

>

> Add to all of this bizarre paranoia Ken's parting shot that we in

> LSR are " among the worst " sort who are nothing but AA without God, and

> I

> think I well see that this list is largely constituted of ... " unusual "

> people.

>

Mona,

I'm very curious how you think LSR/SOS is not merely AA without God.

What particular stands critical of the Step groups' vast network of

belief is LSR/SOS critical of other than the directly religious ones?

Where does LSR diverge from alcoholism as defined in the literature the

groupers wrote (alcoholism " Science " today)? How is LSR less

oversensitive to criticism? Where are the studies that show that

LSR/SOS even has a better treatment outcome than no " treatment "

whatsoever?

One thing I found most offensive was a statement of yours to the effect

that the only thing to be critical of AA about is the forced religion

part. You seem to deny entirely the " socialization process " (thought

reform/coercive persuasion or, yes, " brainwashing " ) and its effects.

Nothing to criticize about AA other than the coerced religion?

>

> Kaleigh I will miss; she is a very bright woman with much insight.

> also

> makes some fine and provocative contributions. And, I share Pete's

> disgust

> with those who dismiss the value of medication -- whether such idiocy

> comes

> from AA or any other quarter. is intelligent and posts

> substantively,

> too. I'm sure I'm leaving out worthy and interesting others.

>

> It is my hope to be instrumental in pulling together a national

> clearinghouse

> for lawyers who will fight 12 Step coercion. But I'm not going to do

> so in

> an atmosphere of paranoia and lunacy.

What is the value of fighting coercion government coercion into one

ideology in favor of another ideology? You think that is a favor to

anyone except the group people are coerced into?

Ken Ragge

P.S. Elsewhere you suggested that my criticism of LSR was that it was an

abstinence-based group. That sounds _so_ AA.

>

>

> --Mona--

>

[Guest guest]

>From: doglvr000@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: New here

>Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:22:38 EDT

>

>Mona:

>I'm confused. I assumed that this was 12-step-free, other-groups free.

>Your

>input will definitely be missed. Good luck to you on your career and move.

>Jan

>PS - WHAT is LSR? Where can I find it to learn more about it?

>

Mona may have responded already, but it is an abstinence based non-steps

support group, very similar to SOS. LSR = Lifering Secular Recovery

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

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

[Guest guest]

>

>-------

>M:

>Add to all of this bizarre paranoia Ken's parting shot that we in

>LSR are " among the worst " sort who are nothing but AA without God, and I

>think I well see that this list is largely constituted of ... " unusual "

>people.

>

>-------

>H:

>This is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier that you are want

>to

>make concerning the people on this list. Whether it matters to you or not

>it's comments like this that do not endear you to me.

>

And it's comments like your's that intensify my view that this grup is

anti-LSR. And I don't care whether I'm endeared to you or not.

Steve

_________________________________________________________________

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