Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > >------- >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > >------- >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 >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? First, I'd say LSR is less oversensitive to criticism, or no more sensitive, than one Ken Ragge. Second, I didn't realize LSR ***had*** to be critical of anything beyond AA's approach to sobriety to be a non-12-step abstinence-based (oooh, that phrase) support group. Beyond that, we are a more " libertarian " group than AA... individual members can decide what of AA they want to criticize or not. We don't fall into an AA trap of making it some doctrine that we **have to** react to everything AA. We are working on charting our own course. As far as the science side, we regularly discuss science and medical issues related to alcoholism and addiction in an interested, intellectual way that AA does not. (And that some members of this group don't, either, IMO). > >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? See above. LSR is not an ideology (unless you think an abstinence-only focus is an " ideology, " in which case we will strongly disagree). We don't have this " react to everything AA " mindset, or as I called it above, an AA conspiracy theory view. The first or second day I joined this list, I read posts from people talking about undermining 12-step treatment programs by pretending to be steppers, getting jobs there, and working there for years before making their big move. That's fucking nuts..... people like that lack an outside life just as much as any meeting-addicted steppers. A lot of people here have their hands stuck to the tar-baby of AA and just can't (and won't) let go. Steve > >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-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 >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? First, I'd say LSR is less oversensitive to criticism, or no more sensitive, than one Ken Ragge. Second, I didn't realize LSR ***had*** to be critical of anything beyond AA's approach to sobriety to be a non-12-step abstinence-based (oooh, that phrase) support group. Beyond that, we are a more " libertarian " group than AA... individual members can decide what of AA they want to criticize or not. We don't fall into an AA trap of making it some doctrine that we **have to** react to everything AA. We are working on charting our own course. As far as the science side, we regularly discuss science and medical issues related to alcoholism and addiction in an interested, intellectual way that AA does not. (And that some members of this group don't, either, IMO). > >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? See above. LSR is not an ideology (unless you think an abstinence-only focus is an " ideology, " in which case we will strongly disagree). We don't have this " react to everything AA " mindset, or as I called it above, an AA conspiracy theory view. The first or second day I joined this list, I read posts from people talking about undermining 12-step treatment programs by pretending to be steppers, getting jobs there, and working there for years before making their big move. That's fucking nuts..... people like that lack an outside life just as much as any meeting-addicted steppers. A lot of people here have their hands stuck to the tar-baby of AA and just can't (and won't) let go. Steve > >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-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 >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? First, I'd say LSR is less oversensitive to criticism, or no more sensitive, than one Ken Ragge. Second, I didn't realize LSR ***had*** to be critical of anything beyond AA's approach to sobriety to be a non-12-step abstinence-based (oooh, that phrase) support group. Beyond that, we are a more " libertarian " group than AA... individual members can decide what of AA they want to criticize or not. We don't fall into an AA trap of making it some doctrine that we **have to** react to everything AA. We are working on charting our own course. As far as the science side, we regularly discuss science and medical issues related to alcoholism and addiction in an interested, intellectual way that AA does not. (And that some members of this group don't, either, IMO). > >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? See above. LSR is not an ideology (unless you think an abstinence-only focus is an " ideology, " in which case we will strongly disagree). We don't have this " react to everything AA " mindset, or as I called it above, an AA conspiracy theory view. The first or second day I joined this list, I read posts from people talking about undermining 12-step treatment programs by pretending to be steppers, getting jobs there, and working there for years before making their big move. That's fucking nuts..... people like that lack an outside life just as much as any meeting-addicted steppers. A lot of people here have their hands stuck to the tar-baby of AA and just can't (and won't) let go. Steve > >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-- > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Do the former if you must Mona, but *please* dont do the latter. It isn't true, at least as far as I'm concerned. Pete, I won't. I'm just pissed off at the moment. This gets a little ridiculous, fighting a bunch of ignorant and vicious Steppers in several About fora, who think I'm Satan's mistress, and then to find here I am...Satan's mistress. I belong to "AA without god" and beleive in coercion. There is no way in hell I would ever be associated with an organization that adheres to a sacred text -- which cannot be edited or modified in any manner -- and in which lowlife losers gain stature and status to abuse others merely by virtue of dry time. It is simply mind-boggling to me that Ken believes LSR is no better than AA simply because I acknowledge, as a matter of current public policy, that the state properly coerces convicted criminals during the length of their sentences. Doesn't mean I think the state SHOULD coerce them into recovery meetings (I don't want involuntary people at an LSR meeting), but it certainly MAY. As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce non-relgious activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random drug testing by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments would prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up and down and sing "Yes, We Have No Bananas" every morning when you arrive at work, s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and sing it into the telephone on your own time. Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers have the right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law cannot -- and should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that makes me akin to AA, I'll have to live with it. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Do the former if you must Mona, but *please* dont do the latter. It isn't true, at least as far as I'm concerned. Pete, I won't. I'm just pissed off at the moment. This gets a little ridiculous, fighting a bunch of ignorant and vicious Steppers in several About fora, who think I'm Satan's mistress, and then to find here I am...Satan's mistress. I belong to "AA without god" and beleive in coercion. There is no way in hell I would ever be associated with an organization that adheres to a sacred text -- which cannot be edited or modified in any manner -- and in which lowlife losers gain stature and status to abuse others merely by virtue of dry time. It is simply mind-boggling to me that Ken believes LSR is no better than AA simply because I acknowledge, as a matter of current public policy, that the state properly coerces convicted criminals during the length of their sentences. Doesn't mean I think the state SHOULD coerce them into recovery meetings (I don't want involuntary people at an LSR meeting), but it certainly MAY. As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce non-relgious activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random drug testing by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments would prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up and down and sing "Yes, We Have No Bananas" every morning when you arrive at work, s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and sing it into the telephone on your own time. Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers have the right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law cannot -- and should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that makes me akin to AA, I'll have to live with it. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Do the former if you must Mona, but *please* dont do the latter. It isn't true, at least as far as I'm concerned. Pete, I won't. I'm just pissed off at the moment. This gets a little ridiculous, fighting a bunch of ignorant and vicious Steppers in several About fora, who think I'm Satan's mistress, and then to find here I am...Satan's mistress. I belong to "AA without god" and beleive in coercion. There is no way in hell I would ever be associated with an organization that adheres to a sacred text -- which cannot be edited or modified in any manner -- and in which lowlife losers gain stature and status to abuse others merely by virtue of dry time. It is simply mind-boggling to me that Ken believes LSR is no better than AA simply because I acknowledge, as a matter of current public policy, that the state properly coerces convicted criminals during the length of their sentences. Doesn't mean I think the state SHOULD coerce them into recovery meetings (I don't want involuntary people at an LSR meeting), but it certainly MAY. As for a situation like Rita's, yes, an employer may coerce non-relgious activity as a condition of employment. I am disgusted at random drug testing by employers, but only the most far-fetched constitutional arguments would prohibit it. The fact is, if an employer wants to make you jump up and down and sing "Yes, We Have No Bananas" every morning when you arrive at work, s/he may do so. S/he can also require you to call in from home and sing it into the telephone on your own time. Private employers have a right to be tyrants and bullies. Workers have the right to quit, or to form unions and oppose them. But the law cannot -- and should not -- directly prohibit petty employer tyranny. If that makes me akin to AA, I'll have to live with it. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/8/01 10:13:23 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@... writes: > > > >> 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. Mona, OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at " recovery " meetings but you are in favor of it. > 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. > > 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. > > >> >> 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? You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, language and world view. 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 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? Ken Ragge > > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 MonaHolland1@... wrote: > In a message dated 8/8/01 10:13:23 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > kenr1@... writes: > > > >> 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. Mona, OK. You are opposed to coerced attendance at " recovery " meetings but you are in favor of it. > 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. > > 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. > > >> >> 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? You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, language and world view. 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 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? Ken Ragge > > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Say, have you noticed that without the R, his name is "Tippel", and a "tipple" is a coy term for a drink? And this, of course, rhymes with...Ripple. Oh, but wait, you Brits may not be privy to that fine fermented beverage. Think fortified cough syrup that sells for $1.98 a bottle. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 My comments, to this point, have not been anti-LSR they've been Anti-Mona. Then what did you mean in asking me about bringing in "back-up"? If LSR/SOS has nothing to do with your views, then what was that all about? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 My comments, to this point, have not been anti-LSR they've been Anti-Mona. Then what did you mean in asking me about bringing in "back-up"? If LSR/SOS has nothing to do with your views, then what was that all about? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 My comments, to this point, have not been anti-LSR they've been Anti-Mona. Then what did you mean in asking me about bringing in "back-up"? If LSR/SOS has nothing to do with your views, then what was that all about? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > >You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group >where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, >language and world view. 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 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? Ken, LSR does not " regurgitate Step doctrine. " Period. Obviously, you are not reading either my posts' or Mona's very thoroughly. Nor do you appear to have any real knowledge of LSR beyond your fevered imaginings. As I noted before, you seem incredibly stuck on the tar-baby of AA. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 > >You think it is fine for the government to coerce people into your group >where they will be (socially) presured into picking up your ideology, >language and world view. 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 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? Ken, LSR does not " regurgitate Step doctrine. " Period. Obviously, you are not reading either my posts' or Mona's very thoroughly. Nor do you appear to have any real knowledge of LSR beyond your fevered imaginings. As I noted before, you seem incredibly stuck on the tar-baby of AA. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 <<SNIP>> Re: New here 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.--Mona-- <<SNIP>> Mona, As it is obvious you are leaving us, and as I stated, I find this disheartening, 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... I wish you well. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 <<SNIP>> Re: New here 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.--Mona-- <<SNIP>> Mona, As it is obvious you are leaving us, and as I stated, I find this disheartening, 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... I wish you well. lisak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 And I've already told that my opinions are purely my own. You have not been following my orders well, Steve. Be advised that We are watching, and there will be Consequences. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Hi All: Duaine M here: I can only speak for myself. I broke free form all meetings. All groups. I arrived at a place where I was content, happy, and free of drugs/alcohol --Living my life to it fullest. In 1985 I came across an article of . He told of discomfort he endured in AA. From this article SOS started. I had gone to AA for years and was told over and over that I could never stay sober the way I was doing it. I left AA because it wasn't a support group (for me). This is the reason I was drawn to SOS. It is place where no one is told what's working for them is wrong. If it's working --It's working-- If you want to see what I think about SOS you can go to http://www.sossobriety.com I have written one of the how to start a meeting and Religious & Non-Religious freedom. I am only giving you this information to help with your understanding of SOS. Many members use a combination of groups. There is no right way --there is only the way that works for you. I am looking at this group to see if I should give a link to your group on the SOS web sites. I give links to Smart -WFS- and others. Of course I would ask first. There are times when I would like to take a stronger stand with AA. It does do harm. It harms a lot of people. This is a fact. So if you hear a silent cheer it could be me. It also helps and I have no right to criticize people who recover using it. Rarely are issues in life black and white. If I get out of line in this group please let me know. I have a feeling you will. Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Since then, and going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view that original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as you claim. 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-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Since then, and going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view that original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as you claim. 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-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Since then, and going from your recent posts, as mentioned above, I have come to view that original message as divisive in intent and not simply as a mere welcome as you claim. 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-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you. You are quite welcome. Apple at aadeprogamming links to an article at the unhooked site, written by professional counelors on how AA's doctrine's conflict with standard therapy modalities. I believe that to be a very important (peer-reviewed) piece. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2001 Report Share Posted August 8, 2001 Ahhh... I have finally popped over to unhooked and have found a candy store of full of wonderful reading, references and ideas. Thank you. You are quite welcome. Apple at aadeprogamming links to an article at the unhooked site, written by professional counelors on how AA's doctrine's conflict with standard therapy modalities. I believe that to be a very important (peer-reviewed) piece. --Mona-- 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.