No Subject

[Guest guest]

OK here goes,

> We all know what steppers do, and we all have sad sad stories about it.

> What I want to do is define the issue and try to explain why these people

> do this and what can be done about it. All I see us doing is whine, whine

> ,whine,

> and I understand that we are not missionaries out to save the the world from

> steppers but I really think that we need to come to some consencess

> pertaining to

> A. whats going on?

> B. what are we going to do about it?

> C. Who's going to write the book and who's going to finance the book because

> publishers dont like to touch these things. In order to be credible someone

> has to

> put these things in order and and present them in a reasonable and

> scientific manner.

> My brother could do it as he just got invited to the Insitute for Advanced

> Studies

> at Prinston. The only hitch is HE'S A STEPPER.

>

> Come on people help me out here.

>

> Larry

>

>

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

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:55 AM 2/26/99 +0000, you wrote:

>Well at least they sent a whole page joe. Usually steppers just come up

>with asinine oneliners that mean nothing to anyone but them.

Well from that perspective, yes, some gratitude is certainly in order...

>you know the ghastly thing is, I found myself almost spouting them myself

>to a newcomer the last time I went to a meeting. I really ought to follow

>my own advice to Pupship.

>

>P.

, I think you need to come over and get decontaminated again! I will

put on my white radiation suit, and together we will screen your psyche for

program concept viruses and see how many have gotten back into your brain,

and neutralise them using the usual procedures and software. Probably some

paperback detective novel that you read had something in it that you didn't

notice, and then all of a sudden you were in a meeting again, thinking

" Good Orderly Direction, hey that's clever! " . At least the virus didn't

send copies of your 4th step to everybody you know. We will remove the

unwanted conditioning, and then we will eat pizza.

Joe Berenbaum

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Carol

I'm trying to get hold of this book but Amazon lists it as " Out of Print " .

Are the steppers hiding the books again? I will try to contact the Eating

Disorder Association in the UK again, and may well set up my own support

group. They are very professional in their way of handling this, requiring

doctor involvement, which I may well be able to get.

P.

> Pete, Lois Trimpey of Jack and Lois has written about fatness. One of her

> books is called " Fatness " and the other " The Feast Beast " . There are a few

> women who come to Rational Recovery Vancouver and say it makes a lot more

> sense than anything else they have read on the problem. Have you read it?

> Take Care,

> Carol

>

> At 10:28 AM 2/27/99 +0000, you wrote:

> >Hi Joe

> >

> >It would be good to see you again and return your books and reimburse you

> >for " Serenity Principle " . Fortunately I read some before losing it. Why

> >didnt I lose " AA comes of Age " instead?!

> >

> >I'll try to give you a ring; things are pretty tight right now as I have a

> >lot of college work to catch up on.

> >

> >I must say I am very grateful for how you handle the likes of Weakley. You

> >are much more composed (serene?!) but make all the right points; someone

> >might just dismiss me as a foul-mouthed nut but they couldnt do that with

> >you.

> >

> >Also, I have to admit that I am the size of a tank which doesnt exactly put

> >me in a very good position to criticise OA, tho it needs to be said that

> >many AA's smoke like chimneys, which I dont, and would be derisory abt

> >overeating as a serious addiction and the need to recover from it in the

> >first place.

> >

> >P.

> >

> >

> >

> >> , I think you need to come over and get decontaminated again! I will

> >> put on my white radiation suit, and together we will screen your psyche for

> >> program concept viruses and see how many have gotten back into your brain,

> >> and neutralise them using the usual procedures and software. Probably some

> >> paperback detective novel that you read had something in it that you didn't

> >> notice, and then all of a sudden you were in a meeting again, thinking

> >> " Good Orderly Direction, hey that's clever! " . At least the virus didn't

> >> send copies of your 4th step to everybody you know. We will remove the

> >> unwanted conditioning, and then we will eat pizza.

> >

> >

> >Pete

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

> > " I wish to live without hate, whim, jealousy, envy, fear. I wish to be

> >simiple, honest, frank, natural, clean in mind and clean in body...to

> >face any obstacle and meet every difficulty unabashed and unafraid. "

> > --Elbert Hubbard

> >

> >PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST:

> >http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

> >

> >

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

> >Internet FileZone: Always FREE!

> >Instantly store & access your valuable PC files on the net,

> >from any Web browser.

> >SIGN UP NOW - http://offers./click/235/0

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:38:41 -0000 Railroad Rita

wrote:

>

> Pete, I don't quite understand. Why would being overweight

disqualify you from criticising the

confess-your-sins-so-God-will-solve-an-unrelated-problem-for-you OA cult?

Does being a problem drinker and looking for a personally helpful solution

disqualify one from criticising AA? >

Pete:

I guess it's because they can say the " your way doesnt seem to work very

well, does it? " line. Also, I lost all the weight in OA originally; when I

believed in OA it seemed to work for me, when I left it I went pear shaped.

I guess I've got to decide which way I jump, whether I want in or out., I

went again today and hated it, tho I did have a chat with one woman who

feels like me. Time to bite the bullet and do my own thing.

One thing I also have to deal with is having a severe dysthymic disorder.

that really knocks the stuffing out of me, making running a self-help group

a mammoth project, and leaving much to cope with that no mamount of social

support can help with. Almost every day, and certainly every year, is like

a constant drain and series of crises, a neverending misery. Recently I

felt a lot bettem but it's back again. Cant blame OA entirely for that!

I agree with a lot of what you say below, and have even felt like posting

it myself to my PD list to reassure the many women who have fears abt their

weight. I adore voluptuous bodies, far more than the stick insects

literally in Vogue today. however, 100lb overweight is a serious problem

and damages my health and gets in the way of a social life, especially my

confidence with women.

I realize I eat out of fear as well as depression, and I need to RELAX.

SOme social support would be great - what a pity OA sucks. I wont give up,

I'll keep plugging away at it, at least for a while longer, seeif I can

introduce some sanity to it or rescue other ppl before the pod starts

growing...

P.

--

However, if you are in good health and not obese to

the point of getting winded from the slightest exertion, it might be

beneficial to examine your feelings about your size to see if perhaps you

can accept yourself better the way you are. Revulsion at large bodies and

obssession with weight loss is definitely an acculturation and is not

universal. Studies have shown that among American blacks, obesity is

accepted and even admired, to a far greater extent than among middle-class

whites. I think the blue-collar world in general is more accepting of

largeness; certainly that has been my experience on the railroad. If

anything, the guys in the rail yard (who are well-padded and potbellied

themselves) are repulsed by skinniness -- more than once I've heard

(particularly from the black guys): " Nobody likes a bag of bones but a dog,

and even a dog will bury the bones if there's no meat on them. " > >

I've put on about 12 pounds in the past year (was never slim to begin with,

now I'm " pleasingly plump " ) and been getting eyeballed by a few engineers

and signalmen. No way I would go on a diet. As my grandmother used to

say, " Enjoy food, enjoy life, let it show! " > > ~Rita >

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

" I wish to live without hate, whim, jealousy, envy,

fear. I wish to be simiple, honest, frank, natural, clean in mind and clean

in body...to face any obstacle and meet every difficulty unabashed and

unafraid. " --Elbert Hubbard

PERSONALITY-DISORDERS SUPPORT/INFO LIST:

http://rdz.acor.org/athenaeum/lists.phtml?personality-disorders

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

[Guest guest]

---

<snip>

>

>Also, I have to admit that I am the size of a tank which doesnt exactly put

>me in a very good position to criticise OA, tho it needs to be said that

>many AA's smoke like chimneys, which I dont, and would be derisory abt

>overeating as a serious addiction and the need to recover from it in the

>first place.

>

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

Pete, I don't quite understand. Why would being overweight disqualify you

from criticising the

confess-your-sins-so-God-will-solve-an-unrelated-problem-for-you OA cult? Does

being a problem drinker and looking for a personally helpful solution disqualify

one from criticising AA?

If your eating habits and/or size are adversely affecting your health,

there are various ways to address the issue. As Carol suggested, you can get

Lois Trimpey's books, which adapt Rational Recovery methods for correcting

overeating problems; there are also exercise programs, Weight Watchers, etc.

However, if you are in good health and not obese to the point of getting

winded from the slightest exertion, it might be beneficial to examine your

feelings about your size to see if perhaps you can accept yourself better the

way you are. Revulsion at large bodies and obssession with weight loss is

definitely an acculturation and is not universal. Studies have shown that among

American blacks, obesity is accepted and even admired, to a far greater extent

than among middle-class whites. I think the blue-collar world in general is

more accepting of largeness; certainly that has been my experience on the

railroad. If anything, the guys in the rail yard (who are well-padded and

potbellied themselves) are repulsed by skinniness -- more than once I've heard

(particularly from the black guys): " Nobody likes a bag of bones but a dog, and

even a dog will bury the bones if there's no meat on them. "

I've put on about 12 pounds in the past year (was never slim to begin with,

now I'm " pleasingly plump " ) and been getting eyeballed by a few engineers and

signalmen. No way I would go on a diet. As my grandmother used to say, " Enjoy

food, enjoy life, let it show! "

~Rita

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

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

[Guest guest]

Rita, you said things I really needed to read! I'm worried about 10 lbs - upset

because I used to be a size 3 and now I'm an 8 or 10. Really, that is

hilarious, isn't it?

(Yeah, it's off the topic, but I had to comment)

So at six foot tall, 160 lbs. I'm not gonna fret it, dammit! ha ha

Angelina

Railroad Rita wrote:

> ---

>

>

> <snip>

> >

> >Also, I have to admit that I am the size of a tank which doesnt exactly put

> >me in a very good position to criticise OA, tho it needs to be said that

> >many AA's smoke like chimneys, which I dont, and would be derisory abt

> >overeating as a serious addiction and the need to recover from it in the

> >first place.

> >

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

>

> Pete, I don't quite understand. Why would being overweight disqualify

you from criticising the

confess-your-sins-so-God-will-solve-an-unrelated-problem-for-you OA cult? Does

being a problem drinker and looking for a personally helpful solution disqualify

one from criticising AA?

>

> If your eating habits and/or size are adversely affecting your health,

there are various ways to address the issue. As Carol suggested, you can get

Lois Trimpey's books, which adapt Rational Recovery methods for correcting

overeating problems; there are also exercise programs, Weight Watchers, etc.

>

> However, if you are in good health and not obese to the point of getting

winded from the slightest exertion, it might be beneficial to examine your

feelings about your size to see if perhaps you can accept yourself better the

way you are. Revulsion at large bodies and obssession with weight loss is

definitely an acculturation and is not universal. Studies have shown that among

American blacks, obesity is accepted and even admired, to a far greater extent

than among middle-class whites. I think the blue-collar world in general is

more accepting of largeness; certainly that has been my experience on the

railroad. If anything, the guys in the rail yard (who are well-padded and

potbellied themselves) are repulsed by skinniness -- more than once I've heard

(particularly from the black guys): " Nobody likes a bag of bones but a dog, and

even a dog will bury the bones if there's no meat on them. "

>

> I've put on about 12 pounds in the past year (was never slim to begin

with, now I'm " pleasingly plump " ) and been getting eyeballed by a few engineers

and signalmen. No way I would go on a diet. As my grandmother used to say,

" Enjoy food, enjoy life, let it show! "

>

> ~Rita

>

> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----

> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

>

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

> Internet FileZone: Always FREE!

> Instantly store & access your valuable PC files on the net,

> from any Web browser.

> SIGN UP NOW - http://offers./click/235/0

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have fought a continuing battle with the body I have versus the one I think

I should have. . .it is very hard to be taken seriously when you are only 4'11

but now that middle age has crept up on me along with 25 or 30 extra pounds it

is even harder. I am not a tank more like a beach ball. But the extra

padding I carry probably saved my life when I had hepatitis B and then a

couple of years later when I took massive doses of chemo for breast cancer.

Of course with spring fast approaching and all the swim suits are on sale I

sometimes forget to be just grateful to be alive and have my hair back. Of

course I could be using my Treadmill instead of reading my e-mail. Afterall

tomorrow is another day.

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

[Guest guest]

No Subject

>Hi Gang,

>Since I am being forced to sign a paper at work that says I will not show

>bias toward RR, SMART or against AA I came up with this compromise

>explaination. Can I get a helpful critique (no swearing please) that may

>support my position. I really do think AA is definitely dogmatic but I must

>appease the gov't powers that be. Thanksing in advance.

>Carol

>

>

>Why Can't We All Get Along?

>

>This escalating conflict between traditionalists and nontraditionalists

>has results that are harmful to those in need of care and to we who provide

>it.

First of all, it is important to give your sources, even when you are

paraphrasing. Here you are beginning with a direct quote from Vince Fox.

What follows repeats a lot of what he says in Ch. 3 of Addiction, Change,

and Choice.

>Each digs the trenches deeper by attacking the other. Decent,

>intelligent people get subjective and sometimes rude. Ad homiminem attacks

>abound. For instance, , founder of SOS, wrote a book

>seething anger against A.A. and asserting that it promotes " an oppressive

>cultist atmosphere. "

" Ad hominem, " not " ad homiminem. " It means an argument directed at the

arguer (literally " at the man " ) rather than the argument. 's

critique is not an ad hominem argument.

Also, Fox (again) is rather badly misrepresenting . (Note: books

do not seethe with anger. Sometimes authors do!) Flipping through " How to

Stay Sober, " I see a fair amount of balance, and even bending over backward

to say that AA is fine for some people but just doesn't serve those with a

secular outlook. Fox wrenches the quotes way out of context for his purpose.

What really said about the " oppressive cultist atmosphere " was

this:

" To accept the concept of utilizing a substitute addiction -- reliance

upon a mystical power greater than oneself -- put forth in the programs of

Alcoholics Anonymous and other support groups for alcoholism and drug

addiction is, at worst, to involve oneself in an oppressive cultist

atmosphere. At best, it is to encourage dependence upon something or someone

other than oneself for sobriety, rendering sobriety conditional. "

> He too gets oppressive describing it as the

> " ravings of religionists " . Better to discuss the ideas in AA and seek

>common ground. Most nontraditionalists (except , Hester, Engs) see

no

>value in the spiritual underpinnings. But AA has a right to its spiritual

>creation, as it is a program of its own design.

I think this is just wishy-washy appeasement. The only necessary " common

ground " is to agree that there are other ways to recover than AA. Since this

is exactly what the outside promoters of AA won't do (beyond giving the

notion some vague theoretical lip service) there can be no common ground

until they are forced to change their position.

>

>Other programs aren't usually attacked directly by AA proponents but are

>insulted by AA's slogan, " Its our way or the highway " , which does not

>reflect an open nor compassionate attitude to those who find AA unsuited to

>their needs.

>

As far as I know " our way or the highway " is NOT an AA slogan. In fact they

will almost always SAY the opposite.

>Have you heard of the book " Controversies in the Addictions Field " edited

>by Ruth

>Engs?...

[snip]

Yes, I read about it in Fox's book. She's beating around the bush. The

" increasing polarization " stuff is really about the fact that for a while

the AA-oriented treatment industry managed to squash dissent, leaving the

proponents of more flexibility no possible position that would not seem to

be radical. It's sort of like noting the " increasing polarization " between

Milosevic and the Albanian Kosovars.

>Sociologists say cultures are resistant to change. Institutions share two

>related traits: an inordinate resistance to change, and a tendency to

>self-perpetuate. Individuals are like that too. With the unqualified

>statements to the effect that " AA is dogmatic and

>provincial " we hear an allegation and not good thinking with argument and

>fact. The same with charges of personality defects of Jack Trimpey or

>Stanton Peele or Fingarette as " dangerous " or insane. Let's call a truce

>and scrutinize the value of the techniques in each modality and the

>preponderance of the research which supports healthy living for clients

>and informed choice.

The main problem here is that it's pretty easy to show, by argument and

fact, that AA is both dogmatic and provincial. That's not at all the same as

calling Fingarette (a philosopher sufficiently distinguished to have had a

memorial symposium held to honor him) dangerous or insane.

To sum up my critique, my opinion is that trying to win over the other side

by undercutting your own position is a losing strategy. When your side is

the one that is in the right, and the one that should ultimately win out, it

is an especially bad approach. The only position you need to take is that

not everyone is best served by AA, and having alternatives is a good thing.

-- Wally

>

>Thanks.

>

>Carol Francey

>

>

>---

>Up With People!

Wasn't " Up With People " a singing group that fronted for MRA in the sixties?

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Carol

I am very concerned abt this. where are you Joe MCarthy?

Hmmm.... what exactly is 'bias' anyway? who is to determne

who is speaking the truth and who is biased?

so, i guess i'm not much help with saying things that might

help you keep your job, but anyway:

On Sun, 02 May 1999 12:05:51 -0700 carol francey

wrote:

>

> Why Can't We All Get Along?

First off of course, that what is true cannot get along

with what what is false, not in a sane, healthy way,

anyway. all anyone can do is tell the truth as one sees

it, and if one thinks AA sucks, then one thinks it sucks.

I would say it ought to be up to *them* to say what their

policy is, and for you to decide if you will stick to it.

now, will they say 'AA only', or will they also insist that

the AA s inform abt alternatives?

I think what yove come up with is pretty good, and I hope

does the job.

As far as religiousness goes, then you could say 'AA does

not consider itself religious, Let me read you...' and then

go in with the Steps, especially Steps 3 and 11.

another option is to read the thing that I quoted here a

while back, in an Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age

appendix and by a priest, which describes AA as

" quintessentially religious " . Now, can they stop you

reading something from an AA conference approved book

written by a passionate AA admirer? the quote should be in

the 12sf archives.

Good luck!

P.

Pete Watts

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

[Guest guest]

And this employee who attacked you is entrusted with the lives of chemically

dependent people seeking help? Does he tell callers to take a flying f. . ?

Some people don't belong in the 'helping' professions.

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

[Guest guest]

At 03:26 AM 5/6/99 -0700, you wrote:

>That's so cute. Thank you. That is the first joy I have felt in can't

>remember when. Thanks. I met with the union rep today as yesterday one

>other employee flipped threatened that he was going to get me, called me a

>bitch and told me to take a flying fuck.

>You guys feel like friends,

>

>Carol

Hi Carol- I agree with everything he said. I just wanted to say I'm on your

side- for what that's worth! I'm exhausted, I've been out taking

photographs today (I do this only a few times per year since I got ill) and

I am shagged out and need a lot of rest for a couple of days or so. I can't

think of anything useful to say about your letter etc. If I think if

anything I will tell you... Except to say that at some stage it might be

worth pointing out to whoever is on your case at work that if another

employee threatened to " get you " , presumably because of your openminded

inclusion of programs other than AA, then it is possible that you are not

the one demonstrating bias. Stay sane.

Joe Berenbaum

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

[Guest guest]

That's so cute. Thank you. That is the first joy I have felt in can't

remember when. Thanks. I met with the union rep today as yesterday one

other employee flipped threatened that he was going to get me, called me a

bitch and told me to take a flying fuck.

You guys feel like friends,

Carol

At 06:54 PM 5/5/99 +0100, you wrote:

>Hi Carol

>

>I am very concerned abt this. where are you Joe MCarthy?

>

>Hmmm.... what exactly is 'bias' anyway? who is to determne

>who is speaking the truth and who is biased?

>

>so, i guess i'm not much help with saying things that might

>help you keep your job, but anyway:

>

>On Sun, 02 May 1999 12:05:51 -0700 carol francey

> wrote:

>

>>

>> Why Can't We All Get Along?

>

>First off of course, that what is true cannot get along

>with what what is false, not in a sane, healthy way,

>anyway. all anyone can do is tell the truth as one sees

>it, and if one thinks AA sucks, then one thinks it sucks.

>

>I would say it ought to be up to *them* to say what their

>policy is, and for you to decide if you will stick to it.

>now, will they say 'AA only', or will they also insist that

>the AA s inform abt alternatives?

>

>I think what yove come up with is pretty good, and I hope

>does the job.

>

>As far as religiousness goes, then you could say 'AA does

>not consider itself religious, Let me read you...' and then

>go in with the Steps, especially Steps 3 and 11.

>

>another option is to read the thing that I quoted here a

>while back, in an Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age

>appendix and by a priest, which describes AA as

> " quintessentially religious " . Now, can they stop you

>reading something from an AA conference approved book

>written by a passionate AA admirer? the quote should be in

>the 12sf archives.

>

>Good luck!

>

>P.

>

>Pete Watts

>

>

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

>Does your free web site address contain more letters than the alphabet?

>Register a domain name with DomainDirect. A domain with NO hosting fees.

>Visit http://clickhere./click/49 for full details.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 03:26 AM 5/6/99 -0700, carol francey wrote:

>That's so cute. Thank you. That is the first joy I have felt in can't

>remember when. Thanks. I met with the union rep today as yesterday one

>other employee flipped threatened that he was going to get me, called me a

>bitch and told me to take a flying fuck.

Gee, I would think you would want to talk to the police about a person

who " threatened that he was going to get " you. This and the name-calling

seem to be quite close to a threat of violence. If in doubt, you should be

able to ask the police.

>You guys feel like friends,

>

>Carol

while hoping not to diminish our friendship with what I'm about to say,

it seems like most anyone would feel like friends after experienceing

someone like that.

Hoping I'm considered one of your friends....

-----

<http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley> New and Improved!

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

[Guest guest]

At 02:22 AM 5/7/99 +0000, Joe Berenbaum wrote:

>At 06:15 PM 5/5/99 -0700, you wrote:

>>

>> Excellent critique, Wally! I agree with every point. Carol, a short

>and succinct response would be best, mainly emphasizing that different

>approaches serve the needs of different individuals, and the common goal of

>all programs is to help people change their harmful drinking patterns.

>>

>>~Rita

>

>Carol, I just had another thought. Agreeing in writing to not be biased in

>future is effectively admitting that you were biased in the first place. Is

>this a good idea?

I agree this is a good idea. Something has crossed my mind that goes

even further, though perhaps too far in the other direction. This gets into

the area of playing games (which basically means you're stooping to their

level), so I don't neccesarily reccomend you do this, but it's fun to write

and speculate about...

Write that you are very glad they are concerned about there being bias,

and that in your own efforts to be bias-free, you present all the different

recovery avenues that may be available to those who seek help, explaining

each and answering any questions, and allow others to contact the group that

is most appropriate for each individual. Their asking you about whether

there might be bias for or against any one group tells you that they suspect

one or more of your coworkers of being biased in some way. You are of course

appalled at this idea, as people may not be getting the appropriate help

they need. You will be most glad to cooperate with them in any way to insure

that their services are bias-free.

It doesn't admit to what you know they're doing, and what they know you

know they're doing (distorting the word 'bias' to accuse you of not towing

the party line) yet everything above is (from what I've read in this thread)

perfectly true.

>What there has been is the perception of bias, rather

>than bias itself. If there is bias then it is demonstrated by the attitude

>of those who favour only one solution for everybody even including those

>whose deeply held religious beliefs conflict with it, when common sense

>suggests that this approach may not make much sense. I would be wary of

>giving too much ground here. I would also consider asking why everybody

>else is not asked for this undertaking. That would at least be fair. If

>nobody else is required to give any assurance of not demosntratng bias in

>future, then why should you? Wouldn't that itself (only one employee being

>asked for such an assurance) demonstrate some sort of bias on the part of

>your employer? Are you getting any legal advice?

Excellent question, which brings up more advice - document everything

they said and did, you said and did, ask for things in writing, save dates

and times, etc - all the details. This is good cover-your-ass stuff and can

help you prove your case if need be.

-----

<http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley> New and Improved!

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Carol

Very glad my post was of help. did this guy flip out abt RR and AA?

On another list I read a post by a woman coimplaining abt her involvement

(wmployee or clinic mandated, I think) 'in a group where all they did was

talk abt how God had helped them stop drinking.' she didnt say what the

group was. i wrote replying that it sounded like she had been caught up with

AA fanatics. An AA on the list immediately wrote angrily complaining of my

'vicious attack'on AA - while grudgingly accepting my right to free speech.

The first woman never said whether it was an AA group or not, either in the

original post or subsequently. now why should that be? if it wasnt, then she

would almost certainly have said so to quiet down the argument, hence it

very probably *was* an AA group (especially by her description). Now, why

did she choose not to say so, even in her original post where there ought to

have been no reason to avoid it? One of the strongest indicators that AA is

a religion is the vehemence with which ppl defend it and the excessive

reverence given to it by ppl who have no reason to.

P.

On Thu, 06 May 1999 03:26:54 -0700 carol francey

wrote:

> That's so cute. Thank you. That is the first joy I have felt in can't

> remember when. Thanks. I met with the union rep today as yesterday one

> other employee flipped threatened that he was going to get me, called me a

> bitch and told me to take a flying fuck.

> You guys feel like friends,

>

> Carol

>

> At 06:54 PM 5/5/99 +0100, you wrote:

> >Hi Carol

> >

> >I am very concerned abt this. where are you Joe MCarthy?

> >

> >Hmmm.... what exactly is 'bias' anyway? who is to determne

> >who is speaking the truth and who is biased?

> >

> >so, i guess i'm not much help with saying things that might

> >help you keep your job, but anyway:

> >

> >On Sun, 02 May 1999 12:05:51 -0700 carol francey

> > wrote:

> >

> >>

> >> Why Can't We All Get Along?

> >

> >First off of course, that what is true cannot get along

> >with what what is false, not in a sane, healthy way,

> >anyway. all anyone can do is tell the truth as one sees

> >it, and if one thinks AA sucks, then one thinks it sucks.

> >

> >I would say it ought to be up to *them* to say what their

> >policy is, and for you to decide if you will stick to it.

> >now, will they say 'AA only', or will they also insist that

> >the AA s inform abt alternatives?

> >

> >I think what yove come up with is pretty good, and I hope

> >does the job.

> >

> >As far as religiousness goes, then you could say 'AA does

> >not consider itself religious, Let me read you...' and then

> >go in with the Steps, especially Steps 3 and 11.

> >

> >another option is to read the thing that I quoted here a

> >while back, in an Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age

> >appendix and by a priest, which describes AA as

> > " quintessentially religious " . Now, can they stop you

> >reading something from an AA conference approved book

> >written by a passionate AA admirer? the quote should be in

> >the 12sf archives.

> >

> >Good luck!

> >

> >P.

> >

> >Pete Watts

> >

> >

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

> >Does your free web site address contain more letters than the alphabet?

> >Register a domain name with DomainDirect. A domain with NO hosting fees.

> >Visit http://clickhere./click/49 for full details.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Joe

Actually, she admitted there were AA fanatics when she replied. In my

response to her, I bpointed out that there was actually no contradiction in

her position and mine in that she admitted the fanatucs existed. She also

said that my view was clearly the result of bitterness at a -ve experience

with AA. I asked her if her +ve views of AA werent invalidated as a result of

her +ve experience of it, why should my -ve views be invalidated because I

had had a -ve experience of it?

Pete

In a message dated 08/05/99 15:56:57 W. Europe Daylight Time,

joe-b@... writes:

<< >On another list I read a post by a woman coimplaining abt her involvement

>(wmployee or clinic mandated, I think) 'in a group where all they did was

>talk abt how God had helped them stop drinking.' she didnt say what the

>group was. i wrote replying that it sounded like she had been caught up

with

>AA fanatics. An AA on the list immediately wrote angrily complaining of my

>'vicious attack'on AA - while grudgingly accepting my right to free speech.

This is strange. You can easily see that this guy has some very irrational

beliefs about AA and the discussion of AA;

1] There are no AA fanatiocs

2] If there are AA fanatics they must not be mentioned

and I would think almost certainly-

3] Criticism of AA must not be allowed

>>

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

[Guest guest]

pete,

i like your resposne there to what is a typical a.a defense of trying

to undermine the credibility/motives of amyone who has anything negative

to say of thier program. Its almsot pathalogical how they resist any

critical (as in using ones mind to make a objective judgement)

analyzation or personal experince which doesnt make A.A. seem like a

utopia.

dave

Petejwatts@... wrote:

>

> Hi Joe

>

> Actually, she admitted there were AA fanatics when she replied. In my

> response to her, I bpointed out that there was actually no contradiction in

> her position and mine in that she admitted the fanatucs existed. She also

> said that my view was clearly the result of bitterness at a -ve experience

> with AA. I asked her if her +ve views of AA werent invalidated as a result of

> her +ve experience of it, why should my -ve views be invalidated because I

> had had a -ve experience of it?

>

> Pete

>

> In a message dated 08/05/99 15:56:57 W. Europe Daylight Time,

> joe-b@... writes:

>

> << >On another list I read a post by a woman coimplaining abt her involvement

> >(wmployee or clinic mandated, I think) 'in a group where all they did was

> >talk abt how God had helped them stop drinking.' she didnt say what the

> >group was. i wrote replying that it sounded like she had been caught up

> with

> >AA fanatics. An AA on the list immediately wrote angrily complaining of my

> >'vicious attack'on AA - while grudgingly accepting my right to free speech.

>

> This is strange. You can easily see that this guy has some very irrational

> beliefs about AA and the discussion of AA;

>

> 1] There are no AA fanatiocs

>

> 2] If there are AA fanatics they must not be mentioned

>

> and I would think almost certainly-

>

> 3] Criticism of AA must not be allowed

> >>

>

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

[Guest guest]

Re: No Subject

>pete,

>i like your resposne there to what is a typical a.a defense of trying

>to undermine the credibility/motives of amyone who has anything negative

>to say of thier program. Its almsot pathalogical how they resist any

>critical (as in using ones mind to make a objective judgement)

>analyzation or personal experince which doesnt make A.A. seem like a

>utopia.

>

>dave

Hi Dave,

Don't know why you feel the need to say *almost* pathological. The really

sad thing is that the reason that they reflexively attack the personality or

motives of the doubter, is that this is exactly how they have been trained

to deal with their OWN doubts. " It must be my sick self-will. " " It's just my

disease talking to me. " " If I feel like skipping a meeting tonight, that's

my denial working on me. " Etc. etc.

-- Wally

>

>Petejwatts@... wrote:

>>

>> Hi Joe

>>

>> Actually, she admitted there were AA fanatics when she replied. In my

>> response to her, I bpointed out that there was actually no contradiction

in

>> her position and mine in that she admitted the fanatucs existed. She

also

>> said that my view was clearly the result of bitterness at a -ve

experience

>> with AA. I asked her if her +ve views of AA werent invalidated as a

result of

>> her +ve experience of it, why should my -ve views be invalidated because

I

>> had had a -ve experience of it?

>>

>> Pete

>>

>> In a message dated 08/05/99 15:56:57 W. Europe Daylight Time,

>> joe-b@... writes:

>>

>> << >On another list I read a post by a woman coimplaining abt her

involvement

>> >(wmployee or clinic mandated, I think) 'in a group where all they did

was

>> >talk abt how God had helped them stop drinking.' she didnt say what

the

>> >group was. i wrote replying that it sounded like she had been caught up

>> with

>> >AA fanatics. An AA on the list immediately wrote angrily complaining of

my

>> >'vicious attack'on AA - while grudgingly accepting my right to free

speech.

>>

>> This is strange. You can easily see that this guy has some very

irrational

>> beliefs about AA and the discussion of AA;

>>

>> 1] There are no AA fanatiocs

>>

>> 2] If there are AA fanatics they must not be mentioned

>>

>> and I would think almost certainly-

>>

>> 3] Criticism of AA must not be allowed

>> >>

>>

>

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

>@Backup - The #1 Online Backup Service

>Automatic, Safe, Reliable Backup and Restores. FREE for

>30 Days. INSTALL Now and have a chance to win a Palm Pilot V!

>http://clickhere./click/218

>

>

[Guest guest]

wally,

yea your right now that i think about it. I dont think i really saw it

as projection of thier own doubts before because i never really bought

into the whole " diseased " idenity and self image too deeply. sometime

around my 6th month in program (which was about time i led my last

meeting) i stopped thinking of myself in A.A.jargon and started to use

my own knowledge and experince to understand myself and the world as i

was experincing it sober.

it soon became apparent to me that my sponsor was projecting sickness on

me when he didnt have an idea of the quality of my sobriety. After going

8 days without checking in with him, he called me " toxic and sick " even

though i had been experincing a period of tremendous growth and

happiness (away from meetings to boot). I was telling him one thing and

he was hearing the opposite.

although i knew that they are taught to think " It must be my sick

self-will. " " It's just my disease talking to me. " , i always saw it as

them trying to convince me to doubt myself.

i never saw it as an example of his own self doubts before. thanks for

the new spin on things. its food for thought.

dave

Wally T. wrote:

>

> Re: No Subject

>

> >pete,

> >i like your resposne there to what is a typical a.a defense of trying

> >to undermine the credibility/motives of amyone who has anything negative

> >to say of thier program. Its almsot pathalogical how they resist any

> >critical (as in using ones mind to make a objective judgement)

> >analyzation or personal experince which doesnt make A.A. seem like a

> >utopia.

> >

> >dave

>

> Hi Dave,

>

> Don't know why you feel the need to say *almost* pathological. The really

> sad thing is that the reason that they reflexively attack the personality or

> motives of the doubter, is that this is exactly how they have been trained

> to deal with their OWN doubts. " It must be my sick self-will. " " It's just my

> disease talking to me. " " If I feel like skipping a meeting tonight, that's

> my denial working on me. " Etc. etc.

>

> -- Wally

>

> >

> >Petejwatts@... wrote:

> >>

> >> Hi Joe

> >>

> >> Actually, she admitted there were AA fanatics when she replied. In my

> >> response to her, I bpointed out that there was actually no contradiction

> in

> >> her position and mine in that she admitted the fanatucs existed. She

> also

> >> said that my view was clearly the result of bitterness at a -ve

> experience

> >> with AA. I asked her if her +ve views of AA werent invalidated as a

> result of

> >> her +ve experience of it, why should my -ve views be invalidated because

> I

> >> had had a -ve experience of it?

> >>

> >> Pete

> >>

> >> In a message dated 08/05/99 15:56:57 W. Europe Daylight Time,

> >> joe-b@... writes:

> >>

> >> << >On another list I read a post by a woman coimplaining abt her

> involvement

> >> >(wmployee or clinic mandated, I think) 'in a group where all they did

> was

> >> >talk abt how God had helped them stop drinking.' she didnt say what

> the

> >> >group was. i wrote replying that it sounded like she had been caught up

> >> with

> >> >AA fanatics. An AA on the list immediately wrote angrily complaining of

> my

> >> >'vicious attack'on AA - while grudgingly accepting my right to free

> speech.

> >>

> >> This is strange. You can easily see that this guy has some very

> irrational

> >> beliefs about AA and the discussion of AA;

> >>

> >> 1] There are no AA fanatiocs

> >>

> >> 2] If there are AA fanatics they must not be mentioned

> >>

> >> and I would think almost certainly-

> >>

> >> 3] Criticism of AA must not be allowed

> >> >>

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

[Guest guest]

Hi All;

I think it's Jay over on his egroup spamming me and causing my

email program to send those. I caught about 40 of them in my

email queue and thought I had them all.

My email program will send a delivery confirmation and reading

confirmation if I ask it to. I don't ask and have all that stuff

unchecked, but for some reason it started doing it right after I

unsubbed his group. I was only in his group about two hours, when

I realized who he was I unsubbed. He was a big time trouble

maker over on SOSMail's egroup.

He's trying to get back on SOS and I told him that was unlikely due

to the attack dog methods he used while on there trying to stuff his

particular brand of spiritualit down everyone's throat. I unsubbed

the group and then my email program went ape.

So the short answer is I am the culprit and I believe I have it

stopped. I put a filter in for his address so my program shouldn't

trigger anymore.

Sorry for all those nothing emails. If you get anymore write directly

to me, please. I don't want to be polluting cyber space, especially

that of the folks here, whom I consider to be friends.

Thanks

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

eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

- Simplifying group communications

[Guest guest]

ÿþ

[Guest guest]

Hi Joe!

I had to go back to Friday's postings and print out Dog Haiku. It was great!

wrote:

Original Article: /group/12-step-free/?start=4707

> At 07:15 PM 6/16/99 -0700, you wrote:

> > Wow, let's try that again! you wrote: >Hi Gang,

> >This researcher may like to know about your PTS or other human rights

> >violations of AA. Worth a peek.

> ><

> > margie

> >mesavag@...

>

> Margie! Hi! How long have you been on this list?

>

> Joe Berenbaum

>

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

eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free

- Simplifying group communications

[Guest guest]

Sherilyn,

This came up on the list, so you are already joined! LOL Post your intro

when you are ready...

Take care,

Krista

[Guest guest]

Jan - I am currently working on my Masters thesis...my topic is the

communication disconnect between women who have lost pregnancies and their

significant others...I think we may be of some help to eachother.

As for my ectopic, I went into the ER not even knowing I was pregnant. My

doctor didn;t practice out oif the hospital I was rushed to (if I new I was

pregnant I would of gone ot his hospital) so the Er doctor was an idiot. As

for the nurses I was lucky. There were no beds available in the hospital so

I spent my entire stay in the PACU ...myself and three other patients shared

about 8 nurses - I received wonderful care. everyone was very compassionate

and kind. The only rude remark was aren't you alittle young, you're just a

baby? well, I think I am old enough to be pregnant at 26 but thanks for your

input...some people just put their foot in their mouth without thinking.

When I went back to work I was still walking funny and one woman said you're

walking like you just had a baby...I cried!

anyway, I tend to ramble...

[Guest guest]

Dear Jan

I live in South Africa, and I went to our local private hospital when I had

my ep. removed. In general the nurses were great, there was just one of them

that didn't seem to take seriously the fact that I lost a baby. I was crying

one morning when they came to do their rounds, and she asked me if I was

crying because of what happened, and when I said yes, she said: " just be glad

it happened so early, and that you didn't have to carry the baby for longer "

I wanted to clobber her. I was also a bit put out by the fact that they

placed me in the maternity ward, some nurses were constantly telling me

about the latest delivery they handled and things like " can you hear that

one crying? boy she's got lungs! " They didn't seem to realise how painfull

it was for me to listen to the cries, and to constantly be reminded that I

was the only one in there that did not have a baby.

One nurse was great though, she held me when I cried, and told me to take my

time healing, not to rush going home, that it was entirely normal for me to

feel sad and even angry by what happened. Before I was discharged, they sent

a counsellor to talk to me about everything, she was very nice, although I

think she could have been less proffesional and more sympathetic. The worst

was actually the gynea that came to see me the day before I was discharged.(

my own gynea left on holiday the day before) He asked me when I was going

home, and when I told him that I didn't feel ready, he said " pull yourself

together, it's not as if you lost a child, it was just a bunch of cells. " I

told him that it didn't make me feel any better thinking of it like that and

he said " get over it "

I think in general, nurses should be more trained to deal with losses such

as ep's and miscarriages, to realise the grief that woman go through after

something like that. Hospitals should also be more sympathetic. It should'nt

be allowed to put a woman that has just lost a baby for any reason or

whatever stage of pregnancy to be placed in a maternity ward. I think I

would've recovered alot faster if I didn't have to listen to all the other

babies crying all day long, and see new mothers parading up and down the

corridors with excited grandparents. If I could make a suggestion to

hospitals, I would urge them to have a seperate ward specifically reserved

for woman that have had pregnancy losses, still births or major

gyneacelogical surgery. They could have a in-house counsellor, and maby even

group sessions so that these woman could talk to each other about their

losses, and deal with these issues before being sent home.

anyway, sorry for going on.

sonja Kershaw

>

>Reply-To: ectopicpregnancyegroups

>To: <ectopicpregnancyegroups>

>Subject: No Subject

>Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:46:26 +1300

>

>Hi...my name is Jan, I live in New Zealand, I have had a series of ectopic

>pregnancies and misscarriages spanning 1980-1995, but during this time I

>also gave birth to 2 boys now 13 & 15. I am in my final year of a bachelor

>of nursing degree.

>

>One of the paper I am currently doing is Woman and Health. I have chosen to

>do my paper on Nurses and society's attitudes to ectopic pregnancy. I would

>be really gratefull if as many of you as possibe could tell me how you were

>treated by nurses surrounding your experience with ectopic and also other

>people (members of society and how they treated you, did they understand ).

>I would be so gratefull if any of you would help me in this.

>

>I would also be interested to know if any of you were put in touch with

>support agencies or if you were left to find them on your own.

>

>I have my own experiences with all of this which was not very nice, I hope

>all of you were treated better that I was.

>

>Thanks

>Jan Bentley

>

>

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

>

>eGroups.com home: /group/ectopicpregnancy

> - Simplifying group communications

>

>

>

______________________________________________________