Re: pardon?

July 25, 1999

> RR says " zero " is to be the acceptable level; Moderation Management says

limited levels, coupled with some absolutes (such as no drinking before

driving) is the acceptable level. Personally I feel a synthesis between RR

and MM would have far-reaching effects on reducing problem drinking, and

tragic aftermaths. >

Rita, I thought your entire post was really interesting. I quoted this

portion because it fits in with a conversation I had with Bob Muscala, the

only personal advisor for SMART Recovery meetings in Minnesota (outside one

state prison). I got his name from the SMART website and gave him a call.

He said basically the same thing you have here.

His reasoning was that AA is so large and influential, and alternatives so

relatively small and unknown, that " united we stand. " He said that the best

" program " would be idiosyncratic, based on the individual's needs, beliefs,

lifestyle, etc., and would probably include aspects of different

alternatives.

Judith

________________________________________________________________

Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com

Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com

July 25, 1999

> RR says " zero " is to be the acceptable level; Moderation Management says

limited levels, coupled with some absolutes (such as no drinking before

driving) is the acceptable level. Personally I feel a synthesis between RR

and MM would have far-reaching effects on reducing problem drinking, and

tragic aftermaths. >

Rita, I thought your entire post was really interesting. I quoted this

portion because it fits in with a conversation I had with Bob Muscala, the

only personal advisor for SMART Recovery meetings in Minnesota (outside one

state prison). I got his name from the SMART website and gave him a call.

He said basically the same thing you have here.

His reasoning was that AA is so large and influential, and alternatives so

relatively small and unknown, that " united we stand. " He said that the best

" program " would be idiosyncratic, based on the individual's needs, beliefs,

lifestyle, etc., and would probably include aspects of different

alternatives.

Judith

________________________________________________________________

Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com

Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com

July 25, 1999

In a message dated 7/25/99 4:37:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

railroadrita@... writes:

<< Moderation Management says limited levels, coupled with some absolutes

(such as no drinking before driving) is the acceptable level. >>

In MY case, this is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!! I cannot handle my booze -

PERIOD! Once I start, I can't stop. It's been eight years, and believe you

me, I am not even going to GO THERE AGAIN!!! Tried to long to drink like a

'normal person.'

The above statement pisses me off royally. I cannot believe that some folks

can actually do this. For me, it's ALL or NOTHING!!

Best,

Luanne

July 25, 1999

In a message dated 7/25/99 4:37:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

railroadrita@... writes:

<< Moderation Management says limited levels, coupled with some absolutes

(such as no drinking before driving) is the acceptable level. >>

In MY case, this is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!! I cannot handle my booze -

PERIOD! Once I start, I can't stop. It's been eight years, and believe you

me, I am not even going to GO THERE AGAIN!!! Tried to long to drink like a

'normal person.'

The above statement pisses me off royally. I cannot believe that some folks

can actually do this. For me, it's ALL or NOTHING!!

Best,

Luanne

July 25, 1999

---

Hi --

Once again, please let me jump in here. I don't speak for Carol and her

personal feelings/take on things, of course, but I would like to comment on RR.

I do agree with you that Trimpey's presentation and self-congratulations

are truly theater of the absurd. However, please try to separate the method

from the man. If Trimpey's personal style is not to your liking, does that mean

Rational Recovery's approach is without merit?

The " science " behind RR, in my opinion, is sociology.

For many centuries, and many decades into this century, the rate of

alcoholism among Jews was very, VERY much lower than that of most other ethnic

groups. With the advent of " medical " models of alcoholism, such as the

primitivistic " allergy " idea of the early AA's, or later, more

sophisticated-sounding notions of a genetic flaw in the way alcohol is

metabolized, it was thought that Jews probably had some genetic marker _against_

alcoholism.

As American Jews became more assimilated, and religious education/ " Jewish

consciousness " began to become less common, rates of alcoholism among American

Jews began to rise. This could not be accounted for by the phenomenon of

intermarriage, as alcoholism rates rose for (pardon the vulgarism)

" full-blooded " Jews as well.

Stanton Peele did a piece on the prevalence of alcoholism among cultures

that encourage alcohol use (but discourage inebriety) vs. cultures that

" demonize " alcohol completely. Alcoholism rates are far higher in the latter

cultures.

Observant Jews are _required_ to drink wine weekly to welcome Shabbat, and

on certain holidays; before the wine is drunk, it is blessed as a gift from God,

to be respected and not abused. Jewish children who attend religious education

are taught through Bible stories and (other) mythology to avoid drunkenness, but

not to avoid responsible alcohol consumption. In addition, Talmud and Jewish

tradition hold that people are always fully responsible for all their behavior,

and that if one is behaving badly, it is fully within his/her power to " turn

over a new leaf " .

The genetic and medical models fell flat when Jewish alcoholism rates began

to approach alcoholism rates in the general population. Obviously our genes

hadn't changed, nor had we suddenly as a people become more " diseased " ; what had

changed, and what was missing in Jewish problem drinkers, was the internal

controls preventing irresponsible alcohol consumption, which happened to have

been encouraged previously by religious conviction.

This suggests that problem drinking is a sociological/internalized

perception phenomenon. Altering the perception of what kind of drinking is

personally acceptable can therefore be expected to significantly decrease

problem drinking.

Rational Recovery suggests that drinking is pleasurable (would anyone argue

that point?) and that people drink excessively/irresponsibly because their

desire for pleasure is not held in check by any overriding convictions, beliefs,

morality, whatever. The demographic reality that alcoholism among observant

Jews remains very low, while among non-observant Jews is just about equal to

that of the general population, bears this out.

Although I disagree with the permanent, total abstinence stance of the

Trimpeys, I see AVRT as having real validity in its suggestion that individuals

can " re-vamp " their personal stance on what is acceptable drinking behavior for

them. RR says " zero " is to be the acceptable level; Moderation Management says

limited levels, coupled with some absolutes (such as no drinking before driving)

is the acceptable level. Personally I feel a synthesis between RR and MM would

have far-reaching effects on reducing problem drinking, and tragic aftermaths.

~Rita

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

>With a statement such as, it must feel good to hurt me it is no wonder

>that you don't understand my RR slam. Get a grip this an e-mail

>discussion you make it sound like a face to face assault or a feeelings

>mugging.

>I am voicing my own opinions about what I see as a obviously flawed

>system that is claiming perfection. I have been getting no straight

>answers from you just as I didn't from the RR site which leads me to

>believe there just aren't any. The intent is not to hurt your

>feelings although if you say your hurting you may be..

>If you feel I hurt you I can sincerely say sorry about that but that is

>your choice and your feelings to deal with. I have received e-mails from

>others who feel you speak to them like they are ignorant children but

>don't feel the need to go on the list and make a statement to the effect

>that they are victims and are being hurt by you. I like this forum and

>would also like to feel we are good enough sports about getting to the

>truth to understand that hurt feelings may occur in the process. The

>objective in my mind is to dismantle and examine ideas and with that at

>times the messenger will get personal blowback. So having said that what

>is the science behind RR that allows no science except that of it's own

>device or as borrowed and relabeled theory. Remembering of course that

>theory can be viewed as an assumption or guess yet to be proven as fact.

>Just because the power of belief and taking a pledge can work for some

>how does this translate into some newly written down science by JT?

>Inquiring minds want to know.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

>I get paid nothing for facilitating RR and don't understand your slam. I

>

>know the science behind RR. I can discuss.

>

>It must feel good to hurt me.

>

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--

Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

July 25, 1999

LuanneP@... writes:

> The above statement pisses me off royally. I cannot believe that some

folks

> can actually do this. For me, it's ALL or NOTHING!!

Just because that's true for you doesn't mean that it's true for everybody.

And just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it can't be done. I

choose to remain abstinent because the potential risks for me personally

aren't worth the " reward " I might get from trying to drink socially, but I

don't dream of suggesting that it's the only choice. Nor do I believe that

anyone who has suggested moderation management has claimed that it was for

everyone, either.

July 25, 1999

LuanneP@... writes:

> The above statement pisses me off royally. I cannot believe that some

folks

> can actually do this. For me, it's ALL or NOTHING!!

Just because that's true for you doesn't mean that it's true for everybody.

And just because you can't believe it doesn't mean it can't be done. I

choose to remain abstinent because the potential risks for me personally

aren't worth the " reward " I might get from trying to drink socially, but I

don't dream of suggesting that it's the only choice. Nor do I believe that

anyone who has suggested moderation management has claimed that it was for

everyone, either.

July 25, 1999

At 09:07 PM 7/25/99 EDT, LuanneP@... wrote:

>In a message dated 7/25/99 4:37:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

>railroadrita@... writes:

>

><< Moderation Management says limited levels, coupled with some absolutes

>(such as no drinking before driving) is the acceptable level. >>

>

>In MY case, this is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!! I cannot handle my booze -

>PERIOD! Once I start, I can't stop. It's been eight years, and believe you

>me, I am not even going to GO THERE AGAIN!!! Tried to long to drink like a

>'normal person.'

>

>The above statement pisses me off royally. I cannot believe that some folks

>can actually do this. For me, it's ALL or NOTHING!!

>

>Best,

>Luanne

I have 11 years without a drink. I used to feel a similar reaction

whenever the topic of moderate drinking or 'controlled drinking' was brought

up. I no longer react this way, and such statements no longer piss me off.

[Maybe I've learned ... acceptance? :-) ]

I strongly suspect (okay, I VERY strongly suspect) that this reaction is

programmed by AA. It's clearly black-and-white thinking, and appears to

come, at least partly, from the first three paragraphs or so of chapter 3

of the big book.

In AA there is a lot less separation between an AA member and a drunk

on the street ( " There, but for the grace of god, go I " , gag), than there

than there is beetween AA'ers and moderate drinkers (those who have maybe

half a drink or one-and-a-half drinks in an evening). I often heard such

people called 'normal people', 'civilians', and 'Earth people' in AA.

This contunues the SMART/RR thread of Rita's recent post abouse Jews and

the Dorsman book.

Luanne, I hope you're not totally pissed of at this response. There are

a tremendous number of ideas in AA that infect one's mind, and even though

many of them are about drinking, if you don't believe any of them you can

still go without a drink. It seems you're carrying many of these ideas,

as evidenced by someone calling you a troll (AA sympathizer) in response

to comments you made when you were on the list before.

Over that past five to eight years I've questioned every concept I've

ever heard of and could think of about AA, including not drinking. I now

choose to continue to not drink now for my own reasons, not because of

anything I learned in AA (at least I would like to think this).

-----

<http://listen.to/benbradley> New and Improved!

July 25, 1999

At 09:07 PM 7/25/99 EDT, LuanneP@... wrote:

>In a message dated 7/25/99 4:37:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

>railroadrita@... writes:

>

><< Moderation Management says limited levels, coupled with some absolutes

>(such as no drinking before driving) is the acceptable level. >>

>

>In MY case, this is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!!!!! I cannot handle my booze -

>PERIOD! Once I start, I can't stop. It's been eight years, and believe you

>me, I am not even going to GO THERE AGAIN!!! Tried to long to drink like a

>'normal person.'

>

>The above statement pisses me off royally. I cannot believe that some folks

>can actually do this. For me, it's ALL or NOTHING!!

>

>Best,

>Luanne

I have 11 years without a drink. I used to feel a similar reaction

whenever the topic of moderate drinking or 'controlled drinking' was brought

up. I no longer react this way, and such statements no longer piss me off.

[Maybe I've learned ... acceptance? :-) ]

I strongly suspect (okay, I VERY strongly suspect) that this reaction is

programmed by AA. It's clearly black-and-white thinking, and appears to

come, at least partly, from the first three paragraphs or so of chapter 3

of the big book.

In AA there is a lot less separation between an AA member and a drunk

on the street ( " There, but for the grace of god, go I " , gag), than there

than there is beetween AA'ers and moderate drinkers (those who have maybe

half a drink or one-and-a-half drinks in an evening). I often heard such

people called 'normal people', 'civilians', and 'Earth people' in AA.

This contunues the SMART/RR thread of Rita's recent post abouse Jews and

the Dorsman book.

Luanne, I hope you're not totally pissed of at this response. There are

a tremendous number of ideas in AA that infect one's mind, and even though

many of them are about drinking, if you don't believe any of them you can

still go without a drink. It seems you're carrying many of these ideas,

as evidenced by someone calling you a troll (AA sympathizer) in response

to comments you made when you were on the list before.

Over that past five to eight years I've questioned every concept I've

ever heard of and could think of about AA, including not drinking. I now

choose to continue to not drink now for my own reasons, not because of

anything I learned in AA (at least I would like to think this).

-----

<http://listen.to/benbradley> New and Improved!

July 25, 1999

Luanne;

I drank heavily for 6 years because I couldn't deal with the pain of being

sexually abused. I have not had a drink for nearly 18 years- 3x that. I am

considering alternatives to complete abstinence, because I doubt if alcohol

was my problem. However, 15 years in the meantime in AA have totally

guilt-tripped me. I am trying to not only deal with my core issue now, I am

having to heal from the damage AA did to me in the guilt department and

other ways.

Moderation Management may not be for you. I would suggest you keep an open