Re: Another glorious moment in AA history

[Guest guest]

At 23:09 08/02/00 -0500, you wrote:

>I do think that it is inappropriate for this list not to acknowledge right up

>front that it promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its preferred

>alternative to AA. That certainly would have avoided some misunderstandings

>on my part.

>

>Judith, there was nothing wrong with your questions. I was just out of

>patience and couldn't deal anymore with the list's witch hunt for " groupers. "

>I'm sorry. For those who offered some encouragement, thank you. I may be

>reachable off list. d0ct0rdry@... (note the zeros)

>

>I'm unsubscribed. Bye,

>

>Doc

I find this a little confusing. I've been on this list for a long time, I

am not interested in moderation personally and I think I would have noticed

if this list " promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its preferred

alternative to AA " . I know some people on this list are into moderation,

but I don't personally have a problem with that, and it certainly isn't

everybody.

Joe B.

[Guest guest]

Hey DoctorDry, thank you. I'm trying to send this to your email as well as

the list so you'll see it even if you've already unsubscribed.

There's one thing everyone here has in common, and that is a negative

experience with XA/12 steps. Politics, religion, psychological or

sociological ideas we believe in--these are a few among the many areas where

we differ. Like I said in one of my posts, I'm not an advocate of

controlled drinking. I personally think the way to deprogram is to live as

much in the present as possible. I want to use my life experience to help me

deal creatively but intelligently with the present.

I sometimes find myself trying to squish the present into old mental

frameworks from the past. I'd rather stand upon the foundation I've built

for myself, and build and grow with the new information and experience I

gain each day. (I'm really mixing up my metaphors here

I think creativity is my best tool for doing this. But being creative

requires taking the risk of being wrong. I took that risk in responding to

you as I did. Now I believe I was wrong about you, and I apologize for that.

Anyway, thanks again for this clarifying post. It means a lot to me.

Judith

On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:09:29 EST, 12-step-freeegroups wrote:

> In a message dated 02/07/2000 9:24:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> kenr1@... writes:

>

> << No offense intended, but know the source

> of what you are repeating. >>

>

> Well, you must know me then, because as far as I know what I have to say

is

> completely original, which is why people have trouble with it, I believe.

I

> am not a doctor, nor do I belong to ANY group or represent ANY organized

> point of view.

>

> I am not against those who are fully informed trying to limit or control

> their drinking. It is certainly much better than NOT trying to control

it. I

> am against moderate drinking being framed as THE alternative to AA. The

> resumption of drinking is a serious issue and one that effects not just

the

> drinker but, on average, four other people, frequently innocent people

such

> as children.

>

> The scientific comparison of moderation with abstinence only holds from

the

> point of view of so-called treatment outcomes. If you believe that there

is a

> " treatment " that has an " outcome " independent of the person's volition,

then

> those outcomes can be measured. And when measured in that way, moderation

> stacks up well against just plain old quitting. From a volitional point

of

> view, however, 100% of those who choose not to drink avoid alcohol

problems

> absolutely, while a large percentage of those who choose to drink, 82% to

98%

> according to most estimates, continue to have problems related to

alcohol.

> It doesn't matter what sort of treatment they had or which group they

were

> in, if they chose not to drink, they avoided alcohol problems completely.

> It's that simple.

>

> I can appreciate that those who have chosen to moderate their alcohol,

and

> are doing so, would be resentful of suggestions that they " can't " or

> " shouldn't. " That would make me mad too. I would never go to a moderation

> site unless I wanted to support moderation, any more than I would go to a

> 12-step site for any reason at all.

>

> I think that it is relevant to remind you of how this list is promoted.

It is

> promoted, not as a moderate drinking group, but as a universal haven from

AA.

>

>

> According to the AA deprogramming site this is: " an excellent discussion

> group for those who have left or are considering leaving their 12 step

> program. Anyone woo has been traumatized in 12 step treatment will find

> solace and support there. Many have called this list a 'life saver.' "

>

> And according to the egroups: " Twelve Step Free Zone is a discussion list

for

> those who have left the groups or are seriously questioning the 12-step

> doctrine. It is also for those who have a loved one caught up in the step

> religion. The focus of discussion is on sharing experience with and

> information on the step groups. Perhaps our most important function is to

> provide the first place where many can dare be critical and not be

accused by

> a " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one 'defect of

> character' or another for doing so. Although not the focus here,

information

> on alternative organizations and methods of resolving drinking problems

are

> available for the asking. "

>

> I do think that it is inappropriate for this list not to acknowledge

right up

> front that it promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its preferred

> alternative to AA. That certainly would have avoided some

misunderstandings

> on my part.

>

> Judith, there was nothing wrong with your questions. I was just out of

> patience and couldn't deal anymore with the list's witch hunt for

" groupers. "

> I'm sorry. For those who offered some encouragement, thank you. I may be

> reachable off list. d0ct0rdry@... (note the zeros)

>

> I'm unsubscribed. Bye,

>

> Doc

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freeworld.excite.com

[Guest guest]

Hi All:

I posted this to " doc " privately:

////

I apologize for my description of you as an " AA apologist " on the list

recently. I actually would rather you stayed on 12sf.

However, I must state that 12sf does not promote moderation as the main

alternative to AA. To coin a phrase it has " no opinion " on that, merely

individual opinions. A particular view may predominate, but that is

merely coincidental; and if anything, the abstinence view predominates,

or would were it not that those pro-abstinence tend to leave because in

fact it is they who cant accept moderation views being aired. as i have

said before, no-one who supports moderation say that ppl *have* to

drink.

I for one am very keen that the AA/not AA debate *not* be perceived as

an abstinence/moderation one, which many AAs themselves try to make it

to muddy the waters. Not only so some of the abstinence lobby not

endorse AA (at least not exclusively, anyway) but in fact some AA

supporters are actually moderators on the sly (I have heard several

accounts of AA attenders who actually moderate) and would accept this

as possible for some problem drinkers; this even now includes Jim Shirk.

Best,

Pete

d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12447

> Well, you must know me then, because as far as I know what I have to

say is

> completely original, which is why people have trouble with it, I

believe. I

> am not a doctor, nor do I belong to ANY group or represent ANY

organized

> point of view.

>

> I am not against those who are fully informed trying to limit or

control

> their drinking. It is certainly much better than NOT trying to

control it. I

> am against moderate drinking being framed as THE alternative to AA.

The

> resumption of drinking is a serious issue and one that effects not

just the

> drinker but, on average, four other people, frequently innocent

people such

> as children.

>

> The scientific comparison of moderation with abstinence only holds

from the

> point of view of so-called treatment outcomes. If you believe that

there is a

> " treatment " that has an " outcome " independent of the person's

volition, then

> those outcomes can be measured. And when measured in that way,

moderation

> stacks up well against just plain old quitting. From a volitional

point of

> view, however, 100% of those who choose not to drink avoid alcohol

problems

> absolutely, while a large percentage of those who choose to drink,

82% to 98%

> according to most estimates, continue to have problems related to

alcohol.

> It doesn't matter what sort of treatment they had or which group they

were

> in, if they chose not to drink, they avoided alcohol problems

completely.

> It's that simple.

>

> I can appreciate that those who have chosen to moderate their

alcohol, and

> are doing so, would be resentful of suggestions that they " can't " or

> " shouldn't. " That would make me mad too. I would never go to a

moderation

> site unless I wanted to support moderation, any more than I would go

to a

> 12-step site for any reason at all.

>

> I think that it is relevant to remind you of how this list is

promoted. It is

> promoted, not as a moderate drinking group, but as a universal haven

from AA.

>

>

> According to the AA deprogramming site this is: " an excellent

discussion

> group for those who have left or are considering leaving their 12

step

> program. Anyone woo has been traumatized in 12 step treatment will

find

> solace and support there. Many have called this list a 'life saver.' "

>

> And according to the egroups: " Twelve Step Free Zone is a discussion

list for

> those who have left the groups or are seriously questioning the

12-step

> doctrine. It is also for those who have a loved one caught up in the

step

> religion. The focus of discussion is on sharing experience with and

> information on the step groups. Perhaps our most important function

is to

> provide the first place where many can dare be critical and not be

accused by

> a " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one 'defect of

> character' or another for doing so. Although not the focus here,

information

> on alternative organizations and methods of resolving drinking

problems are

> available for the asking. "

>

> I do think that it is inappropriate for this list not to acknowledge

right up

> front that it promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its

preferred

> alternative to AA. That certainly would have avoided some

misunderstandings

> on my part.

>

> Judith, there was nothing wrong with your questions. I was just out

of

> patience and couldn't deal anymore with the list's witch hunt for

" groupers. "

> I'm sorry. For those who offered some encouragement, thank you. I may

be

> reachable off list. d0ct0rdry@... (note the zeros)

>

> I'm unsubscribed. Bye,

>

> Doc

[Guest guest]

I don't know who Jim Shirk is. Can someone fill me in?

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeeGroups

>Subject: Re: Another glorious moment in AA history

>Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:47:09 -0800

>

>

>Hi All:

>

>I posted this to " doc " privately:

>////

>I apologize for my description of you as an " AA apologist " on the list

>recently. I actually would rather you stayed on 12sf.

>

>However, I must state that 12sf does not promote moderation as the main

>alternative to AA. To coin a phrase it has " no opinion " on that, merely

>individual opinions. A particular view may predominate, but that is

>merely coincidental; and if anything, the abstinence view predominates,

>or would were it not that those pro-abstinence tend to leave because in

>fact it is they who cant accept moderation views being aired. as i have

>said before, no-one who supports moderation say that ppl *have* to

>drink.

>

>I for one am very keen that the AA/not AA debate *not* be perceived as

>an abstinence/moderation one, which many AAs themselves try to make it

>to muddy the waters. Not only so some of the abstinence lobby not

>endorse AA (at least not exclusively, anyway) but in fact some AA

>supporters are actually moderators on the sly (I have heard several

>accounts of AA attenders who actually moderate) and would accept this

>as possible for some problem drinkers; this even now includes Jim Shirk.

>

>Best,

>Pete

>

>

>d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

>original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12447

>

> > Well, you must know me then, because as far as I know what I have to

>say is

> > completely original, which is why people have trouble with it, I

>believe. I

> > am not a doctor, nor do I belong to ANY group or represent ANY

>organized

> > point of view.

> >

> > I am not against those who are fully informed trying to limit or

>control

> > their drinking. It is certainly much better than NOT trying to

>control it. I

> > am against moderate drinking being framed as THE alternative to AA.

>The

> > resumption of drinking is a serious issue and one that effects not

>just the

> > drinker but, on average, four other people, frequently innocent

>people such

> > as children.

> >

> > The scientific comparison of moderation with abstinence only holds

>from the

> > point of view of so-called treatment outcomes. If you believe that

>there is a

> > " treatment " that has an " outcome " independent of the person's

>volition, then

> > those outcomes can be measured. And when measured in that way,

>moderation

> > stacks up well against just plain old quitting. From a volitional

>point of

> > view, however, 100% of those who choose not to drink avoid alcohol

>problems

> > absolutely, while a large percentage of those who choose to drink,

>82% to 98%

> > according to most estimates, continue to have problems related to

>alcohol.

> > It doesn't matter what sort of treatment they had or which group they

>were

> > in, if they chose not to drink, they avoided alcohol problems

>completely.

> > It's that simple.

> >

> > I can appreciate that those who have chosen to moderate their

>alcohol, and

> > are doing so, would be resentful of suggestions that they " can't " or

> > " shouldn't. " That would make me mad too. I would never go to a

>moderation

> > site unless I wanted to support moderation, any more than I would go

>to a

> > 12-step site for any reason at all.

> >

> > I think that it is relevant to remind you of how this list is

>promoted. It is

> > promoted, not as a moderate drinking group, but as a universal haven

>from AA.

> >

> >

> > According to the AA deprogramming site this is: " an excellent

>discussion

> > group for those who have left or are considering leaving their 12

>step

> > program. Anyone woo has been traumatized in 12 step treatment will

>find

> > solace and support there. Many have called this list a 'life saver.' "

> >

> > And according to the egroups: " Twelve Step Free Zone is a discussion

>list for

> > those who have left the groups or are seriously questioning the

>12-step

> > doctrine. It is also for those who have a loved one caught up in the

>step

> > religion. The focus of discussion is on sharing experience with and

> > information on the step groups. Perhaps our most important function

>is to

> > provide the first place where many can dare be critical and not be

>accused by

> > a " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one 'defect of

> > character' or another for doing so. Although not the focus here,

>information

> > on alternative organizations and methods of resolving drinking

>problems are

> > available for the asking. "

> >

> > I do think that it is inappropriate for this list not to acknowledge

>right up

> > front that it promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its

>preferred

> > alternative to AA. That certainly would have avoided some

>misunderstandings

> > on my part.

> >

> > Judith, there was nothing wrong with your questions. I was just out

>of

> > patience and couldn't deal anymore with the list's witch hunt for

> " groupers. "

> > I'm sorry. For those who offered some encouragement, thank you. I may

>be

> > reachable off list. d0ct0rdry@... (note the zeros)

> >

> > I'm unsubscribed. Bye,

> >

> > Doc

>

>

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

>Save on products you choose!

>http://click./1/1416/1/_/4324/_/950240832/

>

>-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!

>-- /cal?listname=12-step-free & m=1

>

______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Sue

Jim Shirk is a alcohol therapy clinician who on the list addict-l has

reacted very angrily and defensively to criticism of AA and indicates

his approval for what he claims is home State of Washington's legal ban

on controlled drinking therapies for alchohol dependents. Despite

this, he is apparently now trying to start a controlled drinking

program for alcohol abusers who do not meet the criteria for alcohol

dependence. He apparently has a fair degree of influence in AA, and

when Ken and myself used the 95% dropout rate indicated by AA's own

triennial surveys to point out the poor success rate of AA said he

would use that influence to ensure that AA's data could not be

" misused " in this way in future - i.e. by suppressing it. The

epidemiologist Robin Room shortly afterward reported that he had been

refused access to AA's data, which suggests that Shirk followed through

on his stated intention.

Pete

" sue styd " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12486

>

> I don't know who Jim Shirk is. Can someone fill me in?

>

>

> >

> >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

> >To: 12-step-freeeGroups

> >Subject: Re: Another glorious moment in AA history

> >Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:47:09 -0800

> >

> >

> >Hi All:

> >

> >I posted this to " doc " privately:

> >////

> >I apologize for my description of you as an " AA apologist " on the

list

> >recently. I actually would rather you stayed on 12sf.

> >

> >However, I must state that 12sf does not promote moderation as the

main

> >alternative to AA. To coin a phrase it has " no opinion " on that,

merely

> >individual opinions. A particular view may predominate, but that is

> >merely coincidental; and if anything, the abstinence view

predominates,

> >or would were it not that those pro-abstinence tend to leave because

in

> >fact it is they who cant accept moderation views being aired. as i

have

> >said before, no-one who supports moderation say that ppl *have* to

> >drink.

> >

> >I for one am very keen that the AA/not AA debate *not* be perceived

as

> >an abstinence/moderation one, which many AAs themselves try to make

it

> >to muddy the waters. Not only so some of the abstinence lobby not

> >endorse AA (at least not exclusively, anyway) but in fact some AA

> >supporters are actually moderators on the sly (I have heard several

> >accounts of AA attenders who actually moderate) and would accept this

> >as possible for some problem drinkers; this even now includes Jim

Shirk.

> >

> >Best,

> >Pete

> >

> >

> >d0ct0rdr-@... wrote:

> >original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12

447

> >

> > > Well, you must know me then, because as far as I know what I have

to

> >say is

> > > completely original, which is why people have trouble with it, I

> >believe. I

> > > am not a doctor, nor do I belong to ANY group or represent ANY

> >organized

> > > point of view.

> > >

> > > I am not against those who are fully informed trying to limit or

> >control

> > > their drinking. It is certainly much better than NOT trying to

> >control it. I

> > > am against moderate drinking being framed as THE alternative to

AA.

> >The

> > > resumption of drinking is a serious issue and one that effects not

> >just the

> > > drinker but, on average, four other people, frequently innocent

> >people such

> > > as children.

> > >

> > > The scientific comparison of moderation with abstinence only holds

> >from the

> > > point of view of so-called treatment outcomes. If you believe that

> >there is a

> > > " treatment " that has an " outcome " independent of the person's

> >volition, then

> > > those outcomes can be measured. And when measured in that way,

> >moderation

> > > stacks up well against just plain old quitting. From a volitional

> >point of

> > > view, however, 100% of those who choose not to drink avoid alcohol

> >problems

> > > absolutely, while a large percentage of those who choose to drink,

> >82% to 98%

> > > according to most estimates, continue to have problems related to

> >alcohol.

> > > It doesn't matter what sort of treatment they had or which group

they

> >were

> > > in, if they chose not to drink, they avoided alcohol problems

> >completely.

> > > It's that simple.

> > >

> > > I can appreciate that those who have chosen to moderate their

> >alcohol, and

> > > are doing so, would be resentful of suggestions that they " can't "

or

> > > " shouldn't. " That would make me mad too. I would never go to a

> >moderation

> > > site unless I wanted to support moderation, any more than I would

go

> >to a

> > > 12-step site for any reason at all.

> > >

> > > I think that it is relevant to remind you of how this list is

> >promoted. It is

> > > promoted, not as a moderate drinking group, but as a universal

haven

> >from AA.

> > >

> > >

> > > According to the AA deprogramming site this is: " an excellent

> >discussion

> > > group for those who have left or are considering leaving their 12

> >step

> > > program. Anyone woo has been traumatized in 12 step treatment will

> >find

> > > solace and support there. Many have called this list a 'life

saver.' "

> > >

> > > And according to the egroups: " Twelve Step Free Zone is a

discussion

> >list for

> > > those who have left the groups or are seriously questioning the

> >12-step

> > > doctrine. It is also for those who have a loved one caught up in

the

> >step

> > > religion. The focus of discussion is on sharing experience with

and

> > > information on the step groups. Perhaps our most important

function

> >is to

> > > provide the first place where many can dare be critical and not be

> >accused by

> > > a " unanimous majority " of groupers of suffering from one 'defect

of

> > > character' or another for doing so. Although not the focus here,

> >information

> > > on alternative organizations and methods of resolving drinking

> >problems are

> > > available for the asking. "

> > >

> > > I do think that it is inappropriate for this list not to

acknowledge

> >right up

> > > front that it promotes and encourages moderate drinking as its

> >preferred

> > > alternative to AA. That certainly would have avoided some

> >misunderstandings

> > > on my part.

> > >

> > > Judith, there was nothing wrong with your questions. I was just

out

> >of

> > > patience and couldn't deal anymore with the list's witch hunt for

> > " groupers. "

> > > I'm sorry. For those who offered some encouragement, thank you. I

may

> >be

> > > reachable off list. d0ct0rdry@... (note the zeros)

> > >

> > > I'm unsubscribed. Bye,

> > >

> > > Doc

> >

> >