Re: Freedom of Speech and honest discussions for All

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

Sadly, gay chat rooms are mostly debates between the out and proud, and

the homophobes. That's all they are 24/7 year in, year out. That is why

I never visit them. ( excpet for the hookup rooms naturally.)

[Guest guest]

miken-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12921

>

> Sort of reminds me of how Stalin had to control the masses so they

wouldn't

> go back to counterrevolutionary tactics.

>

>

> The idea that people would actually go into a Bill W. chat room to

fuck up

> the people in there, convinces me that I probably won't get too much

> intelligent discussion on this list.

>

Hi ,

What is your opinion on government mandated AA attendence? Do you sign

slips?

Tommy

[Guest guest]

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

>In a message dated 3/2/00 12:06:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>joe-b@... writes:

>

>> he people who argued rationally were a very good example of mental health

>> and self-determination and that was a good motivation for me to explore

>> further and drop my last vestigial reliance on the 12 step program.

>

>It seems that you only want people who agree totally with your disdain for

AA.

>

>When I mentioned I am a proud member but see a lot of things wrong, I was

>told my postings weren't wanted here.

Yes, but not by Joe, or by me. In fact, you " were told " that by only one

individual, who (IMHO) has been consistently jumping the gun when it comes

to people like you for a long time.

>

>Sort of reminds me of how Stalin had to control the masses so they wouldn't

>go back to counterrevolutionary tactics.

As far as I know, Pete's opinions are not backed up by anything resembling a

KGB or a Gulag. Your comparison with Stalin is stretching things a bit.

>

>If your arguments are so grounded in logic, most people of intelligence

would

>not be afraid to hear t hings that don't fit in totally with your

Philosophy.

Most people of intelligence are not afraid to hear things that don't fit in

with their philosophy, but the notion that this lack of fear is somehow

contingent on Pete's arguments being grounded in logic is bizarre.

>

>Freedom to think is not limited to anti 12 steppers.

>

>The idea that people would actually go into a Bill W. chat room to fuck up

>the people in there, convinces me that I probably won't get too much

>intelligent discussion on this list.

You could be right, but you're jumping to a conclusion based on a faulty

generalization.

>

>I was hoping that I could begin a rapport with people who have problmes

with

>AA, since I have problems with it too.

Try describing your problmes with AA, then. Maybe someone will respond.

You're obviously not going to develop a rapport with people if you get all

defensive and angry right from the start.

--wally

[Guest guest]

> The idea that people would actually go into a Bill W. chat room to fuck

up

> the people in there, convinces me that I probably won't get too much

> intelligent discussion on this list.

Don't be so quick to judge the whole group because of a post from one

person. I certainly would never go into a chat room with the intent to mess

with peoples minds. I have enough problems with my own.

Louree

[Guest guest]

I agree with you . That's why I am here. I don't post to ARF12st either

because of the whacked out childish posts. The same thing goes with Religion

too. I don't really care if others have different beliefs. I don't want to

convert anyone to my way of thinking. I do object when others start shaming

and blaming....dumping a whole lot of " you should believe, think, or act

....... "

I am willing to take responsibility for my own feelings beliefs ect.

I like to discuss differences in a safe forum which this has been for the

most part.

Rebekah

>

>To: <12-step-freeegroups>

>Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and honest discussions for All

>Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2000, 3:28 PM

>

>

>> The idea that people would actually go into a Bill W. chat room to fuck

>up

>> the people in there, convinces me that I probably won't get too much

>> intelligent discussion on this list.

>

>Don't be so quick to judge the whole group because of a post from one

>person. I certainly would never go into a chat room with the intent to mess

>with peoples minds. I have enough problems with my own.

>

>Louree

>

>

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

>Planning a party? iParty.com is your complete source for party planning and

>supplies, with everything you need to throw the perfect party!

>http://click./1/1635/1/_/4324/_/952039930/

>

>eGroups.com Home: /group/12-step-free/

> - Simplifying group communications

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

miken-@... wrote:

>

> When I mentioned I am a proud [AA] member but see a lot of things

wrong, I was

> told my postings weren't wanted here.

If you are a proud AA member but see a lot of things wrong, why dont

you talk abt them on an *AA* list? surely thats the right place isnt

it? You arent of course, because you know that there you will be told

to sut up with trite slogans and dogma. The fact that you should even

want to come here proves our view of AA is accurate. This list isnt an

AA list for ppl to discuss how AA could be improved. Here I am telling

you to shut up because this list is not here for what you want. If you

cant get what you want in AA lists, start your own one.

Incidentally, Godwin's Law imo also aplies to ppl who call ether ppl

Stalinists as well as Nazis. You just lost the debate pal. The fact

that you should think that a single post by Alan Ross is typical of the

entire list without waiting to find out shows that you abviously dont

understand list dynamics, so I expect you dont know what godwin's Law

is: Basically, the first person to call the other a Nazi [stalinist

your case] has lost!

[Guest guest]

Yeah, uh ... what he said.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and honest discussions for

>All

>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:24:05 -0600

>

>Hi Pete;

>

>Are you ill advised to tell folks what they can and cannot post?

>

>If the person were sending it to your private email box that would be

>a different story.

>

>Most of us here were " Proud AA Members " at one time.(Or one of

>the other 12 step groups)

>

>Should we collectively do exactly what AA does, ie, tell contrary

>opinions to shut up? If yes, are we truly free? I think the answer is

>No.

>

>I think you metioned couldn't go to an AA site with a

>contrary opinion because he'd be shouted down or shut up etc.

>But what's happening to him here? He's told to shut up because

>his opinion doesn't fit.

>

>If is a troll, he's accomplishing his purpose. If he's not, we

>are not accomplishing our purpose. Which I see as showing folks

>a different approach. Alternatives. If we get a for real troll like

>Reese or Damien and we react this way, we'll have five more of

>their buddies here too, because they'll email them with " Hey these

>guys are easy to get off track, just quote Bill W or something and

>the shit is on! "

>

>A trolls purpose in life is to disrupt the purpose of the list. If they

>get information and polite discussion, they'll go away. OTOH if

>they can start a row, they'll stick around to fan the flames.

>

>While I agree with you that saying " I'm a proud AA Member " on

>this list is like taking a six pack to a temperance meeting, I don't

>feel the same reaction is a good idea.

>

>

>

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

>Start your own free email group on eGroups.

>http://click./1/1884/1/_/4324/_/952141375/

>

>-- Check out your group's private Chat room

>-- /ChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

______________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete;

Are you ill advised to tell folks what they can and cannot post?

If the person were sending it to your private email box that would be

a different story.

Most of us here were " Proud AA Members " at one time.(Or one of

the other 12 step groups)

Should we collectively do exactly what AA does, ie, tell contrary

opinions to shut up? If yes, are we truly free? I think the answer is

No.

I think you metioned couldn't go to an AA site with a

contrary opinion because he'd be shouted down or shut up etc.

But what's happening to him here? He's told to shut up because

his opinion doesn't fit.

If is a troll, he's accomplishing his purpose. If he's not, we

are not accomplishing our purpose. Which I see as showing folks

a different approach. Alternatives. If we get a for real troll like

Reese or Damien and we react this way, we'll have five more of

their buddies here too, because they'll email them with " Hey these

guys are easy to get off track, just quote Bill W or something and

the shit is on! "

A trolls purpose in life is to disrupt the purpose of the list. If they

get information and polite discussion, they'll go away. OTOH if

they can start a row, they'll stick around to fan the flames.

While I agree with you that saying " I'm a proud AA Member " on

this list is like taking a six pack to a temperance meeting, I don't

feel the same reaction is a good idea.

[Guest guest]

,

As always it is a pleasure to read your post--wise, warm, and well thought

out.

Thank you,

llawrence@...

Re: Freedom of Speech and honest discussions for All

> Hi Pete;

>

> Are you ill advised to tell folks what they can and cannot post?

>

> If the person were sending it to your private email box that would be

> a different story.

>

> Most of us here were " Proud AA Members " at one time.(Or one of

> the other 12 step groups)

>

> Should we collectively do exactly what AA does, ie, tell contrary

> opinions to shut up? If yes, are we truly free? I think the answer is

> No.

>

> I think you metioned couldn't go to an AA site with a

> contrary opinion because he'd be shouted down or shut up etc.

> But what's happening to him here? He's told to shut up because

> his opinion doesn't fit.

>

> If is a troll, he's accomplishing his purpose. If he's not, we

> are not accomplishing our purpose. Which I see as showing folks

> a different approach. Alternatives. If we get a for real troll like

> Reese or Damien and we react this way, we'll have five more of

> their buddies here too, because they'll email them with " Hey these

> guys are easy to get off track, just quote Bill W or something and

> the shit is on! "

>

> A trolls purpose in life is to disrupt the purpose of the list. If they

> get information and polite discussion, they'll go away. OTOH if

> they can start a row, they'll stick around to fan the flames.

>

> While I agree with you that saying " I'm a proud AA Member " on

> this list is like taking a six pack to a temperance meeting, I don't

> feel the same reaction is a good idea.

>

>

>

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

> Start your own free email group on eGroups.

> http://click./1/1884/1/_/4324/_/952141375/

>

> -- Check out your group's private Chat room

> -- /ChatPage?listName=12-step-free & m=1

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ditto .

[Guest guest]

Hi

" gary d hall " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=12959

> Hi Pete;

>

> Most of us here were " Proud AA Members " at one time.(Or one of

> the other 12 step groups)

True - but weve stopped being or want to stop being. whats the point

of having ppl who are happy that way?

>

> Should we collectively do exactly what AA does, ie, tell contrary

> opinions to shut up? If yes, are we truly free? I think the answer

is

> No.

On this forum, I say Yes. Remember this isnt a *neutral* forum - this

has the specific purpose of trying to get away from steppism. Does it

make sense for a gay support group to allow homophobes into their

meetings to tell them theyre sick, criminal or damned? If this were a

neutral forum I'd defend steppers right to speak tooth and nail. When

steppers, including whacko Phil , started discussing the Steps on

addict-l, they were told to stop by the moderator. I defended thier

right to talk abt it - and I also wanted to hear what they had to say.

When a stepper landed on 12-step-and-politics recently, I wasnt

particularly bothered by him being there providing he remmebered where

he was. On that list, there isnt too much of a reason to keep steppers

out.

> I think you metioned couldn't go to an AA site with a

> contrary opinion because he'd be shouted down or shut up etc.

> But what's happening to him here? He's told to shut up because

> his opinion doesn't fit.

Again, I dont see anything wrong with that. WE complain of XA not

having free speech over the issue is how to stop problem drinking - we

dont want (I presume) the right to got to OA or AA meetings and tell

ppl to eat drink and be merry. What we are trying to recover from here

is XA itself - and to promote here is like promoting binging in XA. In

addition, the objection to XA is its *hypocrisy* - they claim

*reasonable* free speech, within its objectives, which doesnt exist. I

want to see *reasonable* free speech here, in the sense of free speech

to say anything that isnt inimical to this list's purpose, which

advocating AA is. As you know, Ive insisted on defending the use of

moderation as an approach to overcome problem drinking, even tho this

isnt an uissue for me because I dont have an alcohol problem - many ppl

here have expressed aversion to that view, but even if I didnt favour

it I would always defend the right of someone else to advocate it here

because it isnt incompatible with this group's purpose.

>

> If is a troll, he's accomplishing his purpose. If he's not,

we

> are not accomplishing our purpose. Which I see as showing folks

> a different approach. Alternatives. If we get a for real troll like

> Reese or Damien and we react this way, we'll have five more of

> their buddies here too, because they'll email them with " Hey these

> guys are easy to get off track, just quote Bill W or something and

> the shit is on! "

I admit that I have been perhaps a sucker for trolls, but Im learning

fast. It is ironic that the debate abt what to do with the like of

Reese and Glenn, which got fairly heated, actually helped *save* this

list - it had almost dropped to nothing until the debate started. I

dont think flipping at Bill W. quotes etc *is* getting off track - it

provides a splendid opportunity to tell steppers what we think of them.

>

> A trolls purpose in life is to disrupt the purpose of the list. If

they

> get information and polite discussion, they'll go away. OTOH if

> they can start a row, they'll stick around to fan the flames.

Only if we row with each other. I dont want to row with legitimate

members - I dont care if I row with trolls. Polite discussion will

simply allow themselves to inveigle themselves like the Fez and try to

overtake the list, making it at best AA-neutral, at worst AA apologist.

FWIW, I believe what I said to the latest one WAS polite and

informational. I didnt swear or tell him to fuck off initially, (tho I

was tempted) I simply gave him the information of what I believe is

appropriate material to be posted here and what isnt. As Ive also

pointed out, if you dont allow me to do that, youre restricting MY

freedom of speech.

I only went to " fuck off " mode when he reacted to my and other posts

exactly as I expected. If here were *really* interested in gaining

info, and perhaps becoming " 12-step-free " wouldnt he mostly ask

questions rather than want to promote his views in the first place?

> While I agree with you that saying " I'm a proud AA Member " on

> this list is like taking a six pack to a temperance meeting, I don't

> feel the same reaction is a good idea.

Well we disagree. Why tolerate such offensive behavior? Imo " XA sucks

because... altho it has its good points " is appropriate but " AA is

basically good with some faults " is NOT. Such ppl should form their own

AA groups (if they want to use that name) and see how well they can

defend their autonomy against AA Police incursions. I'll bet one thing

- if they tried it f2f, and likely cyberspace too, they will only be

able to do it if THEY impose restrictions on what ppl say.

Pete

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/00 5:26:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, wgt@...

writes:

> Your comparison with Stalin is stretching things a bit.

I admit I do use exaggeration a wee bit too much to make a point! :-)

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/00 5:26:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, wgt@...

writes:

> ou're obviously not going to develop a rapport with people if you get all

> defensive and angry right from the start.

I did not think I was getting defensive. I was expressing how I feel. But I

guess like anything else one's opionion on another's arguement is based on

how the other person perceives hhis reality. It's like the political axiom

" Where you stand depends on where you sit. "

I apologize if I sounded angry. That was not my intention but reading back my

posts I can see some anger shining through. I guess it is because I hate all

types of intolerance reagrdless on how I feel about a subject.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/00 6:36:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

snazy2@... writes:

> Don't be so quick to judge the whole group because of a post from one

> person. I certainly would never go into a chat room with the intent to mess

> with peoples minds. I have enough problems with my own.

I'm agologizing a lot today. You are absolutely right. I picked the easiest

comments to attack instead of g etting a more balanced view of people who

participate here.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/00 7:03:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

goddessofsantafe@... writes:

> I don't want to

> convert anyone to my way of thinking. I do object when others start shaming

> and blaming....dumping a whole lot of " you should believe, think, or act

> ...... "

> I am willing to take responsibility for my own feelings beliefs ect.

Thank you , I guess my attitude that came through in my posts were

what the " Big Book " tells me are Contempt prior to investigation. By picking

on the easiest target it enabled me to write the group off.

I have decided I am going to stay around and post what I honestly feel. I

have no desire to " convert " anyone to 12 step programs, I do need to decide

where I am going with the 12 steps and fellowship.

[Guest guest]

Hi ;

A little sidelight to what you said about the quotation by Herbert

Spencer. It's wrongly attributed. AA couldn't get that right either.

IIRC that quote is Benjiman Disreali, British Prime Minister.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/00 11:13:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,

pachy2@... writes:

> IRC that quote is Benjiman Disreali, British Prime Minister.

If this is true it is amazing that the quote has been there through three

editions of the Big Book and will make it to the 4th. I really don't know

much about Herbert Spencer except that he was a proponent of Social

Darwinism, a philosophy I find repugnant.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/00 6:42:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

awatt04@... writes:

> Here I am telling

> you to shut up because this list is not here for what you want. If you

> cant get what you want in AA lists, start your own one.

Are you the President of this list?????

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/00 10:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

pachy2@... writes:

> A trolls purpose in life is to disrupt the purpose of the list.

Believe me my purpose is not to disrupt this list. My purpose is (regardless

of a couple of intolerant people here) to come to terms with how I view AA

and to share with others who have had problems with it.

But...for those who can't handle this .....I am sorry--but I will be posting

as often as the need arises.

I have found that not everyone in this group is as intolerant as P. I have

had some productive private conversations with the more thoughtful members.

So Pete if you can't handle my postings, It won't be me who leaves the list.

So, in the name of harmony I am not going to respond to your posts anymore,

quite frankly, (no offense intended) it would be a waste of both are time.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/00 5:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

perkinstommy@... writes:

> What is your opinion on government mandated AA attendence? Do you sign

> slips?

>

Sorry it has taken me so long to get to answer your post. I was away on

vacation for a week. I have mixed feelings on signing slips for AA mandated

attendance.

The Civil Libertarian part of me --perceives this as blurring the line

between church and state. I would get an argument about this from

conservative constitutional scholars who believe that the religious clause in

the first amendment only prohibits the implementation of a state supported

church.

But... we are talking about human beings here and not abstract con law

principles and if someone is going to have their parole or probation ended if

they don't have enough signatures--I feel this supersedes my feelings about

church and state. After all, the person who is asking me to sign it, is doing

so to stay out of jail. I think it would be presumptuous of me to tell her

" Sorry Sister but my principles prohibit me from signing this. " Since the

person involved consented (under coersion) to attend meetings, I see nothing

wrong with signing it at her request.

I know this answer is a little convoluted but it is not an easy question. For

years, many groups wouldn't sign slips, and all that this policy did was hurt

the person who needed the signature. I'd be interested to hear how others in

the group feel about this.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/00 5:29:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

joe-b@... writes:

> Actually there is quite a lot of other stuff in that book that is repeated

> in various editions that is about as accurate.

I can't think of anything now, but there are a lot of things that while

applicable in 1939 are just ludicrous now. For instance when they talk about

how someday man will walk on the moon.

[Guest guest]

miken-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13257

I guess it is because I hate all

> types of intolerance regardless on how I feel about a subject.

Man, I cant tolerate intolerance either...

P.

[Guest guest]

XAs often use that quote assuming the person has had no experience of

XA. I point out that sometimes one learns to feel contempt

*subsequent* to investigation....

P.

" gary d hall " wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13261

> Hi ;

>

> A little sidelight to what you said about the quotation by Herbert

> Spencer. It's wrongly attributed. AA couldn't get that right either.

>

> IIRC that quote is Benjiman Disreali, British Prime Minister.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >If this is true it is amazing that the quote has been there through

three

> >editions of the Big Book and will make it to the 4th. I really don't

know

> >much about Herbert Spencer except that he was a proponent of Social

> >Darwinism, a philosophy I find repugnant.

Rather fits in with AA's proto-Nazi past I'd say.

P.

[Guest guest]

Have you considered contacting the authority (probation officer, judge,

etc.)and telling them that AA should be voluntary, and that they have a

lot of nerve forcing someone to attend a private organization's

fellowship meetings, whether it is religious or not. You could remind

them that if they forced someone to attend a Rotary or Elks meeting it

would be insulting to those organizations. Also you could tell them

that two federal circuit courts have ruled that forced AA attendance

violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment. How would

you like it if someone forced you to attend meetings of an organization

which lies to its members with crap like " death, jail, or the nuthouse "

just to intimidate them into staying? What kind of organization would

even want people who do not want to be there? Do you believe in

religions liberty? If you were a Jew how do you think it would feel if

you were forced to attend Catholic services etc., etc? How would it

make you feel right now if someone forced you to become a member of a

horrible cult that actually participates in coercion and intimidation?

miken-@... wrote:

original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13323

> In a message dated 3/2/00 5:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> perkinstommy@... writes:

>

> > What is your opinion on government mandated AA attendence? Do you

sign

> > slips?

> >

>

> Sorry it has taken me so long to get to answer your post. I was away

on

> vacation for a week. I have mixed feelings on signing slips for AA

mandated

> attendance.

>

> The Civil Libertarian part of me --perceives this as blurring the

line

> between church and state. I would get an argument about this from

> conservative constitutional scholars who believe that the religious

clause in

> the first amendment only prohibits the implementation of a state

supported

> church.

>

> But... we are talking about human beings here and not abstract con

law

> principles and if someone is going to have their parole or probation

ended if

> they don't have enough signatures--I feel this supersedes my feelings

about

> church and state. After all, the person who is asking me to sign it,

is doing

> so to stay out of jail. I think it would be presumptuous of me to

tell her

> " Sorry Sister but my principles prohibit me from signing this. " Since

the

> person involved consented (under coersion) to attend meetings, I see

nothing

> wrong with signing it at her request.

>

> I know this answer is a little convoluted but it is not an easy

question. For

> years, many groups wouldn't sign slips, and all that this policy did

was hurt

> the person who needed the signature. I'd be interested to hear how

others in

> the group feel about this.

>

>