Guest guest Posted March 6, 2000 Report Share Posted March 6, 2000 Hi Louree! I'd like to join the survivor's list, although I feel that I've recovered pretty well from recovery.... I could always use some inspiration for my continued work, maybe to discover some things that I hadn't realized before, and maybe offer a couple of helpful words to someone. If that's OK, sign me up (or are we signing ourselves up?) Apple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2000 Report Share Posted March 6, 2000 Hi Apple, Doorman and all. I've always been uncomfortable with the expression 'recovery'. You can recover from a disease, but not from life - that's my opinion! Anyway, I just took a dainty bit of your fruit. Bjørn And Doorman. Would you pleace forward a list of major and minor sins. What do you think of this for example: "Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the whales." Regards Nutcrack Bear(Bjørn). p.s. I live in this place: http://www.loenstrup.dk/english.htm p.p.s. And Doorman, if you you should be swimming close to my neighborhood, you are welcome to a beach party. Just bring a harpoon. I'll fix the garniture. I'm starving to see you. Yours forever. Nutcase. appledtp@... wrote: Hi Louree! I'd like to join the survivor's list, although I feel that I've recovered pretty well from recovery.... I could always use some inspiration for my continued work, maybe to discover some things that I hadn't realized before, and maybe offer a couple of helpful words to someone. If that's OK, sign me up (or are we signing ourselves up?) Apple Enter Ht: ft. in. Enter Wt: lbs. eGroups.com Home: /group/12-step-free www. - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2000 Report Share Posted March 7, 2000 Hi Louree, I'd also like to be included in your new list. I haven't been much of a poster, but I've really enjoyed listening in. I'd also like to have a place to refer my doubting/questioning/not-so-sure-about-AA-anymore stepper girlfriend to when she finally comes around the bend! __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2000 Report Share Posted March 7, 2000 hi nutcase =?iso-8859-1?q?bj=f8rn?= herring wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13018 > " Rule Britannia, > Britannia rule the whales. " I prefer it to that cheeky Frog's " Brittania waives the Rules " - when they have the brass neck to refuse EU approved UK beef when they feed beef cattle human shit (It's true). We import to import a few French cows to clean up our beaches. > I live in this place: > http://www.loenstrup.dk/english.htm " loonstrup " sounds like where you oughtta live... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 > I live in this place: > http://www.loenstrup.dk/english.htm " loonstrup " sounds like where you oughtta live... Hi Doorman. Thanks for your kind response. Life is so loonly out here, that anything is better than nothing. I really appreciate your efforts to help people shaping a 'clean' list undisturbed by dirty people, as I've always considered alcoholism and other -ism's to be an anal disturbance. But the problem will certainly be, that the new purified list will need some further purification, which will create a more purified list, and so on and so on and so on. A kind of indefinite regression, like the problem with the ancient proofs of God's existence. The first mover. The problem, of course, is that there is no bottom in this process, only more and more secterism. How damaged will you have to be to qualify to the inner circle, and who is to decide? Personally I think that the idea of a list beneath the list is a sick idea. It only demonstrates the hegelian principle of thesis and antithesis. The antithesis will be worse than the thesis. What is needed is a synthesis of the two oppositions. I think that instead of digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes you should go the other way. The ultimate success of combating AA would be to make a profit out of it. Apple does (some, at least) , why can't you think along her lines? Instead of digging a separatist hole in the desert! Sand, sand and deficient in oxygen. Bjørn p.s. During W.W.II Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was drunk as usual at a cabinet meeting. Very drunk. One of his ministers shouted at him: " You are drunk! " " Yes " , he answered, " but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober. " After all, he did a great job, and he did not dig himself into a hole in the sand. Nutcase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 =?iso-8859-1?q?bj=f8rn?= herring wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13068 > > > > > I live in this place: > > http://www.loenstrup.dk/english.htm > > " loonstrup " sounds like where you oughtta live... > > Hi Doorman. > > Thanks for your kind response. > Life is so loonly out here, that anything is better than nothing. > > I really appreciate your efforts to help people shaping a 'clean' list > undisturbed by dirty people, as I've always considered alcoholism and > other -ism's to be an anal disturbance. > > But the problem will certainly be, that the new purified list will need > some further purification, which will create a more purified list, and > so on and so on and so on. A kind of indefinite regression, like the > problem with the ancient proofs of God's existence. The first mover. > The problem, of course, is that there is no bottom in this process, only > more and more secterism. > How damaged will you have to be to qualify to the inner circle, and who > is to decide? > > Personally I think that the idea of a list beneath the list is a sick > idea. > It only demonstrates the hegelian principle of thesis and antithesis. > The antithesis will be worse than the thesis. What is needed is a > synthesis of the two oppositions. > > I think that instead of digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes > you should go the other way. > > The ultimate success of combating AA would be to make a profit out of > it. > Apple does (some, at least) , why can't you think along her lines? > > Instead of digging a separatist hole in the desert! Sand, sand and > deficient in oxygen. > > Bjørn > > p.s. > > During W.W.II Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was drunk as usual at a > cabinet meeting. Very drunk. > One of his ministers shouted at him: " You are drunk! " > " Yes " , he answered, " but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober. " > > After all, he did a great job, and he did not dig himself into a hole in > the sand. > > Nutcase. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Hi Nutcase =?iso-8859-1?q?bj=f8rn?= herring wrote: .. > > I really appreciate your efforts to help people shaping a 'clean' list > undisturbed by dirty people, as I've always considered alcoholism and > other -ism's to be an anal disturbance. And sarcasm is anal sadistic Bjorn. I've never used the words " clean " or " dirty " abt the list or abt ppl in this debate Bjorn. I wish only to keep it what it is called - 12-step-free. It rather suggests your argument is weak if you feel the need to attack things I havent said. You also seem to miss that Ken is the doorman, not me - I have no more power than either you or the newcomer *themself* when they arive. Given this fact, you also ought to be able to realize that you are doing exactly what yuo accuse me of doing - namely wanting to inhibit posts that you dont like, i.e. those you consider " doorkeeping " in order to keep the list the way *you* want it to be. So, you are just another doorman with a different door policy. Fortunately, I have the brains to realize you have no more power than I have (none) and it doesnt bother me. > > But the problem will certainly be, that the new purified list will need > some further purification, which will create a more purified list, and > so on and so on and so on. Who says? As you dont want this to happen, you presumably wont participate, so how can you possibly have any idea how it will turn out? But in any case, I dont recall calling for a new " purified " list. I suggested " open " and " closed " lists. I would *like* this to be a closed list, but it isnt in fact. However, if anything I was suggesting the creation of a new official " open " list that presumably you would like and could stick to if you couldnt bear being on a list with me, which would mean I wouldnt have to put up with your stupid name-calling (hopefully) because *my* posts here would be better tolerated because of the existence of an officially open list that is there as an alternative. I might like this list to be officially tightened up a bit, so that the moderator, whoever it is, *does* remove ppl who make AA promoting posts here if they persist in doing it. However, your very responses to me suggest that this is hardly necessary, since you seem to be of the opinion that I am capable of getting rid of them anyway, and the fact is that these ppl do go away fairly quickly at present, or at least stop posting - which is fine with me - I am *very* happy for them to remain as lurkers, unless it is used for hostile purposes like x-posting to Usenet with prejudice. However, the fantasy below is entirely of your own creation, and not worth comment, except to again point to your invention of terms that I have not used or implied, such as " inner " and " beneath " to describe the relationships between these two kinds of list, which I did not intend at all. Another odd thing is that even creation of more exclusive lists would not prevent the existence of the original one, so what you are in fact suggesting is that you are against the idea of ppl perhaps wanting to leave this list but stay in contact with those ppl they happen to want to. Are you against members corresponding provately with each other, insisting that we only communicate at this very public level? If not, why shouldnt ppl create their own lists of those they partucularly like corresponding with, if they have a mind to? Isnt this the very process that created this list in the first place? Again, if you did it yourself, you could get away from me! It does amuse me however to see your fantasy is uncannily like the AA view of " alcoholism " , suggesting that just one sip of exclusivity will inevitably lead to an inexorable decline into rampant elitism - and again, begs the question is if such a fate would unavoidably happen, how can you feel safe telling *me* to shut up and be confident you wouldnt suffer the same fate yourself? I wonder, would you advocate that gay rights groups allow homophobic statements to be made in their forums, arguing that they are " separatist " otherwise, and they should attempt a " synthesis " with their denouncers? Or Jews with Nazis? Black ppl with Aryan Nations? Do I need to go on? your comment on profit-making makes you sound like an American Republican. I dont see this as appropriate at all, and definitely undermines any credibility one would have as sincere since one can be denounced as just a profiteer. Some AAs jeer at the fact that one succesful suit against AA coercion won damages of just $1. IIRC the complainant probably only wanted token damages over costs - what mattered was establishment of principle, like when the Tennessee (?) treacher deliberately got himself arrested for teaching Darwinism in order that the Constitutionality of the suppressive law be challenged. Rather than something to be jeered at, the token damages sought indicate that the person was not a cynical litigator after a buck but someone interested in a pronciple. As for " Why cant I think like Apple? " - good God, that sounds like my mother expecting me as a juvenile to be a carbon copy of my brother, and a very, very strange comment to be made by someone who claims to be advocating freedom of thought and expression. Fwiw, I cant remember who said what and I dont accuse Apple of the following, but in the debate abt the creation of anti-AA stickers and such things, IIRC there appeared to be some rather offhand attitudes to issues like symbol copyrights, and vandalism by posting - havent ppl talked abt putting these irremovable stickers in AA books? What kind of respect for AA freedom of expression is that? In the UK just putting a sticker on a wall without permission is illegal, as it should be, because profit-driven advertisers plaster their posters all over the place turning whole neighbourhoods (incliding mine) into eyesores. As for Churchill, IIRC the incident happened when Churchill had actually collapsed in a corridor in Parliament, and the comment was made by a woman, and hence, the rebuff is perhaps particularly acerbic. P. A kind of indefinite regression, like the > problem with the ancient proofs of God's existence. The first mover. > The problem, of course, is that there is no bottom in this process, only > more and more secterism. > How damaged will you have to be to qualify to the inner circle, and who > is to decide? > > Personally I think that the idea of a list beneath the list is a sick > idea. > It only demonstrates the hegelian principle of thesis and antithesis. > The antithesis will be worse than the thesis. What is needed is a > synthesis of the two oppositions. > > I think that instead of digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes > you should go the other way. > > The ultimate success of combating AA would be to make a profit out of > it. > Apple does (some, at least) , why can't you think along her lines? > > Instead of digging a separatist hole in the desert! Sand, sand and > deficient in oxygen. > > Bjørn > > p.s. > > During W.W.II Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was drunk as usual at a > cabinet meeting. Very drunk. > One of his ministers shouted at him: " You are drunk! " > " Yes " , he answered, " but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober. " > > After all, he did a great job, and he did not dig himself into a hole in > the sand. > > Nutcase. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAGH! Looks like its happened to me now. I posted a detailed response to BJorn's and all that has appeared is his original post! This seems to have happened to others as well form what I can see. This looks like another irritating egroups quirk. I cant be bothered to type the whole thing in again, so will content myself with merely saying that Bjorn misrepresented my views pretty well every time he mentioned them. I dont want an " inner " list - I basically suggested that if ppl dont like me suggesting that steppers fuck off, then we create an " open " list where they are welcome, and a " closed " one where they are not. P. " pete watts " wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13081 > =?iso-8859-1?q?bj=f8rn?= herring wrote: > original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=130 68 > > > > > > > > > I live in this place: > > > http://www.loenstrup.dk/english.htm > > > > " loonstrup " sounds like where you oughtta live... > > > > Hi Doorman. > > > > Thanks for your kind response. > > Life is so loonly out here, that anything is better than nothing. > > > > I really appreciate your efforts to help people shaping a 'clean' list > > undisturbed by dirty people, as I've always considered alcoholism and > > other -ism's to be an anal disturbance. > > > > But the problem will certainly be, that the new purified list will > need > > some further purification, which will create a more purified list, and > > so on and so on and so on. A kind of indefinite regression, like the > > problem with the ancient proofs of God's existence. The first mover. > > The problem, of course, is that there is no bottom in this process, > only > > more and more secterism. > > How damaged will you have to be to qualify to the inner circle, and > who > > is to decide? > > > > Personally I think that the idea of a list beneath the list is a sick > > idea. > > It only demonstrates the hegelian principle of thesis and antithesis. > > The antithesis will be worse than the thesis. What is needed is a > > synthesis of the two oppositions. > > > > I think that instead of digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes > > you should go the other way. > > > > The ultimate success of combating AA would be to make a profit out of > > it. > > Apple does (some, at least) , why can't you think along her lines? > > > > Instead of digging a separatist hole in the desert! Sand, sand and > > deficient in oxygen. > > > > Bjørn > > > > p.s. > > > > During W.W.II Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was drunk as usual at > a > > cabinet meeting. Very drunk. > > One of his ministers shouted at him: " You are drunk! " > > " Yes " , he answered, " but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober. " > > > > After all, he did a great job, and he did not dig himself into a hole > in > > the sand. > > > > Nutcase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Hurrah! My post appeared. THe bug appears to cause two posts to be sent, the full reply, but preceding it a post which is just a quote of the original one. Annoying, but bearable. P. " pete watts " wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13083 > Hi Nutcase > > =?iso-8859-1?q?bj=f8rn?= herring wrote: > . > > > > I really appreciate your efforts to help people shaping a 'clean' list > > undisturbed by dirty people, as I've always considered alcoholism and > > other -ism's to be an anal disturbance. > > And sarcasm is anal sadistic Bjorn. I've never used the words " clean " > or " dirty " abt the list or abt ppl in this debate Bjorn. I wish only > to keep it what it is called - 12-step-free. It rather suggests your > argument is weak if you feel the need to attack things I havent said. > You also seem to miss that Ken is the doorman, not me - I have no more > power than either you or the newcomer *themself* when they arive. Given > this fact, you also ought to be able to realize that you are doing > exactly what yuo accuse me of doing - namely wanting to inhibit posts > that you dont like, i.e. those you consider " doorkeeping " in order to > keep the list the way *you* want it to be. So, you are just another > doorman with a different door policy. Fortunately, I have the brains to > realize you have no more power than I have (none) and it doesnt bother > me. > > > > But the problem will certainly be, that the new purified list will > need > > some further purification, which will create a more purified list, and > > so on and so on and so on. > > Who says? As you dont want this to happen, you presumably wont > participate, so how can you possibly have any idea how it will turn > out? But in any case, I dont recall calling for a new " purified " list. > I suggested " open " and " closed " lists. I would *like* this to be a > closed list, but it isnt in fact. However, if anything I was suggesting > the creation of a new official " open " list that presumably you would > like and could stick to if you couldnt bear being on a list with me, > which would mean I wouldnt have to put up with your stupid name-calling > (hopefully) because *my* posts here would be better tolerated because > of the existence of an officially open list that is there as an > alternative. I might like this list to be officially tightened up a > bit, so that the moderator, whoever it is, *does* remove ppl who make > AA promoting posts here if they persist in doing it. However, your > very responses to me suggest that this is hardly necessary, since you > seem to be of the opinion that I am capable of getting rid of them > anyway, and the fact is that these ppl do go away fairly quickly at > present, or at least stop posting - which is fine with me - I am *very* > happy for them to remain as lurkers, unless it is used for hostile > purposes like x-posting to Usenet with prejudice. However, the fantasy > below is entirely of your own creation, and not worth comment, except > to again point to your invention of terms that I have not used or > implied, such as " inner " and " beneath " to describe the relationships > between these two kinds of list, which I did not intend at all. Another > odd thing is that even creation of more exclusive lists would not > prevent the existence of the original one, so what you are in fact > suggesting is that you are against the idea of ppl perhaps wanting to > leave this list but stay in contact with those ppl they happen to want > to. Are you against members corresponding provately with each other, > insisting that we only communicate at this very public level? If not, > why shouldnt ppl create their own lists of those they partucularly like > corresponding with, if they have a mind to? Isnt this the very process > that created this list in the first place? Again, if you did it > yourself, you could get away from me! It does amuse me however to see > your fantasy is uncannily like the AA view of " alcoholism " , suggesting > that just one sip of exclusivity will inevitably lead to an inexorable > decline into rampant elitism - and again, begs the question is if such > a fate would unavoidably happen, how can you feel safe telling *me* to > shut up and be confident you wouldnt suffer the same fate yourself? > > I wonder, would you advocate that gay rights groups allow homophobic > statements to be made in their forums, arguing that they are > " separatist " otherwise, and they should attempt a " synthesis " with > their denouncers? Or Jews with Nazis? Black ppl with Aryan Nations? Do > I need to go on? > > your comment on profit-making makes you sound like an American > Republican. I dont see this as appropriate at all, and definitely > undermines any credibility one would have as sincere since one can be > denounced as just a profiteer. Some AAs jeer at the fact that one > succesful suit against AA coercion won damages of just $1. IIRC the > complainant probably only wanted token damages over costs - what > mattered was establishment of principle, like when the Tennessee (?) > treacher deliberately got himself arrested for teaching Darwinism in > order that the Constitutionality of the suppressive law be challenged. > Rather than something to be jeered at, the token damages sought > indicate that the person was not a cynical litigator after a buck but > someone interested in a pronciple. As for " Why cant I think like > Apple? " - good God, that sounds like my mother expecting me as a > juvenile to be a carbon copy of my brother, and a very, very strange > comment to be made by someone who claims to be advocating freedom of > thought and expression. Fwiw, I cant remember who said what and I dont > accuse Apple of the following, but in the debate abt the creation of > anti-AA stickers and such things, IIRC there appeared to be some rather > offhand attitudes to issues like symbol copyrights, and vandalism by > posting - havent ppl talked abt putting these irremovable stickers in > AA books? What kind of respect for AA freedom of expression is that? > In the UK just putting a sticker on a wall without permission is > illegal, as it should be, because profit-driven advertisers plaster > their posters all over the place turning whole neighbourhoods > (incliding mine) into eyesores. > > As for Churchill, IIRC the incident happened when Churchill had > actually collapsed in a corridor in Parliament, and the comment was > made by a woman, and hence, the rebuff is perhaps particularly acerbic. > > P. > > A kind of indefinite regression, like the > > problem with the ancient proofs of God's existence. The first mover. > > The problem, of course, is that there is no bottom in this process, > only > > more and more secterism. > > How damaged will you have to be to qualify to the inner circle, and > who > > is to decide? > > > > Personally I think that the idea of a list beneath the list is a sick > > idea. > > It only demonstrates the hegelian principle of thesis and antithesis. > > The antithesis will be worse than the thesis. What is needed is a > > synthesis of the two oppositions. > > > > I think that instead of digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes > > you should go the other way. > > > > The ultimate success of combating AA would be to make a profit out of > > it. > > Apple does (some, at least) , why can't you think along her lines? > > > > Instead of digging a separatist hole in the desert! Sand, sand and > > deficient in oxygen. > > > > Bjørn > > > > p.s. > > > > During W.W.II Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was drunk as usual at > a > > cabinet meeting. Very drunk. > > One of his ministers shouted at him: " You are drunk! " > > " Yes " , he answered, " but you are ugly, and tomorrow I'll be sober. " > > > > After all, he did a great job, and he did not dig himself into a hole > in > > the sand. > > > > Nutcase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Fwiw, I'll bet my ass that a totally open list will be overtaken by steppers. Thats what arf12s was, and thats what happened to it, which is why we have this list in the first place. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 Hi Pete. I'm really flattered about the attention you're giving. As I'm headed for bed right now, I can't give you the response you truly deserve. But at least I'll give you this, 'doorman' is probably not a proper nickname. Considering the great quantity of posts from you I think 'barrage balloon' might be a more suitable name. Good night. Bjørn Pete Watts wrote: Fwiw, I'll bet my ass that a totally open list will be overtaken by steppers. Thats what arf12s was, and thats what happened to it, which is why we have this list in the first place. P. eGroups.com Home: /group/12-step-free www. - Simplifying group communications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 =?iso-8859-1?q?bj=f8rn?= herring wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=13087 > Hi Pete. > > I'm really flattered about the attention you're giving. Funny.... I thought YOU initiated this conversation! Or do you expect someone to ignore sarcastic comments aimed straight at them? > Considering the great quantity of posts from you I think 'barrage > balloon' might be a more suitable name. A very odd metaphor, as barrage balloons were invented to *prevent* barrages, and you presumably think I am " barraging " the list. Ny all measn call me " Supergun " if you wish. Gerry Bull was a Brit. Funny, I thought there was no mailing limit here? Delete button not workingor something? I am quite happy to be a barrage balloon destroying the invading Nazi AA doodlebugs coming in from enemy occupied territory like Denmark. > Good night. Kiss It. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.