Re: True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

[Guest guest]

Bravo! People are so bound up in theories that they forget that

behavior is, indeed, the issue.

> Mike writes concerning those who are able to moderate, " If so, I

submit that

> you are not a true alcoholic, at least not the kind that I am

familiar

> with. "

>

> Bingo! There you are!

>

> If you eventually can drink again, then you are not a true

alcoholic.

>

> To me, however, this statement, which I've heard from others besides

just

> Mike, isn't quite enough. What it actually seems to me is that this

> statement is more about definitions, less about behavior. This

statement

> defines " alcoholic " as " a person who can never again drink in

moderation " .

> The definition would work if everybody accepted that this is the

definition.

>

> It would be so easy to get into a major debate about what

constitutes a

> " true " alcoholic, and we could send electrons flying debating if

those who

> become able to moderate are " true " or not; or if only those who

would fall

> to pieces and drink themselves silly if they tried to moderate are

" true " .

> We could spend bandwidth like a drunken sailor spends money arguing

about

> " powerlessness " - we have the power to refrain from picking up that

first

> drink and we don't need AA to maintain that power. Yet why is it

that if we

> were to pick up that drink and try to moderate, we would not have

the power

> to moderate? And why would we not consider that " powerlessness " ?

We could

> fill the monitor with debate about " choice " , and what we say we are

> " choosing " to do.

>

> I value words highly. I'm a word-monger. Yet I want to be careful

that I

> don't get so caught up in building tremendous word edifices that I

don't try

> to look and see what it is that is actually going on. I remember

sitting

> there at AA meetings and thinking, " Wow! Just listen to this! This

is

> incredible! My friends here are building the most astonishing

castles in

> the air out of words, words, words, and it really sounds as if they

are

> saying all sorts of things. But when I look, I really can't find

much of a

> referent behind the words. My friends aren't actually communicating

> anything. They have an internal experience which they believe they

are

> sharing, but they aren't. "

>

> I myself see some rather complex behavior, differing both from

individual to

> individual, and differing also within an individual. I see some

people who

> drink to excess and will always drink to excess if they try to use

alcohol.

> I see some who cannot stop using alcohol even though such use

threatens

> their lives. I see some who can abstain completely, yet would lose

control

> if they tried to moderate. And I see some who go through a period

in their

> life when they are seriously, seriously out of control, perhaps even

for

> many, many years; yet eventually something shifts inside, and they

simmer

> down and start moderating. There are those who just sort of grow

into a

> kind of moderation, and others who can moderate after a period of

> abstinence.

>

> Rather than getting caught up in debating who is and isn't " true " ,

I'd

> rather try to figure out what is going on here. I'd rather look at

behavior

> and the context in which the behavior happens. I'd rather try to

see what

> behavior seems to be influenced by the environment and what behavior

seems

> to originate primarily from inside the person with little influence

from

> outside. I'd like to try to apply what I figure out to myself, to

try to

> get my behavior to be more effective and satisfying.

>

> And I am going to go and read more about the Zimbardo study.

Uh...I'm also

> going to clean this kitchen, too...the computer is so seductive,

it's easy

> to forget the housework.

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

,

Very well said.

I would go one step further though. The problem with the " true

alcoholic " definition, in my view, is that it is both non-predictive

and unfalsifiable.

There is no way under this definition to separate the current

population of problem drinkers into true and faux alcoholics. And,

the theory can't be falsified, a requirement for a scientific theory.

> Mike writes concerning those who are able to moderate, " If so, I

submit that

> you are not a true alcoholic, at least not the kind that I am

familiar

> with. "

>

> Bingo! There you are!

>

> If you eventually can drink again, then you are not a true

alcoholic.

>

> To me, however, this statement, which I've heard from others

besides just

> Mike, isn't quite enough. What it actually seems to me is that this

> statement is more about definitions, less about behavior. This

statement

> defines " alcoholic " as " a person who can never again drink in

moderation " .

> The definition would work if everybody accepted that this is the

definition.

>

[Guest guest]

Can you explain the " unfalsifiable " part?

> > Mike writes concerning those who are able to moderate, " If so, I

> submit that

> > you are not a true alcoholic, at least not the kind that I am

> familiar

> > with. "

> >

> > Bingo! There you are!

> >

> > If you eventually can drink again, then you are not a true

> alcoholic.

> >

> > To me, however, this statement, which I've heard from others

> besides just

> > Mike, isn't quite enough. What it actually seems to me is that

this

> > statement is more about definitions, less about behavior. This

> statement

> > defines " alcoholic " as " a person who can never again drink in

> moderation " .

> > The definition would work if everybody accepted that this is the

> definition.

> >

[Guest guest]

At 09:55 PM 5/26/01 -0000, stuart323@... wrote:

>,

>

>Very well said.

>

>I would go one step further though. The problem with the " true

>alcoholic " definition, in my view, is that it is both non-predictive

>and unfalsifiable.

>

>There is no way under this definition to separate the current

>population of problem drinkers into true and faux alcoholics. And,

>the theory can't be falsified, a requirement for a scientific theory.

I recall the words " true alcoholic " being used by Bill in

the big book, if not the 12 & 12. It's an AA term, sometimes used in

meetings as an extra qualification term, like " real alcoholic " or

" grateful recovering alcoholic " .

Just the word alcoholic has many disputed meanings. It is of course

full of meaning in AA, but to me it is just become a label.

-----

This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Hi,

> Just the word alcoholic has many disputed meanings. It is of

course

> full of meaning in AA, but to me it is just become a label.

He, he... I read some where is has about as much meaning as the label

" moronic. " <g>

[Guest guest]

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

> > Just the word alcoholic has many disputed meanings. It is of

> course

> > full of meaning in AA, but to me it is just become a label.

>

> He, he... I read some where is has about as much meaning as the label

> " moronic. " <g>

>

Actually, moronic has far more meaning. As Mike put it in a prior

post on this topic, " I know it when I see it. "

-- Bob

[Guest guest]

I did not mean that if you WANT to drink again you are not an alcoholic I

meant if you can drink again without losing control you are not an

alcoholic. Mike.

True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

> Mike writes concerning those who are able to moderate, " If so, I submit

that

> you are not a true alcoholic, at least not the kind that I am familiar

> with. "

>

> Bingo! There you are!

>

> If you eventually can drink again, then you are not a true alcoholic.

>

> To me, however, this statement, which I've heard from others besides just

> Mike, isn't quite enough. What it actually seems to me is that this

> statement is more about definitions, less about behavior. This statement

> defines " alcoholic " as " a person who can never again drink in moderation " .

> The definition would work if everybody accepted that this is the

definition.

>

> It would be so easy to get into a major debate about what constitutes a

> " true " alcoholic, and we could send electrons flying debating if those who

> become able to moderate are " true " or not; or if only those who would fall

> to pieces and drink themselves silly if they tried to moderate are " true " .

> We could spend bandwidth like a drunken sailor spends money arguing about

> " powerlessness " - we have the power to refrain from picking up that first

> drink and we don't need AA to maintain that power. Yet why is it that if

we

> were to pick up that drink and try to moderate, we would not have the

power

> to moderate? And why would we not consider that " powerlessness " ? We

could

> fill the monitor with debate about " choice " , and what we say we are

> " choosing " to do.

>

> I value words highly. I'm a word-monger. Yet I want to be careful that I

> don't get so caught up in building tremendous word edifices that I don't

try

> to look and see what it is that is actually going on. I remember sitting

> there at AA meetings and thinking, " Wow! Just listen to this! This is

> incredible! My friends here are building the most astonishing castles in

> the air out of words, words, words, and it really sounds as if they are

> saying all sorts of things. But when I look, I really can't find much of

a

> referent behind the words. My friends aren't actually communicating

> anything. They have an internal experience which they believe they are

> sharing, but they aren't. "

>

> I myself see some rather complex behavior, differing both from individual

to

> individual, and differing also within an individual. I see some people

who

> drink to excess and will always drink to excess if they try to use

alcohol.

> I see some who cannot stop using alcohol even though such use threatens

> their lives. I see some who can abstain completely, yet would lose

control

> if they tried to moderate. And I see some who go through a period in

their

> life when they are seriously, seriously out of control, perhaps even for

> many, many years; yet eventually something shifts inside, and they simmer

> down and start moderating. There are those who just sort of grow into a

> kind of moderation, and others who can moderate after a period of

> abstinence.

>

> Rather than getting caught up in debating who is and isn't " true " , I'd

> rather try to figure out what is going on here. I'd rather look at

behavior

> and the context in which the behavior happens. I'd rather try to see what

> behavior seems to be influenced by the environment and what behavior seems

> to originate primarily from inside the person with little influence from

> outside. I'd like to try to apply what I figure out to myself, to try to

> get my behavior to be more effective and satisfying.

>

> And I am going to go and read more about the Zimbardo study. Uh...I'm

also

> going to clean this kitchen, too...the computer is so seductive, it's easy

> to forget the housework.

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You said you value words highly and said you are a 'word-monger'. I guess

that you are NOT the one who was throwing the brainwashed word around a

couple weeks ago, and you were not one of that persons defenders. Mike.

True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

> Mike writes concerning those who are able to moderate, " If so, I submit

that

> you are not a true alcoholic, at least not the kind that I am familiar

> with. "

>

> Bingo! There you are!

>

> If you eventually can drink again, then you are not a true alcoholic.

>

> To me, however, this statement, which I've heard from others besides just

> Mike, isn't quite enough. What it actually seems to me is that this

> statement is more about definitions, less about behavior. This statement

> defines " alcoholic " as " a person who can never again drink in moderation " .

> The definition would work if everybody accepted that this is the

definition.

>

> It would be so easy to get into a major debate about what constitutes a

> " true " alcoholic, and we could send electrons flying debating if those who

> become able to moderate are " true " or not; or if only those who would fall

> to pieces and drink themselves silly if they tried to moderate are " true " .

> We could spend bandwidth like a drunken sailor spends money arguing about

> " powerlessness " - we have the power to refrain from picking up that first

> drink and we don't need AA to maintain that power. Yet why is it that if

we

> were to pick up that drink and try to moderate, we would not have the

power

> to moderate? And why would we not consider that " powerlessness " ? We

could

> fill the monitor with debate about " choice " , and what we say we are

> " choosing " to do.

>

> I value words highly. I'm a word-monger. Yet I want to be careful that I

> don't get so caught up in building tremendous word edifices that I don't

try

> to look and see what it is that is actually going on. I remember sitting

> there at AA meetings and thinking, " Wow! Just listen to this! This is

> incredible! My friends here are building the most astonishing castles in

> the air out of words, words, words, and it really sounds as if they are

> saying all sorts of things. But when I look, I really can't find much of

a

> referent behind the words. My friends aren't actually communicating

> anything. They have an internal experience which they believe they are

> sharing, but they aren't. "

>

> I myself see some rather complex behavior, differing both from individual

to

> individual, and differing also within an individual. I see some people

who

> drink to excess and will always drink to excess if they try to use

alcohol.

> I see some who cannot stop using alcohol even though such use threatens

> their lives. I see some who can abstain completely, yet would lose

control

> if they tried to moderate. And I see some who go through a period in

their

> life when they are seriously, seriously out of control, perhaps even for

> many, many years; yet eventually something shifts inside, and they simmer

> down and start moderating. There are those who just sort of grow into a

> kind of moderation, and others who can moderate after a period of

> abstinence.

>

> Rather than getting caught up in debating who is and isn't " true " , I'd

> rather try to figure out what is going on here. I'd rather look at

behavior

> and the context in which the behavior happens. I'd rather try to see what

> behavior seems to be influenced by the environment and what behavior seems

> to originate primarily from inside the person with little influence from

> outside. I'd like to try to apply what I figure out to myself, to try to

> get my behavior to be more effective and satisfying.

>

> And I am going to go and read more about the Zimbardo study. Uh...I'm

also

> going to clean this kitchen, too...the computer is so seductive, it's easy

> to forget the housework.

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Stuart, for adding to what I was trying to say. Yes, you can't

falsify anything here. You can't predict whether a problem drinker will be

able to moderate in the future.

You can't really say anything until later, until someone who had problems in

the past becomes able to moderate in the present.

Mike writes, " To me, an alcoholic is a drunk who cannot get control of his

drinking, who cannot keep the same six pack of beer in his frig for more

than a day, and who has problems as a result of drinking, as far as his

family, friends, the law, his job. An alcoholic isn't someone who gets too

drunk three times a year on special occasions. I can't easily define an

alcoholic, but I know one when I see one. "

Now, there you're talking about behavior. I can relate to this. And I note

that in this post you didn't use the word " true " . The description you're

giving us in this post makes no predictions about how this person will

behave at age 50 or 70, nor makes any statements about authenticity. You're

describing someone who has a problem with booze, can't seem to grab a grip,

is pissing off his long-suffering family, disgusting whatever friends he has

left, is on the verge of getting fired, and has the cops breathing down his

neck for his dubious driving. <grin> That's more like it! This makes more

sense to me. You're telling us what a person is doing, rather than using

abstractions. I can understand this.

Ron asks Kayleigh, " How is behavior THE issue? In what context? At least

theories give us a reference through which we judge

our behaviors.I think judgment is important when it

comes to addiction. "

I'm not Kayleigh, but I'm the one yapping about behavior versus

abstractions. Yes, theories can help us think about what is going on, and

we can use words to construct models to describe what we see happening.

Yes, we can use words and theories to judge behaviors. I love words, and I

wouldn't be without them.

But I see and hear people losing sight of what the words are about. As the

General Semanticists say, " The word is not the thing, " and too many people

forget this, or don't realize it in the first place. Too often I've noticed

that people are talking and talking, and they're not communicating a

doggoned thing.

I jumped on poor Mike for writing " true alcoholic " . The term was too

abstract, particularly the " true " part. So I bugged Mike, and he came up

with a statement which was at best an arbirary definition, and at worst, an

unprovable proposition when it applied to future behavior.

So I picked on Mike even some more (oh lordy, will he compare me to

Dworkin for this?), and finally struck some pay dirt. Now he's given us a

more down-to-earth description of a guy who is even now eyeing the

fridge...whoops, there he goes, he's opening the door, taking out that

six-pack, wow, those beers went down the hatch pretty fast...what's

that?....there he goes, takes the car keys, he's heading out to buy more

beer....and what's that in the rear view mirror?...that bubble gum machine

on top of a car?...that siren sound...?....sounds as if this guy is in

trouble again...just can't keep from bending the ol' elbow....here comes the

cop now....oh boy, will his wife be pissed...she's thinking about filing for

divorce...thinking about going to AlAnon where she will ask the women there

how she can make him stop....

As I said before, I've sat in just too many meetings and heard just too many

lovely verbal constructions that have nothing tangible behind them. When my

first ex-husband came into the program we'd listen and then kind of look at

each other and grimace...

Words are such a two-edged sword. On the one hand, words and language are

as vital as upright posture and the opposible thumb to making us humans what

we are. Words give us such power to create and destroy. OTOH, language

also conceals and bamboozles us and leaves us hypnotized.

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

Mike. PS -WTF does 'Unfalsifiable ' mean?

Read the works of Karl Popper. One of the premier philosophers of science.

Not everyone still adheres to all of Popper's views, but most do accept that a scientific theory is not credible if it cannot be falsified.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

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

<snip>

> Mike writes, " To me, an alcoholic is a drunk who cannot get control of his

> drinking, who cannot keep the same six pack of beer in his frig for more

> than a day, and who has problems as a result of drinking, as far as his

> family, friends, the law, his job. An alcoholic isn't someone who gets

too

> drunk three times a year on special occasions. I can't easily define an

> alcoholic, but I know one when I see one. "

>

> Now, there you're talking about behavior. I can relate to this. And I

note

> that in this post you didn't use the word " true " . The description you're

> giving us in this post makes no predictions about how this person will

> behave at age 50 or 70, nor makes any statements about authenticity.

So are the people who stay abstinent in AA " real alcoholics " or not?

I guess we will never know if they will mature out of their abusive use of

alcohol. I have made a rational decision to continue to abstain, simply

because I have no desire to feel the effects of alcohol on my system again

due to the unpleasant memories, and because I feel I might cross the fuzzy

line from use to abuse again.

Guess the people who proudly proclaim themselves " real alcoholics "

at meetings should test the waters to be sure. Of course, after a period of

time in AA, they would probably go on a wild binge because they have been

indoctrinated into " powerlessness " .

> describing someone who has a problem with booze, can't seem to grab a

grip,

> is pissing off his long-suffering family, disgusting whatever friends he

has

> left, is on the verge of getting fired, and has the cops breathing down

his

> neck for his dubious driving. <grin> That's more like it! This makes

more

> sense to me. You're telling us what a person is doing, rather than using

> abstractions. I can understand this.

But is this person a " real alcoholic " or just a real a-hole? In AA

parlance, one is not a real alcoholic unless one can never drink

successfully again and, to the thinking of most, cannot abstain from alcohol

without a lifetime of steppism and meetings.

That is why AA members claim they are absolutely right; if somebody

leaves and destroys their life, it proves that person was a real alcoholic

and could not live without the program... if, on the other hand, the person

leaves and drinks normally or happily abstains without the drudgery of the

fellowship, that person was either not an alcoholic, or is a dry drunk in

denial.

The BB contains many simple observations of common sense that are

valuable, with lots of cult-think slipped in, much the way Scientology

recruits members. A lot of L. Ron Hubbard's writings were plagiarized from

other sources and are as inoccuous as a Dale Carnege book. It is easy to get

the pidgeon to agree with the obvious, which opens the door for the absurd.

So Bill W. or L. Ron says it will hurt like hell if you hit your

thumb with a hammer. You try it and, by golly, they were RIGHT! So

everything else the wise sage has to say in the future must be true!

Alcoholism is a disease that can only be treated by praying to Buchman's God

or, in the case of Hubbard, all of your problems are attributable to the

souls of 75,000,000 year old dead space aliens that infest your body.

Both groups are convinced they have the secret of the universe and

that everyone else is deluded.

They don't realize we're all just bozos on this bus.

-- Bob Marshall

[Guest guest]

I used to go to NA and wonder how I was gonna manage not to spend half of

my paycheck on heroin on the day I cashed it, and this fucking whiny ass

woman is there 'sharing'(what a fucking term) about how her mom wouldn't

accept her pet cat(mom just didn't like her cat) and she took great

personal anguish over the act that her mother would not see her pet cat as

part of the family, the way she did. I turned to the kid sitting next to

me, and said 'did she say she was crying because her mother doesn't like her

cat?' and he kid kind of came out of his trance and looked at me a little

funny, and said 'yeah, pretty much, that's what she said' , and at that

moment I realized there are many people at NA who are fucking lost souls

with nothing better to do than sit in front of a captive audience and whine.

THAT is my only problem with NA-that and the fact that I had to cash in all

my clean time every time I had a beer after cutting the grass on a summer

afternoon. Mike.

Re: Re: True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

> Thanks, Stuart, for adding to what I was trying to say. Yes, you can't

> falsify anything here. You can't predict whether a problem drinker will

be

> able to moderate in the future.

>

> You can't really say anything until later, until someone who had problems

in

> the past becomes able to moderate in the present.

>

> Mike writes, " To me, an alcoholic is a drunk who cannot get control of his

> drinking, who cannot keep the same six pack of beer in his frig for more

> than a day, and who has problems as a result of drinking, as far as his

> family, friends, the law, his job. An alcoholic isn't someone who gets

too

> drunk three times a year on special occasions. I can't easily define an

> alcoholic, but I know one when I see one. "

>

> Now, there you're talking about behavior. I can relate to this. And I

note

> that in this post you didn't use the word " true " . The description you're

> giving us in this post makes no predictions about how this person will

> behave at age 50 or 70, nor makes any statements about authenticity.

You're

> describing someone who has a problem with booze, can't seem to grab a

grip,

> is pissing off his long-suffering family, disgusting whatever friends he

has

> left, is on the verge of getting fired, and has the cops breathing down

his

> neck for his dubious driving. <grin> That's more like it! This makes

more

> sense to me. You're telling us what a person is doing, rather than using

> abstractions. I can understand this.

>

> Ron asks Kayleigh, " How is behavior THE issue? In what context? At least

> theories give us a reference through which we judge

> our behaviors.I think judgment is important when it

> comes to addiction. "

>

> I'm not Kayleigh, but I'm the one yapping about behavior versus

> abstractions. Yes, theories can help us think about what is going on, and

> we can use words to construct models to describe what we see happening.

> Yes, we can use words and theories to judge behaviors. I love words, and

I

> wouldn't be without them.

>

> But I see and hear people losing sight of what the words are about. As

the

> General Semanticists say, " The word is not the thing, " and too many people

> forget this, or don't realize it in the first place. Too often I've

noticed

> that people are talking and talking, and they're not communicating a

> doggoned thing.

>

> I jumped on poor Mike for writing " true alcoholic " . The term was too

> abstract, particularly the " true " part. So I bugged Mike, and he came up

> with a statement which was at best an arbirary definition, and at worst,

an

> unprovable proposition when it applied to future behavior.

>

> So I picked on Mike even some more (oh lordy, will he compare me to

> Dworkin for this?), and finally struck some pay dirt. Now he's given us a

> more down-to-earth description of a guy who is even now eyeing the

> fridge...whoops, there he goes, he's opening the door, taking out that

> six-pack, wow, those beers went down the hatch pretty fast...what's

> that?....there he goes, takes the car keys, he's heading out to buy more

> beer....and what's that in the rear view mirror?...that bubble gum machine

> on top of a car?...that siren sound...?....sounds as if this guy is in

> trouble again...just can't keep from bending the ol' elbow....here comes

the

> cop now....oh boy, will his wife be pissed...she's thinking about filing

for

> divorce...thinking about going to AlAnon where she will ask the women

there

> how she can make him stop....

>

> As I said before, I've sat in just too many meetings and heard just too

many

> lovely verbal constructions that have nothing tangible behind them. When

my

> first ex-husband came into the program we'd listen and then kind of look

at

> each other and grimace...

>

> Words are such a two-edged sword. On the one hand, words and language are

> as vital as upright posture and the opposible thumb to making us humans

what

> we are. Words give us such power to create and destroy. OTOH, language

> also conceals and bamboozles us and leaves us hypnotized.

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Is 'Unfalsifiable' a bad thing? I think the US Treasury would LOVE to know

how to make things unfalsifiable. Mike. PS -WTF does 'Unfalsifiable ' mean?

Re: Re: True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

> At 09:55 PM 5/26/01 -0000, stuart323@... wrote:

> >,

> >

> >Very well said.

> >

> >I would go one step further though. The problem with the " true

> >alcoholic " definition, in my view, is that it is both non-predictive

> >and unfalsifiable.

> >

> >There is no way under this definition to separate the current

> >population of problem drinkers into true and faux alcoholics. And,

> >the theory can't be falsified, a requirement for a scientific theory.

>

> I recall the words " true alcoholic " being used by Bill in

> the big book, if not the 12 & 12. It's an AA term, sometimes used in

> meetings as an extra qualification term, like " real alcoholic " or

> " grateful recovering alcoholic " .

> Just the word alcoholic has many disputed meanings. It is of course

> full of meaning in AA, but to me it is just become a label.

> -----

> This post (except quoted portions) Copyright 2001, Ben Bradley.

> http://listen.to/benbradley

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

They don't realize we're all just bozos on this bus.

I haven't heard that in years - Firesign Theatre?

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Bob,

>

> They don't realize we're all just bozos on this bus.

>

> I haven't heard that in years - Firesign Theatre?

>

Good catch, .

Napster (actually, Audiogalaxy) has led to rediscovery of many

things from my (misspent) youth.

Everything you know is wrong! Goodbye, seekers.

-- Bob

[Guest guest]

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <ahicks@s...>

>

> > Hi Bob,

> >

> > They don't realize we're all just bozos on this bus.

> >

> > I haven't heard that in years - Firesign Theatre?

> >

> Good catch, .

> Napster (actually, Audiogalaxy) has led to rediscovery of

many

> things from my (misspent) youth.

Bob, LOL!

IMHO, any youth that isn't " misspent, " is misspent!

> Everything you know is wrong! Goodbye, seekers.

I can believe it...

TTYL,

[Guest guest]

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

> IMHO, any youth that isn't " misspent, " is misspent!

I believe it was Winston Churchill who, when asked about misspent

youth, replied, " Is there any other kind? "

> > Everything you know is wrong! Goodbye, seekers.

>

> I can believe it...

I misquoted Firesign. It was " So long, suckers.... I mean, seekers! "

That seems very appropriate on a list that deals with the Thought of Bill.

-- Bob Marshall

[Guest guest]

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <ahicks@s...>

>

> > IMHO, any youth that isn't " misspent, " is misspent!

>

> I believe it was Winston Churchill who, when asked about

misspent

> youth, replied, " Is there any other kind? "

Hi Bob,

I recently saw a documentary called " Britain's Finest Hour " about

WWII. I can't remember the *exact* quote, but Churchill said

something like, " I've gotten the better of alcohol, but alcohol has

never gotten the better of me. "

The show documented his attempts to get the Americans involved in the

war, which wasn't easy. There was a very strong isolationist

movement in the US. Apparently one of the rationales that FDR had for

staying out is that he and a lot of other people believed that

Churchill was a drunk.

>

> > > Everything you know is wrong! Goodbye, seekers.

> >

> > I can believe it...

>

> I misquoted Firesign. It was " So long, suckers.... I mean,

seekers! "

God, it has been 25 years since I heard that! Is Napster no more?

I've been out of touch with that. When I tried it before it just took

too long to download stuff with my slow connection.

[Guest guest]

> Apparently one of the rationales that FDR had

for

> staying out is that he and a lot of other people believed that

> Churchill was a drunk.

Hmmmmm....so doesnt that make it all the more important to help

us fight tyrrany? Rather odd to let European democracy go down the

pan because of a single man's weakness. Apparently America's rulers

seemed to quite enjoy the discomfiture of their former masters in

1940: a bill to extend aid to Britain was dubbed " Resolution 1776 "

just to rub it in.

Apparently when Churchill heard the news about Pearl Harbour, he

said " The hour of our deliverance is at hand " and wrote in is his

diary " I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved. " .

P.

[Guest guest]

> > Apparently one of the rationales that FDR had

> for

> > staying out is that he and a lot of other people believed that

> > Churchill was a drunk.

>

> Hmmmmm....so doesnt that make it all the more important to help

> us fight tyrrany? Rather odd to let European democracy go down the

> pan because of a single man's weakness. Apparently America's rulers

> seemed to quite enjoy the discomfiture of their former masters in

> 1940: a bill to extend aid to Britain was dubbed " Resolution 1776 "

> just to rub it in.

>

> Apparently when Churchill heard the news about Pearl Harbour, he

> said " The hour of our deliverance is at hand " and wrote in is his

> diary " I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved. " .

>

> P.

Hi Pete,

I didn't say I agreed! I thought it rather fascinating that they

would report such a thing on the show. They spent a little time on

American attitudes to alcohol, the temperance movement was still big

in the middle class. America's ambivilance about alcohol is truly

astounding sometimes. How we love it and hate it!

They also said that the isolationist movement had a huge popular

support, partly due to the fact that Lindberg, (with his feats of

flying and kidnapped child) was one of the leaders of it.

The show I watched also put out the idea that FDR basically thought

that Britain was a sinking ship and had no hope. It said that when

Churchill sank the French Navy after France fell to the Germans,

everyone pricked up their ears and began to take him seriously. But

here were 1,000s of people killed who had been allies the week before.

They interviewed the man who was in on sinking those destroyers and it

was a hard duty. This show, it was a PBS show called " Britain's

Finest Hour, " was just absorbing and not the usual " America saves the

day " type propaganda. The factual information was cut with interviews

with people that had roles to play who are still living.

[Guest guest]

Rather odd to let European democracy go down the pan because of a single man's weakness

And consider that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunkard, who won the American Civil War for Lincoln. Upon being told that Grant drank hard liquor to excess (I think it was whiskey) virtually every night, abstemious Abe told his aides to send a case of the stuff to all of his generals.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Are you saying FDR was an isolationist? I thought he was a war monger? You

better check your 'documentaries' again, Mike.

Re: True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

>

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: <ahicks@s...>

> >

> > > IMHO, any youth that isn't " misspent, " is misspent!

> >

> > I believe it was Winston Churchill who, when asked about

> misspent

> > youth, replied, " Is there any other kind? "

>

> Hi Bob,

>

> I recently saw a documentary called " Britain's Finest Hour " about

> WWII. I can't remember the *exact* quote, but Churchill said

> something like, " I've gotten the better of alcohol, but alcohol has

> never gotten the better of me. "

>

> The show documented his attempts to get the Americans involved in the

> war, which wasn't easy. There was a very strong isolationist

> movement in the US. Apparently one of the rationales that FDR had for

> staying out is that he and a lot of other people believed that

> Churchill was a drunk.

> >

> > > > Everything you know is wrong! Goodbye, seekers.

> > >

> > > I can believe it...

> >

> > I misquoted Firesign. It was " So long, suckers.... I mean,

> seekers! "

>

> God, it has been 25 years since I heard that! Is Napster no more?

> I've been out of touch with that. When I tried it before it just took

> too long to download stuff with my slow connection.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I seriously doubt that Gen Grant was a drunkard, depending on your definition of drunkard. When I was in the Army, we had certain young soldiers who would drink one or two six packs every single night, and wake up at 0600 to lead the PT running formation as a road guard(which entails much Xtra running) for our daily 3through5 mile run(at eight min/mile pace) and then fall out at 0830 for duty formation, and be one of the best soldiers I have ever seen. I would not call these guys drunkards, I never really saw them drunk-(To me, drunk means stupefied or inebriated with alcohol) . Mike.

Re: Re: True alcoholic (was: Zimbardo Study)

Rather odd to let European democracy go down the pan because of a single man's weaknessAnd consider that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunkard, who won the American Civil War for Lincoln. Upon being told that Grant drank hard liquor to excess (I think it was whiskey) virtually every night, abstemious Abe told his aides to send a case of the stuff to all of his generals. --Mona--