Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 I respect other peoples beliefs and I observe their requests unless their is some reason not to. Do what you want-maybe you should be a journalist-then when you invade celebrities privacy, you can say 'the people have a right to know-I am following a noble calling, just like the law, or something'-no offense, Mike. Re:Any Clapton fans? > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > > > > > > > Went to see Clapton concert last night. > > > > > > > > > > I knew Clapton had had his drug problems...but read in the > > > > > program that he now runs a treatment center in Antigua. > > > > > Wondering if he's now a stepper? > > > > > He was wearing an upside down crucifix around his neck. > > > > > Significance? Anyone know? > > > > > > > >I have seen Clapton at an AA meeting here in London. I > wonder > > > >does he still get royalities for his song " She's alright, she's > > > >alright, she;s alright.... cocaine. " ? > > > > > > > >P. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 I missed something. WHAT shows you that Clapton, specifically, is not interested in helping people, or is only interested as a secondary motive? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with naming anything after oneself also, but that does not prove these people are not trying to help anyone-it just shows that they have (maybe too much) ego working in their life. By the way-their are many ordinary people who do nothing but snipe and criticize at people who are trying to accomplish something. Mike. Re: Re:Any Clapton fans? > At 03:31 PM 6/8/01 -0400, you wrote: > >Makes it pretty clear that people like Clapton and Betty Ford ($14000 per > >month, FYI) are motivated more by the desire to build ego-monuments than by > >actually wanting to help people. > > I think they all are. It's just a question of what the target market > can afford. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 First of all open meeting does not mean that their is no expectation of anonymity. Anonymity is the closest thing to a rule that NA and AA have. Secondly I only went to NA meetings not AA, and I saw the meeting chairperson, or whatever it was, sign an attendance slip that some parolees WANTED the chairperson to sign. I also saw the parolees barely respect the people of the meeting, by sitting in the back and ignoring the meeting and talking quietly among themselves about probably selling drugs and other neighborhood activities. The people who were at the meeting were in NO WAY whatesoever exercising any kind of control or exploitation against these people. I only saw this at meetings occasionally, it was not an everyday occurrence. The people who were asking the meeting chairperson to sign their slips were the ones who made a deal with court to avoid having to do jail time, so, in my opinion, to resent the people who are attending a meeting because they are trying to refrain from using alcohol or drugs is truly disgusting. No one MAKES you go to any meeting. I lost my job where I was making $60K+ per year, and I was not given any ultimatum to go to meetings. If I was, I would certainly not agree to attend meetings, and then blame the meeting people for a deal I made with a court or job authority; that is truly wrong. I have a court date coming up(If I ever get around to it) where they are going to possibly tell me to go to meetings or go to jail. Guess what- I am going to tell them I am not going to meetings, put me in jail if you want. I am not going to blame some AA or NA yo- yo's for what transpires between myself and some fucking lawyers in robes. Anyone who does, is in my opinion, a punk.By the way, to anyone here who is a lawyer, yes, that remark was intended as in insult against lawyers. they are truly repulsive. Mike. Re:Any Clapton fans? > > > I respect other peoples beliefs and I observe their requests unless > their is > > some reason not to. Do what you want-maybe you should be a > journalist-then > > when you invade celebrities privacy, you can say 'the people have a > right > > to know-I am following a noble calling, just like the law, or > something'-no > > offense, Mike. > > Yeah no offense Mike, sure you meant none. How civil it was of you > to ask me first if it was an OPEN meeting, when anyone could walk in > and see him for themselves, before you got so sanctimonious. > > It was so long ago I cant remember if it was, but I know that they > did have open meetings at that venue at that time. > > Ordinarily I would agree with you about privacy - but the steppers > have taken the game beyond that. These folks participate in coerced > attendance - a total breech of ppl's civil rights. While XA continues > to do this, then they've lost it as far as keeping privacy is > concerned with me - maybe they could keep it a little more private if > they didnt have so many ppl in there who didnt want to be there. Also > I believe we have a right to know Clapton's affiliations if he is > involved with a rehab in some way - it means he isnt doing it on an > impartial basis but has a commitment to a particular philosophy. > Ironically, I never even noticed he was there until another AA pointed > him out to me - I was invited to ogle him by another member. Also, in > the case of celebirities the chances of them not being outed is pretty > well zilch anyway - almost certainly Clapton's story was run in the > press years ago. > > Also AA members themselves gossip about who is and who isnt, despite > each group being supposedly autonomous. An AA friend passed on the > gossip that Dubya had been seen in a meeting - even though I'm no > longer AA. > > The " anonymous " but is suposed to be so that they dont go around > promoting themselves or AA with it. Well I aint promoting Clapton or > AA, so whats he got to hide. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2001 Report Share Posted June 10, 2001 Jack LaLanne is a famous American television personality who had a physical fitness and exercise show in the early days of television. He is about 80 now, if still alive, and until a few years ago, he performed various feats of strength every year on his birthday, such as pulling a railroad car, or towing a string of small boats while swimming, etcetera. He once attempted to swim from Alcatraz island to the shore in San Francisco, and he said 'I'm a damn strong swimmer, and I couldn't make it-I don't think probably anyone could make that swim' although it is a fact that one prisoner was capture alive onshore after escaping from Alcatraz. Mike. Re:Any Clapton fans? > > > I read an interview where Jack LaLanne (of all people) stated that > > occasional use of drugs(he specifically named cocaine) need not be > > detrimental to your health and fitness. Mike. > > I dont know who Jack LaLanne is, but he's right. > > Tea made from coca leaves provides some cocaine that is a stimulant > but is no more damaging than the caffeine in coffee and fizzy drinks. > However, coca growing countries are not allowed to export it, robbing > them of a source of income they could have from coca that would not > harm anyone. > > I dont know much about refined cocane but it is known that some ppl > are able to use heroin without detriment. > > P. > > > > > 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.