Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

[Guest guest]

Jim Shirk,

It's obvious you want to be outed. You gave too much info not to.

I'm sure you realize has expressed her husbands interest in Rational Recovery is an articulated program of recovery that could just as easily be approved by any state if hard core 12 steppers like you hadn't infiltrated the system to eliminate real choice.

DT

PS: Trimpey's "rampage" as you put it was a wise and concerted fluent maneuver to rescue Rational Recovery from people to whom he had entrusted it in good faith. You really ought to get a copy of the Journal of Rational Recovery vol 7 issue 37, Sept-Oct 1994, to learn about the whole Hostile Takeover Attempt. Just kidding, I know you're not interested in the truth.

Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and why )

,From what you have said, I'm assuming that you live either in the Seattle or Tacoma area. There are several non-12 step treatment programs in the Seattle area. I don't have those agency names at this time. In Tacoma Serenity Counseling Service is a non-12 step, non disease based program based on RET and REBT, basically what RR used to be before Trimpey when on his rampage. They also have their own self-help support groups which are recognized by the courts. Their address and phone number are: Serenity Counseling Service Fife Business Park 5113 Pacific Hwy. E. Fife WA Phone 253 922-0229If your husband is on deferred prosecution, The Washington RCW requires two self help support groups per week for the duration of the program. The RCW does not specify what type group, only that it is a recognized group. Smart, SOS, or the Serenity groups are acceptable. To the best of my knowledge the WAC, (Washington Administrative Code) requires treatment facilities to utilize self help support groups as a part of their program but does not specify AA or NA. I will check on that the next time I'm up a my storage locker where I have all of my resource material, (I' m recently retired). By WAC all alcohol / drug dependency programs in Washington State must be abstinence based with that as the treatment goal. Abuser programs do not have to be abstinence based. Not to travel under false colors, I am pro AA but am supportive of some non 12 step programs such as SOS and WFS. The odds are that the judge is not going to allow your husband to have no formal treatment program but most will accept programs such as Serenity. Let me know if you would like me to find out what programs in the Seattle area are cognitive. >>>>>>>>>>>oh boy, you made my day! let's see:Washington State Laws and AA: I actually have emailed the Director of the Division ofAlcohol and Substance Abuse for Washington State. He's a nice guy, and my real onlyquestion to him was: Are there any non-12-step treatment facilities who are licensed andcertified by the state of washington? He did not know. Told me to call up eachtreatment program until I found one. I did a search and there are over 1400 just within a50 mile radius. I wrote him back and said... I don't think I really feel like calling 1400facilities. We got into other discussions which I can summarize at some later date if theybecome relevent to topics here. <<<<<<

[Guest guest]

> Jim Shirk,

>

> It's obvious you want to be outed. You gave too much info not to.

Gee , sorry to disapoint you but there are several folks on this

list who knows who I am. Anyone who is on the LRS list for an

example. So its not a case of outing me. I just dont usually post on

this list.

> I'm sure you realize has expressed her husbands interest in

Rational Recovery is an articulated program of recovery that could

just as easily be approved by any state if hard core 12 steppers like

you hadn't infiltrated the system to eliminate real choice.

Eliminate real choice? Lets see now. there are several cognative

behavioral therapy programs in this state, non of which are 12-step.

Two that pop to mind are Serenity Counseling Service and Schick

Shadel Hospital. (Shicks adversion therapy is about as far from 12-

step as it gets) Alan Marlett is running a program up at UW

definately not 12 step. I don't have the names of all of the programs

at my finger tips but with a little research they are not hard to

find. There are also several native american programs which deal with

tribal traditions and the culture of tribe that are 12-step or

disease concept based. As for Rational Recovery Inc.,All one would

have to do is comply with the state standards for programs.

(philsophy is not dictated to the facility)My main reason for posting

was to help find what she needed. I doubt that I will be posting

much again.

> DT

>

> PS: Trimpey's " rampage " as you put it was a wise and concerted

fluent maneuver to rescue Rational Recovery from people to whom he

had entrusted it in good faith. You really ought to get a copy of

the Journal of Rational Recovery vol 7 issue 37, Sept-Oct 1994, to

learn about the whole Hostile Takeover Attempt. Just kidding, I know

you're not interested in the truth.

Tell you what , why don't you send me a copy, Even send it COD.

The address is Shirk

P.O. Box 23

Lakebay, WA. 98349

In return I'll send you a copy of American Psychological

Associations, The division 50 newsletter. Spring 1995, Vol 2, No 2.

It has interesting articles by Timpey, Michler Bishop of SMART and

Barbara McCrady of Rutgers. I don't think that I will hold my breath

until I get it. Actually I'm always interested in the truth. Even

Back to the time That Trimmpey stated on Addict-L (6/7/95) that he

used a seventh grade health sciences text book to design AVRT. He

also got very quiet when asked why he decided that there was no such

thing as treatment just about the same time that his residentual

treatment program was shut down for safty and health violations.

JLS

> Re: Powerlessness (was: Who's here and

why )

>

>

> ,

>

> From what you have said, I'm assuming that you live either in the

Seattle or

> Tacoma area. There are several non-12 step treatment programs in

the Seattle

> area. I don't have those agency names at this time. In Tacoma

Serenity

> Counseling Service is a non-12 step, non disease based program

based on RET

> and REBT, basically what RR used to be before Trimpey when on his

rampage.

> They also have their own self-help support groups which are

recognized by the

> courts. Their address and phone number are:

>

> Serenity Counseling Service

> Fife Business Park

> 5113 Pacific Hwy. E.

> Fife WA

> Phone 253 922-0229

>

> If your husband is on deferred prosecution, The Washington RCW

requires two

> self help support groups per week for the duration of the

program. The RCW

> does not specify what type group, only that it is a recognized

group. Smart,

> SOS, or the Serenity groups are acceptable. To the best of my

knowledge the

> WAC, (Washington Administrative Code) requires treatment

facilities to

> utilize self help support groups as a part of their program but

does not

> specify AA or NA. I will check on that the next time I'm up a my

storage

> locker where I have all of my resource material, (I' m recently

retired). By

> WAC all alcohol / drug dependency programs in Washington State

must be

> abstinence based with that as the treatment goal. Abuser programs

do not have

> to be abstinence based. Not to travel under false colors, I am

pro AA but am

> supportive of some non 12 step programs such as SOS and WFS. The

odds are

> that the judge is not going to allow your husband to have no

formal treatment

> program but most will accept programs such as Serenity. Let me

know if you

> would like me to find out what programs in the Seattle area are

cognitive.

>

>

>

>

>

> >>>>>>>>>>>

> oh boy, you made my day! let's see:

>

> Washington State Laws and AA: I actually have emailed the

Director of the

> Division of

> Alcohol and Substance Abuse for Washington State. He's a nice

guy, and my

> real only

> question to him was: Are there any non-12-step treatment

facilities who are

> licensed and

> certified by the state of washington? He did not know. Told me

to call up

> each

> treatment program until I found one. I did a search and there

are over 1400

> just within a

> 50 mile radius. I wrote him back and said... I don't think I

really feel

> like calling 1400

> facilities. We got into other discussions which I can summarize

at some

> later date if they

> become relevent to topics here.

>

> <<<<<<

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/29/01 10:42:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

davetrippel@... writes:

> Jim,

>

> I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't

> traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his

> favorite little jab. Her comment, " How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I

> know, another twelve step Borg? " )

Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions after four or

five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg? And I still

haven't gotten them.

> I can understand the ire within the Albert Ellis and Humanist devotees

when

> they failed to wrest control of Rational Recovery from Jack. (It can be

> traced back to the toss of a coin, believe it or not) I even understand,

> though disapprove of, if someone vengefully ratted on technical violations

of

> his state licensed residential program seven years ago to get back at him.

I

> cannot prove that happened, but I don't think you can prove it didn't. I

was

> in training there shortly before his debate with Ellis solidified the

removal

> of REBT from RR. As I understand it, this exclusive focus on AVRT alone is

> what rendered needing any state licensed facility a moot point. But I

> understand your interest in thinking otherwise.

I find it very interesting that you take the above approach. That someone was

out to get him for *technical violations* , lets take a look at those

" technical violations. " They were not, as I have read Jack describe them,

leaves in the rain gutters and food left uncovered in the refrigerator type

violations, They were acts that placed residents at severe risk. Insufficient

staff to operate the facility, Staff leaving the facility totally unattended

except for patient residents for extended periods of time. Detoxing patients

without proper equipment or trained personnel, Inability of staff to control

the environment, i.e. patients going to town and returning intoxicated, (one

example, a patient returned from town intoxicated and set fire to kitchen

trying to cook something to eat) Just to name a few of the " technical

violations. " A treatment facility needs a license, an educational program

does not. and coincidentally the focus changed to AVRT at this exact time?

> Take a look at the requirements for the state of Washington, for instance,

> at

>

wouldn'

> t be hard to find some oversight that could easily become a violation. If

> some client or employee really wanted to, I'm sure they could have created

a

> real problem for the program you ran.

Yes, I am well familiar with WAC 440-22. In the initial set up yes one

spends some time however once its set up and is ran correctly its no major

problem. And no, a disgruntled client or employee would not have created a

real problem. A minor problem yes, because the state would have sent an

investigator down to check things out, however if your program is up to snuff

the disruption is very brief as it is very easy to prove that the allegations

are unfounded. Its only when you are doing things in a slip shod manner that

you have real problems.

> My understanding is Jack left Addict-L six years ago because it was a

waste

> of time. But again, I understand your interest in voicing your particular

> interpretation of events. You desire people to have a poor image of him.

Yes, I can see how, when scientists and professionals like Fred Rotgers,

Robin Room, Ron Roisen, Floyd Garrett, son and others started

asking pointed questions about his theory, methods and procedures, Jack

decided it was a waste of time. See , I'm kind of a pack rat. I keep

copies of discussions like that so I have those exchanges saved. Perhaps you

can give me an answer to this question. Why is Jack still selling the Small

Book, with no disclaimer in the book its self, after he has stated that REBT

and RET does not work? I know that on his web site he now calls it a

collection of essays about early RR. But how about the person who is in Barns

and Nobel, for example, and finds the book. That person will usually take the

book at its face value, not realizing that he is buying something that the

author says does not work. I have never gotten a good answer to this one,

given the fact that Jack owns Lotus Press.

> I guess we would both agree that the Truth is sometimes elusive because

it's

> usually so darn complicated.

Oh yes it can be. Does this mean that I wont get a copy of the RR journal

from you? darned, I really wanted to read it. I have read Hovarth, Tate and

Bishop's version. Or is it your version since you are the author. (no I

haven't see the article, Trimpey gave you credit in the APA newsletter). May

I also assume that you don't want a copy of APA Div 50 news letter?

> DT

JLS

[Guest guest]

Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

> Jim Shirk, > > It's obvious you want to be outed. You gave too much info not to.Gee , sorry to disapoint you but there are several folks on this list who knows who I am. Anyone who is on the LRS list for an example. So its not a case of outing me. I just dont usually post on this list.> I'm sure you realize has expressed her husbands interest in Rational Recovery is an articulated program of recovery that could just as easily be approved by any state if hard core 12 steppers like you hadn't infiltrated the system to eliminate real choice.Eliminate real choice? Lets see now. there are several cognative behavioral therapy programs in this state, non of which are 12-step.Two that pop to mind are Serenity Counseling Service and Schick Shadel Hospital. (Shicks adversion therapy is about as far from 12-step as it gets) Alan Marlett is running a program up at UW definately not 12 step. I don't have the names of all of the programs at my finger tips but with a little research they are not hard to find. There are also several native american programs which deal with tribal traditions and the culture of tribe that are 12-step or disease concept based. As for Rational Recovery Inc.,All one would have to do is comply with the state standards for programs. (philsophy is not dictated to the facility)My main reason for posting was to help find what she needed. I doubt that I will be posting much again. > DT> > PS: Trimpey's "rampage" as you put it was a wise and concerted fluent maneuver to rescue Rational Recovery from people to whom he had entrusted it in good faith. You really ought to get a copy of the Journal of Rational Recovery vol 7 issue 37, Sept-Oct 1994, to learn about the whole Hostile Takeover Attempt. Just kidding, I know you're not interested in the truth.Tell you what , why don't you send me a copy, Even send it COD. The address is Shirk P.O. Box 23 Lakebay, WA. 98349In return I'll send you a copy of American Psychological Associations, The division 50 newsletter. Spring 1995, Vol 2, No 2. It has interesting articles by Timpey, Michler Bishop of SMART and Barbara McCrady of Rutgers. I don't think that I will hold my breath until I get it. Actually I'm always interested in the truth. Even Back to the time That Trimmpey stated on Addict-L (6/7/95) that he used a seventh grade health sciences text book to design AVRT. He also got very quiet when asked why he decided that there was no such thing as treatment just about the same time that his residentual treatment program was shut down for safty and health violations. JLS

Jim,

I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his favorite little jab. Her comment, "How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I know, another twelve step Borg?")

I can understand the ire within the Albert Ellis and Humanist devotees when they failed to wrest control of Rational Recovery from Jack. (It can be traced back to the toss of a coin, believe it or not) I even understand, though disapprove of, if someone vengefully ratted on technical violations of his state licensed residential program seven years ago to get back at him. I cannot prove that happened, but I don't think you can prove it didn't. I was in training there shortly before his debate with Ellis solidified the removal of REBT from RR. As I understand it, this exclusive focus on AVRT alone is what rendered needing any state licensed facility a moot point. But I understand your interest in thinking otherwise.

Take a look at the requirements for the state of Washington, for instance, at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html & Item=0 & X=629095304 & p=1

This is litterally hundreds upon hundreds of pages of regulations. You probably know some of them quite well. You probably spent a lot of time trying to satisfy all these regulations. I'm sure you'd agree that it wouldn't be hard to find some oversight that could easily become a violation. If some client or employee really wanted to, I'm sure they could have created a real problem for the program you ran.

My understanding is Jack left Addict-L six years ago because it was a waste of time. But again, I understand your interest in voicing your particular interpretation of events. You desire people to have a poor image of him.

I guess we would both agree that the Truth is sometimes elusive because it's usually so darn complicated.

DT

[Guest guest]

The link below doesn't work. If you want it, you'll have to go here

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch

and check WAC and type in "chemical dependency services" in the search box

DT

Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

> Jim Shirk, > > It's obvious you want to be outed. You gave too much info not to.Gee , sorry to disapoint you but there are several folks on this list who knows who I am. Anyone who is on the LRS list for an example. So its not a case of outing me. I just dont usually post on this list.> I'm sure you realize has expressed her husbands interest in Rational Recovery is an articulated program of recovery that could just as easily be approved by any state if hard core 12 steppers like you hadn't infiltrated the system to eliminate real choice.Eliminate real choice? Lets see now. there are several cognative behavioral therapy programs in this state, non of which are 12-step.Two that pop to mind are Serenity Counseling Service and Schick Shadel Hospital. (Shicks adversion therapy is about as far from 12-step as it gets) Alan Marlett is running a program up at UW definately not 12 step. I don't have the names of all of the programs at my finger tips but with a little research they are not hard to find. There are also several native american programs which deal with tribal traditions and the culture of tribe that are 12-step or disease concept based. As for Rational Recovery Inc.,All one would have to do is comply with the state standards for programs. (philsophy is not dictated to the facility)My main reason for posting was to help find what she needed. I doubt that I will be posting much again. > DT> > PS: Trimpey's "rampage" as you put it was a wise and concerted fluent maneuver to rescue Rational Recovery from people to whom he had entrusted it in good faith. You really ought to get a copy of the Journal of Rational Recovery vol 7 issue 37, Sept-Oct 1994, to learn about the whole Hostile Takeover Attempt. Just kidding, I know you're not interested in the truth.Tell you what , why don't you send me a copy, Even send it COD. The address is Shirk P.O. Box 23 Lakebay, WA. 98349In return I'll send you a copy of American Psychological Associations, The division 50 newsletter. Spring 1995, Vol 2, No 2. It has interesting articles by Timpey, Michler Bishop of SMART and Barbara McCrady of Rutgers. I don't think that I will hold my breath until I get it. Actually I'm always interested in the truth. Even Back to the time That Trimmpey stated on Addict-L (6/7/95) that he used a seventh grade health sciences text book to design AVRT. He also got very quiet when asked why he decided that there was no such thing as treatment just about the same time that his residentual treatment program was shut down for safty and health violations. JLS

Jim,

I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his favorite little jab. Her comment, "How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I know, another twelve step Borg?")

I can understand the ire within the Albert Ellis and Humanist devotees when they failed to wrest control of Rational Recovery from Jack. (It can be traced back to the toss of a coin, believe it or not) I even understand, though disapprove of, if someone vengefully ratted on technical violations of his state licensed residential program seven years ago to get back at him. I cannot prove that happened, but I don't think you can prove it didn't. I was in training there shortly before his debate with Ellis solidified the removal of REBT from RR. As I understand it, this exclusive focus on AVRT alone is what rendered needing any state licensed facility a moot point. But I understand your interest in thinking otherwise.

Take a look at the requirements for the state of Washington, for instance, at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html & Item=0 & X=629095304 & p=1

This is litterally hundreds upon hundreds of pages of regulations. You probably know some of them quite well. You probably spent a lot of time trying to satisfy all these regulations. I'm sure you'd agree that it wouldn't be hard to find some oversight that could easily become a violation. If some client or employee really wanted to, I'm sure they could have created a real problem for the program you ran.

My understanding is Jack left Addict-L six years ago because it was a waste of time. But again, I understand your interest in voicing your particular interpretation of events. You desire people to have a poor image of him.

I guess we would both agree that the Truth is sometimes elusive because it's usually so darn complicated.

DT

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I think this will do it. If it doesn't, I GIVE UP.

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/

DT

Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

> Jim Shirk, > > It's obvious you want to be outed. You gave too much info not to.Gee , sorry to disapoint you but there are several folks on this list who knows who I am. Anyone who is on the LRS list for an example. So its not a case of outing me. I just dont usually post on this list.> I'm sure you realize has expressed her husbands interest in Rational Recovery is an articulated program of recovery that could just as easily be approved by any state if hard core 12 steppers like you hadn't infiltrated the system to eliminate real choice.Eliminate real choice? Lets see now. there are several cognative behavioral therapy programs in this state, non of which are 12-step.Two that pop to mind are Serenity Counseling Service and Schick Shadel Hospital. (Shicks adversion therapy is about as far from 12-step as it gets) Alan Marlett is running a program up at UW definately not 12 step. I don't have the names of all of the programs at my finger tips but with a little research they are not hard to find. There are also several native american programs which deal with tribal traditions and the culture of tribe that are 12-step or disease concept based. As for Rational Recovery Inc.,All one would have to do is comply with the state standards for programs. (philsophy is not dictated to the facility)My main reason for posting was to help find what she needed. I doubt that I will be posting much again. > DT> > PS: Trimpey's "rampage" as you put it was a wise and concerted fluent maneuver to rescue Rational Recovery from people to whom he had entrusted it in good faith. You really ought to get a copy of the Journal of Rational Recovery vol 7 issue 37, Sept-Oct 1994, to learn about the whole Hostile Takeover Attempt. Just kidding, I know you're not interested in the truth.Tell you what , why don't you send me a copy, Even send it COD. The address is Shirk P.O. Box 23 Lakebay, WA. 98349In return I'll send you a copy of American Psychological Associations, The division 50 newsletter. Spring 1995, Vol 2, No 2. It has interesting articles by Timpey, Michler Bishop of SMART and Barbara McCrady of Rutgers. I don't think that I will hold my breath until I get it. Actually I'm always interested in the truth. Even Back to the time That Trimmpey stated on Addict-L (6/7/95) that he used a seventh grade health sciences text book to design AVRT. He also got very quiet when asked why he decided that there was no such thing as treatment just about the same time that his residentual treatment program was shut down for safty and health violations. JLS

Jim,

I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his favorite little jab. Her comment, "How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I know, another twelve step Borg?")

I can understand the ire within the Albert Ellis and Humanist devotees when they failed to wrest control of Rational Recovery from Jack. (It can be traced back to the toss of a coin, believe it or not) I even understand, though disapprove of, if someone vengefully ratted on technical violations of his state licensed residential program seven years ago to get back at him. I cannot prove that happened, but I don't think you can prove it didn't. I was in training there shortly before his debate with Ellis solidified the removal of REBT from RR. As I understand it, this exclusive focus on AVRT alone is what rendered needing any state licensed facility a moot point. But I understand your interest in thinking otherwise.

Take a look at the requirements for the state of Washington, for instance, at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html & Item=0 & X=629095304 & p=1

This is litterally hundreds upon hundreds of pages of regulations. You probably know some of them quite well. You probably spent a lot of time trying to satisfy all these regulations. I'm sure you'd agree that it wouldn't be hard to find some oversight that could easily become a violation. If some client or employee really wanted to, I'm sure they could have created a real problem for the program you ran.

My understanding is Jack left Addict-L six years ago because it was a waste of time. But again, I understand your interest in voicing your particular interpretation of events. You desire people to have a poor image of him.

I guess we would both agree that the Truth is sometimes elusive because it's usually so darn complicated.

DT

[Guest guest]

Hey Dave,

Bet I won a bigger pot when I bet my gf that you would end your next

post with " Perhaps Pete you should bring it up at your OA meeting " .

P.

> I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I

hadn't traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came,

with his favorite little jab. Her comment, " How'd you know? Who is

that guy? Oh, I know, another twelve step Borg? " )

[Guest guest]

Felsjager@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/29/01 10:42:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> davetrippel@... writes:

>

> > Jim,

> >

> > I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't

> > traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his

> > favorite little jab. Her comment, " How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I

> > know, another twelve step Borg? " )

>

> Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions after four or

> five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg? And I still

> haven't gotten them.

>

Jim,

Either make a _very_ good case what you are doing here or get out.

Ken Ragge

listowner

[Guest guest]

Hey Ken,

Funnily enough Jim has now ended a similar wait I have had to a

question I asked him - what exactly did Trimpey do to lose his

licence. In fairness to Jim I havent asked it for a long time either,

and he might have given it if I had. I wonder how may times I need to

ask him for the apology he owes me on add_med, and how a long a wait

that will involve?

Regarding the threatening posts etc I regret that I was the one who

started that and I'm sorry it rquired you to post regarding it. Since

I started it I'll be the one to finish it from my side (but not in the

sense that that phrase is often used to mean!).

P.

> >

> > Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions

after four or

> > five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg?

And I still

> > haven't gotten them.

> >

>

> Jim,

>

> Either make a _very_ good case what you are doing here or get out.

>

> Ken Ragge

> listowner

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/29/01 1:21:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

>

>

> > >

> > > Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions

> after four or

> > > five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg?

> And I still

> > > haven't gotten them.

> > >

> >

> > Jim,

> >

> > Either make a _very_ good case what you are doing here or get out.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

> > listowner

>

>

Actually your post has not shown up on my email yet Ken, but I'll answer now

none the less. I'm sure as list own you have been aware that I have been on

this list for a few months now. I joined it because that was the only way

that I could read the posts the Mr. Perkiness suggest that I read. I have

just been reading the list up till now and probably would have stayed that

way but posted problems in my area in a field in which I am very

knowledgeable of. I posted to help her out and give some resources that she

might be able to use. Simple as that, however I feel that I needed to respond

to Trippel. Also since, some time ago, I mailed you the inspect results

I believe you know that its the truth. However I doubt that I will post very

much on this list. Any additional questions or help that needs from me

can be conducted back channel if she desires.

Jim Shirk

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

> Jim,> > I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't > traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his > favorite little jab. Her comment, "How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I > know, another twelve step Borg?")Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions after four or five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg? And I still haven't gotten them. > I can understand the ire within the Albert Ellis and Humanist devotees when > they failed to wrest control of Rational Recovery from Jack. (It can be > traced back to the toss of a coin, believe it or not) I even understand, > though disapprove of, if someone vengefully ratted on technical violations of > his state licensed residential program seven years ago to get back at him. I > cannot prove that happened, but I don't think you can prove it didn't. I was > in training there shortly before his debate with Ellis solidified the removal > of REBT from RR. As I understand it, this exclusive focus on AVRT alone is > what rendered needing any state licensed facility a moot point. But I > understand your interest in thinking otherwise.I find it very interesting that you take the above approach. That someone was out to get him for *technical violations* , lets take a look at those "technical violations." They were not, as I have read Jack describe them, leaves in the rain gutters and food left uncovered in the refrigerator type violations, They were acts that placed residents at severe risk. Insufficient staff to operate the facility, Staff leaving the facility totally unattended except for patient residents for extended periods of time. Detoxing patients without proper equipment or trained personnel, Inability of staff to control the environment, i.e. patients going to town and returning intoxicated, (one example, a patient returned from town intoxicated and set fire to kitchen trying to cook something to eat) Just to name a few of the "technical violations."

[All these unsubstantiated "violations" could easily be understood as misrepresentations of an ethical program taking the state guidelines to the limit for the purposes of enhancing personal responsibility of the residents. In my twenty years in this field, I've known many a "professional treater" who has fallen into the "we gotta lockem up" mentality. That was definitely not the idea at RR Residential seven years ago.]

A treatment facility needs a license, an educational program does not.

[ Ah, praise be, there are some areas twelve steppism hasn't yet infiltrated its malignant mindset to the extent of exclusionary legalities.]

and coincidentally the focus changed to AVRT at this exact time?

[ I think even you would admit it would be unreasonable and incompatible to try and fit AVRT into a "treatment" setting with codes based upon diseased powerless victimhood, but I might be getting ahead of myself in thinking you to be familiar with AVRT.] > Take a look at the requirements for the state of Washington, for instance, > at> http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html & Item=0 & X=> 629095304 & p=1> This is litterally hundreds upon hundreds of pages of regulations. You > probably know some of them quite well. You probably spent a lot of time > trying to satisfy all these regulations. I'm sure you'd agree that it wouldn'> t be hard to find some oversight that could easily become a violation. If > some client or employee really wanted to, I'm sure they could have created a > real problem for the program you ran.Yes, I am well familiar with WAC 440-22. In the initial set up yes one spends some time however once its set up and is ran correctly its no major problem. And no, a disgruntled client or employee would not have created a real problem. A minor problem yes, because the state would have sent an investigator down to check things out, however if your program is up to snuff the disruption is very brief as it is very easy to prove that the allegations are unfounded. Its only when you are doing things in a slip shod manner that you have real problems.

[ Again, a residential program with an advanced personal responisibility approach can easily be twisted with a description of "slip shod" by a malevolent individual. I believe your harping on this issue enhances the image nonsteppers have of Jack. Thank you. ]> My understanding is Jack left Addict-L six years ago because it was a waste > of time. But again, I understand your interest in voicing your particular > interpretation of events. You desire people to have a poor image of him. Yes, I can see how, when scientists and professionals like Fred Rotgers, Robin Room, Ron Roisen, Floyd Garrett, son and others started asking pointed questions about his theory, methods and procedures, Jack decided it was a waste of time. See , I'm kind of a pack rat. I keep copies of discussions like that so I have those exchanges saved.

[ I don't see how being a pack rat has to do with anything here, unless your trying to position yourself for a long stay on 12step free linking to old posts on addict-l. With Garret on one end and Rotgers on the other, the above professionals have well defined careers repairing the therapeutic state/social control model of dealing with people who break the law while in some drug altered state: a big, but I believe primarily bogus, even destructive, model - one that RR has bypassed altogether by focusing it's articulated program of recovery directly upon teaching people how to use a language, feeling, and imagery based dissociative technique - AVRT - along with The Big Plan and an emphasis on Personal Morality. So it is understandably uncertain whether ongoing discussion with these men would have an effect other than butting heads or complicating the pristine simplicity of AVRT which Jack discovered through empirical observation.]

Perhaps you can give me an answer to this question. Why is Jack still selling the Small Book, with no disclaimer in the book its self, after he has stated that REBT and RET does not work? I know that on his web site he now calls it a collection of essays about early RR. But how about the person who is in Barns and Nobel, for example, and finds the book.

[ I know you still believe that person to be a diseased powerless victim, but I believe ( and probably Jack, too) in todays climate any confusion produced in a reader is vastly offset by the advantage they would have in having connected with a Rational Recovery Product containing the Beast concept and Voices chapter. It can still give an addicted person much more traction than all the other books on the shelves, excepting Rational Recovery, The New Cure.]

That person will usually take the book at its face value, not realizing that he is buying something that the author says does not work. I have never gotten a good answer to this one, given the fact that Jack owns Lotus Press.

[ Neither of the two RR books mentioned are published by The Lotus Press. This probably means you don't own either book. Not suprising.]> I guess we would both agree that the Truth is sometimes elusive because it's > usually so darn complicated.Oh yes it can be. Does this mean that I wont get a copy of the RR journal from you?

[ You're one of the last people to whom I would offer a gift.]

darned, I really wanted to read it. I have read Hovarth, Tate and Bishop's version. Or is it your version since you are the author. (no I haven't see the article, Trimpey gave you credit in the APA newsletter). May I also assume that you don't want a copy of APA Div 50 news letter?

[ I would consider obtaining one, but not from you.]

[DT] > DTJLS

[Guest guest]

Mine's much more on topic, though, n'est pas?

DT

PS, when DID you last go?

Ok, so you won.

Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

Hey Dave,Bet I won a bigger pot when I bet my gf that you would end your next post with "Perhaps Pete you should bring it up at your OA meeting".P.> I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his favorite little jab. Her comment, "How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I know, another twelve step Borg?")

[Guest guest]

Felsjager@... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/29/01 1:21:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> watts_pete@... writes:

>

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions

> > after four or

> > > > five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg?

> > And I still

> > > > haven't gotten them.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Jim,

> > >

> > > Either make a _very_ good case what you are doing here or get out.

> > >

> > > Ken Ragge

> > > listowner

> >

> >

> Actually your post has not shown up on my email yet Ken, but I'll answer now

> none the less. I'm sure as list own you have been aware that I have been on

> this list for a few months now. I joined it because that was the only way

> that I could read the posts the Mr. Perkiness suggest that I read. I have

> just been reading the list up till now and probably would have stayed that

> way but posted problems in my area in a field in which I am very

> knowledgeable of. I posted to help her out and give some resources that she

> might be able to use. Simple as that, however I feel that I needed to respond

> to Trippel. Also since, some time ago, I mailed you the inspect results

> I believe you know that its the truth. However I doubt that I will post very

> much on this list. Any additional questions or help that needs from me

> can be conducted back channel if she desires.

>

> Jim Shirk

Jim,

I'm sure you have been the perfect Boy Scout. However, you are not welcome to

post here.

Ken Ragge

listowner

[Guest guest]

never mind... think I can take it from here. Thanks!

Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

> Jim Shirk, > > It's obvious you want to be outed. You gave too much info not to.Gee , sorry to disapoint you but there are several folks on this list who knows who I am. Anyone who is on the LRS list for an example. So its not a case of outing me. I just dont usually post on this list.> I'm sure you realize has expressed her husbands interest in Rational Recovery is an articulated program of recovery that could just as easily be approved by any state if hard core 12 steppers like you hadn't infiltrated the system to eliminate real choice.Eliminate real choice? Lets see now. there are several cognative behavioral therapy programs in this state, non of which are 12-step.Two that pop to mind are Serenity Counseling Service and Schick Shadel Hospital. (Shicks adversion therapy is about as far from 12-step as it gets) Alan Marlett is running a program up at UW definately not 12 step. I don't have the names of all of the programs at my finger tips but with a little research they are not hard to find. There are also several native american programs which deal with tribal traditions and the culture of tribe that are 12-step or disease concept based. As for Rational Recovery Inc.,All one would have to do is comply with the state standards for programs. (philsophy is not dictated to the facility)My main reason for posting was to help find what she needed. I doubt that I will be posting much again. > DT> > PS: Trimpey's "rampage" as you put it was a wise and concerted fluent maneuver to rescue Rational Recovery from people to whom he had entrusted it in good faith. You really ought to get a copy of the Journal of Rational Recovery vol 7 issue 37, Sept-Oct 1994, to learn about the whole Hostile Takeover Attempt. Just kidding, I know you're not interested in the truth.Tell you what , why don't you send me a copy, Even send it COD. The address is Shirk P.O. Box 23 Lakebay, WA. 98349In return I'll send you a copy of American Psychological Associations, The division 50 newsletter. Spring 1995, Vol 2, No 2. It has interesting articles by Timpey, Michler Bishop of SMART and Barbara McCrady of Rutgers. I don't think that I will hold my breath until I get it. Actually I'm always interested in the truth. Even Back to the time That Trimmpey stated on Addict-L (6/7/95) that he used a seventh grade health sciences text book to design AVRT. He also got very quiet when asked why he decided that there was no such thing as treatment just about the same time that his residentual treatment program was shut down for safty and health violations. JLS

Jim,

I WON. (I bet my wife I could predict almost exactly how some guy I hadn't traded posts with for years would end his next one, if it came, with his favorite little jab. Her comment, "How'd you know? Who is that guy? Oh, I know, another twelve step Borg?")

I can understand the ire within the Albert Ellis and Humanist devotees when they failed to wrest control of Rational Recovery from Jack. (It can be traced back to the toss of a coin, believe it or not) I even understand, though disapprove of, if someone vengefully ratted on technical violations of his state licensed residential program seven years ago to get back at him. I cannot prove that happened, but I don't think you can prove it didn't. I was in training there shortly before his debate with Ellis solidified the removal of REBT from RR. As I understand it, this exclusive focus on AVRT alone is what rendered needing any state licensed facility a moot point. But I understand your interest in thinking otherwise.

Take a look at the requirements for the state of Washington, for instance, at

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html & Item=0 & X=629095304 & p=1

This is litterally hundreds upon hundreds of pages of regulations. You probably know some of them quite well. You probably spent a lot of time trying to satisfy all these regulations. I'm sure you'd agree that it wouldn't be hard to find some oversight that could easily become a violation. If some client or employee really wanted to, I'm sure they could have created a real problem for the program you ran.

My understanding is Jack left Addict-L six years ago because it was a waste of time. But again, I understand your interest in voicing your particular interpretation of events. You desire people to have a poor image of him.

I guess we would both agree that the Truth is sometimes elusive because it's usually so darn complicated.

DT

[Guest guest]

yeah, I do have questions still... and I'm more interested in your

knowledge, experience and opinions about how the court (aka the state of

washington) will be viewing our presentation of an alternative treatment

plan than I am in Jack Trimpey. I can make my own opinions of him by my own

personal experience.

I do NOT like the flavor of some of these posts of late, including Ray and

Pete ( I think) and how people here can not just discuss but resort to name

calling when their opinions are not agreed with. I'm not taking sides for

anyone here. And I'm feeling a bit weird about going on and on about my

hubby. The issues as I have stated before are about forced XA, forced

treatment (12 step or not) and informed choices in a time and place where

not oven science or doc's or counselers or lawyers or judges or steppers can

agree on anything.

We all are here to discuss. I think Ken needs to put his foot down

somewhere as I am tired of everyone's muscle flexing and nanny-nanny-boo-boo

posts. Come ON folks. Let's get on with the facts, data, opinions,

experience, and ISSUES here. I don't CARE who thinks who is right, who has

a better IQ, or bigger vocabulary. I for one did not attend college. I am

not as well read as most of you seem to be. I've read all the information

about Peele and Chomsky with rivited interest, as well as the references to

case law and the WAC and RCW. Regrettably, I've not spent my life getting a

higher education. A lot of posts have expanded my awareness beyond what I

could have hoped. I can use references that are put out here and form my

OWN opinion thank you. I spent 7 years in the Navy and was a manager at a

large aerospace company for 10 years, and I have more issues with the

corporate world than I do about AA. (well, not really, but it's close). But

I'm not going to go on and on about that... except perhaps about their EAP

program if it ever came up. That is my life's experience and I'm sorry I do

not have a degree or have more time to read the great works of authors,

theologians, philosophers, and Doctors etc.

SO, back to me (LOL). I am torn now. Go for the big brass ring and fight

the whole gov't here, or just try to make the judge happy by compromising.

Data from you will help. My husband can make his own opinon based on

informed choice.

You folks are great, okay? Can't we all just get along? (LOL, couldn't

help myself)

lisak

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

> In a message dated 6/29/01 1:21:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> watts_pete@... writes:

>

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > Ok, because I'm still trying to get answers to same questions

> > after four or

> > > > five years with very little success makes me a twelve step Borg?

> > And I still

> > > > haven't gotten them.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Jim,

> > >

> > > Either make a _very_ good case what you are doing here or get out.

> > >

> > > Ken Ragge

> > > listowner

> >

> >

> Actually your post has not shown up on my email yet Ken, but I'll answer

now

> none the less. I'm sure as list own you have been aware that I have been

on

> this list for a few months now. I joined it because that was the only way

> that I could read the posts the Mr. Perkiness suggest that I read. I have

> just been reading the list up till now and probably would have stayed that

> way but posted problems in my area in a field in which I am very

> knowledgeable of. I posted to help her out and give some resources that

she

> might be able to use. Simple as that, however I feel that I needed to

respond

> to Trippel. Also since, some time ago, I mailed you the inspect

results

> I believe you know that its the truth. However I doubt that I will post

very

> much on this list. Any additional questions or help that needs from

me

> can be conducted back channel if she desires.

>

> Jim Shirk

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

excerpt from

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

SO, back to me (LOL). I am torn now. Go for the big brass ring and fightthe whole gov't here, or just try to make the judge happy by compromising.Data from you will help. My husband can make his own opinon based oninformed choice.

I totally respect your husband's using RR concepts and then later submitting to coerced treatment by backing into Recovery Group Movement attendance. I essentially did the same, though it was before RR was created. It took RR to get me out of the RGM, though. Gullibly, I had become seduced. I look back at my RGM involvement as a huge mistake in my personal family life. (I know, Jim Shirk is storing all this info away. Who knows where he'll send it?)

I will opine that Rational Recovery is a vastly MORE 'formal' program than all those we-gotta-sit-in-a-circle-and-confess-one-day-at-a-time jobbies. The State of Washington has simply gone along with the free adult babysitting idea that Jim Shirk seems to think is 'formal'. Maybe he means 'formal' by you gotta fill out lotsa forms.

DT

[Guest guest]

So TRUE DT. If my husband were to bow before the court and cop out and go to group, he's really admitting he's an alcoholic isn't he? And in so doing, he's marking himself for life isn't he? And in so doing he's jeapordizing his entire future on this earth isn't he? And doesn't that just suck? Its too late anyway... he's been through treatment (both "successfully" according to the courts, and unsucessfully according to the courts and AA and his PO) and thus has already been labled. Does anyone have a shortcut to the 1987 journal of AMA or whatever where they state that alcholism IS a disease?

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

SO, back to me (LOL). I am torn now. Go for the big brass ring and fightthe whole gov't here, or just try to make the judge happy by compromising.Data from you will help. My husband can make his own opinon based oninformed choice.

I totally respect your husband's using RR concepts and then later submitting to coerced treatment by backing into Recovery Group Movement attendance. I essentially did the same, though it was before RR was created. It took RR to get me out of the RGM, though. Gullibly, I had become seduced. I look back at my RGM involvement as a huge mistake in my personal family life. (I know, Jim Shirk is storing all this info away. Who knows where he'll send it?)

I will opine that Rational Recovery is a vastly MORE 'formal' program than all those we-gotta-sit-in-a-circle-and-confess-one-day-at-a-time jobbies. The State of Washington has simply gone along with the free adult babysitting idea that Jim Shirk seems to think is 'formal'. Maybe he means 'formal' by you gotta fill out lotsa forms.

DT

[Guest guest]

,

The following is half way down on this page

http://www.os.dhhs.gov/dab/decisions/dab529.txt

which is a legal discussion on whether alcoholism is a disease in a federal case regarding a mental institution and Federal funding, I think. I didn't go over it closely, yet. But it looks like it was '67 not '87.

quote

Granville also cited to an excerpt of a manual for physicianspublished by the American Medical Association in 1967 which supports theproposition that the AMA considers the disease complex, not simply amental disorder. The excerpt said that alcoholism is an: illness characterized by preoccupation with alcohol, which is a kindof psychic dependency, and a loss of control over its consumption, suchas to lead usually to intoxication if drinking is begun. By chronicity,by progression and by tendency towards relapse, it is typicallyassociated with physical disability, and impaired emotional,occupational and/or social adjustment as a direct consequence ofpersisent and excessive use.

unquote

DT

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

SO, back to me (LOL). I am torn now. Go for the big brass ring and fightthe whole gov't here, or just try to make the judge happy by compromising.Data from you will help. My husband can make his own opinon based oninformed choice.

I totally respect your husband's using RR concepts and then later submitting to coerced treatment by backing into Recovery Group Movement attendance. I essentially did the same, though it was before RR was created. It took RR to get me out of the RGM, though. Gullibly, I had become seduced. I look back at my RGM involvement as a huge mistake in my personal family life. (I know, Jim Shirk is storing all this info away. Who knows where he'll send it?)

I will opine that Rational Recovery is a vastly MORE 'formal' program than all those we-gotta-sit-in-a-circle-and-confess-one-day-at-a-time jobbies. The State of Washington has simply gone along with the free adult babysitting idea that Jim Shirk seems to think is 'formal'. Maybe he means 'formal' by you gotta fill out lotsa forms.

DT

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

>

> quote

>

> Granville also cited to an excerpt of a manual for physicians

> published by the American Medical Association in 1967 which supports

the

> proposition that the AMA considers the disease complex, not simply a

> mental disorder. The excerpt said that alcoholism is an:

>

> illness characterized by preoccupation with alcohol, which is a

kind

> of psychic dependency, and a loss of control over its consumption,

such

> as to lead usually to intoxication if drinking is begun. By

chronicity,

> by progression and by tendency towards relapse, it is typically

> associated with physical disability, and impaired emotional,

> occupational and/or social adjustment as a direct consequence of

> persisent and excessive use.

>

> unquote

>

> DT

Well, by this definition I should never have been " diagnosed. " My

relief is almost palatable! , you are absolutely correct when

you say that these issues are decided in a cultural context. These

are all humans using subjective value judements.

[Guest guest]

Hi

Increasinlgy more " alcoholics " and " addicts " ought never have been dxed

by any defintion that makes sense!

P.

>

> Hi ,

> >

> > quote

> >

> > Granville also cited to an excerpt of a manual for physicians

> > published by the American Medical Association in 1967 which

supports

> the

> > proposition that the AMA considers the disease complex, not simply

a

> > mental disorder. The excerpt said that alcoholism is an:

> >

> > illness characterized by preoccupation with alcohol, which is a

> kind

> > of psychic dependency, and a loss of control over its consumption,

> such

> > as to lead usually to intoxication if drinking is begun. By

> chronicity,

> > by progression and by tendency towards relapse, it is typically

> > associated with physical disability, and impaired emotional,

> > occupational and/or social adjustment as a direct consequence of

> > persisent and excessive use.

> >

> > unquote

> >

> > DT

>

> Well, by this definition I should never have been " diagnosed. " My

> relief is almost palatable! , you are absolutely correct

when

> you say that these issues are decided in a cultural context. These

> are all humans using subjective value judements.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I sent this in an earlier email which I'm not sure was posted, or perhaps you missed it. This is straight out of the Regional Code of Washington (RCW). I copied and pasted. Do they have the date wrong on the books? I'll have to do a search for the 1987 and 1967 version. Jack Trimpey, I thought, made some reference to the fact that the AMA stated only that some think it's a disease, not that it is a disease. Maybe I've got something twisted... Thanks for the case though, I'm gonna go through it later tonite.

lisak

RCW 70.96A.011Legislative finding and intent -- Purpose of chapter.

The legislature finds that the use of alcohol and other drugs has become a serious threat to the health of the citizens of the state of Washington. The use of psychoactive chemicals has been found to be a prime factor in the current AIDS epidemic. Therefore, a comprehensive statute to deal with alcoholism and other drug addiction is necessary. The legislature agrees with the 1987 resolution of the American Medical Association that endorses the proposition that all chemical dependencies, including alcoholism, are diseases. It is the intent of the legislature to end the sharp distinctions between alcoholism services and other drug addiction services, to recognize that chemical dependency is a disease, and to insure that prevention and treatment services are available and are of high quality. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide the financial assistance necessary to enable the department of social and health services to provide a discrete program of alcoholism and other drug addiction services.

[1989 c 270 § 1.]

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

SO, back to me (LOL). I am torn now. Go for the big brass ring and fightthe whole gov't here, or just try to make the judge happy by compromising.Data from you will help. My husband can make his own opinon based oninformed choice.

I totally respect your husband's using RR concepts and then later submitting to coerced treatment by backing into Recovery Group Movement attendance. I essentially did the same, though it was before RR was created. It took RR to get me out of the RGM, though. Gullibly, I had become seduced. I look back at my RGM involvement as a huge mistake in my personal family life. (I know, Jim Shirk is storing all this info away. Who knows where he'll send it?)

I will opine that Rational Recovery is a vastly MORE 'formal' program than all those we-gotta-sit-in-a-circle-and-confess-one-day-at-a-time jobbies. The State of Washington has simply gone along with the free adult babysitting idea that Jim Shirk seems to think is 'formal'. Maybe he means 'formal' by you gotta fill out lotsa forms.

DT

[Guest guest]

,

I don't think the substance of the case I linked to has much that would be useful for you and hubby. It looks very complicated and seems to be the court trying to rectify contradictory laws passed by congress about funding. I found it googling around and posted it just because it had a reference to the AMA definition. I would first recommend the case in the 12step free files page Bausch V Sumiec for bedtime reading if you haven't already read it.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-step-free/files/

DT

Re: Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

SO, back to me (LOL). I am torn now. Go for the big brass ring and fightthe whole gov't here, or just try to make the judge happy by compromising.Data from you will help. My husband can make his own opinon based oninformed choice.

I totally respect your husband's using RR concepts and then later submitting to coerced treatment by backing into Recovery Group Movement attendance. I essentially did the same, though it was before RR was created. It took RR to get me out of the RGM, though. Gullibly, I had become seduced. I look back at my RGM involvement as a huge mistake in my personal family life. (I know, Jim Shirk is storing all this info away. Who knows where he'll send it?)

I will opine that Rational Recovery is a vastly MORE 'formal' program than all those we-gotta-sit-in-a-circle-and-confess-one-day-at-a-time jobbies. The State of Washington has simply gone along with the free adult babysitting idea that Jim Shirk seems to think is 'formal'. Maybe he means 'formal' by you gotta fill out lotsa forms.

DT

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the endorsement . And so then my local lawmakers are making

policy on all this. Doesn't make sense. Not at all.

lisak

Re: Jim Shirk? (was Powerlessness)

>

>

> Hi ,

> >

> > quote

> >

> > Granville also cited to an excerpt of a manual for physicians

> > published by the American Medical Association in 1967 which supports

> the

> > proposition that the AMA considers the disease complex, not simply a

> > mental disorder. The excerpt said that alcoholism is an:

> >

> > illness characterized by preoccupation with alcohol, which is a

> kind

> > of psychic dependency, and a loss of control over its consumption,

> such

> > as to lead usually to intoxication if drinking is begun. By

> chronicity,

> > by progression and by tendency towards relapse, it is typically

> > associated with physical disability, and impaired emotional,

> > occupational and/or social adjustment as a direct consequence of

> > persisent and excessive use.

> >

> > unquote

> >

> > DT

>

> Well, by this definition I should never have been " diagnosed. " My

> relief is almost palatable! , you are absolutely correct when

> you say that these issues are decided in a cultural context. These

> are all humans using subjective value judements.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>