RE: Shirk's response on AA effectivenes, Froistad affair

[Guest guest]

Let him lurk. He might learn something.

--------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 8/3/01 5:35:17 PM Central Daylight Time, arroyoh@...

writes:

<< Pete I'm well aware there is little that can be done to ensure the lurking

doesn't go on. I've posted as much already. Never the less I think it's

important to note and frequently that it is not appreciated of them. Which

you've done a sterling job of.

However in the same message you granted him amnesty. Amnesty from what if

it's not lurking? He should be told in no uncertain terms that he is not

wanted here in a lurking status or otherwise because he does not fall within

the status of this list's description.

You're sending mixed messages here Pete and I wish you would stop it.

- Re: Shirk's response on AA effectivenes,

-Froistad affair

-

-

-

-> Pete if you're going to open this list up to allow steppers to

-either

-> actively lurk or actively post than you need to change the groups

-> description to directly reflect that.

-

-Didnt I refer to that? I thought I had made reference to that.

-*Posting* I would say definitely yes, but lurking is another matter.

-Unless we have some kind of vetting system, then it's imposible to

-keep steppers from lurking here, and probably still is even if we

-do. I really am not too happy about him being there, but we pretty

-well *are* powerless over the fact that he is. Ppl have lurked on

-this list who have meant us ill right form the very beginning. Let

-'em listen and fuck 'em. They might learn something.

-> -most of the time as you have not created any problems that I can

-see, but I

-> -must say I'm not wild about you being around.

->

->

-> -Your question about the amnesty was probably meant to be ironic,

-never

-> -considering for a moment it might get a favorable answer.

-

-

-

[Guest guest]

Pete if you're going to open this list up to allow steppers to either actively lurk or actively post than you need to change the groups description to directly reflect that.Anyone who would post something like this:

Click HERE or below

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22+agree+with+this+decission+what+so+ever%22 & hl=en & safe=off & rnum=1 & selm=20010803085553.12076.00002501%40ng-fq1.aol.com

Is not the kind of person that should be allowed to either lurk or post on this list as it's been previously established, described and understood to be.His contempt for the stated position of this list is palpable in numerous posts like the one linked to above. Such a person has no business on this list as it is currently described.

------Original Message------From: Pete Watts ->Just out of curiosity does that blanket new slate->extend to me on the 12 step free group?--I've written to you privately about this basically saying yes, to-which you have not replied. Generally speaking I have supported your presence here-most of the time as you have not created any problems that I can see, but I-must say I'm not wild about you being around.-Your question about the amnesty was probably meant to be ironic, never-considering for a moment it might get a favorable answer.

[Guest guest]

> Pete if you're going to open this list up to allow steppers to

either

> actively lurk or actively post than you need to change the groups

> description to directly reflect that.

Didnt I refer to that? I thought I had made reference to that.

*Posting* I would say definitely yes, but lurking is another matter.

Unless we have some kind of vetting system, then it's imposible to

keep steppers from lurking here, and probably still is even if we

do. I really am not too happy about him being there, but we pretty

well *are* powerless over the fact that he is. Ppl have lurked on

this list who have meant us ill right form the very beginning. Let

'em listen and fuck 'em. They might learn something.

I guess while we say he shouldnt be here, we score quite a few

morality points. While not wanted, he is unethically lurking here

which gives us a headstart str8 away. Actually getting him to stay

away though is pretty impossible without a great deal of effort, and

even if achieved, he's just one of many. There are far worse out

there.

Generally he behaves himself, the only post I've seen from him was

advice about treatment options in WA - pretty useful I would say.

His post on arf12s is an example of why I dont bother with arf12s and

why I'm not bothering with addict-l and practicaly anything else

where those of his ilk are. I'll bet absolutely NOBODY who has

claimed AA irs religious has changed their minds on the issue since

the ruling, and hence thereis no " back pedalling " at all. The ruling

is total horseshit EVEN IF AA is religious, by the EXISTING laws, let

alone what the law ought actually to be. I've said before on this

list that I think that ruling confessional evidence inadmissable is a

total crock in a secular society. Just as a secular confession is

admissable beause it is likely reliable, I would say that evidence

from a cleric who testifies to a confession in a priest-penitent

relationship shoudle be allocated SPECIAL WEIGHT AS ALMOST CERTAINLY

BEING ACCURATE, almost equivalent to free testimony under oath. What

is more important to us here, that murderers are locked up, or that

they get the chance to confess it in a supposedly personally chosen

religion while shirking all responsibility? (What a handy pun). All

this case does is expose how totally permeable the supposed wall

between Church and State actually is.

You could say Jim Shirk is a very good example of 'alcoholic

denial'. He denies the evidence of his own eyes in the DSM, will be

incapable of understanding the issues regarding the religiosity of

AA, not because he isnt intellectually capable, he alost certainly

is, but because AA has in 20 years built up an incredibly effective

ideological system for denail of reality. He is a master of verbal

terrorism, because he has practised it for 20 years on himself.

There is a lot of that around of course. Just consider yourself lucky

he isnt posting it here. As the AAs say, be grateful...

P.

>

> Anyone who would post something like this:

>

>

> Click HERE or below

>

> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%

22+agree+with+this+decission+what+so+eve

> r%22 & hl=en & safe=off & rnum=1 & selm=20010803085553.12076.00002501%40ng-

fq1.aol.c

> om

> Is not the kind of person that should be allowed to either lurk or

post on

> this list as it's been previously established, described and

understood to

> be.

> His contempt for the stated position of this list is palpable in

numerous

> posts like the one linked to above. Such a person has no business

on this

> list as it is currently described.

>

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

> -From: Pete Watts [mailto:watts_pete@h...]

>

> ->Just out of curiosity does that blanket new slate

> ->extend to me on the 12 step free group?

> -

> -I've written to you privately about this basically saying yes, to

> -which you have not replied. Generally speaking I have supported

your

> presence here

> -most of the time as you have not created any problems that I can

see, but I

> -must say I'm not wild about you being around.

>

>

> -Your question about the amnesty was probably meant to be ironic,

never

> -considering for a moment it might get a favorable answer.

[Guest guest]

Pete I'm well aware there is little that can be done to ensure the lurking

doesn't go on. I've posted as much already. Never the less I think it's

important to note and frequently that it is not appreciated of them. Which

you've done a sterling job of.

However in the same message you granted him amnesty. Amnesty from what if

it's not lurking? He should be told in no uncertain terms that he is not

wanted here in a lurking status or otherwise because he does not fall within

the status of this list's description.

You're sending mixed messages here Pete and I wish you would stop it.

- Re: Shirk's response on AA effectivenes,

-Froistad affair

-

-

-

-> Pete if you're going to open this list up to allow steppers to

-either

-> actively lurk or actively post than you need to change the groups

-> description to directly reflect that.

-

-Didnt I refer to that? I thought I had made reference to that.

-*Posting* I would say definitely yes, but lurking is another matter.

-Unless we have some kind of vetting system, then it's imposible to

-keep steppers from lurking here, and probably still is even if we

-do. I really am not too happy about him being there, but we pretty

-well *are* powerless over the fact that he is. Ppl have lurked on

-this list who have meant us ill right form the very beginning. Let

-'em listen and fuck 'em. They might learn something.

-> -most of the time as you have not created any problems that I can

-see, but I

-> -must say I'm not wild about you being around.

->

->

-> -Your question about the amnesty was probably meant to be ironic,

-never

-> -considering for a moment it might get a favorable answer.

-

-

-

[Guest guest]

At 05:39 PM 8/3/01 -0500, Arroyo wrote:

>

>Pete I'm well aware there is little that can be done to ensure the lurking

>doesn't go on. I've posted as much already. Never the less I think it's

>important to note and frequently that it is not appreciated of them. Which

>you've done a sterling job of.

I'd like to point out that, as I type, this list has 388 subscribers.

I can't imagine telling three hundred and eighty seven people (probably

less than ten percent have ever posted something, I know absolutely

nothing about the other 90+ percent) something and expecting it to

be kept in confidence or not be used against me. The way I see it,

12-step-free is, for all practical purposes, a publically readable

forum.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

I'm not disputing that Ben. I did not join this list only to find later

that many of it's members are for encouraging not only active lurking by but

inviting responses from notorious grouper usenet trolls here. That's not

how the group was designed, intended or described. If that's the way the

list is going to go then it needs to be publicly discussed or at least

acknowledged and the description should be changed to warn potential

members.

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

-From: Ben Bradley

-

- I'd like to point out that, as I type, this list has 388 subscribers.

-I can't imagine telling three hundred and eighty seven people (probably

-less than ten percent have ever posted something, I know absolutely

-nothing about the other 90+ percent) something and expecting it to

-be kept in confidence or not be used against me. The way I see it,

-12-step-free is, for all practical purposes, a publically readable

-forum.

-

[Guest guest]

> [shirk] should be told in no uncertain terms that he

is not

> wanted here in a lurking status or otherwise because he does not

fall within

> the status of this list's description.

>

> You're sending mixed messages here Pete and I wish you would stop

>it.

I guess. Well Jim has refused amnesty. not to go away or just lurk

that is, but to do as he damn well pleases. He says he wants to

learn. Well one thing I have written to him to try to make him learn

that he ought to view his presence here exactly like someone listening

in on a closed AA meeting who has been specifically told they are not

wanted and only remains through the cloak of secrecy. If he can

rationalize a way to do that and to keep his self-respect, that's up

to him.

That is the current state of affairs. I have told him that if he

creates trouble I will complain to his ISP.

P.

[Guest guest]

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

-From: watts_pete@...

- If he can rationalize a way to do that and to keep his self-respect,

that's up

-to him.

Pete He's a treatment field stepper. He also happens to firmly believe that

he can have a God and remain an atheist. Do you doubt for one second that

he can do the above?

You're not dealing with a rational person there no matter how much you may

want to.