Re: RR/AA

[Guest guest]

an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html

Recovery Group Movement Cancelled

" Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is

presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend

12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary.

Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult

using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations

tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their

programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore,

Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group

meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can

lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery

organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom. We are

merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to

enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That

is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This

is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others.

Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across

the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You

don't have to go to meetings! "

RR/AA

>

> >RR is for people who want to quit, not moderate, and what you call

" strident

> >militancy " is simply AVRT effortlessly at work. Your choice of words is

> >revealing. Of course AVRT is going to be " off-putting " to any alternative

to

> >immediately taking full responsibility to quit once and for all.

>

> Actually, that's not at all what I mean. You missed it entirely.

>

> Many alcoholics have problems with anger management, temper control, etc.

> They find self-help groups to be very helpful. We all find talking through

> our problems to be helpful--that's what we do with friends.(Well, some

> people, including alcoholics, don't talk through their problems--they sit

> and stew, and then they go get drunk.)

>

> Rational Recovery is offputting and strident in " cancelling the 12 step

> movement " . While the 12 step m ovement isn't for everyone, it has helped

> many people. I'm not sure all those people would be able to learn and

> implement AVRT. RR should chill a bit and let people decide what works for

> them. You know, I think this whole relgion/God thing is a bunch of BS, but

> I'm not going around " cancelling Christianity " . Christianity has caused a

> hell of a lot of damage, but it's also helped many a folk. Many people

> can't handle life without a crutch. So they have their religion. Well, I'm

> not going to try to 'cancel' it and tell them they can't have it!

>

> RR wastes too much time railing against AA. they need to learn to co-exist

> peacefully, just like the Muslims and Jews and Christians need to learn

to

> coexist peacefully. Yes, people need to be more aware of AA alternatives.

> Yes, there should be greater choices. Yes, yes, yes. But AA is not wholly

> evil--it has saved the lives of many a person. I don't think Rational

> Recovery is for everyone. I know that people need to share experiences and

> talk things out--in fact, I think that's about the biggest value people

get

> from AA. That' missing in RR. RR may work fine on its own for people who

> are mentally healthy, financially successful, and just have an addiction,

> but I don't t hink RR on its own is sufficient for the many t housands of

> alcoholics who have coexisting mental health issues.

>

> I have suffered from serious depression, I have been in a mentally and

> emotionally abusive relationship, and my self esteem was such that I

wasn't

> able to do shit. It takes a certain amount of " having it togetherness " to

> be able to do the RR program. Now, one of the problems I have with AA is

> the whole powerlessness schtick, but I also know that people need

> encouragement, they need suggestions, they need ideas.

>

> You say my choice of words is revealing. So too is your choice of words.

RR

> is guilty of the same lack of tolerance and single-mindedness that it

> accuses AA of. Can neither group realize that we are not cut from the same

> cookie cutter mold, that different modalities help different people? Is

> neither group willing to admit that each group contains both good and

> negative elements, and that a person should be free to craft a recovery

> program out of what is available?

>

>

[Guest guest]

>an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html

>

>Recovery Group Movement Cancelled

>

> " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is

>presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend

>12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary.

>Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult

>using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations

>tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their

>programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore,

>Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group

>meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can

>lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery

>organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom.

Yep--see how effective their cancellation is? Is RR getting any money from

Shrub? No, but the Victory Outreach Fellowship is.

We are

>merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to

>enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That

>is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This

>is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others.

>Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across

>the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You

>don't have to go to meetings! "

Yes, the force of all this is, well, rather silly. RR doesn't have the

power to do crap. In San , the US's 9th largest city, there is ONE

RR meeting per week, and it's poorly attended. Compare that with 150 to 200

AA meetings per week.

What is RR doing? Instituting lawsuits against judges who require AA? No.

Allowing RR to be taught in institutions, which is where many people are

sentenced to? (A large number of the people in the Salvation Army ARC are

there because they've been sent their by the courts.) No, they don't allow

it to be taught in institutions. So RR is forever going to remain a tiny

minority that only a select few know about. To proclaim that they are

" cancelling " the 12 step movement effective immediately reeks of

childishness and silliness, not to mention grandiose delusions.

If RR wants to be the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty, it needs

to take action, which in this country means lawsuits.

BTW, when talking about pseudo-science, I think Jack Trimpey's ideas rank

up with most pseudo-scientists. That doesn't mean the program doesn't

work--I know chiropractic works for me, though I don't buy into th schtick

lock stock and barrel. Some people say acupuncture and holistic medicines

work for them. (I have had lousy luck with acupuncture and homeopathic

remedies.) So acupun. and homeop. work for some--fine, they can use them.

I'm not going to say they don't work, because for these people, they do.

Even if it's all in their heads, if they feel better and their pain is

gone, more power to them.

But I don't think RRs have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking about

pseudoscience. Trimpey has claims, has theories, which are unproven at

best. His program works for some people, but it is not the end all and be

all, the way the truth and the life, for everyone.

[Guest guest]

>an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html

>

>Recovery Group Movement Cancelled

>

> " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is

>presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to attend

>12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now involuntary.

>Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult

>using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations

>tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their

>programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore,

>Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery group

>meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can

>lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery

>organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom.

Yep--see how effective their cancellation is? Is RR getting any money from

Shrub? No, but the Victory Outreach Fellowship is.

We are

>merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means to

>enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them. That

>is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies. This

>is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by others.

>Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed across

>the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty. You

>don't have to go to meetings! "

Yes, the force of all this is, well, rather silly. RR doesn't have the

power to do crap. In San , the US's 9th largest city, there is ONE

RR meeting per week, and it's poorly attended. Compare that with 150 to 200

AA meetings per week.

What is RR doing? Instituting lawsuits against judges who require AA? No.

Allowing RR to be taught in institutions, which is where many people are

sentenced to? (A large number of the people in the Salvation Army ARC are

there because they've been sent their by the courts.) No, they don't allow

it to be taught in institutions. So RR is forever going to remain a tiny

minority that only a select few know about. To proclaim that they are

" cancelling " the 12 step movement effective immediately reeks of

childishness and silliness, not to mention grandiose delusions.

If RR wants to be the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty, it needs

to take action, which in this country means lawsuits.

BTW, when talking about pseudo-science, I think Jack Trimpey's ideas rank

up with most pseudo-scientists. That doesn't mean the program doesn't

work--I know chiropractic works for me, though I don't buy into th schtick

lock stock and barrel. Some people say acupuncture and holistic medicines

work for them. (I have had lousy luck with acupuncture and homeopathic

remedies.) So acupun. and homeop. work for some--fine, they can use them.

I'm not going to say they don't work, because for these people, they do.

Even if it's all in their heads, if they feel better and their pain is

gone, more power to them.

But I don't think RRs have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking about

pseudoscience. Trimpey has claims, has theories, which are unproven at

best. His program works for some people, but it is not the end all and be

all, the way the truth and the life, for everyone.

[Guest guest]

Re: RR/AA

> >an excerpt from http://rational.org//recovery%20groups%20cancelled.html

> >

> >Recovery Group Movement Cancelled

> >

> > " Someone must cancel the recovery group movement, but no one else is

> >presently willing to do it. As it stands, people are being forced to

attend

> >12-step meetings. The majority of 12-step participants are now

involuntary.

> >Therefore, Alcoholics Anonymous is not a voluntary fellowship, but a cult

> >using the force of law to gain membership. Other recovery organizations

> >tolerate and encourage that people be forced to participate in their

> >programs. If no one else will stop this madness, then we will. Therefore,

> >Rational Recovery has taken the responsibility to cancel all recovery

group

> >meetings, indefinitely. This simply means that no American citizen can

> >lawfully or ethically be required to attend any meeting of any recovery

> >organization. Such requirements are opposed to decency and freedom.

>

> Yep--see how effective their cancellation is? Is RR getting any money from

> Shrub? No, but the Victory Outreach Fellowship is.

>

> We are

> >merely stating the law of the land, as we understand it. We have no means

to

> >enforce this cancellation, nor would we use those means if we had them.

That

> >is a matter for courts, law enforcement authorities and other agencies.

This

> >is a free nation, where people may not be pushed here and there by

others.

> >Eventually, forced participation in recovery groups will be outlawed

across

> >the board. For now, RR is the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty.

You

> >don't have to go to meetings! "

>

> Yes, the force of all this is, well, rather silly. RR doesn't have the

> power to do crap. In San , the US's 9th largest city, there is ONE

> RR meeting per week, and it's poorly attended. Compare that with 150 to

200

> AA meetings per week.

> What is RR doing? Instituting lawsuits against judges who require AA? No.

> Allowing RR to be taught in institutions, which is where many people are

> sentenced to? (A large number of the people in the Salvation Army ARC are

> there because they've been sent their by the courts.) No, they don't allow

> it to be taught in institutions. So RR is forever going to remain a tiny

> minority that only a select few know about. To proclaim that they are

> " cancelling " the 12 step movement effective immediately reeks of

> childishness and silliness, not to mention grandiose delusions.

>

> If RR wants to be the lone sentinal guarding individual liberty, it needs

> to take action, which in this country means lawsuits.

>

> BTW, when talking about pseudo-science, I think Jack Trimpey's ideas rank

> up with most pseudo-scientists. That doesn't mean the program doesn't

> work--I know chiropractic works for me, though I don't buy into th schtick

> lock stock and barrel. Some people say acupuncture and holistic medicines

> work for them. (I have had lousy luck with acupuncture and homeopathic

> remedies.) So acupun. and homeop. work for some--fine, they can use them.

> I'm not going to say they don't work, because for these people, they do.

> Even if it's all in their heads, if they feel better and their pain is

> gone, more power to them.

> But I don't think RRs have a leg to stand on when it comes to talking

about

> pseudoscience. Trimpey has claims, has theories, which are unproven at

> best. His program works for some people, but it is not the end all and be

> all, the way the truth and the life, for everyone.

>

>

I would go even further and state that it is not " the way the truth and the

life " for anyone. The technique of Addictive Voice Recognition is a simple

and effortless skill. Your " the way the truth and the life " is XA and the

RGM. AVRT is strictly limited to " plans for the future use of unprescribed

mind altering alcohol/drugs " . It turns recovery into an event.

How much scientific proof is necessary to justify teaching the importance of

recognizing something in one's thinking that is contrary to their better

judgement?

Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

>I would go even further and state that it is not " the way the truth and the

>life " for anyone. The technique of Addictive Voice Recognition is a simple

>and effortless skill. Your " the way the truth and the life " is XA and the

>RGM. AVRT is strictly limited to " plans for the future use of unprescribed

>mind altering alcohol/drugs " . It turns recovery into an event.

Then they don't need to " cancel " the recovery movement. They need to learn

to coexist next to it.

But recovery is not just an event. People need to learn to deal with the

depression and triggers which lead them to drink. Most alcoholics are very

troubled people who don't know how to deal with life issues. Simply not

drinking is not going to make their troubles go away.

I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse. I tried to just " get over it " . You

know, it's gone, it's past, don't focus on it. Well, at 33, it kicked me in

the butt. And actually, I have not been terribly functional sexually for my

entire adult life; that is, I have not had a " normal " healthy adult sex

life. So now I'm having to go back and deal with this shit that I had

thought I had put behind me. But it's there, it's just under the surface,

ready to rear its ugly head at the first opportunity. Simply stopping the

sexual abuse, which I did 20 years ago, did not make my problems go

away--they've tormented me for 20 years, and when they reared up again

recently, I became non-functional for several months, spending most of my

time in bed, unable to perform such simple tasks as showering and dressing.

The problems persisted even though the abuse ended. Likewise, an alcholic's

problems don't magically go away when he quits drinking. The problems are

still there and need to be addressed.

Sure, there are frat boys whose lives are basically okay, but who drink too

much. RR may be all they need. But there's a hell of a lot of people who

can't hold a job because they're too depressed to get out of bed, or they

go around in a mental fog all day, or they're physically disabled but get

$500 per month in disability, which is supposed to pay for rent, food, and

utilities, and they self-medicate with alcohol. Simply learning to stop

drinking, to say no to alcohol and the desire to drink, is not going to

make their problems go away.

Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A

man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily

leading a life of sobriety.

>How much scientific proof is necessary to justify teaching the importance of

>recognizing something in one's thinking that is contrary to their better

>judgement?

Like I said, I'm not questioning that RR works for many people. But it is

wrong for RRs to accuse psychiatrists of pseudoscience when RR itself is

based on pseudoscience.

I feel a hell of a lot better when I go to the chiropractor. I even feel

better when I do yoga and chant mantras. Do I believe in the chakras, the

meridians, do I believe you can tell a great deal about the state of a

person's health by looking at their tongue? No. Do I believe in

acupunture? Depends. I believe it didn't do anything for me, but I know

people whom it has helped tremendously. That doesn't mean I accept the

underlying tenets of acupunture. But if it works for you, go for it.

I *really* gotta go. I'm running way late. TTYL.

Dixie

[Guest guest]

>I would go even further and state that it is not " the way the truth and the

>life " for anyone. The technique of Addictive Voice Recognition is a simple

>and effortless skill. Your " the way the truth and the life " is XA and the

>RGM. AVRT is strictly limited to " plans for the future use of unprescribed

>mind altering alcohol/drugs " . It turns recovery into an event.

Then they don't need to " cancel " the recovery movement. They need to learn

to coexist next to it.

But recovery is not just an event. People need to learn to deal with the

depression and triggers which lead them to drink. Most alcoholics are very

troubled people who don't know how to deal with life issues. Simply not

drinking is not going to make their troubles go away.

I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse. I tried to just " get over it " . You

know, it's gone, it's past, don't focus on it. Well, at 33, it kicked me in

the butt. And actually, I have not been terribly functional sexually for my

entire adult life; that is, I have not had a " normal " healthy adult sex

life. So now I'm having to go back and deal with this shit that I had

thought I had put behind me. But it's there, it's just under the surface,

ready to rear its ugly head at the first opportunity. Simply stopping the

sexual abuse, which I did 20 years ago, did not make my problems go

away--they've tormented me for 20 years, and when they reared up again

recently, I became non-functional for several months, spending most of my

time in bed, unable to perform such simple tasks as showering and dressing.

The problems persisted even though the abuse ended. Likewise, an alcholic's

problems don't magically go away when he quits drinking. The problems are

still there and need to be addressed.

Sure, there are frat boys whose lives are basically okay, but who drink too

much. RR may be all they need. But there's a hell of a lot of people who

can't hold a job because they're too depressed to get out of bed, or they

go around in a mental fog all day, or they're physically disabled but get

$500 per month in disability, which is supposed to pay for rent, food, and

utilities, and they self-medicate with alcohol. Simply learning to stop

drinking, to say no to alcohol and the desire to drink, is not going to

make their problems go away.

Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not drinking. A

man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not necessarily

leading a life of sobriety.

>How much scientific proof is necessary to justify teaching the importance of

>recognizing something in one's thinking that is contrary to their better

>judgement?

Like I said, I'm not questioning that RR works for many people. But it is

wrong for RRs to accuse psychiatrists of pseudoscience when RR itself is

based on pseudoscience.

I feel a hell of a lot better when I go to the chiropractor. I even feel

better when I do yoga and chant mantras. Do I believe in the chakras, the

meridians, do I believe you can tell a great deal about the state of a

person's health by looking at their tongue? No. Do I believe in

acupunture? Depends. I believe it didn't do anything for me, but I know

people whom it has helped tremendously. That doesn't mean I accept the

underlying tenets of acupunture. But if it works for you, go for it.

I *really* gotta go. I'm running way late. TTYL.

Dixie

[Guest guest]

the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

bill wilson admitted in 1943 and really, all through BB Shrine

Auditorium in Los Angeles in March,1943: " Divine Aid was A.A.'s

greatest asset... " " An alcoholic is a fellow who is " trying to get

his religion out of a bottle, " when what he really wants is unity

within himself, unity with God. . . . " " There is adefinite religious

element here,), aa lies when it says alcoholism is incurable

disease

AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

life or die (as told by bill wilson)

AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking

like one.

AA does harm by teaching people they should take responsibility

or credit for their own sobriety, that this is god doing. when was

last time you saw someone at a celebration say that they were

proud of what they achieved and give credit for their sobriety to

anyone but themselves? there is a reason for this:

" But, as a people who have nearly always learned the hard way,

we shall certainly not congratulate ourselves. We shall perceive

these assets to be God's gifts, which have been in part

matched by an increasing willingness on our part to find & do

His will for us. " -

AA does harm by teaching people they cant quit forever or be

cured , but can only manage day to day thru spirituality. and of

course if they dont, they " die " . " We are not cured of

alcoholism.What we really have is a daily reprieve contingent on

the maintenance of our spiritual condition. "

AA lies when they say a higher power is of " our " understanding,

when it its clearly understanding from the oxford group of

a god which is a faith healing god.

all facts about " Him " were offered by bill in Big Book and

12-steps Bill tells us god is of our understanding, but he cant

seem to help himself from filling in the blanks for us as to how

god works for us though. i guess if my understanding of god is

one which doesn't restore sanity, listens to my prayers and

removes defects, i cant do steps. and if i dont do steps, wilson

threatens i will " die " and sign my " own death warrant " .(1)

These were found in minutes in a scan of a few chapters. It

would take a week to pull all the specific ideals expressed to

describe how god of " our " understanding is, and how this god of

" our " understanding will work for us from the over 400 references

to " God " in BB.

restores sanity

listens to our prayers

removes defects

is a living creator and whom we are its children

is male

has conscious contact with us

has relationships with us, has a will intended us to carry.

Does for us what we could not do for ourselves.

he is a " Creative Intelligence "

" Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things "

He doesn't make too hard terms with those who seek Him

the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive

is a All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence

we are " intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing

Creation "

is the Spirit of the Universe

Presence of Infinite Power and Love

AA does harm by limiting them to be dependent upon groups

and higher powers for their sanity (bill wilson referred to

steppers as " groupers " borrowing from oxford group tradition) aa

lies whenthey say they are 'suggestions " only problem if you dont

follow bills suggestion you sign your " owndeath warrant " .

wrote: " The moment Twelfth Step work forms a group, a

discovery is made -- that most individuals cannot recover unless

there is a group. Realization dawns on each member that he is

but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too

great for preservation of the Fellowship. He learns that the

clamor of desires and ambitions within him must be silenced

whenever these could damage the group. "

AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text

to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a

choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and

portraying them as:

evasive

biased

stubborn

unreasonable

close minded

spiritually obsolete

ignorant

touchy

deluded

antagonistic

vain

illogical

" less " sane

dishonest

narrow in vision/backward thinking

" soft and mushy " thinkers

worshippers of " people, sentiment, things, money, and

ourselves "

" handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning

prejudice

not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack

non believers.

AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for

" real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in

90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any

better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment.

aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be

be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? because

it works? AA was started on a foundation of 40 people (wilson

liedwhen he claimed it was 100), most were already believers

when they went in. not all of them stayed sober in the couple

years before he wrote big book.

AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and

spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in

AA. AA harm because it teaches people their ego's are somehow

bad and that their own will is insane.( " any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success " ). and then proceeds to break them

down. but of course they do, that was a Oxford group belief

because non believers were seen as literally insane and " public

enemies " . you dont need god if you can manage your own life

with your own will.

AA does harm because the whole text of bb and the Program

has nothing to do with alcoholism ,but rather convincing people

their own will is wrong and they need to believe in gods will for

themand to look to " Him " for the answers

from 1939 BB:

page 29

Our description of the alcoholic, the chapter to the agnostic, and

our personal adventures before and after, have been designed

to sell you three pertinent ideas:

(a) That you are alcoholic and cannot manage your own life.

( That probably no human power can relieve your alcoholism.

© That God can and will.

The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success

chapter 6

" We feel a man is unthinking when he says that sobriety is

enough " "

the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a

religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only

applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was

wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many

flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over

60 years, its laughable.

AA has nothing to do with alcoholism and at best it applies to

small slice of people, and those who dont fit into that slice, or

who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to

be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you

dont see any other group do that.

when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than

practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor,

hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija

board while we're at it?

i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more

than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more

successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for

mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a

75% success rate).

no one would seriously suggest either of these models was

legitimate, but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult

manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and

legitimate. also, for some reason, the people who point out the

obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are

accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue

the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making

the criticism.

just so you know my position on this, i have never used RR, but i

dont care for equal room for both or with AA and any other

program, and neither would AA. AA would dry up and blow away if

people were given equal access to all the other programs,

because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces

people into religious cult. not to mention, all the steppers

working in treatment centers wouldn't have anything to teach if a

program was based on anything other than " hitting your knees

and praying " .

but people want to over look this because they have bought the

propaganda that AA has " helped so many " . if you put enough

people in any group and say this will get you sober, some will

get sober, probably as many as aa achieves. the only deference

is people dont see one aa harms when they tell those

newcomers if they leave AA, there is no other alternative and they

will die.

[Guest guest]

the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

bill wilson admitted in 1943 and really, all through BB Shrine

Auditorium in Los Angeles in March,1943: " Divine Aid was A.A.'s

greatest asset... " " An alcoholic is a fellow who is " trying to get

his religion out of a bottle, " when what he really wants is unity

within himself, unity with God. . . . " " There is adefinite religious

element here,), aa lies when it says alcoholism is incurable

disease

AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

life or die (as told by bill wilson)

AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking

like one.

AA does harm by teaching people they should take responsibility

or credit for their own sobriety, that this is god doing. when was

last time you saw someone at a celebration say that they were

proud of what they achieved and give credit for their sobriety to

anyone but themselves? there is a reason for this:

" But, as a people who have nearly always learned the hard way,

we shall certainly not congratulate ourselves. We shall perceive

these assets to be God's gifts, which have been in part

matched by an increasing willingness on our part to find & do

His will for us. " -

AA does harm by teaching people they cant quit forever or be

cured , but can only manage day to day thru spirituality. and of

course if they dont, they " die " . " We are not cured of

alcoholism.What we really have is a daily reprieve contingent on

the maintenance of our spiritual condition. "

AA lies when they say a higher power is of " our " understanding,

when it its clearly understanding from the oxford group of

a god which is a faith healing god.

all facts about " Him " were offered by bill in Big Book and

12-steps Bill tells us god is of our understanding, but he cant

seem to help himself from filling in the blanks for us as to how

god works for us though. i guess if my understanding of god is

one which doesn't restore sanity, listens to my prayers and

removes defects, i cant do steps. and if i dont do steps, wilson

threatens i will " die " and sign my " own death warrant " .(1)

These were found in minutes in a scan of a few chapters. It

would take a week to pull all the specific ideals expressed to

describe how god of " our " understanding is, and how this god of

" our " understanding will work for us from the over 400 references

to " God " in BB.

restores sanity

listens to our prayers

removes defects

is a living creator and whom we are its children

is male

has conscious contact with us

has relationships with us, has a will intended us to carry.

Does for us what we could not do for ourselves.

he is a " Creative Intelligence "

" Spirit of the Universe underlying the totality of things "

He doesn't make too hard terms with those who seek Him

the Realm of Spirit is broad, roomy, all inclusive

is a All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence

we are " intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing

Creation "

is the Spirit of the Universe

Presence of Infinite Power and Love

AA does harm by limiting them to be dependent upon groups

and higher powers for their sanity (bill wilson referred to

steppers as " groupers " borrowing from oxford group tradition) aa

lies whenthey say they are 'suggestions " only problem if you dont

follow bills suggestion you sign your " owndeath warrant " .

wrote: " The moment Twelfth Step work forms a group, a

discovery is made -- that most individuals cannot recover unless

there is a group. Realization dawns on each member that he is

but a small part of a great whole; that no personal sacrifice is too

great for preservation of the Fellowship. He learns that the

clamor of desires and ambitions within him must be silenced

whenever these could damage the group. "

AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text

to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a

choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and

portraying them as:

evasive

biased

stubborn

unreasonable

close minded

spiritually obsolete

ignorant

touchy

deluded

antagonistic

vain

illogical

" less " sane

dishonest

narrow in vision/backward thinking

" soft and mushy " thinkers

worshippers of " people, sentiment, things, money, and

ourselves "

" handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning

prejudice

not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack

non believers.

AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for

" real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in

90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any

better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment.

aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be

be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems? because

it works? AA was started on a foundation of 40 people (wilson

liedwhen he claimed it was 100), most were already believers

when they went in. not all of them stayed sober in the couple

years before he wrote big book.

AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and

spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in

AA. AA harm because it teaches people their ego's are somehow

bad and that their own will is insane.( " any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success " ). and then proceeds to break them

down. but of course they do, that was a Oxford group belief

because non believers were seen as literally insane and " public

enemies " . you dont need god if you can manage your own life

with your own will.

AA does harm because the whole text of bb and the Program

has nothing to do with alcoholism ,but rather convincing people

their own will is wrong and they need to believe in gods will for

themand to look to " Him " for the answers

from 1939 BB:

page 29

Our description of the alcoholic, the chapter to the agnostic, and

our personal adventures before and after, have been designed

to sell you three pertinent ideas:

(a) That you are alcoholic and cannot manage your own life.

( That probably no human power can relieve your alcoholism.

© That God can and will.

The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success

chapter 6

" We feel a man is unthinking when he says that sobriety is

enough " "

the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a

religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only

applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was

wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many

flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over

60 years, its laughable.

AA has nothing to do with alcoholism and at best it applies to

small slice of people, and those who dont fit into that slice, or

who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to

be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you

dont see any other group do that.

when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than

practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor,

hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija

board while we're at it?

i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more

than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more

successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for

mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a

75% success rate).

no one would seriously suggest either of these models was

legitimate, but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult

manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and

legitimate. also, for some reason, the people who point out the

obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are

accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue

the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making

the criticism.

just so you know my position on this, i have never used RR, but i

dont care for equal room for both or with AA and any other

program, and neither would AA. AA would dry up and blow away if

people were given equal access to all the other programs,

because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces

people into religious cult. not to mention, all the steppers

working in treatment centers wouldn't have anything to teach if a

program was based on anything other than " hitting your knees

and praying " .

but people want to over look this because they have bought the

propaganda that AA has " helped so many " . if you put enough

people in any group and say this will get you sober, some will

get sober, probably as many as aa achieves. the only deference

is people dont see one aa harms when they tell those

newcomers if they leave AA, there is no other alternative and they

will die.

[Guest guest]

i really should proof read my posts... some minor corrections,

only mentioning it becuase they effected the meaning of what i

wrote " :

" AA does harm by teaching people they should'nt (was should)

take responsibility or credit for their own sobriety,... "

> last time you saw someone at a celebration say that they were

proud of what they achieved and gave credit for their sobriety to

Everyone (was anyone) but themselves? "

[Guest guest]

>

> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not

drinking. A

> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not

necessarily

> leading a life of sobriety.

Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry-

drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean

anything.

Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

for that.

I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with

problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or

nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug-

alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for

depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship

problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the

rest of my problems like any other adult.

Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and

his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when

I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading

Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I

had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from

the kind of thinking that was harming me.

If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's

deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly.

As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone

is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but

the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and

not buy into any recovery program without that.

[Guest guest]

>

> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not

drinking. A

> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not

necessarily

> leading a life of sobriety.

Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry-

drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean

anything.

Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

for that.

I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with

problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or

nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug-

alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for

depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship

problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the

rest of my problems like any other adult.

Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and

his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when

I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading

Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I

had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from

the kind of thinking that was harming me.

If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's

deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly.

As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone

is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but

the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and

not buy into any recovery program without that.

[Guest guest]

>

> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not

drinking. A

> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not

necessarily

> leading a life of sobriety.

Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry-

drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean

anything.

Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

for that.

I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with

problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or

nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug-

alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for

depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship

problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the

rest of my problems like any other adult.

Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and

his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when

I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading

Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I

had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from

the kind of thinking that was harming me.

If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's

deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly.

As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone

is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but

the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and

not buy into any recovery program without that.

[Guest guest]

>the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

Yes, I agree. AA is blatantly, obviously religious. But for RR to say it is

" canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly. And RR insists

that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for support groups; indeed, it

wants people to promise never to attend another support group meeting,

ever. AA and RR both want you to believe that their way is the only way,

and every other way will get you nowhere.

>AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

>life or die (as told by bill wilson)

I agree. But RR does harm by insisting that it's the only way to sobriety.

RR does not recognize that AA has helped many people, some of whom might

indeed need to work AA for life, just as they work their religion for life.

You know, if you stop going for your weekly or biweekly brainwashing

session (church), if you start reading documents critical of the kind of

brainwashing you've been receiving, you might fall from the flock, you

might lose your Christianity. But you know what? Some people NEED the

crutch of religion. They can't deal with the truth, they can't deal with

the possibility that there isn't a supreme being watching over their every

move and saving their stupid butt. So just as some people NEED religion,

some people NEED AA.

>AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

>believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking

>like one.

I agree.

<major snippage>

>AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text

>to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a

>choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and

>portraying them as:

I agree.

>not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack

>non believers.

From the RR literature I've read, and the videos I've watched, I conclude

that RR is very hostile and attacks non-believers in RR.

If you mean that no other group feels the need to attck atheists/agnostics,

oh yes they do. Damn near every group there is. When I got up at a Texas

Farm Bureau meeting and said I felt it was inappropriate to open the

platform of the TFB with a prayer, I was booed off the stage. When I tried

to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. I couldn't

even get them to include me as a person worth respecting--the platform says

" We believe in the right of every man to choose his own occupation; to be

rewarded according to his contribution to society... " I pointed out to the

delegates, many of them women, that according to these words, the TFB

doesn't believe in the right of every WOMAN to choose her own

occupation--what are we, slaves? I asked that 'person' be substituted for

'man'--my resolution was resoundly defeated.

The Texas Farm Bureau promotes and provides services to farmers and

ranchers. Yet they made it very clear to me that if I am not a Christian,

and a Christian woman willing to let my husband control my life, that I am

excluded. And yes, they most definitely attacked me.

When I was a delegate to the state Republican convention, I was very much

attacked because I objected to the same imposition of faith.

When Shrub was sworn in as president, the person giving the invocation

said, " Say 'Amen' if you believe in Jesus. " I guess Shrub doesn't want to

be my president, because I sure as hell didn't say amen.

>AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for

> " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in

>90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any

>better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment.

Well, I strongly disagree that it's worse than no treatment. AA has helped

thousands. I object to it being the standard for treatment. But RR does

harm when it says that no one needs self-help discussion groups, that AVRT

is the only thing you need to know, that you just have to decide not to

drink. RR does harm by denying the benefits of AA.

> aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be

>be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems?

Because humans have been looking to a god or gods to cure their problems

for thousands of years.

>AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and

>spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in

>AA.

And you don't think the same thing is true of RR? It has a built in model

for verbal abuse for people who don't abandon AA, who say that AA has

helped them.

The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success

I know an alcoholic who has a lot of self-will, or at least a lot of ego,

in that he keeps saying he's in control of his life, he doesn't want anyone

to tell him what to do, etc etc etc. Yet he was kicked out of the Navy for

drunkenness in 1976 or 78 and has been going downhill ever since. He

doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, he keeps saying he's a grown

man and can make his own decisions--but his own decisions keep leading him

to alcohol.

Likewise, my BF said that all he needed to do was not drink and drive. But

of course when he drank, he got behind the wheel of a car. His will didn't

keep him from doing that.

I 'will' myself to lose weight. Have been for over 20 years now. But I keep

gaining weight. Willpower isn't enough.

>the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a

>religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only

>applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was

>wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many

>flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over

>60 years, its laughable.

I agree.

>AA has nothing to do with alcoholism

I disagree. Any group of alcoholics seeking to combat their addiction has a

lot to do with alcoholism.

and at best it applies to

>small slice of people,

I'd say it applies to quite a large number of people. People who are free

to choose still choose AA over any other method, and AA works for many of

them.

and those who dont fit into that slice, or

>who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to

>be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you

>dont see any other group do that.

Oh, I've seen lots of groups do that. School groups, farming and ranching

groups, 4-H groups, neighborhood groups, groups purporting to help people

out of crises---I've seen that attitude in tons of groups.

Currently, that attitude can be seen in the Republican party.

>when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than

>practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor,

>hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija

>board while we're at it?

I agree, that kind of " advice " sucks. But they do receive some practical

advice in testimonies from others. And many times, people will get up and

say, " Well this is what worked for me.... " or some such. So they do

sometimes receive advice. But the advice to read the BB, pray, and call

your sponsor--well, that sucks.

>i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more

>than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more

>successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for

>mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a

>75% success rate).

You should be tolerant of what works for other people. Rational Recovery is

guilty of the same intolerance for which it condemns AA. That is

intolerable.

>no one would seriously suggest either of these models was

>legitimate,

Why not? If it keeps people sober.......

The State of Texas funds the Victory Outreach Fellowship rehab program,

which consists of nothing but Bible study and prayer. No AA, no analysis or

discussion of addiction, no nothing but bible study and prayer. I strongly

object to my tax dollars going to brainwash people, but you know what? It

works for some folks. And it's better to be high on Jesus than high on

cocaine. I just think that Christians should pay to brainwash other people

for Christianity and not expect the government to pay them to do it.

but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult

>manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and

>legitimate.

But cult manipulation and faith healing are all around us--as close as your

Christian church, as close as your Bible. This is simply a sign of how much

influence Christians have on our government and our lifestyle.

also, for some reason, the people who point out the

>obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are

>accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue

>the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making

>the criticism.

A major flaw, I agree. But then again, alcoholics are famous for finding

reasons why things don't work for them, or for finding excuses why such and

such doesn't work so they might as well keep on drinking.

AA would dry up and blow away if

>people were given equal access to all the other programs,

Well, RR refuses to allow RR to have equal access with AA, by its

insistence that RR not be used in treatment centers. And, people who can

choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is?

>because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces

>people into religious cult.

Many thousands of people have benefited from AA. To say it did not work for

them is to ignore the truth. Many Christians have not wavered in their

beliefs by going to AA. Some atheists/agnosts have made it work for them. I

know a lot of people who don't feel part of a religious cult, who haven't

been to AA in years, but who AA helped get sober. So yes, it can work, and

no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult.

[Guest guest]

>the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

Yes, I agree. AA is blatantly, obviously religious. But for RR to say it is

" canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly. And RR insists

that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for support groups; indeed, it

wants people to promise never to attend another support group meeting,

ever. AA and RR both want you to believe that their way is the only way,

and every other way will get you nowhere.

>AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

>life or die (as told by bill wilson)

I agree. But RR does harm by insisting that it's the only way to sobriety.

RR does not recognize that AA has helped many people, some of whom might

indeed need to work AA for life, just as they work their religion for life.

You know, if you stop going for your weekly or biweekly brainwashing

session (church), if you start reading documents critical of the kind of

brainwashing you've been receiving, you might fall from the flock, you

might lose your Christianity. But you know what? Some people NEED the

crutch of religion. They can't deal with the truth, they can't deal with

the possibility that there isn't a supreme being watching over their every

move and saving their stupid butt. So just as some people NEED religion,

some people NEED AA.

>AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

>believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking

>like one.

I agree.

<major snippage>

>AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text

>to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a

>choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and

>portraying them as:

I agree.

>not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack

>non believers.

From the RR literature I've read, and the videos I've watched, I conclude

that RR is very hostile and attacks non-believers in RR.

If you mean that no other group feels the need to attck atheists/agnostics,

oh yes they do. Damn near every group there is. When I got up at a Texas

Farm Bureau meeting and said I felt it was inappropriate to open the

platform of the TFB with a prayer, I was booed off the stage. When I tried

to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. I couldn't

even get them to include me as a person worth respecting--the platform says

" We believe in the right of every man to choose his own occupation; to be

rewarded according to his contribution to society... " I pointed out to the

delegates, many of them women, that according to these words, the TFB

doesn't believe in the right of every WOMAN to choose her own

occupation--what are we, slaves? I asked that 'person' be substituted for

'man'--my resolution was resoundly defeated.

The Texas Farm Bureau promotes and provides services to farmers and

ranchers. Yet they made it very clear to me that if I am not a Christian,

and a Christian woman willing to let my husband control my life, that I am

excluded. And yes, they most definitely attacked me.

When I was a delegate to the state Republican convention, I was very much

attacked because I objected to the same imposition of faith.

When Shrub was sworn in as president, the person giving the invocation

said, " Say 'Amen' if you believe in Jesus. " I guess Shrub doesn't want to

be my president, because I sure as hell didn't say amen.

>AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for

> " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in

>90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any

>better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment.

Well, I strongly disagree that it's worse than no treatment. AA has helped

thousands. I object to it being the standard for treatment. But RR does

harm when it says that no one needs self-help discussion groups, that AVRT

is the only thing you need to know, that you just have to decide not to

drink. RR does harm by denying the benefits of AA.

> aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be

>be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems?

Because humans have been looking to a god or gods to cure their problems

for thousands of years.

>AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and

>spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in

>AA.

And you don't think the same thing is true of RR? It has a built in model

for verbal abuse for people who don't abandon AA, who say that AA has

helped them.

The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success

I know an alcoholic who has a lot of self-will, or at least a lot of ego,

in that he keeps saying he's in control of his life, he doesn't want anyone

to tell him what to do, etc etc etc. Yet he was kicked out of the Navy for

drunkenness in 1976 or 78 and has been going downhill ever since. He

doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, he keeps saying he's a grown

man and can make his own decisions--but his own decisions keep leading him

to alcohol.

Likewise, my BF said that all he needed to do was not drink and drive. But

of course when he drank, he got behind the wheel of a car. His will didn't

keep him from doing that.

I 'will' myself to lose weight. Have been for over 20 years now. But I keep

gaining weight. Willpower isn't enough.

>the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a

>religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only

>applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was

>wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many

>flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over

>60 years, its laughable.

I agree.

>AA has nothing to do with alcoholism

I disagree. Any group of alcoholics seeking to combat their addiction has a

lot to do with alcoholism.

and at best it applies to

>small slice of people,

I'd say it applies to quite a large number of people. People who are free

to choose still choose AA over any other method, and AA works for many of

them.

and those who dont fit into that slice, or

>who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to

>be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you

>dont see any other group do that.

Oh, I've seen lots of groups do that. School groups, farming and ranching

groups, 4-H groups, neighborhood groups, groups purporting to help people

out of crises---I've seen that attitude in tons of groups.

Currently, that attitude can be seen in the Republican party.

>when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than

>practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor,

>hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija

>board while we're at it?

I agree, that kind of " advice " sucks. But they do receive some practical

advice in testimonies from others. And many times, people will get up and

say, " Well this is what worked for me.... " or some such. So they do

sometimes receive advice. But the advice to read the BB, pray, and call

your sponsor--well, that sucks.

>i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more

>than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more

>successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for

>mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a

>75% success rate).

You should be tolerant of what works for other people. Rational Recovery is

guilty of the same intolerance for which it condemns AA. That is

intolerable.

>no one would seriously suggest either of these models was

>legitimate,

Why not? If it keeps people sober.......

The State of Texas funds the Victory Outreach Fellowship rehab program,

which consists of nothing but Bible study and prayer. No AA, no analysis or

discussion of addiction, no nothing but bible study and prayer. I strongly

object to my tax dollars going to brainwash people, but you know what? It

works for some folks. And it's better to be high on Jesus than high on

cocaine. I just think that Christians should pay to brainwash other people

for Christianity and not expect the government to pay them to do it.

but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult

>manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and

>legitimate.

But cult manipulation and faith healing are all around us--as close as your

Christian church, as close as your Bible. This is simply a sign of how much

influence Christians have on our government and our lifestyle.

also, for some reason, the people who point out the

>obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are

>accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue

>the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making

>the criticism.

A major flaw, I agree. But then again, alcoholics are famous for finding

reasons why things don't work for them, or for finding excuses why such and

such doesn't work so they might as well keep on drinking.

AA would dry up and blow away if

>people were given equal access to all the other programs,

Well, RR refuses to allow RR to have equal access with AA, by its

insistence that RR not be used in treatment centers. And, people who can

choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is?

>because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces

>people into religious cult.

Many thousands of people have benefited from AA. To say it did not work for

them is to ignore the truth. Many Christians have not wavered in their

beliefs by going to AA. Some atheists/agnosts have made it work for them. I

know a lot of people who don't feel part of a religious cult, who haven't

been to AA in years, but who AA helped get sober. So yes, it can work, and

no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult.

[Guest guest]

>the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

Yes, I agree. AA is blatantly, obviously religious. But for RR to say it is

" canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly. And RR insists

that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for support groups; indeed, it

wants people to promise never to attend another support group meeting,

ever. AA and RR both want you to believe that their way is the only way,

and every other way will get you nowhere.

>AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

>life or die (as told by bill wilson)

I agree. But RR does harm by insisting that it's the only way to sobriety.

RR does not recognize that AA has helped many people, some of whom might

indeed need to work AA for life, just as they work their religion for life.

You know, if you stop going for your weekly or biweekly brainwashing

session (church), if you start reading documents critical of the kind of

brainwashing you've been receiving, you might fall from the flock, you

might lose your Christianity. But you know what? Some people NEED the

crutch of religion. They can't deal with the truth, they can't deal with

the possibility that there isn't a supreme being watching over their every

move and saving their stupid butt. So just as some people NEED religion,

some people NEED AA.

>AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

>believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop drinking

>like one.

I agree.

<major snippage>

>AA does harm by dedicating a entire chapter in their sacred text

>to assaulting agnostics ands atheists, threatening them with a

>choice of AA brand of spirituality or death, " prejudiced " and

>portraying them as:

I agree.

>not very tolerant of them huh? no other group feel need to attack

>non believers.

From the RR literature I've read, and the videos I've watched, I conclude

that RR is very hostile and attacks non-believers in RR.

If you mean that no other group feels the need to attck atheists/agnostics,

oh yes they do. Damn near every group there is. When I got up at a Texas

Farm Bureau meeting and said I felt it was inappropriate to open the

platform of the TFB with a prayer, I was booed off the stage. When I tried

to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. I couldn't

even get them to include me as a person worth respecting--the platform says

" We believe in the right of every man to choose his own occupation; to be

rewarded according to his contribution to society... " I pointed out to the

delegates, many of them women, that according to these words, the TFB

doesn't believe in the right of every WOMAN to choose her own

occupation--what are we, slaves? I asked that 'person' be substituted for

'man'--my resolution was resoundly defeated.

The Texas Farm Bureau promotes and provides services to farmers and

ranchers. Yet they made it very clear to me that if I am not a Christian,

and a Christian woman willing to let my husband control my life, that I am

excluded. And yes, they most definitely attacked me.

When I was a delegate to the state Republican convention, I was very much

attacked because I objected to the same imposition of faith.

When Shrub was sworn in as president, the person giving the invocation

said, " Say 'Amen' if you believe in Jesus. " I guess Shrub doesn't want to

be my president, because I sure as hell didn't say amen.

>AA does harm because it promotes itself as the only way for

> " real " alcoholics and its members havemade it the standard in

>90% of treatment facilities when there is no evidence it s any

>better than notreatment, in fact it does worse than no treatment.

Well, I strongly disagree that it's worse than no treatment. AA has helped

thousands. I object to it being the standard for treatment. But RR does

harm when it says that no one needs self-help discussion groups, that AVRT

is the only thing you need to know, that you just have to decide not to

drink. RR does harm by denying the benefits of AA.

> aa does harm because it wastes peoples time! why should be

>be told to look to god for a cure to solve their problems?

Because humans have been looking to a god or gods to cure their problems

for thousands of years.

>AA does harm because it has a built in model for verbal and

>spiritual abuse for people who dont " stick with the winners " in

>AA.

And you don't think the same thing is true of RR? It has a built in model

for verbal abuse for people who don't abandon AA, who say that AA has

helped them.

The first requirement is that you see that any life run on self-will

can hardly be a success

I know an alcoholic who has a lot of self-will, or at least a lot of ego,

in that he keeps saying he's in control of his life, he doesn't want anyone

to tell him what to do, etc etc etc. Yet he was kicked out of the Navy for

drunkenness in 1976 or 78 and has been going downhill ever since. He

doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do, he keeps saying he's a grown

man and can make his own decisions--but his own decisions keep leading him

to alcohol.

Likewise, my BF said that all he needed to do was not drink and drive. But

of course when he drank, he got behind the wheel of a car. His will didn't

keep him from doing that.

I 'will' myself to lose weight. Have been for over 20 years now. But I keep

gaining weight. Willpower isn't enough.

>the world largest program for alcoholism, is based on a

>religious faith healing model from a 1920's cult, which was only

>applied to 40-70 people over a couple years in total before it was

>wrapped up into the big ball and called AA. there are so many

>flaws with the way AA was invented and applied to people over

>60 years, its laughable.

I agree.

>AA has nothing to do with alcoholism

I disagree. Any group of alcoholics seeking to combat their addiction has a

lot to do with alcoholism.

and at best it applies to

>small slice of people,

I'd say it applies to quite a large number of people. People who are free

to choose still choose AA over any other method, and AA works for many of

them.

and those who dont fit into that slice, or

>who balk at its relgious elments, are told its thier unwillingess to

>be open minded which will kill them. Very helpful indeed. you

>dont see any other group do that.

Oh, I've seen lots of groups do that. School groups, farming and ranching

groups, 4-H groups, neighborhood groups, groups purporting to help people

out of crises---I've seen that attitude in tons of groups.

Currently, that attitude can be seen in the Republican party.

>when newcomers ask how can they stay sober, rather than

>practical advise, they are taught, " read the bb, call your sponsor,

>hit your knees and pray " . why dont we just give them a ouija

>board while we're at it?

I agree, that kind of " advice " sucks. But they do receive some practical

advice in testimonies from others. And many times, people will get up and

say, " Well this is what worked for me.... " or some such. So they do

sometimes receive advice. But the advice to read the BB, pray, and call

your sponsor--well, that sucks.

>i dont see why i or anyone should be tolerant of AA and more

>than a treatment program from heavens gate (they were more

>successful in sobriety than AA is, at least until they took off for

>mothership) or $cientology (they already have one and claim a

>75% success rate).

You should be tolerant of what works for other people. Rational Recovery is

guilty of the same intolerance for which it condemns AA. That is

intolerable.

>no one would seriously suggest either of these models was

>legitimate,

Why not? If it keeps people sober.......

The State of Texas funds the Victory Outreach Fellowship rehab program,

which consists of nothing but Bible study and prayer. No AA, no analysis or

discussion of addiction, no nothing but bible study and prayer. I strongly

object to my tax dollars going to brainwash people, but you know what? It

works for some folks. And it's better to be high on Jesus than high on

cocaine. I just think that Christians should pay to brainwash other people

for Christianity and not expect the government to pay them to do it.

but for some reason when it comes to AA, cult

>manipulation, and faith healing models are somehow OK and

>legitimate.

But cult manipulation and faith healing are all around us--as close as your

Christian church, as close as your Bible. This is simply a sign of how much

influence Christians have on our government and our lifestyle.

also, for some reason, the people who point out the

>obvious gaping holes in these faith healing models are

>accused of being " angry " or lacking " serenity " . they cant argue

>the facts, they always attack the legitimacy of the person making

>the criticism.

A major flaw, I agree. But then again, alcoholics are famous for finding

reasons why things don't work for them, or for finding excuses why such and

such doesn't work so they might as well keep on drinking.

AA would dry up and blow away if

>people were given equal access to all the other programs,

Well, RR refuses to allow RR to have equal access with AA, by its

insistence that RR not be used in treatment centers. And, people who can

choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is?

>because there is no need for it, it doesn't work and it forces

>people into religious cult.

Many thousands of people have benefited from AA. To say it did not work for

them is to ignore the truth. Many Christians have not wavered in their

beliefs by going to AA. Some atheists/agnosts have made it work for them. I

know a lot of people who don't feel part of a religious cult, who haven't

been to AA in years, but who AA helped get sober. So yes, it can work, and

no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult.

[Guest guest]

>>

>> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not

>drinking. A

>> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not

>necessarily

>> leading a life of sobriety.

>

>Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry-

>drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean

>anything.

Hah.

did drugs. went to prison for 8 years. In prison, didn't

do drugs. When got out of prison, he was still addicted.

started using again. went into a treatment program and cleaned up for

a while but he was still addicted. started using again. If it was

simply a matter of choice, would not choose to lose. He faces prison

again, another 8 to 10 years. He doesn't want prison. He wants to be a part

of his son's life and watch his son grow up. wants to be on the

outside, working and playing and making love to women. But is an

addict. Until conquers his addiction, he will continue to use if he's

around the drug, and if he starts using he won't be able to stop. He will

do anything--*anything*--to get more cocaine.

My BF has been in jail 3 times, the longest length of time was for a year.

He didn't drink in jail. But he was still an alcoholic. He was still

addicted to alcohol. When he got out, he continued abusing. If all he had

to do was to stop drinking, then the first stint in jail would have cured

him. It didn't. He could't stay away from alcohol, couldn't say no to it,

couldn't put the bottle down once he began drinking.

And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional

attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems.

Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is

to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has

not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of

alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not

learned healthy outlets for them.

>Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

>problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

>problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

>for that.

So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a

lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-up anger

in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. Indeed, I think some

personalities (type As, for example) are more apt to become alcoholics than

other personalities.

I think some people need to *learn* how to solve problems without alcohol.

Some of them do indeed need a special program. YOU may not have needed a

special program (on the other hand, maybe you're a control freak jerk and

don't realize it) but that doesn't mean that NO ONE needs such a program.

Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped

drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-alcoholic

coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to

be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not

have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in

RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only

how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. He's 42, and

he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not

teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and

reacts like an alcoholic.

>I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with

>problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or

>nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug-

>alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for

>depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship

>problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the

>rest of my problems like any other adult.

I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address

how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do.

(There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed

mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but

I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem

solving, t hings like that.)

I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of

them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues.

(You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now

what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples

that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to

communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out

disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means

of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are

unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many

alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly

Joes--they use people.) Unfortunately, few alcoholics have insurance or

other access to any kind of useful therapy. I notice that most people who

have used Rational Recovery are middle to upper class, college educated,

and most have been able to carry on some semblance of normal life. Many, if

not most have gotten a college degree. Many have access to other means of

therapy. For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college

educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that

Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, that no other

alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help

group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at

worst. How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and

an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low

self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and

her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her

problems? People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they

can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded

facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still

charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all

the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her

questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which

were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate

them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real

counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most

likely to need counseling.

You don't even need to take a 23 year old female crack addict. Heck, I know

of men, Vietnam vets, non vets, whatever--who need some kind of therapy.

Like Robby, they think and react like an alcoholic, even though they're 40,

50, even 60 years old, even if they've had periods of non-drinking. They

have quick tempers which they find very hard to control. Homelessness and

joblessness are big issues amongst this population. Even if they get a job,

their quick temper and lack of ability to deal with the frustrations of

working for someone else quickly get them fired or cause them to storm off

the job in anger. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their

heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his

master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for

them? My understanding is that Jack Trimpey has always been gainfully

employed, he's always had a roof over his head, he's been a functioning

alcoholic. I think that goes for most of the people for whom RR has worked.

In short, their alcohol problem wasn't so bad that it ended in joblessness

and homelessness. So they found it easier to stop drinking than someone

who's entire life is consumed by alcohol. No surprise there. But it doesn't

give them license to dictate to the disadvantaged population what will and

will not work for them.

>Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and

>his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when

>I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading

>Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I

>had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from

>the kind of thinking that was harming me.

>

>If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's

>deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly.

I find it a big turn-off, as big of a turn-off as AA's attempts at programming.

>As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone

>is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but

>the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and

>not buy into any recovery program without that.

I totally agree with you here.

[Guest guest]

>>

>> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not

>drinking. A

>> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not

>necessarily

>> leading a life of sobriety.

>

>Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry-

>drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean

>anything.

Hah.

did drugs. went to prison for 8 years. In prison, didn't

do drugs. When got out of prison, he was still addicted.

started using again. went into a treatment program and cleaned up for

a while but he was still addicted. started using again. If it was

simply a matter of choice, would not choose to lose. He faces prison

again, another 8 to 10 years. He doesn't want prison. He wants to be a part

of his son's life and watch his son grow up. wants to be on the

outside, working and playing and making love to women. But is an

addict. Until conquers his addiction, he will continue to use if he's

around the drug, and if he starts using he won't be able to stop. He will

do anything--*anything*--to get more cocaine.

My BF has been in jail 3 times, the longest length of time was for a year.

He didn't drink in jail. But he was still an alcoholic. He was still

addicted to alcohol. When he got out, he continued abusing. If all he had

to do was to stop drinking, then the first stint in jail would have cured

him. It didn't. He could't stay away from alcohol, couldn't say no to it,

couldn't put the bottle down once he began drinking.

And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional

attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems.

Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is

to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has

not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of

alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not

learned healthy outlets for them.

>Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

>problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

>problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

>for that.

So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a

lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-up anger

in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. Indeed, I think some

personalities (type As, for example) are more apt to become alcoholics than

other personalities.

I think some people need to *learn* how to solve problems without alcohol.

Some of them do indeed need a special program. YOU may not have needed a

special program (on the other hand, maybe you're a control freak jerk and

don't realize it) but that doesn't mean that NO ONE needs such a program.

Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped

drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-alcoholic

coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to

be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not

have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in

RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only

how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. He's 42, and

he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not

teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and

reacts like an alcoholic.

>I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with

>problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or

>nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug-

>alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for

>depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship

>problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the

>rest of my problems like any other adult.

I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address

how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do.

(There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed

mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but

I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem

solving, t hings like that.)

I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of

them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues.

(You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now

what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples

that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to

communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out

disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means

of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are

unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many

alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly

Joes--they use people.) Unfortunately, few alcoholics have insurance or

other access to any kind of useful therapy. I notice that most people who

have used Rational Recovery are middle to upper class, college educated,

and most have been able to carry on some semblance of normal life. Many, if

not most have gotten a college degree. Many have access to other means of

therapy. For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college

educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that

Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, that no other

alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help

group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at

worst. How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and

an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low

self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and

her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her

problems? People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they

can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded

facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still

charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all

the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her

questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which

were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate

them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real

counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most

likely to need counseling.

You don't even need to take a 23 year old female crack addict. Heck, I know

of men, Vietnam vets, non vets, whatever--who need some kind of therapy.

Like Robby, they think and react like an alcoholic, even though they're 40,

50, even 60 years old, even if they've had periods of non-drinking. They

have quick tempers which they find very hard to control. Homelessness and

joblessness are big issues amongst this population. Even if they get a job,

their quick temper and lack of ability to deal with the frustrations of

working for someone else quickly get them fired or cause them to storm off

the job in anger. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their

heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his

master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for

them? My understanding is that Jack Trimpey has always been gainfully

employed, he's always had a roof over his head, he's been a functioning

alcoholic. I think that goes for most of the people for whom RR has worked.

In short, their alcohol problem wasn't so bad that it ended in joblessness

and homelessness. So they found it easier to stop drinking than someone

who's entire life is consumed by alcohol. No surprise there. But it doesn't

give them license to dictate to the disadvantaged population what will and

will not work for them.

>Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and

>his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when

>I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading

>Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I

>had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from

>the kind of thinking that was harming me.

>

>If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's

>deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly.

I find it a big turn-off, as big of a turn-off as AA's attempts at programming.

>As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone

>is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but

>the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and

>not buy into any recovery program without that.

I totally agree with you here.

[Guest guest]

>>

>> Something I will address in a future post is sobriety vs. not

>drinking. A

>> man in prison is a dry drunk; he isn't drinking, but he's not

>necessarily

>> leading a life of sobriety.

>

>Anyone who is not drinking is leading a life of sobriety. The dry-

>drunk term is simply a recovery house/aa term. It doesn't mean

>anything.

Hah.

did drugs. went to prison for 8 years. In prison, didn't

do drugs. When got out of prison, he was still addicted.

started using again. went into a treatment program and cleaned up for

a while but he was still addicted. started using again. If it was

simply a matter of choice, would not choose to lose. He faces prison

again, another 8 to 10 years. He doesn't want prison. He wants to be a part

of his son's life and watch his son grow up. wants to be on the

outside, working and playing and making love to women. But is an

addict. Until conquers his addiction, he will continue to use if he's

around the drug, and if he starts using he won't be able to stop. He will

do anything--*anything*--to get more cocaine.

My BF has been in jail 3 times, the longest length of time was for a year.

He didn't drink in jail. But he was still an alcoholic. He was still

addicted to alcohol. When he got out, he continued abusing. If all he had

to do was to stop drinking, then the first stint in jail would have cured

him. It didn't. He could't stay away from alcohol, couldn't say no to it,

couldn't put the bottle down once he began drinking.

And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the emotional

attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through problems.

Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first inclination is

to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of sobriety. B. has

not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the crutch of

alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not

learned healthy outlets for them.

>Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

>problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

>problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

>for that.

So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There are a

lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-up anger

in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that. Indeed, I think some

personalities (type As, for example) are more apt to become alcoholics than

other personalities.

I think some people need to *learn* how to solve problems without alcohol.

Some of them do indeed need a special program. YOU may not have needed a

special program (on the other hand, maybe you're a control freak jerk and

don't realize it) but that doesn't mean that NO ONE needs such a program.

Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's stopped

drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-alcoholic

coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very unwilling to

be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he does not

have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him interested in

RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn not only

how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions. He's 42, and

he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking did not

teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still thinks and

reacts like an alcoholic.

>I agree with you that there are many who drink to avoid dealing with

>problems (child abuse issues) or to deal with deprssion or

>nervousness may need other help. I don't agree that the average drug-

>alcohol program offers that kind of help. I needed treatment for

>depression and the help of a therapist to deal with some relationship

>problems. I used AVRT to stay sober (still do) and dealt with the

>rest of my problems like any other adult.

I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not address

how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s ome do.

(There is something in San called the n Movement, aimed

mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them, but

I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem

solving, t hings like that.)

I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe many of

them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological issues.

(You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k now

what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of examples

that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't know how to

communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and talk out

disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and use " unhealthy " means

of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are

unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view. Many

alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really friendly

Joes--they use people.) Unfortunately, few alcoholics have insurance or

other access to any kind of useful therapy. I notice that most people who

have used Rational Recovery are middle to upper class, college educated,

and most have been able to carry on some semblance of normal life. Many, if

not most have gotten a college degree. Many have access to other means of

therapy. For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college

educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim that

Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs, that no other

alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or self-help

group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and destructive at

worst. How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and

an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job skills, low

self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she needs, and

her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to handle her

problems? People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they

can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way funded

facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they still

charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air) but all

the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I answered her

questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real problems, which

were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't articulate

them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no real

counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones most

likely to need counseling.

You don't even need to take a 23 year old female crack addict. Heck, I know

of men, Vietnam vets, non vets, whatever--who need some kind of therapy.

Like Robby, they think and react like an alcoholic, even though they're 40,

50, even 60 years old, even if they've had periods of non-drinking. They

have quick tempers which they find very hard to control. Homelessness and

joblessness are big issues amongst this population. Even if they get a job,

their quick temper and lack of ability to deal with the frustrations of

working for someone else quickly get them fired or cause them to storm off

the job in anger. They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their

heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey, with his

master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't work for

them? My understanding is that Jack Trimpey has always been gainfully

employed, he's always had a roof over his head, he's been a functioning

alcoholic. I think that goes for most of the people for whom RR has worked.

In short, their alcohol problem wasn't so bad that it ended in joblessness

and homelessness. So they found it easier to stop drinking than someone

who's entire life is consumed by alcohol. No surprise there. But it doesn't

give them license to dictate to the disadvantaged population what will and

will not work for them.

>Many do not like Jack Trimpey's way of writing about addiction and

>his attacks on other progams. However, I read some of his stuff when

>I first left AA, sobering up after a big drunk. Believe me, reading

>Jack's " diatribes " helped to show me how ridiculous the AA doctines I

>had sheepfully accepted were. I needed that to help me deprogram from

>the kind of thinking that was harming me.

>

>If you look on Jack's stuff from the the standpoint of it's

>deprogramming benefits, you can see it's value more clearly.

I find it a big turn-off, as big of a turn-off as AA's attempts at programming.

>As far as other programs go, I think anything that will help someone

>is okay. Like others here, though, I think people need a choice, but

>the need to arm themselves with with the necessary information and

>not buy into any recovery program without that.

I totally agree with you here.

[Guest guest]

> the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

They attempt to get around this by claiming that you can choose

any " God " or " Higher Power " that you desire. They would never get

away with it if they were preaching that everyone had to be baptists,

for example. However, I do believe that they have evolved into a

religion of their own. There are concrete ways that the " higher

power " works and the people involved are told specifically what to

pray for and what to expect in return.

The AAs in sobriety, working their program become the " chosen " ones

(a concept that is personally repugnant to me, no matter what

religion it crops its ugly head in). If it weren't for the

alcoholism that led the person to the program, they'd be just like

any other schmoe! Yay for alcoholism and hallelujah!!!! You gotta

sin to be saved...........

When I was still trying to fit in there, I started conceptualizing

the HP as my own personal little genie or demon, since the idea of a

REAL god stooping to all this shit was impossible for me. This one

had nothing better to do than harp at me and throw cunning obstacles

in my path. I'm so glad I got sick of the beggar and killed it off!

Of course, I didn't get around to mentioning in my meetings that this

is what the HP had disintegrated into. It wouldn't have been

seemly. But I couldn't hide that I just wasn't buying it.

> AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

> life or die (as told by bill wilson)

And yet, everyone knows that this is untrue and that the membership

is pretty darned fluid. They come in, they go out, they binge, they

come back, they repent, are forgiven again and again. Some drink all

the while they go to meetings and sit there and spout it anyway.

Yet, I suppose that AA stills sees these people as " working their

program " and learning even more humility through their repeated

trials and their " self-will run riot. " They have an answer for

everything. Usually this answer tends to make the questioner feel

like shit for saying anything. Even one of my non-alcoholic, non-AA

friends cautioned me about " having too much ego, " when I began to

more publicly question the dogma.

>

> AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

> believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop

drinking

> like one.

I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My

name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every

time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about

actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling

and humiliting myself that was really getting to me.

==============

Thanks for the great post!

[Guest guest]

> the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

They attempt to get around this by claiming that you can choose

any " God " or " Higher Power " that you desire. They would never get

away with it if they were preaching that everyone had to be baptists,

for example. However, I do believe that they have evolved into a

religion of their own. There are concrete ways that the " higher

power " works and the people involved are told specifically what to

pray for and what to expect in return.

The AAs in sobriety, working their program become the " chosen " ones

(a concept that is personally repugnant to me, no matter what

religion it crops its ugly head in). If it weren't for the

alcoholism that led the person to the program, they'd be just like

any other schmoe! Yay for alcoholism and hallelujah!!!! You gotta

sin to be saved...........

When I was still trying to fit in there, I started conceptualizing

the HP as my own personal little genie or demon, since the idea of a

REAL god stooping to all this shit was impossible for me. This one

had nothing better to do than harp at me and throw cunning obstacles

in my path. I'm so glad I got sick of the beggar and killed it off!

Of course, I didn't get around to mentioning in my meetings that this

is what the HP had disintegrated into. It wouldn't have been

seemly. But I couldn't hide that I just wasn't buying it.

> AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

> life or die (as told by bill wilson)

And yet, everyone knows that this is untrue and that the membership

is pretty darned fluid. They come in, they go out, they binge, they

come back, they repent, are forgiven again and again. Some drink all

the while they go to meetings and sit there and spout it anyway.

Yet, I suppose that AA stills sees these people as " working their

program " and learning even more humility through their repeated

trials and their " self-will run riot. " They have an answer for

everything. Usually this answer tends to make the questioner feel

like shit for saying anything. Even one of my non-alcoholic, non-AA

friends cautioned me about " having too much ego, " when I began to

more publicly question the dogma.

>

> AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

> believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop

drinking

> like one.

I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My

name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every

time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about

actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling

and humiliting myself that was really getting to me.

==============

Thanks for the great post!

[Guest guest]

> the difference is AA LIES. aa lies when it says it not religious.

They attempt to get around this by claiming that you can choose

any " God " or " Higher Power " that you desire. They would never get

away with it if they were preaching that everyone had to be baptists,

for example. However, I do believe that they have evolved into a

religion of their own. There are concrete ways that the " higher

power " works and the people involved are told specifically what to

pray for and what to expect in return.

The AAs in sobriety, working their program become the " chosen " ones

(a concept that is personally repugnant to me, no matter what

religion it crops its ugly head in). If it weren't for the

alcoholism that led the person to the program, they'd be just like

any other schmoe! Yay for alcoholism and hallelujah!!!! You gotta

sin to be saved...........

When I was still trying to fit in there, I started conceptualizing

the HP as my own personal little genie or demon, since the idea of a

REAL god stooping to all this shit was impossible for me. This one

had nothing better to do than harp at me and throw cunning obstacles

in my path. I'm so glad I got sick of the beggar and killed it off!

Of course, I didn't get around to mentioning in my meetings that this

is what the HP had disintegrated into. It wouldn't have been

seemly. But I couldn't hide that I just wasn't buying it.

> AA causes harm when they tell people you need to work aa for

> life or die (as told by bill wilson)

And yet, everyone knows that this is untrue and that the membership

is pretty darned fluid. They come in, they go out, they binge, they

come back, they repent, are forgiven again and again. Some drink all

the while they go to meetings and sit there and spout it anyway.

Yet, I suppose that AA stills sees these people as " working their

program " and learning even more humility through their repeated

trials and their " self-will run riot. " They have an answer for

everything. Usually this answer tends to make the questioner feel

like shit for saying anything. Even one of my non-alcoholic, non-AA

friends cautioned me about " having too much ego, " when I began to

more publicly question the dogma.

>

> AA does harm by making a box for people which limits them to

> believing they are forever alcoholics, even after they stop

drinking

> like one.

I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi. My

name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it every

time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about

actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the self-labeling

and humiliting myself that was really getting to me.

==============

Thanks for the great post!

[Guest guest]

> And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the

emotional

> attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through

problems.

> Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first

inclination is

> to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of

sobriety. B. has

> not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the

crutch of

> alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not

> learned healthy outl

Do you think his anger and frustrations are keeping him from staying

motivated to stop drinking? If someone is going to use AVRT

successfully, s/he needs to be motivated and stay motivated to stay

away from alcohol.

What I'm saying here is that you have to separate the technique AVRT

from the other problems folks might have. I still think AVRT is

enough to actually stay off the sauce. Therapy, anger management, and

other help may be necessary to stay motivated.

I agree that once someone is homeless or has little or no social

support or reason to stay sober, AVRT alone is difficult. You need to

have a life to stay motivated. Again, it's a matter of desire. You

have to want to quit and stay quit to use it.

I think that most people in AA are using AVRT naively to stay sober,

and the rest of the stuff they do is just extra--stuff designed to

keep them in AA.

> >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

> >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

> >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

> >for that.

>

> So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There

are a

> lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-

up anger

> in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that.

The thing is, there's a lot of them in AA, a lot of them who have

been in therapy, and a lot of jerks and control freaks who never

drank at all. The world is full of jerks. I happen to think there's a

higher concentration of them in AA, because the AA program suppresses

anger and worsens depression in a lot of it's adherents.

RR doesnt' pretend to deal with such things. AVRT is just as basic as

you can get, and folks who want to quit drinking are free to use it

are free to try anything else to help them solve their other

problems.

> Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's

stopped

> drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-

alcoholic

> coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very

unwilling to

> be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he

does not

> have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him

interested in

> RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn

not only

> how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions.

Again, people with emotional problems don't need a drug-alcohol

program to deal with them.

>He's 42, and

> he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking

did not

> teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still

thinks and

> reacts like an alcoholic.

I don't understand what " react like an alcoholic " means. Is he still

drinking?

> I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not

address

> how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s

ome do.

Which ones? And why would a drug-alcohol treatment program have to

deal with depression and other problems, except perhaps to make

referrals to the proper help for such problems, the same types of

help available to anyone?

> (There is something in San called the n Movement,

aimed

> mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about

them, but

> I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem

> solving, t hings like that.)

> I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe

many of

> them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological

issues.

I'm with you on that. But alcohol-drug treatment isn't going to help

these people. They need to go to mental health practicioners. And

someone who is treated for mental illness *can* use AVRT.

> (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k

now

> what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of

examples

> that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't

know how to

> communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and

talk out

> disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and

use " unhealthy " means

> of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are

> unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view.

Many

> alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really

friendly

> Joes--they use people.)

See, I just can't agree with any of that, except to say that a lot of

folks in AA are like that but I think that's directly due to the AA

program and not because they've stopped drinking.

One of the most destructive dogmas floating around today is the

notion that folks who once had drinking problems are by nature more

selfish, dishonest, and angry and lacking social skills than non-

problem drinkers. That's dogma, not fact. It's the acceptance of just

this kind of dogma that underlies willingness of society to force the

12-steps down the throats of anyone they can get their lunchooks into.

>For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college

> educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim

that

> Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs,

may I add " to quit drinking. "

that no other

> alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or

self-help

> group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and

destructive at

> worst.

I was not aware that RR said adults can't get talk therapy if they

need it, or treatment for depression, or any other help or therapy.

Can you show me where in Jack's writings he says this?

How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and

> an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job

skills, low

> self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she

needs, and

> her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to

handle her

> problems?

I wouldn't tell her that, and I doubt RR would either. RR would help

her arm herself with AVRT to stay off crack. Then she could avail

herself of help at the local women's shelter, mental health services,

college, and other services to solve the rest of her problems. It

would be a long row to hoe, but she'd have a lot more time to fix her

problems since she wouldn't have nightly meetings to waste her time

at and meet criminals in.

>People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they

> can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way

funded

> facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they

still

> charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air)

but all

> the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I

answered her

> questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real

problems, which

> were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't

articulate

> them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go.

> Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no

real

> counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones

most

> likely to need counseling.

Some counselors donate time out of the local clinics. That's how I

found one. I lucked out though--she was good. At the same time I got

treament for depression at the local clinic as well. I did all this

while using AVRT to stay off the sauce.

They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their

> heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey,

with his

> master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't

work for

> them?

I'm not sure Jack Trimpey is telling them what to do about

homelessness, anger, and instability. I'm not sure any method of

getting off the sauce can do that, or should do that, since not

everyone who drinks is homeless, angry, or unstable. Why is it so

important to see these problems as falling under the auspices

of " alcoholism? "

best,

[Guest guest]

> And even though he's been sober for over a year, he still has the

emotional

> attitude of an alcoholic. He still doesn't want to work through

problems.

> Instead, when faced with an obstacle or a problem, his first

inclination is

> to say " fuck it' and start drinking. This is not a life of

sobriety. B. has

> not learned how to deal with life's ups and downs without the

crutch of

> alcohol. He still bottles up his anger, his frustrations. He has not

> learned healthy outl

Do you think his anger and frustrations are keeping him from staying

motivated to stop drinking? If someone is going to use AVRT

successfully, s/he needs to be motivated and stay motivated to stay

away from alcohol.

What I'm saying here is that you have to separate the technique AVRT

from the other problems folks might have. I still think AVRT is

enough to actually stay off the sauce. Therapy, anger management, and

other help may be necessary to stay motivated.

I agree that once someone is homeless or has little or no social

support or reason to stay sober, AVRT alone is difficult. You need to

have a life to stay motivated. Again, it's a matter of desire. You

have to want to quit and stay quit to use it.

I think that most people in AA are using AVRT naively to stay sober,

and the rest of the stuff they do is just extra--stuff designed to

keep them in AA.

> >Most people who quit drinking and using manage to solve their

> >problems like other adults. The process of maturity and solving

> >problems without alcohol does that; a special program is not needed

> >for that.

>

> So what about 50 year olds who still display these problems? There

are a

> lot of older people who are control freaks and have a lot of pent-

up anger

> in t hem, who never learned how to deal with that.

The thing is, there's a lot of them in AA, a lot of them who have

been in therapy, and a lot of jerks and control freaks who never

drank at all. The world is full of jerks. I happen to think there's a

higher concentration of them in AA, because the AA program suppresses

anger and worsens depression in a lot of it's adherents.

RR doesnt' pretend to deal with such things. AVRT is just as basic as

you can get, and folks who want to quit drinking are free to use it

are free to try anything else to help them solve their other

problems.

> Robby has been in and out of treatment centers for years. He's

stopped

> drinking for over a year at time, but he's never learned non-

alcoholic

> coping skills and ways of dealing. He is very headstrong, very

unwilling to

> be told what to do--in short, he's a very willful person--yet he

does not

> have the self-will to stop drinking. (I have tried to get him

interested in

> RR to no avail.) He needs some kind of program. He needs to learn

not only

> how AVRT, but also how to deal with anger and other emotions.

Again, people with emotional problems don't need a drug-alcohol

program to deal with them.

>He's 42, and

> he has yet to learn these skills. Months and years of not drinking

did not

> teach him coping skills, or " life management " skills. He still

thinks and

> reacts like an alcoholic.

I don't understand what " react like an alcoholic " means. Is he still

drinking?

> I agree that the average drug-alcohol treatment program does not

address

> how to deal with depression or other problems ( " issues " ). I think s

ome do.

Which ones? And why would a drug-alcohol treatment program have to

deal with depression and other problems, except perhaps to make

referrals to the proper help for such problems, the same types of

help available to anyone?

> (There is something in San called the n Movement,

aimed

> mainly at heroin addicts, I think. I don't know a whole lot about

them, but

> I'm told they do a lot of study on the nature of addiction, problem

> solving, t hings like that.)

> I believe a lot of alcoholics would benefit from therapy. I believe

many of

> them are self-medicating due to depression or other psychological

issues.

I'm with you on that. But alcohol-drug treatment isn't going to help

these people. They need to go to mental health practicioners. And

someone who is treated for mental illness *can* use AVRT.

> (You mention " relationship problems " and while I won't pretend to k

now

> what your relationship problems are/were, I will toss a couple of

examples

> that are very common amongst alcoholics. Many alcoholics don't

know how to

> communicate in a healthy way. They don't know how to disagree and

talk out

> disgreements. They may feel unwanted and unloved and

use " unhealthy " means

> of seeking love and acceptance. Many, perhaps most, alcoholics are

> unyielding, unwilling to compromise or to accept another's view.

Many

> alcoholics are quite selfish, even if they appear to be really

friendly

> Joes--they use people.)

See, I just can't agree with any of that, except to say that a lot of

folks in AA are like that but I think that's directly due to the AA

program and not because they've stopped drinking.

One of the most destructive dogmas floating around today is the

notion that folks who once had drinking problems are by nature more

selfish, dishonest, and angry and lacking social skills than non-

problem drinkers. That's dogma, not fact. It's the acceptance of just

this kind of dogma that underlies willingness of society to force the

12-steps down the throats of anyone they can get their lunchooks into.

>For these overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, college

> educated people, mainly men, with access to health care to proclaim

that

> Rational Recovery is all any alcoholic/addict needs,

may I add " to quit drinking. "

that no other

> alcoholics/addicts need any kind of talk therapy or treatment or

self-help

> group or anything else, is naive at best and ignorant and

destructive at

> worst.

I was not aware that RR said adults can't get talk therapy if they

need it, or treatment for depression, or any other help or therapy.

Can you show me where in Jack's writings he says this?

How can any of you tell a 23 year old crack addict with 5 kids and

> an abusive spouse, with nowhere to live, nowhere to go, no job

skills, low

> self-esteem and low ability to function, that AVRT is all she

needs, and

> her problems will go away, or that she'll magically be able to

handle her

> problems?

I wouldn't tell her that, and I doubt RR would either. RR would help

her arm herself with AVRT to stay off crack. Then she could avail

herself of help at the local women's shelter, mental health services,

college, and other services to solve the rest of her problems. It

would be a long row to hoe, but she'd have a lot more time to fix her

problems since she wouldn't have nightly meetings to waste her time

at and meet criminals in.

>People like that need some sort of therapy, but of course they

> can't afford it. I've been to " therapy " at a low-cost, United Way

funded

> facility. I was suicidal and non-functioning, unemployed (but they

still

> charged me money, like it was supposed to appear out of thin air)

but all

> the therapist wanted to talk about was the men in my life. I

answered her

> questions and kept wondering when we would get to the real

problems, which

> were so deep and so complex and so overwhelming that I couldn't

articulate

> them. After a few sessions, she said I was all better and let me go.

> Nothing, absolutely nothing, was accomplished. There are almost no

real

> counseling opportunities for indigent people. And they are the ones

most

> likely to need counseling.

Some counselors donate time out of the local clinics. That's how I

found one. I lucked out though--she was good. At the same time I got

treament for depression at the local clinic as well. I did all this

while using AVRT to stay off the sauce.

They can't hold a job, they don't have a roof over their

> heads, they have no stability in their lives. Who is Jack Trimpey,

with his

> master's degree, to make pronouncements of what does and doesn't

work for

> them?

I'm not sure Jack Trimpey is telling them what to do about

homelessness, anger, and instability. I'm not sure any method of

getting off the sauce can do that, or should do that, since not

everyone who drinks is homeless, angry, or unstable. Why is it so

important to see these problems as falling under the auspices

of " alcoholism? "

best,

[Guest guest]

its a masochistic thing to do, even more so thanks to aa than it

would be to just lable yourself based on a previous condition or

past behavior. AA atatches all the supposed bagage they say

goes with being an alcohlic, selfish, decepetive, dishonest, ego

driven, etc.. and since you never are cured of it, to stand up and

say it in a meeting is slaping your own face publically, only it

seems ok becuase everyone is happy to see you do it.

funny we dont attach that shit on to smokers, and smoking is

harder to quit than drinking for most. (actualy msot people who

die in AA , die from smoking related ilness according one study).

peopel dont getin same trouble alcholics get into from smoking,

so they do it longer, and untill 15 yaers ago or so, most people

could ahev found aplace at work where they could smoke.

but we dont place the same baggage bill wilson would ahev us

place on alcoholics as we do other addctions, unless your in NA

i suppose

>

> I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi.

My

> name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it

every

> time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about

> actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the

self-labeling

> and humiliting myself that was really getting to me.

> ==============

> Thanks for the great post!

>

>

[Guest guest]

its a masochistic thing to do, even more so thanks to aa than it

would be to just lable yourself based on a previous condition or

past behavior. AA atatches all the supposed bagage they say

goes with being an alcohlic, selfish, decepetive, dishonest, ego

driven, etc.. and since you never are cured of it, to stand up and

say it in a meeting is slaping your own face publically, only it

seems ok becuase everyone is happy to see you do it.

funny we dont attach that shit on to smokers, and smoking is

harder to quit than drinking for most. (actualy msot people who

die in AA , die from smoking related ilness according one study).

peopel dont getin same trouble alcholics get into from smoking,

so they do it longer, and untill 15 yaers ago or so, most people

could ahev found aplace at work where they could smoke.

but we dont place the same baggage bill wilson would ahev us

place on alcoholics as we do other addctions, unless your in NA

i suppose

>

> I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi.

My

> name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it

every

> time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about

> actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the

self-labeling

> and humiliting myself that was really getting to me.

> ==============

> Thanks for the great post!

>

>