Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 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! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 >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. Oh, he's motivated to stop drinking. The alternative is prison and breaking up with me. But the staying motivated, through ups and downs, all the time, regardless of what happens to one, is the problem. >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. Like I said, sobriety is not just stopping drinking. If all AVRT helps one to do is to stop drinking, it's no better than AA. The key is to *stay* off the alcohol long-term, and to refuse to use regardless of what else happens in your life. >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. Yes, but at least AA has a program to deal with being a jerk and control freak--whether a person actually uses it or not is up to them. >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. But Trimpey boasts that they don't need anything else, that AVRT is all they need, and really talks down any kind of therapy, especially group self-help. That is what I say is damaging. >> 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. So you're saying that the only people who need to get sober are those without emotional problems? I think most alcoholics *have* emotional problems. If you (or Trimpey) is going to make the claim that AVRT is all an alcoholic needs to get and stay sober, then that needs to apply to the guys in the gutter as well as the company CEO. If you're going to rag on AA and say it should be " canceled " or banned, then you'd better come up with some other system that will help people like Robby. And Ron. And Cliff. And Felix. And all the other guys who weren't able to hold a job or keep a roof over their heads because of their drinking. >>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? React like an alcoholic: not be able to deal with ups and downs, go off the deep end at the slightest little provocation, not be able to rationally discuss issues, not be able to take any type of suggestions, a tendency to get upset at almost nothing, and want to go binge when he gets upset. Impulsiveness. Lack of rational control. Is he still drinking: depends. Right now, no. But, for example, some guys he works with were smoking pot in the truck last week. Robby doesn't like that, even though he smokes pot himself (he smokes at night.) He works in a dangerous line of business where you need to have your wits about you. Instead of telling the guys to knock it off, he's not going to tolerate that on the job, or talking to the boss, or doing any of the constructive t hings he could have done, Robby got out of the truck and left. This really made things difficult for his employer, as Robby was the only one in the truck with a drivers license, and the employer had to come from the other side of town, but didn't have a way to get the truck back. And Robby didn't call his boss. Robby may or may not still have a job--but certainly, employers don't want an employee that will fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. I think that, *if* one works the steps, one can address and deal with one's " defects of character " . We all have defects of character, we all have faults. That some people in AA use this as a heavy-handed mallet does not negate the fact that we all have faults we need to work on. AA also helps people learn to not react so violently to small setbacks. I don't see that with AVRT. >> 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? The n movement is one I was thinking of. Why? Because depression is a root source of alcoholism. Many alcoholics are depressed people who self-medicate with alcohol. And when you say " referrals to the proper help for such problems, the same types of help available to anyone " , just what did you have in mind? Because THERE ARE NO places to go for the kind of therapy that such people need, unless they have lots of money or insurance. When I lived in Austin, a so-called " liberal " city, I tried to help some poor people get into counseling. There is no free counseling, there is only some stuff that is low-cost, and it's very limited in its scope. And the " low-cost " is enough to be a burden for most people trying to use it--like a starting point of $15 per session if you're unemployed and have no income (like if you have no income, where are you supposed to get $15?). And you've got to have a telephone, and you've got to have a lot of other stuff that many alcoholics simply don't have. Like I said, if you're going to claim that AVRT is the *only* thing an alcoholic needs to get and stay sober, you need to make that apply universally to all alcoholics, not just to frat boys who drank too much alcohol in college and need to moderate their drinking, or to soccer moms who have a drink or 3 every evening in their $200,000 home. These people are functional. Heck, they hold high positions--look at Dan Rostenkowski, the (former senator? or representative?) from Illinois. And Ted Kennedy. He's a functional alcoholic. He may have a reputation for making an ass of himself, but he's been a senator for a number of years. But there are people who cannot function because of their cycle of depression/alcoholism/mood disorders. There is no counseling help available to them. *that* is why an effective alcohol rehab program needs to address these 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. And where might these mental health practicioners be? When I was unemployed, I went to MHMR. They don't have counseling to speak of, just asking you a few questions for their record keeping. Visits with the doc are less than 15 minutes, once every 3 months. You get medication at a discount, but you still have to pay for it. Needless to say, when I was unemployed, that was a huge burden. And MHMR is *very* difficult to get into. I called them when I was suicidal and non-functioning, and they told me to get on a 3 month waiting list at a (low cost, but one that still charged) counseling center, where I'd be limited to 6 sessions. AA has a lot of faults, one being its forced religious aspect, but it does at least attempt to help those alcoholics with mental health issues. I will agree that the idea of " I'm worthless and incapable and can't do shit without god " aspect is damaging and self-defeating, though. I was raised Christian, a combination of Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Episcopalian. I'm still dealing with the bullshit that my early Christian upbringing saddled me with--a lot of guilt, a lot of angst. But Christianity has helped others lead good lives, and it has helped people turn from lives of crime to lives of virtue. I hate to see it foisted on anyone, but I also realize that some people need it. >> (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. I'm thinking about people who either haven't been to AA, or have warmed the seats but not done the steps, haven't participated in the program. So it's not from AA. I also base what I said on talking with alcoholics and alcohol counselors, including the one who leads the RR and SOS meetings. >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. Okay, so its a theory. I'm not sure how you'd do a scientific study. But, IME, yes, people who have drinking problems are more socially maladapted, more angry, and have fewer coping skills than non-alcoholics. They also tend to have a poor self-image, which may also be combined with a high ego (which sounds like a contradiction, but it's not.) And I get this from 20+ years observing people with drinking problems--that was my belief long before I came in contact with AA. I've seen it more recently with some of the alcoholics I've tried to help out--they can't handle success, they can't handle doing well. Just when they're on the verge of getting their life together, they relapse and throw it all away. >>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. " But the goal is not just to quit drinking. Hell, people in AA do that all the time. It's to *stay sober*. >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? > >From http://www.rational.org/AVRT.study.html STABLE ABSTINENCE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION ON ADDICTIVE VOICE RECOGNITION TECHNIQUE® (AVRTSM). By Jack Trimpey and Gates, May, 1998 Abstract: Ninety-two subjects who desired to quit the use of alcohol and other drugs were instructed on the method, Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT), during a seventeen month period. Sixty-five percent were found to be abstinent, using brief telephone queries by the instructor. <Major snipping> Since the Rational Recovery Center of Sacramento opened in January, 1997, a total of 105 persons have enrolled, thirteen of whom completed less than one half of AVRT: The Course. They left for various reasons, most commonly the persistent use of alcohol or drugs, which conflicted with class attendance. None were expelled. here's a contradiction in Trimpey's statistics: he uses the AA study which looks at those who *start* AA, not those who actually work the program. but for his statistics, he doesn't count those who started AVRT but did not complete it. A better comparison would be people who work the 12 steps::people who finish AVRT, or at least people who start AA::people who start AVRT. No abstinent subjects have attended recovery groups since AVRT: The Course. No abstinent subjects have received professional counseling for addictions. DISCUSSION While many addiction treatment programs produce optimistic initial abstinence rates following completion of the therapeutic program, results rarely reflect program dropout rates prior to completion, and the relapse rate usually increases with time following discharge. Moreover, aftercare typically requires intensive followup services including regular counseling sessions and frequent, even daily, attendance at recovery group meetings. During the 17-month window of this study, which involved no followup, aftercare services, or recovery group participation, no significant drop-off of abstinence was suggested by the data. Anecdotal evidence suggests that when subjects resume drinking/using following AVRT, they tend to remit promptly and spontaneously. No, Trimpey doesn't *forbid* people from getting counseling, but he says it's not needed. Again, he's approaching this from a middle to upper class, functional alcoholic standpoint--he's not considering all alcoholics or all drug addicts. I'm not going to pretend to know what percentage of drug addicts are " functional " --I know some are employed by Microsoft and other Silicon Valley firms, and do quite well, at least for a while--but ISTM that most drug addicts are not very functional, bouncing around from job to job, apartment to apartment, not taking care of their kids, etc. If Trimpey has a program that will only work for middle and upper class people with a stable life, he needs to be honest and say that. If he has a program that he says will work for all alcoholics and addicts who sincerely want to quit, he needs to address the issues that those people have. >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. You apparently don't know much about the services really available to someone in that position. You can't go to college if you don't have child care. In many states (like Wisconsin), they have " workfare " programs where people are supposed to work for their welfare benefits--but they don't provide child care. So mothers leave their 5 year olds in charge of their 2 year olds and hope the law doesn't find out. I used to work in a battered women's shelter, on the hotline. We were chronically full. Women could only stay for 30 days, not long enough to get job skills, get a job, and save up money to get a place of t heir own. Consequently, many returned to their batterers, because it was their only option. I got tons of calls from women needing help, and all I could do was give them telephone numbers that, when they called them, would give them more telephone numbers. I knew these women wouldn't get any real help. And what mental health services were you thinking this 23 year old crack addicted mother could avail herself of? Do you know of any free mental health services that I don't? Remember, I had this big book of all the social services in the most liberal city in Austin, and there were no free mental health services (except for MHMR, which you then had to pay for meds.) >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? " > Because alcoholism causes many people to be homeless and unstable. Because their mental health issues, or their lack of coping skills, or their quick temper, cause them to go off the h andle and turn to alcohol. Because it's a vicious cycle. Yes, people who are functioning, intelligent adults can frequently moderate or even end their alcohol usage on their own. More power to them. It seems that most of the people for whom AVRT works would be able to solve their alcohol problems without AVRT. For AVRT to be really successful, it needs to also be effective for those who are not very stable, who don't have their lives in order except for their little drinking problem. dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 >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. Oh, he's motivated to stop drinking. The alternative is prison and breaking up with me. But the staying motivated, through ups and downs, all the time, regardless of what happens to one, is the problem. >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. Like I said, sobriety is not just stopping drinking. If all AVRT helps one to do is to stop drinking, it's no better than AA. The key is to *stay* off the alcohol long-term, and to refuse to use regardless of what else happens in your life. >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. Yes, but at least AA has a program to deal with being a jerk and control freak--whether a person actually uses it or not is up to them. >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. But Trimpey boasts that they don't need anything else, that AVRT is all they need, and really talks down any kind of therapy, especially group self-help. That is what I say is damaging. >> 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. So you're saying that the only people who need to get sober are those without emotional problems? I think most alcoholics *have* emotional problems. If you (or Trimpey) is going to make the claim that AVRT is all an alcoholic needs to get and stay sober, then that needs to apply to the guys in the gutter as well as the company CEO. If you're going to rag on AA and say it should be " canceled " or banned, then you'd better come up with some other system that will help people like Robby. And Ron. And Cliff. And Felix. And all the other guys who weren't able to hold a job or keep a roof over their heads because of their drinking. >>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? React like an alcoholic: not be able to deal with ups and downs, go off the deep end at the slightest little provocation, not be able to rationally discuss issues, not be able to take any type of suggestions, a tendency to get upset at almost nothing, and want to go binge when he gets upset. Impulsiveness. Lack of rational control. Is he still drinking: depends. Right now, no. But, for example, some guys he works with were smoking pot in the truck last week. Robby doesn't like that, even though he smokes pot himself (he smokes at night.) He works in a dangerous line of business where you need to have your wits about you. Instead of telling the guys to knock it off, he's not going to tolerate that on the job, or talking to the boss, or doing any of the constructive t hings he could have done, Robby got out of the truck and left. This really made things difficult for his employer, as Robby was the only one in the truck with a drivers license, and the employer had to come from the other side of town, but didn't have a way to get the truck back. And Robby didn't call his boss. Robby may or may not still have a job--but certainly, employers don't want an employee that will fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. I think that, *if* one works the steps, one can address and deal with one's " defects of character " . We all have defects of character, we all have faults. That some people in AA use this as a heavy-handed mallet does not negate the fact that we all have faults we need to work on. AA also helps people learn to not react so violently to small setbacks. I don't see that with AVRT. >> 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? The n movement is one I was thinking of. Why? Because depression is a root source of alcoholism. Many alcoholics are depressed people who self-medicate with alcohol. And when you say " referrals to the proper help for such problems, the same types of help available to anyone " , just what did you have in mind? Because THERE ARE NO places to go for the kind of therapy that such people need, unless they have lots of money or insurance. When I lived in Austin, a so-called " liberal " city, I tried to help some poor people get into counseling. There is no free counseling, there is only some stuff that is low-cost, and it's very limited in its scope. And the " low-cost " is enough to be a burden for most people trying to use it--like a starting point of $15 per session if you're unemployed and have no income (like if you have no income, where are you supposed to get $15?). And you've got to have a telephone, and you've got to have a lot of other stuff that many alcoholics simply don't have. Like I said, if you're going to claim that AVRT is the *only* thing an alcoholic needs to get and stay sober, you need to make that apply universally to all alcoholics, not just to frat boys who drank too much alcohol in college and need to moderate their drinking, or to soccer moms who have a drink or 3 every evening in their $200,000 home. These people are functional. Heck, they hold high positions--look at Dan Rostenkowski, the (former senator? or representative?) from Illinois. And Ted Kennedy. He's a functional alcoholic. He may have a reputation for making an ass of himself, but he's been a senator for a number of years. But there are people who cannot function because of their cycle of depression/alcoholism/mood disorders. There is no counseling help available to them. *that* is why an effective alcohol rehab program needs to address these 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. And where might these mental health practicioners be? When I was unemployed, I went to MHMR. They don't have counseling to speak of, just asking you a few questions for their record keeping. Visits with the doc are less than 15 minutes, once every 3 months. You get medication at a discount, but you still have to pay for it. Needless to say, when I was unemployed, that was a huge burden. And MHMR is *very* difficult to get into. I called them when I was suicidal and non-functioning, and they told me to get on a 3 month waiting list at a (low cost, but one that still charged) counseling center, where I'd be limited to 6 sessions. AA has a lot of faults, one being its forced religious aspect, but it does at least attempt to help those alcoholics with mental health issues. I will agree that the idea of " I'm worthless and incapable and can't do shit without god " aspect is damaging and self-defeating, though. I was raised Christian, a combination of Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Episcopalian. I'm still dealing with the bullshit that my early Christian upbringing saddled me with--a lot of guilt, a lot of angst. But Christianity has helped others lead good lives, and it has helped people turn from lives of crime to lives of virtue. I hate to see it foisted on anyone, but I also realize that some people need it. >> (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. I'm thinking about people who either haven't been to AA, or have warmed the seats but not done the steps, haven't participated in the program. So it's not from AA. I also base what I said on talking with alcoholics and alcohol counselors, including the one who leads the RR and SOS meetings. >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. Okay, so its a theory. I'm not sure how you'd do a scientific study. But, IME, yes, people who have drinking problems are more socially maladapted, more angry, and have fewer coping skills than non-alcoholics. They also tend to have a poor self-image, which may also be combined with a high ego (which sounds like a contradiction, but it's not.) And I get this from 20+ years observing people with drinking problems--that was my belief long before I came in contact with AA. I've seen it more recently with some of the alcoholics I've tried to help out--they can't handle success, they can't handle doing well. Just when they're on the verge of getting their life together, they relapse and throw it all away. >>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. " But the goal is not just to quit drinking. Hell, people in AA do that all the time. It's to *stay sober*. >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? > >From http://www.rational.org/AVRT.study.html STABLE ABSTINENCE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION ON ADDICTIVE VOICE RECOGNITION TECHNIQUE® (AVRTSM). By Jack Trimpey and Gates, May, 1998 Abstract: Ninety-two subjects who desired to quit the use of alcohol and other drugs were instructed on the method, Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT), during a seventeen month period. Sixty-five percent were found to be abstinent, using brief telephone queries by the instructor. <Major snipping> Since the Rational Recovery Center of Sacramento opened in January, 1997, a total of 105 persons have enrolled, thirteen of whom completed less than one half of AVRT: The Course. They left for various reasons, most commonly the persistent use of alcohol or drugs, which conflicted with class attendance. None were expelled. here's a contradiction in Trimpey's statistics: he uses the AA study which looks at those who *start* AA, not those who actually work the program. but for his statistics, he doesn't count those who started AVRT but did not complete it. A better comparison would be people who work the 12 steps::people who finish AVRT, or at least people who start AA::people who start AVRT. No abstinent subjects have attended recovery groups since AVRT: The Course. No abstinent subjects have received professional counseling for addictions. DISCUSSION While many addiction treatment programs produce optimistic initial abstinence rates following completion of the therapeutic program, results rarely reflect program dropout rates prior to completion, and the relapse rate usually increases with time following discharge. Moreover, aftercare typically requires intensive followup services including regular counseling sessions and frequent, even daily, attendance at recovery group meetings. During the 17-month window of this study, which involved no followup, aftercare services, or recovery group participation, no significant drop-off of abstinence was suggested by the data. Anecdotal evidence suggests that when subjects resume drinking/using following AVRT, they tend to remit promptly and spontaneously. No, Trimpey doesn't *forbid* people from getting counseling, but he says it's not needed. Again, he's approaching this from a middle to upper class, functional alcoholic standpoint--he's not considering all alcoholics or all drug addicts. I'm not going to pretend to know what percentage of drug addicts are " functional " --I know some are employed by Microsoft and other Silicon Valley firms, and do quite well, at least for a while--but ISTM that most drug addicts are not very functional, bouncing around from job to job, apartment to apartment, not taking care of their kids, etc. If Trimpey has a program that will only work for middle and upper class people with a stable life, he needs to be honest and say that. If he has a program that he says will work for all alcoholics and addicts who sincerely want to quit, he needs to address the issues that those people have. >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. You apparently don't know much about the services really available to someone in that position. You can't go to college if you don't have child care. In many states (like Wisconsin), they have " workfare " programs where people are supposed to work for their welfare benefits--but they don't provide child care. So mothers leave their 5 year olds in charge of their 2 year olds and hope the law doesn't find out. I used to work in a battered women's shelter, on the hotline. We were chronically full. Women could only stay for 30 days, not long enough to get job skills, get a job, and save up money to get a place of t heir own. Consequently, many returned to their batterers, because it was their only option. I got tons of calls from women needing help, and all I could do was give them telephone numbers that, when they called them, would give them more telephone numbers. I knew these women wouldn't get any real help. And what mental health services were you thinking this 23 year old crack addicted mother could avail herself of? Do you know of any free mental health services that I don't? Remember, I had this big book of all the social services in the most liberal city in Austin, and there were no free mental health services (except for MHMR, which you then had to pay for meds.) >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? " > Because alcoholism causes many people to be homeless and unstable. Because their mental health issues, or their lack of coping skills, or their quick temper, cause them to go off the h andle and turn to alcohol. Because it's a vicious cycle. Yes, people who are functioning, intelligent adults can frequently moderate or even end their alcohol usage on their own. More power to them. It seems that most of the people for whom AVRT works would be able to solve their alcohol problems without AVRT. For AVRT to be really successful, it needs to also be effective for those who are not very stable, who don't have their lives in order except for their little drinking problem. dixie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 At 11:35 AM 2/3/01 -0600, dixie@... wrote: >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. Dixie, for someone who doesn't like AA, you sure use a lot of AA terms. The terms 'dry drunk' and 'a life of sobriety' are used almost exclusively by AA'ers, AA supporters, and those who have learned everything they know about 'recovery from the disease of alcoholism' from AA and/or 12-step-oriented [almost all] treatment centers. Look up sobriety in any dictionary, and see how its meaning differs from AA usage. I don't think I ever heard 'abstinence from alcohol' in an AA meeting - they've already got another word they use for it. ----- http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 At 11:35 AM 2/3/01 -0600, dixie@... wrote: >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. Dixie, for someone who doesn't like AA, you sure use a lot of AA terms. The terms 'dry drunk' and 'a life of sobriety' are used almost exclusively by AA'ers, AA supporters, and those who have learned everything they know about 'recovery from the disease of alcoholism' from AA and/or 12-step-oriented [almost all] treatment centers. Look up sobriety in any dictionary, and see how its meaning differs from AA usage. I don't think I ever heard 'abstinence from alcohol' in an AA meeting - they've already got another word they use for it. ----- http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 , I agree with almost every point you made about RR...I had held the same belief since I learned AVRT and started e-mail's back and forth with Jack Trimpey. AVRT is a simple and perfectly effective way to achieve secure abstinence. Once secure abstinence is achieved (which can be done very, very quickly,) other life problems take on an entirely different appearance, because alcohol and drugs are no longer mixed in. RR does nothing to address problems outside the domain of the core of addiction, nor should it attempt to (IMO). By simply posing a method for planned abstinence, it demands very little from the individual wishing to become abstinent, and allows him/her to focus the remaining energy on tackling the rest of life's difficulties. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > Dixie, for someone who doesn't like AA, you sure use a lot of AA >terms. The terms 'dry drunk' and 'a life of sobriety' are used almost >exclusively by AA'ers, AA supporters, and those who have learned >everything they know about 'recovery from the disease of alcoholism' >from AA and/or 12-step-oriented [almost all] treatment centers. I've investigated a number of options, including AA, SOS, and RR. I've taken some good from all of them, and have found things I dislike about all of them. (Well, I really like SOS, actually.) In my early 20's, I lived in Santa Fe, NM, and did a bit of spiritual exploration. I think there's nothing wrong with being spiritual, and while I only dabbled in New Ageism, (I've been an ardent atheist since age 11 or 12) I dated an ex-Rajneeshi, had friends who were Sikhs, and friends of every description of New Ageism. I learned from them, thought about what they had to say, and decided whether I accepted it or not. As an atheist, I strongly dislike AA's forced religious aspect. But I also realize there is value in discovering spirituality, however one describes that spirituality. It could be a respect for life, such as leaving old growth forests alone, and respecting the millions of different species that make up our world. It could be a simple appreciation of a beautiful sunset, without having to say, " Look at what God hath wrought. " Thus, I like AA's aspect of looking inward, of doing a self-assessment, of figuring out what and how to improve about oneself. I think that is something we *all* should do, addict, alcoholic, or one who has never touched an intoxicating substance. AA couches it in terms of religion, which is unfortunate. I have tried to figure out how to customize the 12 steps, and haven't been very successful. Still, I feel there is something of value in AA. They've got some ideas that are headed in the right direction, but their implementation is all wrong. But to say that AA has never helped anyone, to say that there is nothing of value in AA, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I for one appreciate the thoughts embodied in the serenity prayer, even though I don't believe in a deity. I think it's a good thing to remind ourselves of: you can't change everything or everyone, so you shouldn't try. You can change yourself, and you can change some other things, and those things, you should try to change. If you don't learn what the difference is, you'll be miserable trying to change the t hings you can't, and you'll be ineffective by not changing the things you can. There is a difference between simply stopping drinking, which alcoholics do all the time, and recovering from one's addiction, or living a life of sobriety. Unfortunately, I think that it's very hard to live a life of sobriety if you just take sobriety one day at a time. I also know that many alcoholics experience inner turmoil, and use alcohol as a coping mechanism. It is helpful to find ways to deal with and reconcile that inner turmoil. This experience and the resulting effect can be termed serenity. I like serenity. It's what I feel when I go hiking in the mountains. It's what I feel when I'm not being pulled in a dozen different directions at once. It's what I feel when I take a walk with my dogs or go horseback riding in the fields. For me, it has nothing to do with alcohol, except that when I *don't* feel serene, or when I'm feeling the opposite of serenity, I'm more inclined to need some sort of drug (read: alcohol) to help me cope with that lack of serenity, of internal peacefulness. I had a boyfriend who was a Lutheran. I went to Easter services with him, and when we left, I asked him how he felt. After all, for believers, this was the day that Christ had risen. This was the day that they new life began. Christ had died for our sins and was raised up to heaven, and through that, Christians experience new life. He had just partaken of bread and wine which represented Christ's body and blood. I know that if I was a believer, I would have been filled with an overwhelming sense of holiness, oneness with my lord, and a feeling of peace and serenity. Hal's response when I asked him how he felt was to shrug: he didn't feel any different than he had before church. Oh well. But other people (particularly Catholics, who believe that they actually partake of Christ's body and blood, not just representations of such) are filled with a sense of peace and serenity after communion. (Though why eating flesh and drinking blood should make you feel peaceful........) That AA uses the term 'dry drunk' and 'life of sobriety' does not invalidate these terms or make them meaningless. As I said, I have learned from several different theories, and I have questioned (and continue to question) all of them. I have been raked over the coals on another list for criticizing AA, even though I said it had helped many people. I was told I didn't know anything about alcoholics or alcoholism (by someone whose brother drank himself to death--I wonder if his brother would still be alive if he had tried something other than AA?) I was told AA was the major program because it was the only one that worked. I looked up lots of materials when I was engaged in that discussion, and I was roundly criticized for having the audacity to criticize AA (and this was not on a list related to alcohol, although there were a few who had tried AA and one who had tried Moderation Management on the list.) A dry drunk is one who has not committed himself to living without alcohol; it's an alcoholic who doesn't have a drink. That doesn't mean that one has to work the 12 steps to free oneself of " dry drunk " , but as I have pointed out before, merely not having one's drug of choice doesn't mean that one has become " sober " or learned to live without that drug. If you dislike " dry drunk " , what would you term this person? What would you term someone who's inbetween relapses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > Dixie, for someone who doesn't like AA, you sure use a lot of AA >terms. The terms 'dry drunk' and 'a life of sobriety' are used almost >exclusively by AA'ers, AA supporters, and those who have learned >everything they know about 'recovery from the disease of alcoholism' >from AA and/or 12-step-oriented [almost all] treatment centers. I've investigated a number of options, including AA, SOS, and RR. I've taken some good from all of them, and have found things I dislike about all of them. (Well, I really like SOS, actually.) In my early 20's, I lived in Santa Fe, NM, and did a bit of spiritual exploration. I think there's nothing wrong with being spiritual, and while I only dabbled in New Ageism, (I've been an ardent atheist since age 11 or 12) I dated an ex-Rajneeshi, had friends who were Sikhs, and friends of every description of New Ageism. I learned from them, thought about what they had to say, and decided whether I accepted it or not. As an atheist, I strongly dislike AA's forced religious aspect. But I also realize there is value in discovering spirituality, however one describes that spirituality. It could be a respect for life, such as leaving old growth forests alone, and respecting the millions of different species that make up our world. It could be a simple appreciation of a beautiful sunset, without having to say, " Look at what God hath wrought. " Thus, I like AA's aspect of looking inward, of doing a self-assessment, of figuring out what and how to improve about oneself. I think that is something we *all* should do, addict, alcoholic, or one who has never touched an intoxicating substance. AA couches it in terms of religion, which is unfortunate. I have tried to figure out how to customize the 12 steps, and haven't been very successful. Still, I feel there is something of value in AA. They've got some ideas that are headed in the right direction, but their implementation is all wrong. But to say that AA has never helped anyone, to say that there is nothing of value in AA, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I for one appreciate the thoughts embodied in the serenity prayer, even though I don't believe in a deity. I think it's a good thing to remind ourselves of: you can't change everything or everyone, so you shouldn't try. You can change yourself, and you can change some other things, and those things, you should try to change. If you don't learn what the difference is, you'll be miserable trying to change the t hings you can't, and you'll be ineffective by not changing the things you can. There is a difference between simply stopping drinking, which alcoholics do all the time, and recovering from one's addiction, or living a life of sobriety. Unfortunately, I think that it's very hard to live a life of sobriety if you just take sobriety one day at a time. I also know that many alcoholics experience inner turmoil, and use alcohol as a coping mechanism. It is helpful to find ways to deal with and reconcile that inner turmoil. This experience and the resulting effect can be termed serenity. I like serenity. It's what I feel when I go hiking in the mountains. It's what I feel when I'm not being pulled in a dozen different directions at once. It's what I feel when I take a walk with my dogs or go horseback riding in the fields. For me, it has nothing to do with alcohol, except that when I *don't* feel serene, or when I'm feeling the opposite of serenity, I'm more inclined to need some sort of drug (read: alcohol) to help me cope with that lack of serenity, of internal peacefulness. I had a boyfriend who was a Lutheran. I went to Easter services with him, and when we left, I asked him how he felt. After all, for believers, this was the day that Christ had risen. This was the day that they new life began. Christ had died for our sins and was raised up to heaven, and through that, Christians experience new life. He had just partaken of bread and wine which represented Christ's body and blood. I know that if I was a believer, I would have been filled with an overwhelming sense of holiness, oneness with my lord, and a feeling of peace and serenity. Hal's response when I asked him how he felt was to shrug: he didn't feel any different than he had before church. Oh well. But other people (particularly Catholics, who believe that they actually partake of Christ's body and blood, not just representations of such) are filled with a sense of peace and serenity after communion. (Though why eating flesh and drinking blood should make you feel peaceful........) That AA uses the term 'dry drunk' and 'life of sobriety' does not invalidate these terms or make them meaningless. As I said, I have learned from several different theories, and I have questioned (and continue to question) all of them. I have been raked over the coals on another list for criticizing AA, even though I said it had helped many people. I was told I didn't know anything about alcoholics or alcoholism (by someone whose brother drank himself to death--I wonder if his brother would still be alive if he had tried something other than AA?) I was told AA was the major program because it was the only one that worked. I looked up lots of materials when I was engaged in that discussion, and I was roundly criticized for having the audacity to criticize AA (and this was not on a list related to alcohol, although there were a few who had tried AA and one who had tried Moderation Management on the list.) A dry drunk is one who has not committed himself to living without alcohol; it's an alcoholic who doesn't have a drink. That doesn't mean that one has to work the 12 steps to free oneself of " dry drunk " , but as I have pointed out before, merely not having one's drug of choice doesn't mean that one has become " sober " or learned to live without that drug. If you dislike " dry drunk " , what would you term this person? What would you term someone who's inbetween relapses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > >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. i dont think it silly at all. someone should stand up and say , " hey this era of perpetual recovering is harmful and its time for it to end " . RR as far as i know doesn't believe " support groups " are necessary. no one can stop you from attending a group. and why are they necessary? AA invented the modern model for support group, (well actually, if im not mistaken, they stole it from oxford group and washingtonians, both had models for public confession of sin) AA support group aren't self help, they are self helplessness. just try standing up in any meeting and say you dont need meetings or groups anymore, or you are recovered. > > 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 dont need to work AA god control for life to make a choice to not use. and if someone has taught anyone that, regardless of their religion, they are wrong. AA has NOTHING to do with alcoholism! it about turning you life over to god. people who dont believe in god people who dont are " confused " . AA has done more harm to society by lying about itself and alcoholism. i cant defend RR, im surprised there were no links on their page to other group as is custom to alternative programs. AA is only other group which doesn't post links to find different kinds of support. but i just remembered there is a reason for this, both AA and RR are for profit business! RR sells book and so does AA. the other groups are competition. there are others on this list who are better informed than me on RR. > 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. to be told that you NEED AA or you will die is EVIL. to be told that if you change your mind and dont need it anymore will cause you to destroy yourself, is EVIL, SELF SERVING AND DESTRUCTIVE TO HUMANITY. > 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 attack 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. i was referring to addiction programs. but i can see how his would happen in texas, the model state of tolerance;) When I tried> to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. i applaud your efforts, that took courage. 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 ownoccupation; 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. language is the most valuable tool we have as humans. your attempt to counter this was admirable. those who would use this tool for their own gain at cost of the opposite sex and those of different beliefs is disgusting and pathetic. > 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. thats what i have come to expect from texas. > 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. you may like this link http://www.PositiveAtheism.org/ > >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. by using a " shot gun " approach. if you cram hundreds of thousands of people into a group, certainly thousands will get better. there is no evidence AA is any more successful than no treatment at all. in one major government study, AA did worse! 33% stayed sober for a year with no treatment. 31% with AA! from AA own surveys, 50% of people leave in first 3 months. 95 % of people leave in first years. yes thats right, only 5 in 100 will stay in AA more than a year. and thats not even taking into account if they are sober! AA's " success " is pathetic. and the one who leave have been taught there is nothing out there for them, that alternatives groups (if they even have been told they exist! i was in AA for 1.5 years and i had no idea there was any other program until i left) aren't for " real " alcoholics and they will destroy themselves with out AA. 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. yes you do just need to decide your not going to drink. who get sober without making the choice to stop drinking? by making the choice to not pick up that glass? should i deny the benefits of Heavens Gate? those people were extremely happy and filled with " serenity " before they all killed themselves. death threats and lies are not help. im sure the TFB has helped farmers in texas, but would you say they were helping them if every farmer who used it was taught they had to believe in the TFB or they would kill themselves?any group which lies about its very nature , lies about the nature of a " incurable disease " , tells those it claims to be helping that they are deceptive, defective, selfish for not accepting this " simple Program " and then places a threat of death on them for no believing is not helping ANYONE. that is destructive. are some sober? yes. have they been harmed by being exposed to cult deception and manipulation? everyone, and everyone they spread it to. > > 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. do you believe then we should allow snake handling to become the dominate treatment for cancer? and just count the ones it helps and ignore the ones it doesn't? that how aa's success is counted. because bill wilson be believed ALL alcoholics were " trying to get their religion out of a bottle " doesn't make it so, and it certainly shouldn't be the standard in for treatment provided, as it currently is. that is as helpful as a doctor giving every patient who walked in his door with a cough chemo therapy. > > 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. i cant say, but im not o the RR free list. > 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. will power is enough, if you have the right motivation. who get sober without making a choice for there will to do what bets for themselves? what got me sober if not my will to stop drinking? neither of these people have made it their will to respect their health, mind or themselves. and if they have, they made poor choices in following thru or insufficient motivation to carry thru with it. my mom died from lung cancer, she sure found the will to quit smoking when she was diagnosed with it. i quit when she was diagnosed , my sister quit when she was diagnosed. within 1 day, 3 people who couldn't quit smoking and had smoked for 30, 15 and 10 years quit. because we had the proper motivation for our will power to succeed. > > >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. AA primary purpose is to carry the message of god will. that has nothing to do with sobriety or alcoholism. that they believe god gets people sober is secondary. you cant remain sober unless you ask for gods will first. > > 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. given that 95% of people in AA leave in a year, i'd say your wrong. only choice they are told they have in AA is: " To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face. " no program works for more. > > 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. that they will literally go out and kill themselves if they dont believe in god? > > You should be tolerant of what works for other people. AA harms people as i have written above. any group which lies to those it claims to help, does more harm than good. > > >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was > >legitimate, > > Why not? If it keeps people sober....... because both methods are not based on science, more harmful then the aliment they would cure. in heavens gate case, it's 100% lethal by suicide and in scientology's case, has a high risk of, i dunno, immediate death. > 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. yes, there are, but i dont have to find them acceptable, nor believe they should be the dominate health care system. i wouldn't want christian fundamentalists to become the dominate system of providing aid to cancer patients, given their treatment would be no treatment, but prayer. nor do i have be tolerant snake handlers for muscular dystrophy. i dont have to be tolerant of any " treatment " which is administered not based not he patients need, but rather the belief of the person administering it, regardless if its ineffective, or even harmful. only reason AA is as wide spread as it is, is because it is its mission to spread itself. its like a chain letter, its dominance in this country is not based on its effectiveness, as i have noted no treatment works just as well., but rather the need of proselytization by its cult members. A need which they must do, or they will die. afterall, their sobriety is dependent upon carrying the message. > 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. im not talking about drunks, but rational, sober people who are critical of AA. > > And, people who can > choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? ' document exactly where you found " people who can choose, usually choose AA " ? under what circumstances? > >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. Soyes, it can work, and> no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult. the majority of those who go into aa leave. that majority was harmed by AA lies about AA, alcoholism, the choices they have, alcoholics and they were threatened to believe in AA or they will DIE. Any treatment which does more harm than good is unacceptable. i dont ignore the truth, the truth is AA harms more than it helps. i would expect if i went to my corner 7-11 and said " hey if you drunks hang out here, some of you will get sober " , i would expect that some would indeed get sober by hanging out there. it wouldnt make it any more effective treatment than chance would allow. but if majority of those who hanged out at the 7-11 didnt get better than those who werent at 7-11, and most left because they were abused by me and threatened with death or relaized my " treamentt " was nonsense, no, i wouldn't expect ANYONE to think that was effective or positive treatment. even if some got sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > >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. i dont think it silly at all. someone should stand up and say , " hey this era of perpetual recovering is harmful and its time for it to end " . RR as far as i know doesn't believe " support groups " are necessary. no one can stop you from attending a group. and why are they necessary? AA invented the modern model for support group, (well actually, if im not mistaken, they stole it from oxford group and washingtonians, both had models for public confession of sin) AA support group aren't self help, they are self helplessness. just try standing up in any meeting and say you dont need meetings or groups anymore, or you are recovered. > > 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 dont need to work AA god control for life to make a choice to not use. and if someone has taught anyone that, regardless of their religion, they are wrong. AA has NOTHING to do with alcoholism! it about turning you life over to god. people who dont believe in god people who dont are " confused " . AA has done more harm to society by lying about itself and alcoholism. i cant defend RR, im surprised there were no links on their page to other group as is custom to alternative programs. AA is only other group which doesn't post links to find different kinds of support. but i just remembered there is a reason for this, both AA and RR are for profit business! RR sells book and so does AA. the other groups are competition. there are others on this list who are better informed than me on RR. > 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. to be told that you NEED AA or you will die is EVIL. to be told that if you change your mind and dont need it anymore will cause you to destroy yourself, is EVIL, SELF SERVING AND DESTRUCTIVE TO HUMANITY. > 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 attack 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. i was referring to addiction programs. but i can see how his would happen in texas, the model state of tolerance;) When I tried> to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. i applaud your efforts, that took courage. 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 ownoccupation; 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. language is the most valuable tool we have as humans. your attempt to counter this was admirable. those who would use this tool for their own gain at cost of the opposite sex and those of different beliefs is disgusting and pathetic. > 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. thats what i have come to expect from texas. > 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. you may like this link http://www.PositiveAtheism.org/ > >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. by using a " shot gun " approach. if you cram hundreds of thousands of people into a group, certainly thousands will get better. there is no evidence AA is any more successful than no treatment at all. in one major government study, AA did worse! 33% stayed sober for a year with no treatment. 31% with AA! from AA own surveys, 50% of people leave in first 3 months. 95 % of people leave in first years. yes thats right, only 5 in 100 will stay in AA more than a year. and thats not even taking into account if they are sober! AA's " success " is pathetic. and the one who leave have been taught there is nothing out there for them, that alternatives groups (if they even have been told they exist! i was in AA for 1.5 years and i had no idea there was any other program until i left) aren't for " real " alcoholics and they will destroy themselves with out AA. 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. yes you do just need to decide your not going to drink. who get sober without making the choice to stop drinking? by making the choice to not pick up that glass? should i deny the benefits of Heavens Gate? those people were extremely happy and filled with " serenity " before they all killed themselves. death threats and lies are not help. im sure the TFB has helped farmers in texas, but would you say they were helping them if every farmer who used it was taught they had to believe in the TFB or they would kill themselves?any group which lies about its very nature , lies about the nature of a " incurable disease " , tells those it claims to be helping that they are deceptive, defective, selfish for not accepting this " simple Program " and then places a threat of death on them for no believing is not helping ANYONE. that is destructive. are some sober? yes. have they been harmed by being exposed to cult deception and manipulation? everyone, and everyone they spread it to. > > 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. do you believe then we should allow snake handling to become the dominate treatment for cancer? and just count the ones it helps and ignore the ones it doesn't? that how aa's success is counted. because bill wilson be believed ALL alcoholics were " trying to get their religion out of a bottle " doesn't make it so, and it certainly shouldn't be the standard in for treatment provided, as it currently is. that is as helpful as a doctor giving every patient who walked in his door with a cough chemo therapy. > > 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. i cant say, but im not o the RR free list. > 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. will power is enough, if you have the right motivation. who get sober without making a choice for there will to do what bets for themselves? what got me sober if not my will to stop drinking? neither of these people have made it their will to respect their health, mind or themselves. and if they have, they made poor choices in following thru or insufficient motivation to carry thru with it. my mom died from lung cancer, she sure found the will to quit smoking when she was diagnosed with it. i quit when she was diagnosed , my sister quit when she was diagnosed. within 1 day, 3 people who couldn't quit smoking and had smoked for 30, 15 and 10 years quit. because we had the proper motivation for our will power to succeed. > > >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. AA primary purpose is to carry the message of god will. that has nothing to do with sobriety or alcoholism. that they believe god gets people sober is secondary. you cant remain sober unless you ask for gods will first. > > 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. given that 95% of people in AA leave in a year, i'd say your wrong. only choice they are told they have in AA is: " To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face. " no program works for more. > > 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. that they will literally go out and kill themselves if they dont believe in god? > > You should be tolerant of what works for other people. AA harms people as i have written above. any group which lies to those it claims to help, does more harm than good. > > >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was > >legitimate, > > Why not? If it keeps people sober....... because both methods are not based on science, more harmful then the aliment they would cure. in heavens gate case, it's 100% lethal by suicide and in scientology's case, has a high risk of, i dunno, immediate death. > 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. yes, there are, but i dont have to find them acceptable, nor believe they should be the dominate health care system. i wouldn't want christian fundamentalists to become the dominate system of providing aid to cancer patients, given their treatment would be no treatment, but prayer. nor do i have be tolerant snake handlers for muscular dystrophy. i dont have to be tolerant of any " treatment " which is administered not based not he patients need, but rather the belief of the person administering it, regardless if its ineffective, or even harmful. only reason AA is as wide spread as it is, is because it is its mission to spread itself. its like a chain letter, its dominance in this country is not based on its effectiveness, as i have noted no treatment works just as well., but rather the need of proselytization by its cult members. A need which they must do, or they will die. afterall, their sobriety is dependent upon carrying the message. > 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. im not talking about drunks, but rational, sober people who are critical of AA. > > And, people who can > choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? ' document exactly where you found " people who can choose, usually choose AA " ? under what circumstances? > >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. Soyes, it can work, and> no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult. the majority of those who go into aa leave. that majority was harmed by AA lies about AA, alcoholism, the choices they have, alcoholics and they were threatened to believe in AA or they will DIE. Any treatment which does more harm than good is unacceptable. i dont ignore the truth, the truth is AA harms more than it helps. i would expect if i went to my corner 7-11 and said " hey if you drunks hang out here, some of you will get sober " , i would expect that some would indeed get sober by hanging out there. it wouldnt make it any more effective treatment than chance would allow. but if majority of those who hanged out at the 7-11 didnt get better than those who werent at 7-11, and most left because they were abused by me and threatened with death or relaized my " treamentt " was nonsense, no, i wouldn't expect ANYONE to think that was effective or positive treatment. even if some got sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > >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. i dont think it silly at all. someone should stand up and say , " hey this era of perpetual recovering is harmful and its time for it to end " . RR as far as i know doesn't believe " support groups " are necessary. no one can stop you from attending a group. and why are they necessary? AA invented the modern model for support group, (well actually, if im not mistaken, they stole it from oxford group and washingtonians, both had models for public confession of sin) AA support group aren't self help, they are self helplessness. just try standing up in any meeting and say you dont need meetings or groups anymore, or you are recovered. > > 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 dont need to work AA god control for life to make a choice to not use. and if someone has taught anyone that, regardless of their religion, they are wrong. AA has NOTHING to do with alcoholism! it about turning you life over to god. people who dont believe in god people who dont are " confused " . AA has done more harm to society by lying about itself and alcoholism. i cant defend RR, im surprised there were no links on their page to other group as is custom to alternative programs. AA is only other group which doesn't post links to find different kinds of support. but i just remembered there is a reason for this, both AA and RR are for profit business! RR sells book and so does AA. the other groups are competition. there are others on this list who are better informed than me on RR. > 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. to be told that you NEED AA or you will die is EVIL. to be told that if you change your mind and dont need it anymore will cause you to destroy yourself, is EVIL, SELF SERVING AND DESTRUCTIVE TO HUMANITY. > 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 attack 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. i was referring to addiction programs. but i can see how his would happen in texas, the model state of tolerance;) When I tried> to remove mention of god from the platform, I was roundly booed. i applaud your efforts, that took courage. 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 ownoccupation; 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. language is the most valuable tool we have as humans. your attempt to counter this was admirable. those who would use this tool for their own gain at cost of the opposite sex and those of different beliefs is disgusting and pathetic. > 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. thats what i have come to expect from texas. > 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. you may like this link http://www.PositiveAtheism.org/ > >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. by using a " shot gun " approach. if you cram hundreds of thousands of people into a group, certainly thousands will get better. there is no evidence AA is any more successful than no treatment at all. in one major government study, AA did worse! 33% stayed sober for a year with no treatment. 31% with AA! from AA own surveys, 50% of people leave in first 3 months. 95 % of people leave in first years. yes thats right, only 5 in 100 will stay in AA more than a year. and thats not even taking into account if they are sober! AA's " success " is pathetic. and the one who leave have been taught there is nothing out there for them, that alternatives groups (if they even have been told they exist! i was in AA for 1.5 years and i had no idea there was any other program until i left) aren't for " real " alcoholics and they will destroy themselves with out AA. 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. yes you do just need to decide your not going to drink. who get sober without making the choice to stop drinking? by making the choice to not pick up that glass? should i deny the benefits of Heavens Gate? those people were extremely happy and filled with " serenity " before they all killed themselves. death threats and lies are not help. im sure the TFB has helped farmers in texas, but would you say they were helping them if every farmer who used it was taught they had to believe in the TFB or they would kill themselves?any group which lies about its very nature , lies about the nature of a " incurable disease " , tells those it claims to be helping that they are deceptive, defective, selfish for not accepting this " simple Program " and then places a threat of death on them for no believing is not helping ANYONE. that is destructive. are some sober? yes. have they been harmed by being exposed to cult deception and manipulation? everyone, and everyone they spread it to. > > 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. do you believe then we should allow snake handling to become the dominate treatment for cancer? and just count the ones it helps and ignore the ones it doesn't? that how aa's success is counted. because bill wilson be believed ALL alcoholics were " trying to get their religion out of a bottle " doesn't make it so, and it certainly shouldn't be the standard in for treatment provided, as it currently is. that is as helpful as a doctor giving every patient who walked in his door with a cough chemo therapy. > > 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. i cant say, but im not o the RR free list. > 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. will power is enough, if you have the right motivation. who get sober without making a choice for there will to do what bets for themselves? what got me sober if not my will to stop drinking? neither of these people have made it their will to respect their health, mind or themselves. and if they have, they made poor choices in following thru or insufficient motivation to carry thru with it. my mom died from lung cancer, she sure found the will to quit smoking when she was diagnosed with it. i quit when she was diagnosed , my sister quit when she was diagnosed. within 1 day, 3 people who couldn't quit smoking and had smoked for 30, 15 and 10 years quit. because we had the proper motivation for our will power to succeed. > > >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. AA primary purpose is to carry the message of god will. that has nothing to do with sobriety or alcoholism. that they believe god gets people sober is secondary. you cant remain sober unless you ask for gods will first. > > 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. given that 95% of people in AA leave in a year, i'd say your wrong. only choice they are told they have in AA is: " To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face. " no program works for more. > > 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. that they will literally go out and kill themselves if they dont believe in god? > > You should be tolerant of what works for other people. AA harms people as i have written above. any group which lies to those it claims to help, does more harm than good. > > >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was > >legitimate, > > Why not? If it keeps people sober....... because both methods are not based on science, more harmful then the aliment they would cure. in heavens gate case, it's 100% lethal by suicide and in scientology's case, has a high risk of, i dunno, immediate death. > 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. yes, there are, but i dont have to find them acceptable, nor believe they should be the dominate health care system. i wouldn't want christian fundamentalists to become the dominate system of providing aid to cancer patients, given their treatment would be no treatment, but prayer. nor do i have be tolerant snake handlers for muscular dystrophy. i dont have to be tolerant of any " treatment " which is administered not based not he patients need, but rather the belief of the person administering it, regardless if its ineffective, or even harmful. only reason AA is as wide spread as it is, is because it is its mission to spread itself. its like a chain letter, its dominance in this country is not based on its effectiveness, as i have noted no treatment works just as well., but rather the need of proselytization by its cult members. A need which they must do, or they will die. afterall, their sobriety is dependent upon carrying the message. > 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. im not talking about drunks, but rational, sober people who are critical of AA. > > And, people who can > choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? ' document exactly where you found " people who can choose, usually choose AA " ? under what circumstances? > >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. Soyes, it can work, and> no, it does not force all participants into a religious cult. the majority of those who go into aa leave. that majority was harmed by AA lies about AA, alcoholism, the choices they have, alcoholics and they were threatened to believe in AA or they will DIE. Any treatment which does more harm than good is unacceptable. i dont ignore the truth, the truth is AA harms more than it helps. i would expect if i went to my corner 7-11 and said " hey if you drunks hang out here, some of you will get sober " , i would expect that some would indeed get sober by hanging out there. it wouldnt make it any more effective treatment than chance would allow. but if majority of those who hanged out at the 7-11 didnt get better than those who werent at 7-11, and most left because they were abused by me and threatened with death or relaized my " treamentt " was nonsense, no, i wouldn't expect ANYONE to think that was effective or positive treatment. even if some got sober. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 peopel who are in manipualtive cults, rarely think think they in a cult, or were nanipukated into their beliefs. all those people who kiled themslves in heavens gate ddint think they were being mnaipluated into chosing to kill themselves. john trvolta doesnt hink he's ina cult even though is based on idea thta he is innhabited with 100's of space alien spirtis which he has to have removed for $1000's each. any group which says you need to do and believe what we do, or you die is a destrcutive cult. your friends are ignoring that this reality was designed for them by bill wilsons god control belief system. > > 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. > Soyes, it can work, and> no, it does not force all participants into > a religious cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 peopel who are in manipualtive cults, rarely think think they in a cult, or were nanipukated into their beliefs. all those people who kiled themslves in heavens gate ddint think they were being mnaipluated into chosing to kill themselves. john trvolta doesnt hink he's ina cult even though is based on idea thta he is innhabited with 100's of space alien spirtis which he has to have removed for $1000's each. any group which says you need to do and believe what we do, or you die is a destrcutive cult. your friends are ignoring that this reality was designed for them by bill wilsons god control belief system. > > 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. > Soyes, it can work, and> no, it does not force all participants into > a religious cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 peopel who are in manipualtive cults, rarely think think they in a cult, or were nanipukated into their beliefs. all those people who kiled themslves in heavens gate ddint think they were being mnaipluated into chosing to kill themselves. john trvolta doesnt hink he's ina cult even though is based on idea thta he is innhabited with 100's of space alien spirtis which he has to have removed for $1000's each. any group which says you need to do and believe what we do, or you die is a destrcutive cult. your friends are ignoring that this reality was designed for them by bill wilsons god control belief system. > > 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. > Soyes, it can work, and> no, it does not force all participants into > a religious cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > I think that, *if* one works the steps, one can address and deal with > one's " defects of character " . We all have defects of character, we all have > faults. That some people in AA use this as a heavy-handed mallet does not > negate the fact that we all have faults we need to work on. ========== Hi Dixie, all... STEP 4: " Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. " At first glance, this seems like a really great thing to do. In my case this took the form of an autobiographical journal that is about 100 pages long. It focuses on my faults and resentments and every wrong thing I ever did in my life, including resenting the time my mother spent with my sister when she was born. Some of the things did really need to come out in some form or another; others were patently a result of looking through that particular lens. Many, many things are missed because of the focus on negatives. Even reading over it now, many years later, I feel as if I must [have been] * a terrible person. *I put this in the past tense, because I feel little or no connection to the tortured person who wrote that 4th step. On 3/31/95 the entry is as follows: " I did my fifth step last Sunday to K., reading to her the contents of this narrative and the other formatted fourth step I wrote. That was an intense experience--then I did steps six and seven--praying that my faults be removed. " The big book says that Step 1 is the only one that can be practiced perfectly. I did feel some relief, but now my insecurities and worries seem to have returned. My faith doesn't seem to be strong enough to allow me to turn over the things in my life that bother me. " Therefore, I'm not good enough, doing right, etc., etc. I am only now seeing just HOW detrimental some of this was to me. For me, practicing these steps was a big anti-climax. Instead of the expected relief, all I really felt was more guilt. Not helpful. The hard fact is that it didn't work to make me feel better or less depressed (as subsequent entries show). Added to that, there was now this extra person in the world, K., who knew too much about my personal history. She wasn't trained in any sense to deal with what I'd written. I have heard of people who have felt a tremendous sense of unburdening when they did this. I didn't feel it. It does work for some, it doesn't work for others. What happens to all the people who are *mandated* to attend this program and it doesn't work for them? How could going through something like this help them even the slightest little bit? [As a side note, I now have the problem of what to do with this document. I can't believe I've left is sitting around on the bookshelf all these years!!!! I want to destroy it and save it at the same time!] Later, my journal gets better and healthier. I was trying to cope with an unfair situation at my work, where a man that was hired after me and had much smaller responsibilities was paid substantially more than I was. I wrote, " I have an ugly angry feeling in my chest. My part? I guess my part is that I continue to fail to voice these feelings and try to resolve them internally, rather than articulating them. For the next go-around I will hold my ground. " Not a very AA- like sentiment, the king of internal solutions and acceptance!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > I think that, *if* one works the steps, one can address and deal with > one's " defects of character " . We all have defects of character, we all have > faults. That some people in AA use this as a heavy-handed mallet does not > negate the fact that we all have faults we need to work on. ========== Hi Dixie, all... STEP 4: " Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. " At first glance, this seems like a really great thing to do. In my case this took the form of an autobiographical journal that is about 100 pages long. It focuses on my faults and resentments and every wrong thing I ever did in my life, including resenting the time my mother spent with my sister when she was born. Some of the things did really need to come out in some form or another; others were patently a result of looking through that particular lens. Many, many things are missed because of the focus on negatives. Even reading over it now, many years later, I feel as if I must [have been] * a terrible person. *I put this in the past tense, because I feel little or no connection to the tortured person who wrote that 4th step. On 3/31/95 the entry is as follows: " I did my fifth step last Sunday to K., reading to her the contents of this narrative and the other formatted fourth step I wrote. That was an intense experience--then I did steps six and seven--praying that my faults be removed. " The big book says that Step 1 is the only one that can be practiced perfectly. I did feel some relief, but now my insecurities and worries seem to have returned. My faith doesn't seem to be strong enough to allow me to turn over the things in my life that bother me. " Therefore, I'm not good enough, doing right, etc., etc. I am only now seeing just HOW detrimental some of this was to me. For me, practicing these steps was a big anti-climax. Instead of the expected relief, all I really felt was more guilt. Not helpful. The hard fact is that it didn't work to make me feel better or less depressed (as subsequent entries show). Added to that, there was now this extra person in the world, K., who knew too much about my personal history. She wasn't trained in any sense to deal with what I'd written. I have heard of people who have felt a tremendous sense of unburdening when they did this. I didn't feel it. It does work for some, it doesn't work for others. What happens to all the people who are *mandated* to attend this program and it doesn't work for them? How could going through something like this help them even the slightest little bit? [As a side note, I now have the problem of what to do with this document. I can't believe I've left is sitting around on the bookshelf all these years!!!! I want to destroy it and save it at the same time!] Later, my journal gets better and healthier. I was trying to cope with an unfair situation at my work, where a man that was hired after me and had much smaller responsibilities was paid substantially more than I was. I wrote, " I have an ugly angry feeling in my chest. My part? I guess my part is that I continue to fail to voice these feelings and try to resolve them internally, rather than articulating them. For the next go-around I will hold my ground. " Not a very AA- like sentiment, the king of internal solutions and acceptance!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > I think that, *if* one works the steps, one can address and deal with > one's " defects of character " . We all have defects of character, we all have > faults. That some people in AA use this as a heavy-handed mallet does not > negate the fact that we all have faults we need to work on. ========== Hi Dixie, all... STEP 4: " Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. " At first glance, this seems like a really great thing to do. In my case this took the form of an autobiographical journal that is about 100 pages long. It focuses on my faults and resentments and every wrong thing I ever did in my life, including resenting the time my mother spent with my sister when she was born. Some of the things did really need to come out in some form or another; others were patently a result of looking through that particular lens. Many, many things are missed because of the focus on negatives. Even reading over it now, many years later, I feel as if I must [have been] * a terrible person. *I put this in the past tense, because I feel little or no connection to the tortured person who wrote that 4th step. On 3/31/95 the entry is as follows: " I did my fifth step last Sunday to K., reading to her the contents of this narrative and the other formatted fourth step I wrote. That was an intense experience--then I did steps six and seven--praying that my faults be removed. " The big book says that Step 1 is the only one that can be practiced perfectly. I did feel some relief, but now my insecurities and worries seem to have returned. My faith doesn't seem to be strong enough to allow me to turn over the things in my life that bother me. " Therefore, I'm not good enough, doing right, etc., etc. I am only now seeing just HOW detrimental some of this was to me. For me, practicing these steps was a big anti-climax. Instead of the expected relief, all I really felt was more guilt. Not helpful. The hard fact is that it didn't work to make me feel better or less depressed (as subsequent entries show). Added to that, there was now this extra person in the world, K., who knew too much about my personal history. She wasn't trained in any sense to deal with what I'd written. I have heard of people who have felt a tremendous sense of unburdening when they did this. I didn't feel it. It does work for some, it doesn't work for others. What happens to all the people who are *mandated* to attend this program and it doesn't work for them? How could going through something like this help them even the slightest little bit? [As a side note, I now have the problem of what to do with this document. I can't believe I've left is sitting around on the bookshelf all these years!!!! I want to destroy it and save it at the same time!] Later, my journal gets better and healthier. I was trying to cope with an unfair situation at my work, where a man that was hired after me and had much smaller responsibilities was paid substantially more than I was. I wrote, " I have an ugly angry feeling in my chest. My part? I guess my part is that I continue to fail to voice these feelings and try to resolve them internally, rather than articulating them. For the next go-around I will hold my ground. " Not a very AA- like sentiment, the king of internal solutions and acceptance!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2001 Report Share Posted February 4, 2001 > You apparently don't know much about the services really available to > someone in that position. Actually, I do, having spent several years volunteering in a homeless referral center. The services I know about are here in , CA. We have subsidized child care, a homeless shelter with social workers that help people find jobs, apartments, to enroll in school, etc. We have a good bus system in this town too, and it's bike friendly. Anyone with five kids is going to have a hard time, but she isn't going to find a babysitter in any recovery program. Your 23 year old crack addict would have trouble keeping her five kids with her. One case I recall is that CPS fostered out the kids until the mother could get back on her feet. Most of the mothers do. Motherhood is a good motivator. You can't go to college if you don't have child > care. In many states (like Wisconsin), they have " workfare " programs where > people are supposed to work for their welfare benefits--but they don't > provide child care. So mothers leave their 5 year olds in charge of their 2 > year olds and hope the law doesn't find out. The workfare here is pretty good. There is help with child care, and with job training. > I used to work in a battered women's shelter, on the hotline. We were > chronically full. Women could only stay for 30 days, not long enough to get > job skills, get a job, and save up money to get a place of t heir own. > Consequently, many returned to their batterers, because it was their only > option. I got tons of calls from women needing help, and all I could do was > give them telephone numbers that, when they called them, would give them > more telephone numbers. I knew these women wouldn't get any real help. I know how you feel, but this situation not due to lack of recovery resources. Its due to lack of child care, training, and mental health care for the poor. > And what mental health services were you thinking this 23 year old crack > addicted mother could avail herself of? Do you know of any free mental > health services that I don't? Remember, I had this big book of all the > social services in the most liberal city in Austin, and there were no free > mental health services (except for MHMR, which you then had to pay for > meds.) Texas is one of the most horrible and hateful places in the world, and it really ought to be blown off the map. No wonder she's on crack. Tell her to move to California. No one who is poor has to pay for their meds in this state. > > Because alcoholism causes many people to be homeless and unstable. Because > their mental health issues, or their lack of coping skills, or their quick > temper, cause them to go off the h andle and turn to alcohol. Because it's > a vicious cycle. Again, you've got to separate your basic stay-off-the sauce skills with other needs. If you're used to the AA way of thinking, this can be difficult. In AA we seem to get the idea that the answer to all our social and mental problems lies in alcoholism recovery. It doesn't. > Yes, people who are functioning, intelligent adults can frequently moderate > or even end their alcohol usage on their own. More power to them. It seems > that most of the people for whom AVRT works would be able to solve their > alcohol problems without AVRT. For AVRT to be really successful, it needs > to also be effective for those who are not very stable, who don't have > their lives in order except for their little drinking problem. Well, I agree that the homeless and mentally ill need other help than AVRT, but it doesn't mean they can't use AVRT. See where I'm coming from? I think we're on opposite sides of the same basic truth. I will acknowledge that if I felt so depressed that suicide seemed an option, I'd eventually drink; deep depression removes the motivation to use AVRT. But deep clinical depression is known to result in drinking or suicide no matter what recovery program one uses. The key is getting treatment for depression. But, because I like to drink, I need AVRT as well--Prozac isn't going to stop me from drinking. I have to stop myself. AVRT works just fine as my only alcohol recovery technique. If a program like the n movement can help alcoholics get off the sauce and the same time help them get jobs, deal with depression or mental illness if that's what they have, that's good. So far, I dont' know of any other recovery option that is doing that. If there was one, they wouldn't make much money. That's probably why you won't see much of it. Best, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >i dont think it silly at all. someone should stand up and say , " hey >this era of perpetual recovering is harmful and its time for it to >end " . > >RR as far as i know doesn't believe " support groups " are >necessary. no one can stop you from attending a group. and why >are they necessary? There are support groups for transplant patients that my parents found helpful. There are support groups for parents who have lost a child, that many find helpful (my parents may have gone to a couple of t hese after my brother died.) There are support groups for mothers who have lost infants and for breastfeeding moms, both of which my sister has found helpful (these are on-line groups). There are support groups for people who have lost pets. People find all these support groups immensely helpful. Not all people, but enough to show me that they work, that they help, that they are needed. When my uncle died at the age of 45, I poured my heart out to a list I had been on for several years, Corgi-L. Corgi-L is devoted to Pembroke and Cardigan Welsh Corgis, not to dead uncles. But I had been a fixture on the list for a long time and felt like I had a lot of friends there. And I got a lot of support, a lot of encouraging words, and it really did help me cope with my uncle's death. I didn't get that from anyone else--my family was too wrapped up in their own grief to help me deal with mine. Attending a support group does not mean one is in " perpetual recovery " . But I do know they help people deal with life's difficulties. And I know people who have successfully completed AA, who use AA as a support group to help them deal with particularly stressful events. AA invented the modern model for support >group, (well actually, if im not mistaken, they stole it from oxford >group and washingtonians, both had models for public >confession of sin) AA support group aren't self help, they are self >helplessness. A support group does not mean a confession of sin. In fact, AA is about the only group I know that does that, other than blatantly religious groups. Do not confuse that aspect of AA with a s upport group. >> 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. > >thats what i have come to expect from texas. As a Texan, I profusely apologize for our governor, now the President-selected. >given that 95% of people in AA leave in a year, i'd say your wrong. >only choice they are told they have in AA is: " To be doomed to an >alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy >alternatives to face. " Although some people who leave AA in less than a year remain sober. You don't necessarily have to work the 12 steps to gain benefit from AA. Sure, if you don't work the 12 steps, you're not working the program, but I know people who have been sober for over a year, who attended AA less than a year and took some aspects and left the rest. >that they will literally go out and kill themselves if they dont >believe in god? Lots of Republicans believe that you're going to kill yourself (or God will kill you) if you don't believe. >> >no one would seriously suggest either of these models was >> >legitimate, >> >> Why not? If it keeps people sober....... > > > because both methods are not based on science, more harmful >then the aliment they would cure. in heavens gate case, it's >100% lethal by suicide and in scientology's case, has a high risk >of, i dunno, immediate death. A program doesn't need to be based on science for it to be legitimate. Last I read, scientists don't understand quite how aspirin works, but we all know it does. Heavens Gate apparently helped people get sober and remain sober. It was the cult religious aspect that killed them, or rather, the Doomsday aspect. And not many Scientologist die so quickly--I wish they did! Then they wouldn't be such a pain in the ass. But they maintain long lives of sobriety. And as I said before, Trimpey's theory about the brain stuff is pseudoscience. It may or may not be true. I personally have some serious doubts. But even if it's bad science, it doesn't mean that lots of people won't get sober via AVRT. Lots o f people believe in faith healing. I think it's a bunch of B.S. But there are plenty of people out there who are convinced they've been healed through faith. If it works for them, that's fine. (Just don't try to make it the standard of treatment.) >yes, there are, but i dont have to find them acceptable, nor >believe they should be the dominate health care system. i >wouldn't want christian fundamentalists to become the dominate >system of providing aid to cancer patients, given their treatment >would be no treatment, but prayer. Something like 88% of U.S. counties have no abortion provider. The average age of abortion providers in the U.S. is 67. In many areas, the county hospital is run by Catholics, who refuse to perform abortions (this is the case in Austin.) The first thing Bush did in office was to cancel any aid whatsoever to family planning groups who mention abortion, even if the U.S. funds are not used for abortion counseling or anything to do with abortion. He said that if we fund anyone who mentions abortion, that we are forcing abortion on others. Of course, it's okay if we fund faith-based charities like the SalvationArmy, who do force their message on others. Christian fundamentalists DO dominate our health care system already. >> And, people who can >> choose, usually choose AA. Why do you think that is? >' >document exactly where you found " people who can choose, >usually choose AA " ? under what circumstances? I don't know what percentage of people in AA are court ordered. I know it's significant, but it's nowhere near 100%. Yet only a small handful of people show up at the RR meetings I go to, whereas hundreds--more likely thousands--go to AA meetings. Those people who go to AA meetings and not RR meetings are choosing AA. Look on the web for the list of RR meetings, or SOS meetings. They're scant. Precious few. If people chose RR, there would be more meetings, more meeting places, more opportunities for Rr. Dixie Dixie A'89, SF'90, ng Central Texas Welsh Corgi and Great Dane Rescue " President Bush was sworn in today by one of the five people who elected him. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 << Those people who go to AA meetings and not RR meetings are choosing AA. Look on the web for the list of RR meetings, or SOS meetings. They're scant. Precious few. If people chose RR, there would be more meetings, more meeting places, more opportunities for Rr. >> Daisy, RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR meetings " ? I agree that support groups can be helpful in a lot of circumstances-no argument there. Some, like SMART Recovery, are SELF-HELP oriented. AA is AA-HELP oriented. Some of the past posts have clearly shown this, there's no need to repeat it here. Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are coerced by courts or family interventions. AA is a social institution, beyond the domain of addiction. As a social institution, it has great public power, complete with lobbying groups to sling mud at any non-12-step recovery technique. It has a near-impeccable status in the media, and bills itself as perfect, a means to spiritual enlightenment and selfless character in its members. The general public, even addiction counselors, are frighteningly unaware of any alternatives, and at best might say something like " oh yea there was that woman who said she could moderate then she killed two people, if only she had really worked the program... " Granted some might choose AA, but for the wrong reasons. " Newcomers " who continue to drink every day. When going to AA, they get added ammo for their destructive behavior, such as the disease concept, " codependent " loved ones, " slippery " places, etc. A lot of people seem to report that AA does nothing more than give them added excuses for destructive drinking. This sounds awfully attractive to someone who doesn't want to work towards any change. Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. If AA is so perfect, why does this trend continue? Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 << Those people who go to AA meetings and not RR meetings are choosing AA. Look on the web for the list of RR meetings, or SOS meetings. They're scant. Precious few. If people chose RR, there would be more meetings, more meeting places, more opportunities for Rr. >> Daisy, RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR meetings " ? I agree that support groups can be helpful in a lot of circumstances-no argument there. Some, like SMART Recovery, are SELF-HELP oriented. AA is AA-HELP oriented. Some of the past posts have clearly shown this, there's no need to repeat it here. Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are coerced by courts or family interventions. AA is a social institution, beyond the domain of addiction. As a social institution, it has great public power, complete with lobbying groups to sling mud at any non-12-step recovery technique. It has a near-impeccable status in the media, and bills itself as perfect, a means to spiritual enlightenment and selfless character in its members. The general public, even addiction counselors, are frighteningly unaware of any alternatives, and at best might say something like " oh yea there was that woman who said she could moderate then she killed two people, if only she had really worked the program... " Granted some might choose AA, but for the wrong reasons. " Newcomers " who continue to drink every day. When going to AA, they get added ammo for their destructive behavior, such as the disease concept, " codependent " loved ones, " slippery " places, etc. A lot of people seem to report that AA does nothing more than give them added excuses for destructive drinking. This sounds awfully attractive to someone who doesn't want to work towards any change. Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. If AA is so perfect, why does this trend continue? Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 << Those people who go to AA meetings and not RR meetings are choosing AA. Look on the web for the list of RR meetings, or SOS meetings. They're scant. Precious few. If people chose RR, there would be more meetings, more meeting places, more opportunities for Rr. >> Daisy, RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR meetings " ? I agree that support groups can be helpful in a lot of circumstances-no argument there. Some, like SMART Recovery, are SELF-HELP oriented. AA is AA-HELP oriented. Some of the past posts have clearly shown this, there's no need to repeat it here. Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are coerced by courts or family interventions. AA is a social institution, beyond the domain of addiction. As a social institution, it has great public power, complete with lobbying groups to sling mud at any non-12-step recovery technique. It has a near-impeccable status in the media, and bills itself as perfect, a means to spiritual enlightenment and selfless character in its members. The general public, even addiction counselors, are frighteningly unaware of any alternatives, and at best might say something like " oh yea there was that woman who said she could moderate then she killed two people, if only she had really worked the program... " Granted some might choose AA, but for the wrong reasons. " Newcomers " who continue to drink every day. When going to AA, they get added ammo for their destructive behavior, such as the disease concept, " codependent " loved ones, " slippery " places, etc. A lot of people seem to report that AA does nothing more than give them added excuses for destructive drinking. This sounds awfully attractive to someone who doesn't want to work towards any change. Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. If AA is so perfect, why does this trend continue? Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that >groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR >meetings " ? From their web site. I just tried to go there, to quote from the web site, but it wouldn't load and froze up my computer. I tried 3 times and it kept freezing my computer, so I can't access the web site. But RR meetings in San are held Wednesdays at 6 PM. Yes, they're meetings to learn about RR and learn AVRT, but they're meetings nonetheless. >Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are >coerced by courts or family interventions. Which is 50% or less of those in attendance. >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. Why do you say this? I don't believe incest is any more common than it was 100 years ago; in fact, I belive it's actually *less* common. But it's more often reported. Spousal abuse is less common today than it was 150 years ago (though it's still too darned common), but it's reported more often today. 150 years ago, it was not a crime to beat your wife. In fact, it still wasn't a crime in many states until the 1970s, and there were no places for abused women to go--I believe the first shelters opened up in the late 60's or early '70s. It was almost never prosecuted. Police returned women to their homes, to the custody of their husbands who had just beat them up. Churches told women that a good wife takes whatever her husband gives her, and if she was a good wife, her husband wouldn't beat her (some churches still send this message--I remember one woman whose husband beat her with a baseball bat and her minister said it was because she wasn't a good enough wife.) Men had the right to rape their wives in a number of states (Oklahoma and New Mexico among them) up until at least 1987, and perhaps still do today. Spousal rape used to never be reported, because it was not considered a crime, and because a woman would be laughed away if she complained about her husband demanding and forcing sex from him. Just because it's more often reported today, does not mean it's more common. So more people recognize they have an alcohol problem now than they did 50 years ago--so? So DWI is a crime now, whereas 30 years ago it was an excuse-- " Oh, he had been drinking. The accident's not his fault. " Plus, drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common. Alcohol use, however, was. Just because there are more people seeking help for a problem today, does not mean that the problem is more common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that >groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR >meetings " ? From their web site. I just tried to go there, to quote from the web site, but it wouldn't load and froze up my computer. I tried 3 times and it kept freezing my computer, so I can't access the web site. But RR meetings in San are held Wednesdays at 6 PM. Yes, they're meetings to learn about RR and learn AVRT, but they're meetings nonetheless. >Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are >coerced by courts or family interventions. Which is 50% or less of those in attendance. >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. Why do you say this? I don't believe incest is any more common than it was 100 years ago; in fact, I belive it's actually *less* common. But it's more often reported. Spousal abuse is less common today than it was 150 years ago (though it's still too darned common), but it's reported more often today. 150 years ago, it was not a crime to beat your wife. In fact, it still wasn't a crime in many states until the 1970s, and there were no places for abused women to go--I believe the first shelters opened up in the late 60's or early '70s. It was almost never prosecuted. Police returned women to their homes, to the custody of their husbands who had just beat them up. Churches told women that a good wife takes whatever her husband gives her, and if she was a good wife, her husband wouldn't beat her (some churches still send this message--I remember one woman whose husband beat her with a baseball bat and her minister said it was because she wasn't a good enough wife.) Men had the right to rape their wives in a number of states (Oklahoma and New Mexico among them) up until at least 1987, and perhaps still do today. Spousal rape used to never be reported, because it was not considered a crime, and because a woman would be laughed away if she complained about her husband demanding and forcing sex from him. Just because it's more often reported today, does not mean it's more common. So more people recognize they have an alcohol problem now than they did 50 years ago--so? So DWI is a crime now, whereas 30 years ago it was an excuse-- " Oh, he had been drinking. The accident's not his fault. " Plus, drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common. Alcohol use, however, was. Just because there are more people seeking help for a problem today, does not mean that the problem is more common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >RR holds NO meetings. This discussion is centered around RR's position that >groups are useless (or even harmful). Where did you get this data about " RR >meetings " ? From their web site. I just tried to go there, to quote from the web site, but it wouldn't load and froze up my computer. I tried 3 times and it kept freezing my computer, so I can't access the web site. But RR meetings in San are held Wednesdays at 6 PM. Yes, they're meetings to learn about RR and learn AVRT, but they're meetings nonetheless. >Very few people " choose " AA in any manner. Add up the percentage who are >coerced by courts or family interventions. Which is 50% or less of those in attendance. >Numeric profiles of various groups mean very little. As the numbers of AA >groups expand in number, it is safe to conclude that addiction is simply >becoming more of a problem, and statistics seem to support this. Why do you say this? I don't believe incest is any more common than it was 100 years ago; in fact, I belive it's actually *less* common. But it's more often reported. Spousal abuse is less common today than it was 150 years ago (though it's still too darned common), but it's reported more often today. 150 years ago, it was not a crime to beat your wife. In fact, it still wasn't a crime in many states until the 1970s, and there were no places for abused women to go--I believe the first shelters opened up in the late 60's or early '70s. It was almost never prosecuted. Police returned women to their homes, to the custody of their husbands who had just beat them up. Churches told women that a good wife takes whatever her husband gives her, and if she was a good wife, her husband wouldn't beat her (some churches still send this message--I remember one woman whose husband beat her with a baseball bat and her minister said it was because she wasn't a good enough wife.) Men had the right to rape their wives in a number of states (Oklahoma and New Mexico among them) up until at least 1987, and perhaps still do today. Spousal rape used to never be reported, because it was not considered a crime, and because a woman would be laughed away if she complained about her husband demanding and forcing sex from him. Just because it's more often reported today, does not mean it's more common. So more people recognize they have an alcohol problem now than they did 50 years ago--so? So DWI is a crime now, whereas 30 years ago it was an excuse-- " Oh, he had been drinking. The accident's not his fault. " Plus, drug use wasn't near as common 50 years ago as it is today. My dad, who fought in the Korean war, never saw drugs, never knew anyone who did drugs (he might have known someone who smoked pot, but only as someone to stay away from.) And my dad was no saint. Drug use just wasn't that common. Alcohol use, however, was. Just because there are more people seeking help for a problem today, does not mean that the problem is more common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.