Re: RR/AA

[Guest guest]

its a masochistic thing to do, even more so thanks to aa than it

would be to just lable yourself based on a previous condition or

past behavior. AA atatches all the supposed bagage they say

goes with being an alcohlic, selfish, decepetive, dishonest, ego

driven, etc.. and since you never are cured of it, to stand up and

say it in a meeting is slaping your own face publically, only it

seems ok becuase everyone is happy to see you do it.

funny we dont attach that shit on to smokers, and smoking is

harder to quit than drinking for most. (actualy msot people who

die in AA , die from smoking related ilness according one study).

peopel dont getin same trouble alcholics get into from smoking,

so they do it longer, and untill 15 yaers ago or so, most people

could ahev found aplace at work where they could smoke.

but we dont place the same baggage bill wilson would ahev us

place on alcoholics as we do other addctions, unless your in NA

i suppose

>

> I have been very disgusted by this. I will never again say, " Hi.

My

> name is and I'm an alcoholic. " I felt a twinge about it

every

> time I said it. For awhile I thought that it was the guilt about

> actually being one, but now I'm almost certain that the

self-labeling

> and humiliting myself that was really getting to me.

> ==============

> Thanks for the great post!

>

>

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

,

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

[Guest guest]

> 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?

[Guest guest]

> 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?

[Guest guest]

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

>

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

say it is> " canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly.

And RR insists> that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for

support groups; indeed, it> wants people to promise never to

attend another support group meeting,

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

only way,> and every other way will get you nowhere.

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.

[Guest guest]

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

>

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

say it is> " canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly.

And RR insists> that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for

support groups; indeed, it> wants people to promise never to

attend another support group meeting,

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

only way,> and every other way will get you nowhere.

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.

[Guest guest]

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

>

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

say it is> " canceling " the 12 step movement is juvenile and silly.

And RR insists> that RR is all one needs. It does not allow for

support groups; indeed, it> wants people to promise never to

attend another support group meeting,

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

only way,> and every other way will get you nowhere.

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

> 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!!!!

[Guest guest]

> 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!!!!

[Guest guest]

> 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!!!!

[Guest guest]

> 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,

[Guest guest]

>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. "

[Guest guest]

<< 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

[Guest guest]

<< 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

[Guest guest]

<< 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

[Guest guest]

>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.

[Guest guest]

>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.

[Guest guest]

>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.