Re: NEW 12-STEP QUESTIONERS LIST!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2001 2:08:54 AM Central Standard Time, kenr1@...

writes:

> Can I

> persuade anyone else to start a list with a little bit different slant?

Did you have any particular slant in mind?

~~~eric

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing. (Edmund Burke)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2001 2:08:54 AM Central Standard Time, kenr1@...

writes:

> Can I

> persuade anyone else to start a list with a little bit different slant?

Did you have any particular slant in mind?

~~~eric

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing. (Edmund Burke)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2001 2:08:54 AM Central Standard Time, kenr1@...

writes:

> Can I

> persuade anyone else to start a list with a little bit different slant?

Did you have any particular slant in mind?

~~~eric

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do

nothing. (Edmund Burke)

[Guest guest]

How old is this list? Do you know who runs it?

NEW 12-STEP QUESTIONERS LIST!

> You can join here:

>

> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

[Guest guest]

How old is this list? Do you know who runs it?

NEW 12-STEP QUESTIONERS LIST!

> You can join here:

>

> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

[Guest guest]

How old is this list? Do you know who runs it?

NEW 12-STEP QUESTIONERS LIST!

> You can join here:

>

> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

[Guest guest]

> How old is this list? Do you know who runs it?

LOL Dave! It's abt 1 hr old, and at present I run it!

[Guest guest]

So....what is the purpose of this new group? Why two groups? Is the second

one aiming to be more civil than this one, or what? (I must say that I

have been surprised at the lack of civility, and at the namecalling and

rudeness, I have encountered on this list. I was hoping to find a more

supportive atmosphere.)

Dixie

>You can join here:

>

>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

>The remit for this list is:

>

>'12-STEP-QUESTIONERS is a support and discussion group for those who

>question the practices and claims of Anonymous 12 step programs and

>their supporters, and who believe benefit would ensure from open

>debate of these within and especially outside these programs. It is

>also a place for people who are resisting coercion into 12-step

>participation or feel they have been hurt by 12-step participation to

>receive support and information.

>

>Membership is open to anyone whether or not they currently are

>involved in a 12-step program. Expressing Support for 12-step

>programs is acceptable but a member must be willing to accept

>expression of skepticism, concern, and direct hostility to 12-step

>programs by other members. Participation solely for the purpose of

>defending the status quo is inappropriate.'

>

>I might add to that topics like coercion, disease theory, etc.

>

>A distate for Libertarianism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not

>essential but a willingness to tolerate such a distate by others might

>be handy.

>

>Again, you can join at:

>

>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

[Guest guest]

So....what is the purpose of this new group? Why two groups? Is the second

one aiming to be more civil than this one, or what? (I must say that I

have been surprised at the lack of civility, and at the namecalling and

rudeness, I have encountered on this list. I was hoping to find a more

supportive atmosphere.)

Dixie

>You can join here:

>

>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

>The remit for this list is:

>

>'12-STEP-QUESTIONERS is a support and discussion group for those who

>question the practices and claims of Anonymous 12 step programs and

>their supporters, and who believe benefit would ensure from open

>debate of these within and especially outside these programs. It is

>also a place for people who are resisting coercion into 12-step

>participation or feel they have been hurt by 12-step participation to

>receive support and information.

>

>Membership is open to anyone whether or not they currently are

>involved in a 12-step program. Expressing Support for 12-step

>programs is acceptable but a member must be willing to accept

>expression of skepticism, concern, and direct hostility to 12-step

>programs by other members. Participation solely for the purpose of

>defending the status quo is inappropriate.'

>

>I might add to that topics like coercion, disease theory, etc.

>

>A distate for Libertarianism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not

>essential but a willingness to tolerate such a distate by others might

>be handy.

>

>Again, you can join at:

>

>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

[Guest guest]

So....what is the purpose of this new group? Why two groups? Is the second

one aiming to be more civil than this one, or what? (I must say that I

have been surprised at the lack of civility, and at the namecalling and

rudeness, I have encountered on this list. I was hoping to find a more

supportive atmosphere.)

Dixie

>You can join here:

>

>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

>The remit for this list is:

>

>'12-STEP-QUESTIONERS is a support and discussion group for those who

>question the practices and claims of Anonymous 12 step programs and

>their supporters, and who believe benefit would ensure from open

>debate of these within and especially outside these programs. It is

>also a place for people who are resisting coercion into 12-step

>participation or feel they have been hurt by 12-step participation to

>receive support and information.

>

>Membership is open to anyone whether or not they currently are

>involved in a 12-step program. Expressing Support for 12-step

>programs is acceptable but a member must be willing to accept

>expression of skepticism, concern, and direct hostility to 12-step

>programs by other members. Participation solely for the purpose of

>defending the status quo is inappropriate.'

>

>I might add to that topics like coercion, disease theory, etc.

>

>A distate for Libertarianism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not

>essential but a willingness to tolerate such a distate by others might

>be handy.

>

>Again, you can join at:

>

>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

[Guest guest]

> So....what is the purpose of this new group? Why two groups? Is the

>second one aiming to be more civil than this one, or what? (I must

>say that I have been surprised at the lack of civility, and at the

>namecalling and rudeness, I have encountered on this list. I was

>hoping to find a more supportive atmosphere.)

Hi Dixie

Yes as one of the users of profanities I apologize for that. One of

my bad habits I keep falling into. I've never got into a thing like

that on a list that I own; I demand a higher standard of myself under

those circumstances.

Originally I started this second group because several people

expressed concern about the conditions now being imposed by Yahoo

after their takeover of Egroups. This includes demanding a lot of bio

details to sign up and also a claim to hold copyright on anything

posted to the list. These problems do not exists on the new listserv.

My intention was to simply provide another listserv that 12sf could

migrate too, with Ken remaining listowner if he wishes. He has

indicated to me that he thinks it better if I just simply start up

another list, so that is what I have done. As well as providing a

place for ppl who dont like yahoo's conditions, 12sf is getting very

big with a high number of mails which will be too much for some ppl;

12sq will not have this problem. Also it will provide an alternative

if ppl dont like something abt 12sf; the bad news for 'coolguy' is I

will be on both lists.

Also the focus of the list is different. I have set 12sq up as less

directly opposed to 12-step than 12sf. Indication of some support for

12 step is acceptable there, providing a person does not wish to

merely defend the status quo. I almost called it " 12-step-reform " but

decided that sounded too pro 12-step.

There is an irony here. For a long time i was very hostile to ppl who

came onto 12sf and expressed pro 12-step ideas. Ken has been very

much more tolerant of these ppl than I would have been. For a long

time I talked about starting a list called " Honest to God 12 step

free " where such ppl would be barred. Historically it would seem to

make more sense if Ken ran my list and I ran 12sf than this way round.

However, my views have changed. These days I attend a 12-step group

again, but I am still very much in touch with the issues addressed on

12sf. Hence the more moderate basis to the new list.

Pete

[Guest guest]

> So....what is the purpose of this new group? Why two groups? Is the

>second one aiming to be more civil than this one, or what? (I must

>say that I have been surprised at the lack of civility, and at the

>namecalling and rudeness, I have encountered on this list. I was

>hoping to find a more supportive atmosphere.)

Hi Dixie

Yes as one of the users of profanities I apologize for that. One of

my bad habits I keep falling into. I've never got into a thing like

that on a list that I own; I demand a higher standard of myself under

those circumstances.

Originally I started this second group because several people

expressed concern about the conditions now being imposed by Yahoo

after their takeover of Egroups. This includes demanding a lot of bio

details to sign up and also a claim to hold copyright on anything

posted to the list. These problems do not exists on the new listserv.

My intention was to simply provide another listserv that 12sf could

migrate too, with Ken remaining listowner if he wishes. He has

indicated to me that he thinks it better if I just simply start up

another list, so that is what I have done. As well as providing a

place for ppl who dont like yahoo's conditions, 12sf is getting very

big with a high number of mails which will be too much for some ppl;

12sq will not have this problem. Also it will provide an alternative

if ppl dont like something abt 12sf; the bad news for 'coolguy' is I

will be on both lists.

Also the focus of the list is different. I have set 12sq up as less

directly opposed to 12-step than 12sf. Indication of some support for

12 step is acceptable there, providing a person does not wish to

merely defend the status quo. I almost called it " 12-step-reform " but

decided that sounded too pro 12-step.

There is an irony here. For a long time i was very hostile to ppl who

came onto 12sf and expressed pro 12-step ideas. Ken has been very

much more tolerant of these ppl than I would have been. For a long

time I talked about starting a list called " Honest to God 12 step

free " where such ppl would be barred. Historically it would seem to

make more sense if Ken ran my list and I ran 12sf than this way round.

However, my views have changed. These days I attend a 12-step group

again, but I am still very much in touch with the issues addressed on

12sf. Hence the more moderate basis to the new list.

Pete

[Guest guest]

> So....what is the purpose of this new group? Why two groups? Is the

>second one aiming to be more civil than this one, or what? (I must

>say that I have been surprised at the lack of civility, and at the

>namecalling and rudeness, I have encountered on this list. I was

>hoping to find a more supportive atmosphere.)

Hi Dixie

Yes as one of the users of profanities I apologize for that. One of

my bad habits I keep falling into. I've never got into a thing like

that on a list that I own; I demand a higher standard of myself under

those circumstances.

Originally I started this second group because several people

expressed concern about the conditions now being imposed by Yahoo

after their takeover of Egroups. This includes demanding a lot of bio

details to sign up and also a claim to hold copyright on anything

posted to the list. These problems do not exists on the new listserv.

My intention was to simply provide another listserv that 12sf could

migrate too, with Ken remaining listowner if he wishes. He has

indicated to me that he thinks it better if I just simply start up

another list, so that is what I have done. As well as providing a

place for ppl who dont like yahoo's conditions, 12sf is getting very

big with a high number of mails which will be too much for some ppl;

12sq will not have this problem. Also it will provide an alternative

if ppl dont like something abt 12sf; the bad news for 'coolguy' is I

will be on both lists.

Also the focus of the list is different. I have set 12sq up as less

directly opposed to 12-step than 12sf. Indication of some support for

12 step is acceptable there, providing a person does not wish to

merely defend the status quo. I almost called it " 12-step-reform " but

decided that sounded too pro 12-step.

There is an irony here. For a long time i was very hostile to ppl who

came onto 12sf and expressed pro 12-step ideas. Ken has been very

much more tolerant of these ppl than I would have been. For a long

time I talked about starting a list called " Honest to God 12 step

free " where such ppl would be barred. Historically it would seem to

make more sense if Ken ran my list and I ran 12sf than this way round.

However, my views have changed. These days I attend a 12-step group

again, but I am still very much in touch with the issues addressed on

12sf. Hence the more moderate basis to the new list.

Pete

[Guest guest]

> Which in my opinion makes Pete a full fledged 12 stepper, and in

>reading his posts that should be kept in mind.

As ever Dave you parallel coolguy with the even handedness of your

pronouncements. There is quite a difference between sitting in a

meeting and actively pursuing its philosophy with vim. Is there any

way in your opinion it is possible to be anything other than either

completely unassociated with things steppy or being a fully feldged

stepper? Is there no egg hatching stage, for example? There cant be

many steppers who actively challenge the notion that alcohol dependent

ppl are never able to drink moderately, for example. Or is this

challenge to RR dogma somehow also an indication of my steppism? As

for my posts, shouldnt what they say stand on its own merits

regardless of whatever I might get up to away from the computer?

[Guest guest]

> Which in my opinion makes Pete a full fledged 12 stepper, and in

>reading his posts that should be kept in mind.

As ever Dave you parallel coolguy with the even handedness of your

pronouncements. There is quite a difference between sitting in a

meeting and actively pursuing its philosophy with vim. Is there any

way in your opinion it is possible to be anything other than either

completely unassociated with things steppy or being a fully feldged

stepper? Is there no egg hatching stage, for example? There cant be

many steppers who actively challenge the notion that alcohol dependent

ppl are never able to drink moderately, for example. Or is this

challenge to RR dogma somehow also an indication of my steppism? As

for my posts, shouldnt what they say stand on its own merits

regardless of whatever I might get up to away from the computer?

[Guest guest]

watts_pete@... wrote:

>

> You can join here:

>

> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

> The remit for this list is:

>

> '12-STEP-QUESTIONERS is a support and discussion group for those who

> question the practices and claims of Anonymous 12 step programs and

> their supporters, and who believe benefit would ensure from open

> debate of these within and especially outside these programs. It is

> also a place for people who are resisting coercion into 12-step

> participation or feel they have been hurt by 12-step participation to

> receive support and information.

>

> Membership is open to anyone whether or not they currently are

> involved in a 12-step program. Expressing Support for 12-step

> programs is acceptable but a member must be willing to accept

> expression of skepticism, concern, and direct hostility to 12-step

> programs by other members. Participation solely for the purpose of

> defending the status quo is inappropriate.'

>

> I might add to that topics like coercion, disease theory, etc.

>

> A distate for Libertarianism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand is not

> essential but a willingness to tolerate such a distate by others might

> be handy.

>

> Again, you can join at:

>

> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?SUBED1=12-step-questioners & A=1

>

Pete,

This should be great. I'll add it to the aakills website. Can I

persuade anyone else to start a list with a little bit different slant?

There's room for lots of discussion from lots of different perspectives.

Ken

[Guest guest]

061450@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/3/2001 2:08:54 AM Central Standard Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> > Can I

> > persuade anyone else to start a list with a little bit different slant?

>

> Did you have any particular slant in mind?

>

> ~~~eric

>

,

Not at all. I'm just a big fan of " the market place of ideas. "

Ken

[Guest guest]

061450@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/3/2001 2:08:54 AM Central Standard Time, kenr1@...

> writes:

>

> > Can I

> > persuade anyone else to start a list with a little bit different slant?

>

> Did you have any particular slant in mind?

>

> ~~~eric

>

,

Not at all. I'm just a big fan of " the market place of ideas. "

Ken

[Guest guest]

> I'm just a big fan of " the market place of ideas. "

A bit of " laissez-faire " meme competition eh Ken?

Ironically, considering my sometimes troubled disposition with regard

to America, 12-step-questioners now tops the index of supported lists

at St s Uni NYC, haing overtaken one called " 1776MISC " .

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> " ...And that someone should create a community where this kind of

> behavior was seriously considered to be healthy and acceptable is

> ALSO relevant to assessing the value of that person's ideas. "

>

> I'd like to hear your arguments on how attending a 12 step meeting

>can be healthy and acceptable.

Well I hope Trimpey's RR commandos arent going to make it *illegal*.

Since I surely can't be harming anyone else with my little neurotic

pastime, how can it not be acceptable?

As for healthy, well they may talk shit but they dont smear it on the

walls. On a whim I looked back at the early posts for this list. I

saw one of my posts from 3 years ago when I went to an OA meeting and

said " Anyone want to start a group that isnt into the God stuff? " and

got a taker right there and then. Of course, you apparently believe

that so much as even talking about a difficulty with another person is

somehow castrating yourself with regard to doing something about it.

Well funnily enough I dont agree with you. I believe it's a

well-established pdychological finding that in general, support groups

help ppl with their problems. I would have thought anyone with a

fondness for making friends ought to grok that, but apparently you

dont. Now obviously a support group with a sound philosophy is better

than one that is not, and an XA group may not score highly in that

department. But they're still human beings, and London OA is markedly

different from the kind of rabid cult meetings that have furnished so

many AA horror stories. I might even be able to save some of their

souls; as I think I said, I spent an hour after the meeting

challenging XA myths with a couple of guys, one of them being that

alcohol dependents can never drink moderately. That of course is a

conformity you would like me to adopt.

I've just remembered I decided not to talk to you about such things.

I've typed this so it can stay, but when it comes to wanting to

know why I do what I do from now on, you can kiss my ass.

[Guest guest]

> > I've typed this so it can stay, but when it comes to wanting to

> > know why I do what I do from now on, you can kiss my ass.

> >

>

> I suppose Liang might have asked you to do the same? :-)

I dont care what he did to himself; I do care about what he did to

other ppl.

[Guest guest]

> > I've typed this so it can stay, but when it comes to wanting to

> > know why I do what I do from now on, you can kiss my ass.

> >

>

> I suppose Liang might have asked you to do the same? :-)

I dont care what he did to himself; I do care about what he did to

other ppl.

[Guest guest]

> > I've typed this so it can stay, but when it comes to wanting to

> > know why I do what I do from now on, you can kiss my ass.

> >

>

> I suppose Liang might have asked you to do the same? :-)

I dont care what he did to himself; I do care about what he did to

other ppl.

[Guest guest]

>

> >> I suppose Liang might have asked you to do the same? :-)

>

> > I dont care what he did to himself; I do care about what he did to

> > other ppl.

>

> I'm curious- what did he do to other people?

Encourage them to come off their meds and live as psychotic ppl, no

matter how off the wall they became. I read a book by a man whose

wife immolated herself after falling under the influence of a

Laing-like shrink. The shrink is referred to as " Landis " and since the

view is so unorthodox, I strongly suspect that in fact it was Laing

but her widower was obliged not to use his real nmae for obvious

reasons.

P.

[Guest guest]

>

> >> I suppose Liang might have asked you to do the same? :-)

>

> > I dont care what he did to himself; I do care about what he did to

> > other ppl.

>

> I'm curious- what did he do to other people?

Encourage them to come off their meds and live as psychotic ppl, no

matter how off the wall they became. I read a book by a man whose

wife immolated herself after falling under the influence of a

Laing-like shrink. The shrink is referred to as " Landis " and since the

view is so unorthodox, I strongly suspect that in fact it was Laing

but her widower was obliged not to use his real nmae for obvious

reasons.

P.