Re: Re: Rational Recovery needs to get real and be proactive

[Guest guest]

Hello Dixie and others. I'm new to this chat stuff...I thought I'd stick my

2 cents in. The reason RR no longer has groups (good decision in my opinion)

is because it conflicts with RR's philosphy. Sobriety is a personal decision

(supported by the skill of AVRT) to abstain. If a person has made such a

decision, why would that person need support?

As to RR advocates being " minor league drunks " without war stories, you're

simply mistaken. Most people who seek RR came from AA and were looking to

escape or did not get get sober there. They also sold refridgerators out of

their homes, did jail for crimes they couldn't remember etc. I don't care

much for war stories but I lost more money monthly on my addiction then your

6 month " helping " losses...and much more then money. I'd qualify for any AA

room as would the people I've met. You mentioned that RR does not " help "

drunks/addicts in the AA 12th step sense. You are correct. RR isn't trying

to save the world. RR is out there if one wants it. Besides, how do you

help a drunk who doesn't want to stop? I've met Jack and Lois Trimpey. Both

were very nice people and very helpful to me. Both are very likeable,

neither are right-wing nuts. They are freedom fighters and give to that

cause tirelessly. They speak out against AA, as do I and many others because

AA is dangerous...it kills people and is eating our culture at the root. If

you're interested in how it's doing that, that'll be another e-mail. But the

next time you read the paper and find that a murderer, or pedophile or rapist

is sent for " treatment " , ask yourself treatment for what, and where did that

thinking come from? I suppose in the not too distant future, there will be a

class action suit against General Motors for giving people the " disease of

driving " . Sounds crazy right? It is. As for me, AA killed my spirit and

nearly killed me. I'm glad I'm no longer there. My wife and I had a couple

we were friends with, both in AA. We used to discuss the merits of our

recovery methods over dinner...just small talk..I wasn't interested in

proving anything to them, and they knew better then trying to 12 step me.

The wife in that couple died of an overdose. At the funeral I mourned.

After the funeral, I remember overhearing her program friends give the same,

tired useless explanations... " she didn't do a good fifth step " , " not enough

meetings " , " should've called her sponsor " AA itself was NEVER to blame. The

slogan I've kept from AA is " there but for the grace of God " . I say it in

silence, everytime I pass a meeting.

[Guest guest]

Hello Dixie and others. I'm new to this chat stuff...I thought I'd stick my

2 cents in. The reason RR no longer has groups (good decision in my opinion)

is because it conflicts with RR's philosphy. Sobriety is a personal decision

(supported by the skill of AVRT) to abstain. If a person has made such a

decision, why would that person need support?

As to RR advocates being " minor league drunks " without war stories, you're

simply mistaken. Most people who seek RR came from AA and were looking to

escape or did not get get sober there. They also sold refridgerators out of

their homes, did jail for crimes they couldn't remember etc. I don't care

much for war stories but I lost more money monthly on my addiction then your

6 month " helping " losses...and much more then money. I'd qualify for any AA

room as would the people I've met. You mentioned that RR does not " help "

drunks/addicts in the AA 12th step sense. You are correct. RR isn't trying

to save the world. RR is out there if one wants it. Besides, how do you

help a drunk who doesn't want to stop? I've met Jack and Lois Trimpey. Both

were very nice people and very helpful to me. Both are very likeable,

neither are right-wing nuts. They are freedom fighters and give to that

cause tirelessly. They speak out against AA, as do I and many others because

AA is dangerous...it kills people and is eating our culture at the root. If

you're interested in how it's doing that, that'll be another e-mail. But the

next time you read the paper and find that a murderer, or pedophile or rapist

is sent for " treatment " , ask yourself treatment for what, and where did that

thinking come from? I suppose in the not too distant future, there will be a

class action suit against General Motors for giving people the " disease of

driving " . Sounds crazy right? It is. As for me, AA killed my spirit and

nearly killed me. I'm glad I'm no longer there. My wife and I had a couple

we were friends with, both in AA. We used to discuss the merits of our

recovery methods over dinner...just small talk..I wasn't interested in

proving anything to them, and they knew better then trying to 12 step me.

The wife in that couple died of an overdose. At the funeral I mourned.

After the funeral, I remember overhearing her program friends give the same,

tired useless explanations... " she didn't do a good fifth step " , " not enough

meetings " , " should've called her sponsor " AA itself was NEVER to blame. The

slogan I've kept from AA is " there but for the grace of God " . I say it in

silence, everytime I pass a meeting.

[Guest guest]

Hello Dixie and others. I'm new to this chat stuff...I thought I'd stick my

2 cents in. The reason RR no longer has groups (good decision in my opinion)

is because it conflicts with RR's philosphy. Sobriety is a personal decision

(supported by the skill of AVRT) to abstain. If a person has made such a

decision, why would that person need support?

As to RR advocates being " minor league drunks " without war stories, you're

simply mistaken. Most people who seek RR came from AA and were looking to

escape or did not get get sober there. They also sold refridgerators out of

their homes, did jail for crimes they couldn't remember etc. I don't care

much for war stories but I lost more money monthly on my addiction then your

6 month " helping " losses...and much more then money. I'd qualify for any AA

room as would the people I've met. You mentioned that RR does not " help "

drunks/addicts in the AA 12th step sense. You are correct. RR isn't trying

to save the world. RR is out there if one wants it. Besides, how do you

help a drunk who doesn't want to stop? I've met Jack and Lois Trimpey. Both

were very nice people and very helpful to me. Both are very likeable,

neither are right-wing nuts. They are freedom fighters and give to that

cause tirelessly. They speak out against AA, as do I and many others because

AA is dangerous...it kills people and is eating our culture at the root. If

you're interested in how it's doing that, that'll be another e-mail. But the

next time you read the paper and find that a murderer, or pedophile or rapist

is sent for " treatment " , ask yourself treatment for what, and where did that

thinking come from? I suppose in the not too distant future, there will be a

class action suit against General Motors for giving people the " disease of

driving " . Sounds crazy right? It is. As for me, AA killed my spirit and

nearly killed me. I'm glad I'm no longer there. My wife and I had a couple

we were friends with, both in AA. We used to discuss the merits of our

recovery methods over dinner...just small talk..I wasn't interested in

proving anything to them, and they knew better then trying to 12 step me.

The wife in that couple died of an overdose. At the funeral I mourned.

After the funeral, I remember overhearing her program friends give the same,

tired useless explanations... " she didn't do a good fifth step " , " not enough

meetings " , " should've called her sponsor " AA itself was NEVER to blame. The

slogan I've kept from AA is " there but for the grace of God " . I say it in

silence, everytime I pass a meeting.

[Guest guest]

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

>From: mrreindeer2000@...

> I think one reason Trimpey might have stopped the

>meetings was out of a concern that RR might turn into a cult like AA.

>

OMG I can see it. It would have been like the Platform/Operating System

wars Mac vs PC, OSX vs Micro$oft Windoze ver Linux ver unix ver BeOS

Micro$oft will of course be played by the villainous AA. It holds treatment

dominance and ruthlessly bludgeons/suppresses it's competition.

[Guest guest]

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

>From: mrreindeer2000@...

> I think one reason Trimpey might have stopped the

>meetings was out of a concern that RR might turn into a cult like AA.

>

OMG I can see it. It would have been like the Platform/Operating System

wars Mac vs PC, OSX vs Micro$oft Windoze ver Linux ver unix ver BeOS

Micro$oft will of course be played by the villainous AA. It holds treatment

dominance and ruthlessly bludgeons/suppresses it's competition.

[Guest guest]

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

>From: mrreindeer2000@...

> I think one reason Trimpey might have stopped the

>meetings was out of a concern that RR might turn into a cult like AA.

>

OMG I can see it. It would have been like the Platform/Operating System

wars Mac vs PC, OSX vs Micro$oft Windoze ver Linux ver unix ver BeOS

Micro$oft will of course be played by the villainous AA. It holds treatment

dominance and ruthlessly bludgeons/suppresses it's competition.

[Guest guest]

At 09:49 PM 2/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>

> > I think one reason Trimpey might have stopped the

> > meetings was out of a concern that RR might turn into a cult like

> >AA.

>

>...and I suspect it might turn into a commercial cult like Scientology

>instead. Why have so many RR ppl got such a beef about " Recovery

>Group Disorder " and such? Self-help AVRT means no cash $ for the

>Trimpeys.

You can learn AVRT for free on his web site.

Actually I think he's on to something with the " recovery group

disorder " bit. I wish he didn't feel he had to give it a name

because it ends up sounding like just another fake disease,

but IMO it is true that group participation can be harmful.

There's a lot to be said for deliberately choosing to associate

with more healthy people, instead of seeking out groups of

people who share one's problem.

This is not to say all groups are bad. I think they can be

helpful for people who are heavily addicted and have a hard

time getting through even one day without the substance

of choice. The group support can work wonders in such a

situation.

For most people, though -- people who have jobs and families

and reasonably normal lives -- hanging out with a " group of

drunks " may be a very bad move. Focus on the solution,

not the problem.

[Guest guest]

At 09:49 PM 2/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>

> > I think one reason Trimpey might have stopped the

> > meetings was out of a concern that RR might turn into a cult like

> >AA.

>

>...and I suspect it might turn into a commercial cult like Scientology

>instead. Why have so many RR ppl got such a beef about " Recovery

>Group Disorder " and such? Self-help AVRT means no cash $ for the

>Trimpeys.

You can learn AVRT for free on his web site.

Actually I think he's on to something with the " recovery group

disorder " bit. I wish he didn't feel he had to give it a name

because it ends up sounding like just another fake disease,

but IMO it is true that group participation can be harmful.

There's a lot to be said for deliberately choosing to associate

with more healthy people, instead of seeking out groups of

people who share one's problem.

This is not to say all groups are bad. I think they can be

helpful for people who are heavily addicted and have a hard

time getting through even one day without the substance

of choice. The group support can work wonders in such a

situation.

For most people, though -- people who have jobs and families

and reasonably normal lives -- hanging out with a " group of

drunks " may be a very bad move. Focus on the solution,

not the problem.

[Guest guest]

At 09:49 PM 2/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>

> > I think one reason Trimpey might have stopped the

> > meetings was out of a concern that RR might turn into a cult like

> >AA.

>

>...and I suspect it might turn into a commercial cult like Scientology

>instead. Why have so many RR ppl got such a beef about " Recovery

>Group Disorder " and such? Self-help AVRT means no cash $ for the

>Trimpeys.

You can learn AVRT for free on his web site.

Actually I think he's on to something with the " recovery group

disorder " bit. I wish he didn't feel he had to give it a name

because it ends up sounding like just another fake disease,

but IMO it is true that group participation can be harmful.

There's a lot to be said for deliberately choosing to associate

with more healthy people, instead of seeking out groups of

people who share one's problem.

This is not to say all groups are bad. I think they can be

helpful for people who are heavily addicted and have a hard

time getting through even one day without the substance

of choice. The group support can work wonders in such a

situation.

For most people, though -- people who have jobs and families

and reasonably normal lives -- hanging out with a " group of

drunks " may be a very bad move. Focus on the solution,

not the problem.

[Guest guest]

>You can learn AVRT for free on his web site.

IF you have access to his web site, IF you know how to use a computer, if,

if, if. Meaning, fucking lot of good it does to a lot of alcoholics.

>Actually I think he's on to something with the " recovery group

>disorder " bit. I wish he didn't feel he had to give it a name

>because it ends up sounding like just another fake disease,

>but IMO it is true that group participation can be harmful.

I don't think it's group participation that can be harmful--though I don't

see what purpose drunkalogues serve, except to learn some entertaining

stories and to convince yourself that you can't be an alcoholic because

you're not near as bad off as that guy is/was.

It's the AA mindset that's harmful, IMO.

>This is not to say all groups are bad. I think they can be

>helpful for people who are heavily addicted and have a hard

>time getting through even one day without the substance

>of choice. The group support can work wonders in such a

>situation.

And while I've certainly known a lot of " stable " people who drank too much,

(even more, I've known their family members who were struggling to deal

with their abuse/neglect/lack of relationship/etc) most of the

alcoholics/addicts I now know and deal with, are those who have lost

everything or damn near everything. It is those I'm advocating for, those

I'm trying to find a working solution for. People who have access to money,

insurance, jobs, stability, the internet--heck, what do you think this

group, and Buddy T.'s site, and many others are, other than a recovery

self-help group?---people who have access to all t hose things, will

generally find a way. People whose alcoholism doesn't interfere in their

daily life to the extent that they get fired will cope. But the people I'm

dealing with start drinking, and once they start, they go into DTs or even

convulsions if they try to stop. I've picked friends up off the street at 1

AM because they were getting very ill and about to go into convulsions if

they didn't get some adovan or alcohol into them soon. I've taken a guy to

the hospital for detox and had him convulse on me in the waiting room (and

then tried to get the darned hospital staff to do something about it!) He

doesn't know the first thing about the internet or how to use a computer.

One man I know lived in a homeless shelter for 5 years. He panhandled or

worked odd jobs during the day for his drinking money. At night, before the

stores closed, he'd buy a tall can of beer to drink so he wouldn't get

violently ill during the night, from not having enough alcohol in his

system (people can die from detoxing.)

>For most people, though -- people who have jobs and families

>and reasonably normal lives -- hanging out with a " group of

>drunks " may be a very bad move. Focus on the solution,

>not the problem.

Generally, I agree. But I think at first, when someone is just starting to

admit/come to grips with their problem, that a support group can be

helpful--just as people find the 'testimonials' on Trimpey's web site to be

helpful. " Oh, I'm not the only one... " they think. It helps to know that

other people are in the same boat you are in, and that there is hope. It

helps to know that there are other people whose all-consuming thought is

how they're going to get their next drink. Then, when you are over that

hump and focusing on something else, I agree--it's time to move on. Get on

with life.

One thing I have heard repeatedly from those who say AA has helped them, is

that it is helpful to be with people who know where you are, who've been

there themselves, and have gotten through it. I would prefer AA to be more

discussion-oriented, instead of testimonial-oriented, and of course I'd

scrap the god bit and most of the 12 steps and the defeatist attitude.

Which means, I'd alter AA to the point it was unrecognizable.

[Guest guest]

>You can learn AVRT for free on his web site.

IF you have access to his web site, IF you know how to use a computer, if,

if, if. Meaning, fucking lot of good it does to a lot of alcoholics.

>Actually I think he's on to something with the " recovery group

>disorder " bit. I wish he didn't feel he had to give it a name

>because it ends up sounding like just another fake disease,

>but IMO it is true that group participation can be harmful.

I don't think it's group participation that can be harmful--though I don't

see what purpose drunkalogues serve, except to learn some entertaining

stories and to convince yourself that you can't be an alcoholic because

you're not near as bad off as that guy is/was.

It's the AA mindset that's harmful, IMO.

>This is not to say all groups are bad. I think they can be

>helpful for people who are heavily addicted and have a hard

>time getting through even one day without the substance

>of choice. The group support can work wonders in such a

>situation.

And while I've certainly known a lot of " stable " people who drank too much,

(even more, I've known their family members who were struggling to deal

with their abuse/neglect/lack of relationship/etc) most of the

alcoholics/addicts I now know and deal with, are those who have lost

everything or damn near everything. It is those I'm advocating for, those

I'm trying to find a working solution for. People who have access to money,

insurance, jobs, stability, the internet--heck, what do you think this

group, and Buddy T.'s site, and many others are, other than a recovery

self-help group?---people who have access to all t hose things, will

generally find a way. People whose alcoholism doesn't interfere in their

daily life to the extent that they get fired will cope. But the people I'm

dealing with start drinking, and once they start, they go into DTs or even

convulsions if they try to stop. I've picked friends up off the street at 1

AM because they were getting very ill and about to go into convulsions if

they didn't get some adovan or alcohol into them soon. I've taken a guy to

the hospital for detox and had him convulse on me in the waiting room (and

then tried to get the darned hospital staff to do something about it!) He

doesn't know the first thing about the internet or how to use a computer.

One man I know lived in a homeless shelter for 5 years. He panhandled or

worked odd jobs during the day for his drinking money. At night, before the

stores closed, he'd buy a tall can of beer to drink so he wouldn't get

violently ill during the night, from not having enough alcohol in his

system (people can die from detoxing.)

>For most people, though -- people who have jobs and families

>and reasonably normal lives -- hanging out with a " group of

>drunks " may be a very bad move. Focus on the solution,

>not the problem.

Generally, I agree. But I think at first, when someone is just starting to

admit/come to grips with their problem, that a support group can be

helpful--just as people find the 'testimonials' on Trimpey's web site to be

helpful. " Oh, I'm not the only one... " they think. It helps to know that

other people are in the same boat you are in, and that there is hope. It

helps to know that there are other people whose all-consuming thought is

how they're going to get their next drink. Then, when you are over that

hump and focusing on something else, I agree--it's time to move on. Get on

with life.

One thing I have heard repeatedly from those who say AA has helped them, is

that it is helpful to be with people who know where you are, who've been

there themselves, and have gotten through it. I would prefer AA to be more

discussion-oriented, instead of testimonial-oriented, and of course I'd

scrap the god bit and most of the 12 steps and the defeatist attitude.

Which means, I'd alter AA to the point it was unrecognizable.

[Guest guest]

>You can learn AVRT for free on his web site.

IF you have access to his web site, IF you know how to use a computer, if,

if, if. Meaning, fucking lot of good it does to a lot of alcoholics.

>Actually I think he's on to something with the " recovery group

>disorder " bit. I wish he didn't feel he had to give it a name

>because it ends up sounding like just another fake disease,

>but IMO it is true that group participation can be harmful.

I don't think it's group participation that can be harmful--though I don't

see what purpose drunkalogues serve, except to learn some entertaining

stories and to convince yourself that you can't be an alcoholic because

you're not near as bad off as that guy is/was.

It's the AA mindset that's harmful, IMO.

>This is not to say all groups are bad. I think they can be

>helpful for people who are heavily addicted and have a hard

>time getting through even one day without the substance

>of choice. The group support can work wonders in such a

>situation.

And while I've certainly known a lot of " stable " people who drank too much,

(even more, I've known their family members who were struggling to deal

with their abuse/neglect/lack of relationship/etc) most of the

alcoholics/addicts I now know and deal with, are those who have lost

everything or damn near everything. It is those I'm advocating for, those

I'm trying to find a working solution for. People who have access to money,

insurance, jobs, stability, the internet--heck, what do you think this

group, and Buddy T.'s site, and many others are, other than a recovery

self-help group?---people who have access to all t hose things, will

generally find a way. People whose alcoholism doesn't interfere in their

daily life to the extent that they get fired will cope. But the people I'm

dealing with start drinking, and once they start, they go into DTs or even

convulsions if they try to stop. I've picked friends up off the street at 1

AM because they were getting very ill and about to go into convulsions if

they didn't get some adovan or alcohol into them soon. I've taken a guy to

the hospital for detox and had him convulse on me in the waiting room (and

then tried to get the darned hospital staff to do something about it!) He

doesn't know the first thing about the internet or how to use a computer.

One man I know lived in a homeless shelter for 5 years. He panhandled or

worked odd jobs during the day for his drinking money. At night, before the

stores closed, he'd buy a tall can of beer to drink so he wouldn't get

violently ill during the night, from not having enough alcohol in his

system (people can die from detoxing.)

>For most people, though -- people who have jobs and families

>and reasonably normal lives -- hanging out with a " group of

>drunks " may be a very bad move. Focus on the solution,

>not the problem.

Generally, I agree. But I think at first, when someone is just starting to

admit/come to grips with their problem, that a support group can be

helpful--just as people find the 'testimonials' on Trimpey's web site to be

helpful. " Oh, I'm not the only one... " they think. It helps to know that

other people are in the same boat you are in, and that there is hope. It

helps to know that there are other people whose all-consuming thought is

how they're going to get their next drink. Then, when you are over that

hump and focusing on something else, I agree--it's time to move on. Get on

with life.

One thing I have heard repeatedly from those who say AA has helped them, is

that it is helpful to be with people who know where you are, who've been

there themselves, and have gotten through it. I would prefer AA to be more

discussion-oriented, instead of testimonial-oriented, and of course I'd

scrap the god bit and most of the 12 steps and the defeatist attitude.

Which means, I'd alter AA to the point it was unrecognizable.

[Guest guest]

>My 2 cents also: having an open forum where people can " bitch " about

>AA, in and of itself is " doing something. "

It's only doing something for those who have already been through AA. Are

you saying that alcoholics should have to suffer through AA before they can

find alternatives? By 'doing something', I mean doing something to spread

the word to people seeking treatment, that there are alternatives to AA. I

think most of the people on this list are here because they have tried and

dislike the 12 step programs.

AA has gotten to be the

>power it has for one reason because all the people that it doesn't

>work for are silenced or don't have a forum to express their views.

Or they self-silence and don't try to spread their views, or their web

sites consist of mostly diatribes. Trimpey doesn't want meetings. Fine. By

making that choice, he is deciding to forever limit the scope of Rational

Recovery.

What do you expect a judge to do? Given the choice of a) sentencing someone

to jail or prison for a year or two; putting the offender on probation

with a requirement to seek help for alcohol addiction, help that is

verifiable, or c) putting the offender on probation with no other

requirement--what would you have a judge do? Since, in Texas at least,

judges are elected, they are responsible and answerable for their

decisions. If RR offers no alternative to AA, of course they're going to

sentence offenders to AA. So RR is merely guaranteeing continued sentencing

to AA, and continued abuses by AA. Far from 'canceling' the 12 step

movement, they're aiding it by keeping alternatives hidden and not easily

accessible.

Not many people are going to find out about Rational Recovery from the web

site alone. Informing people doesn't mean proselytizing. But if you expect

alcoholics to seek out alternatives, you've got to make those alternatives

available. And if you expect courts to consider alternatives to AA, you've

got to give them viable alternatives to consider. If RR is no longer

recognizing meetings, it is doing neither of those.

[Guest guest]

>My 2 cents also: having an open forum where people can " bitch " about

>AA, in and of itself is " doing something. "

It's only doing something for those who have already been through AA. Are

you saying that alcoholics should have to suffer through AA before they can

find alternatives? By 'doing something', I mean doing something to spread

the word to people seeking treatment, that there are alternatives to AA. I

think most of the people on this list are here because they have tried and

dislike the 12 step programs.

AA has gotten to be the

>power it has for one reason because all the people that it doesn't

>work for are silenced or don't have a forum to express their views.

Or they self-silence and don't try to spread their views, or their web

sites consist of mostly diatribes. Trimpey doesn't want meetings. Fine. By

making that choice, he is deciding to forever limit the scope of Rational

Recovery.

What do you expect a judge to do? Given the choice of a) sentencing someone

to jail or prison for a year or two; putting the offender on probation

with a requirement to seek help for alcohol addiction, help that is

verifiable, or c) putting the offender on probation with no other

requirement--what would you have a judge do? Since, in Texas at least,

judges are elected, they are responsible and answerable for their

decisions. If RR offers no alternative to AA, of course they're going to

sentence offenders to AA. So RR is merely guaranteeing continued sentencing

to AA, and continued abuses by AA. Far from 'canceling' the 12 step

movement, they're aiding it by keeping alternatives hidden and not easily

accessible.

Not many people are going to find out about Rational Recovery from the web

site alone. Informing people doesn't mean proselytizing. But if you expect

alcoholics to seek out alternatives, you've got to make those alternatives

available. And if you expect courts to consider alternatives to AA, you've

got to give them viable alternatives to consider. If RR is no longer

recognizing meetings, it is doing neither of those.

[Guest guest]

>My 2 cents also: having an open forum where people can " bitch " about

>AA, in and of itself is " doing something. "

It's only doing something for those who have already been through AA. Are

you saying that alcoholics should have to suffer through AA before they can

find alternatives? By 'doing something', I mean doing something to spread

the word to people seeking treatment, that there are alternatives to AA. I

think most of the people on this list are here because they have tried and

dislike the 12 step programs.

AA has gotten to be the

>power it has for one reason because all the people that it doesn't

>work for are silenced or don't have a forum to express their views.

Or they self-silence and don't try to spread their views, or their web

sites consist of mostly diatribes. Trimpey doesn't want meetings. Fine. By

making that choice, he is deciding to forever limit the scope of Rational

Recovery.

What do you expect a judge to do? Given the choice of a) sentencing someone

to jail or prison for a year or two; putting the offender on probation

with a requirement to seek help for alcohol addiction, help that is

verifiable, or c) putting the offender on probation with no other

requirement--what would you have a judge do? Since, in Texas at least,

judges are elected, they are responsible and answerable for their

decisions. If RR offers no alternative to AA, of course they're going to

sentence offenders to AA. So RR is merely guaranteeing continued sentencing

to AA, and continued abuses by AA. Far from 'canceling' the 12 step

movement, they're aiding it by keeping alternatives hidden and not easily

accessible.

Not many people are going to find out about Rational Recovery from the web

site alone. Informing people doesn't mean proselytizing. But if you expect

alcoholics to seek out alternatives, you've got to make those alternatives

available. And if you expect courts to consider alternatives to AA, you've

got to give them viable alternatives to consider. If RR is no longer

recognizing meetings, it is doing neither of those.

[Guest guest]

>Hello Dixie and others. I'm new to this chat stuff...I thought I'd stick my

>2 cents in. The reason RR no longer has groups (good decision in my opinion)

>is because it conflicts with RR's philosphy. Sobriety is a personal decision

>(supported by the skill of AVRT) to abstain. If a person has made such a

>decision, why would that person need support?

You may have missed some of my earlier posts. They need support because:

they have made that decision many times before and not been able to stick to it.

They have multiple problems contributing to and enhanced by their

alcoholism, and they need help dealing with those problems, and NO, social

services are no near adequate to deal with them.

Many alcoholics/addicts are self-medicating because they have undiagnosed

or un-dealt with emotional/mental health issues. Simply not drinking is not

going to erase the self-hate an incest victim feels. Simply not getting

high is not going to make the pain of being poor, even though you're

working 50 hours a week, go away. Simply not drinking is not going to

address issues such as your marriage is lousy, your husband abusive, but

you can't afford to leave. Simply not drinking is not going to make your

depression go away, especially if the reason you drank in the first place

was because of severe depression.

They need to learn to deal with anger and how to manage it appropriately

vs. dealing with it by going out and getting drunk.

They need to learn interpersonal skills which they didn't use because they

turned to alcohol to absorb their problems.

They need support to know there are others in the same boat who are having

the same problems.

They need help combatting the influences of drugs/alcohol in their lives.

When your spouse/SO uses, when all your friends and neighbors use, when

your drug of choice is available right outside your door, it's extremely

difficult to stay off it. And no, people on public assistance cannot

suddenly move. There are year-long waiting lists as it is.

Most of all, they need access to something like AVRT, and there are a hell

of a lot of alcoholics/addicts who do not have access to the internet or

knowledge of how to use a computer. In fact, most of the alcoholics/addicts

I know fit this category.

If RR wants to change the judicial system's insistence on sentencing people

to AA, they've got to provide an alternative that is verifiable by the

courts. Simply telling someone to visit a web page or read a book and work

what is says is not verifiable by the courts. The alternative to this would

be to lock up everyone found guilty of DWI, no ifs, ands, or buts, no

mercy, no nothing.

>As to RR advocates being " minor league drunks " without war stories, you're

>simply mistaken. Most people who seek RR came from AA and were looking to

>escape or did not get get sober there.

Then why are people here telling me that:

1) all anyone needs to do is access rational.org on the internet (as though

allalcoholics/addicts had access to the web)

2) it seems everyone here, and everyone or almost everyone who has used

AVRT, did not lose everything they had. They managed to keep their jobs,

their homes, their careers, their possessions. Alcohol did not so consume

their lives that they lost everything.

3) When I have been talking about alcoholics and how to help alcoholics

out, I'm met with talk about the myths of " demon rum " and that it's

possible to drink in moderation. Hell, I know it's possible to drink in

moderation, because I do so myself! It's not me I'm worried about--it's the

guys who, once they start drinking, can't stop unless they go through

detox. The guys who are relatively sober when they have BACs of .28,

because the rest of the time they're over .3 and still wanting more.

4) I'm told most people who drank heavily self-moderate. Yes, but were they

alcoholics? If AVRT helps only affluent, successful people who perhaps

drink more than they should, but are not truly addicted, then it can't very

well tout itself as an alternative to AA.

You mentioned that RR does not " help "

>drunks/addicts in the AA 12th step sense. You are correct. RR isn't trying

>to save the world. RR is out there if one wants it.

I did not mention 12th step.

RR is out there, but it's in hiding, and it's doing a lot to keep from

being found. It's making no effort to change the modality of treatment in

rehab centers besides blow smoke at AA. It's hard to find, especially if

you don't access the internet. It rails against AA, but does very little to

offer an alternative that's available to the majority of alcoholics.

Besides, how do you

>help a drunk who doesn't want to stop?

how do you help a drunk who *does* want to stop, when there isn't any way

for them to find out about RR? When there are no meeting places for them to

find out about alternative methods to get sober? When there is no

clearinghouse for literature and information? And of course I mean

something other than the web.

They speak out against AA, as do I and many others because

> AA is dangerous...it kills people and is eating our culture at the root.

Fine. But DO SOMETHING. Don't just bitch and moan. If you're going to

" cancel " the 12 step movement (a silly claim) then do something to replace

it. Something that's widely accessible, something that is verifiable and

acceptable to the courts, something that caters to the poorest of the poor

in addition to the middle and upper classes.

RR does a lot of bitching and moaning against AA, and very little in the

way of offering a viable alternative.

If

>you're interested in how it's doing that, that'll be another e-mail.

I have the RR book, I've read the RR web site, I've watched the pompous videos.

But the

>next time you read the paper and find that a murderer, or pedophile or rapist

>is sent for " treatment " , ask yourself treatment for what, and where did that

>thinking come from?

I would hope that if the person is schizophrenic or manic depressive or

something like that, he's sent for medical/psychiatric treatment. But I

also know that just giving my boyfriend, a 5 time DWIer, a book and telling

him to read it, is not going to cut it. The court has to require something

of him. As it is, he's required to attend a 90 to 180 day residential

treatment center. The ONLY place we could find was the Salvation Army. (Not

quite true, there was one other place run by Christian fundamentalists.)

You think AA is bad, try the Salvation Army. I'd much rather my boyfriend

be in a treatment center than in jail or prison, which is where he'd be

right now if he wasn't at t he Salvation Army. both of us highly resent

the forced Bible study, the required assessments of " spiritual growth " , the

required chapel 3 times a week, the required AA meetings that are nothing

more than a sermon on how you can achieve sobriety if you just give

yourself to Jesus (led by the heroin addict and Jesus freak who ran off

with $3500 of the Center's money one day.)

Given that there *will* be treatment centers (which I agree with, as I

think it's better for a person to deal with and attempt to overcome their

addiction, rather than for the taxpayers to pay for them to rot in jail) if

RR wants to overcome the 12 step industry, it's got to go into treatment

centers and offer RR there.

But RR is mainly aimed at the functional alcoholic with computer access and

a life that hasn't fallen apart completely. Which is one reason it can

claim such a high success rate. If you take the people most likely to

succeed, it's not a surprise if you have a high success rate.

I suppose in the not too distant future, there will be a

>class action suit against General Motors for giving people the " disease of

>driving " . Sounds crazy right? It is. As for me, AA killed my spirit and

>nearly killed me.

If you did not have a problem controlling your intake of alcohol, why were

you there?

I don't care if you call it a disease, a social maladjustment, a sin, or

whathaveyou. Someone will object to the terminology. Whatever it is, it's a

problem, a problem that needs to be addressed.

I agree that AA is not for everyone, which is why I'm on this list. I also

recognize that RR is painting itself into an exclusive little corner and is

doing next to nothing to let the people who most need it, to learn about

it.

I'm glad I'm no longer there. My wife and I had a couple

>we were friends with, both in AA. We used to discuss the merits of our

>recovery methods over dinner...just small talk..I wasn't interested in

>proving anything to them, and they knew better then trying to 12 step me.

>The wife in that couple died of an overdose. At the funeral I mourned.

>After the funeral, I remember overhearing her program friends give the same,

>tired useless explanations... " she didn't do a good fifth step " , " not enough

>meetings " , " should've called her sponsor " AA itself was NEVER to blame. The

>slogan I've kept from AA is " there but for the grace of God " . I say it in

>silence, everytime I pass a meeting.

That is truly sad, and yet another example of why AA should be avoided.

Dixie

[Guest guest]

>Hello Dixie and others. I'm new to this chat stuff...I thought I'd stick my

>2 cents in. The reason RR no longer has groups (good decision in my opinion)

>is because it conflicts with RR's philosphy. Sobriety is a personal decision

>(supported by the skill of AVRT) to abstain. If a person has made such a

>decision, why would that person need support?

You may have missed some of my earlier posts. They need support because:

they have made that decision many times before and not been able to stick to it.

They have multiple problems contributing to and enhanced by their

alcoholism, and they need help dealing with those problems, and NO, social

services are no near adequate to deal with them.

Many alcoholics/addicts are self-medicating because they have undiagnosed

or un-dealt with emotional/mental health issues. Simply not drinking is not

going to erase the self-hate an incest victim feels. Simply not getting

high is not going to make the pain of being poor, even though you're

working 50 hours a week, go away. Simply not drinking is not going to

address issues such as your marriage is lousy, your husband abusive, but

you can't afford to leave. Simply not drinking is not going to make your

depression go away, especially if the reason you drank in the first place

was because of severe depression.

They need to learn to deal with anger and how to manage it appropriately

vs. dealing with it by going out and getting drunk.

They need to learn interpersonal skills which they didn't use because they

turned to alcohol to absorb their problems.

They need support to know there are others in the same boat who are having

the same problems.

They need help combatting the influences of drugs/alcohol in their lives.

When your spouse/SO uses, when all your friends and neighbors use, when

your drug of choice is available right outside your door, it's extremely

difficult to stay off it. And no, people on public assistance cannot

suddenly move. There are year-long waiting lists as it is.

Most of all, they need access to something like AVRT, and there are a hell

of a lot of alcoholics/addicts who do not have access to the internet or

knowledge of how to use a computer. In fact, most of the alcoholics/addicts

I know fit this category.

If RR wants to change the judicial system's insistence on sentencing people

to AA, they've got to provide an alternative that is verifiable by the

courts. Simply telling someone to visit a web page or read a book and work

what is says is not verifiable by the courts. The alternative to this would

be to lock up everyone found guilty of DWI, no ifs, ands, or buts, no

mercy, no nothing.

>As to RR advocates being " minor league drunks " without war stories, you're

>simply mistaken. Most people who seek RR came from AA and were looking to

>escape or did not get get sober there.

Then why are people here telling me that:

1) all anyone needs to do is access rational.org on the internet (as though

allalcoholics/addicts had access to the web)

2) it seems everyone here, and everyone or almost everyone who has used

AVRT, did not lose everything they had. They managed to keep their jobs,

their homes, their careers, their possessions. Alcohol did not so consume

their lives that they lost everything.

3) When I have been talking about alcoholics and how to help alcoholics

out, I'm met with talk about the myths of " demon rum " and that it's

possible to drink in moderation. Hell, I know it's possible to drink in

moderation, because I do so myself! It's not me I'm worried about--it's the

guys who, once they start drinking, can't stop unless they go through

detox. The guys who are relatively sober when they have BACs of .28,

because the rest of the time they're over .3 and still wanting more.

4) I'm told most people who drank heavily self-moderate. Yes, but were they

alcoholics? If AVRT helps only affluent, successful people who perhaps

drink more than they should, but are not truly addicted, then it can't very

well tout itself as an alternative to AA.

You mentioned that RR does not " help "

>drunks/addicts in the AA 12th step sense. You are correct. RR isn't trying

>to save the world. RR is out there if one wants it.

I did not mention 12th step.

RR is out there, but it's in hiding, and it's doing a lot to keep from

being found. It's making no effort to change the modality of treatment in

rehab centers besides blow smoke at AA. It's hard to find, especially if

you don't access the internet. It rails against AA, but does very little to

offer an alternative that's available to the majority of alcoholics.

Besides, how do you

>help a drunk who doesn't want to stop?

how do you help a drunk who *does* want to stop, when there isn't any way

for them to find out about RR? When there are no meeting places for them to

find out about alternative methods to get sober? When there is no

clearinghouse for literature and information? And of course I mean

something other than the web.

They speak out against AA, as do I and many others because

> AA is dangerous...it kills people and is eating our culture at the root.

Fine. But DO SOMETHING. Don't just bitch and moan. If you're going to

" cancel " the 12 step movement (a silly claim) then do something to replace

it. Something that's widely accessible, something that is verifiable and

acceptable to the courts, something that caters to the poorest of the poor

in addition to the middle and upper classes.

RR does a lot of bitching and moaning against AA, and very little in the

way of offering a viable alternative.

If

>you're interested in how it's doing that, that'll be another e-mail.

I have the RR book, I've read the RR web site, I've watched the pompous videos.

But the

>next time you read the paper and find that a murderer, or pedophile or rapist

>is sent for " treatment " , ask yourself treatment for what, and where did that

>thinking come from?

I would hope that if the person is schizophrenic or manic depressive or

something like that, he's sent for medical/psychiatric treatment. But I

also know that just giving my boyfriend, a 5 time DWIer, a book and telling

him to read it, is not going to cut it. The court has to require something

of him. As it is, he's required to attend a 90 to 180 day residential

treatment center. The ONLY place we could find was the Salvation Army. (Not

quite true, there was one other place run by Christian fundamentalists.)

You think AA is bad, try the Salvation Army. I'd much rather my boyfriend

be in a treatment center than in jail or prison, which is where he'd be

right now if he wasn't at t he Salvation Army. both of us highly resent

the forced Bible study, the required assessments of " spiritual growth " , the

required chapel 3 times a week, the required AA meetings that are nothing

more than a sermon on how you can achieve sobriety if you just give

yourself to Jesus (led by the heroin addict and Jesus freak who ran off

with $3500 of the Center's money one day.)

Given that there *will* be treatment centers (which I agree with, as I

think it's better for a person to deal with and attempt to overcome their

addiction, rather than for the taxpayers to pay for them to rot in jail) if

RR wants to overcome the 12 step industry, it's got to go into treatment

centers and offer RR there.

But RR is mainly aimed at the functional alcoholic with computer access and

a life that hasn't fallen apart completely. Which is one reason it can

claim such a high success rate. If you take the people most likely to

succeed, it's not a surprise if you have a high success rate.

I suppose in the not too distant future, there will be a

>class action suit against General Motors for giving people the " disease of

>driving " . Sounds crazy right? It is. As for me, AA killed my spirit and

>nearly killed me.

If you did not have a problem controlling your intake of alcohol, why were

you there?

I don't care if you call it a disease, a social maladjustment, a sin, or

whathaveyou. Someone will object to the terminology. Whatever it is, it's a

problem, a problem that needs to be addressed.

I agree that AA is not for everyone, which is why I'm on this list. I also

recognize that RR is painting itself into an exclusive little corner and is

doing next to nothing to let the people who most need it, to learn about

it.

I'm glad I'm no longer there. My wife and I had a couple

>we were friends with, both in AA. We used to discuss the merits of our

>recovery methods over dinner...just small talk..I wasn't interested in

>proving anything to them, and they knew better then trying to 12 step me.

>The wife in that couple died of an overdose. At the funeral I mourned.

>After the funeral, I remember overhearing her program friends give the same,

>tired useless explanations... " she didn't do a good fifth step " , " not enough

>meetings " , " should've called her sponsor " AA itself was NEVER to blame. The

>slogan I've kept from AA is " there but for the grace of God " . I say it in

>silence, everytime I pass a meeting.

That is truly sad, and yet another example of why AA should be avoided.

Dixie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< Generally, I agree. But I think at first, when someone is just starting to

admit/come to grips with their problem, that a support group can be

helpful--just as people find the 'testimonials' on Trimpey's web site to >>

I don't know about testimonials, but I damned sure wouldn't mind a group of

humans that i trusted (especially intellectually) who have experienced the

same problems to give me a " hail fellow well met " when I'm trying to kick

something or after i've kicked something to say, in the dark, " hello, I'm

here. here is what I am doing or have done and you can do what you want and

need to do or congratulations on kicking the sucker...there is another

consciousness here who knows what you are experiencing... "

It is simple human, reinforcing contact. Where can ya get it? I don't know.

Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< Generally, I agree. But I think at first, when someone is just starting to

admit/come to grips with their problem, that a support group can be

helpful--just as people find the 'testimonials' on Trimpey's web site to >>

I don't know about testimonials, but I damned sure wouldn't mind a group of

humans that i trusted (especially intellectually) who have experienced the

same problems to give me a " hail fellow well met " when I'm trying to kick

something or after i've kicked something to say, in the dark, " hello, I'm

here. here is what I am doing or have done and you can do what you want and

need to do or congratulations on kicking the sucker...there is another

consciousness here who knows what you are experiencing... "

It is simple human, reinforcing contact. Where can ya get it? I don't know.

Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/01 9:14:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@...

writes:

<< Generally, I agree. But I think at first, when someone is just starting to

admit/come to grips with their problem, that a support group can be

helpful--just as people find the 'testimonials' on Trimpey's web site to >>

I don't know about testimonials, but I damned sure wouldn't mind a group of

humans that i trusted (especially intellectually) who have experienced the

same problems to give me a " hail fellow well met " when I'm trying to kick

something or after i've kicked something to say, in the dark, " hello, I'm

here. here is what I am doing or have done and you can do what you want and

need to do or congratulations on kicking the sucker...there is another

consciousness here who knows what you are experiencing... "

It is simple human, reinforcing contact. Where can ya get it? I don't know.

Piper.

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Rational Recovery needs to get real and be

proactive

> >Hello Dixie and others. I'm new to this chat stuff...I thought I'd stick

my

> >2 cents in. The reason RR no longer has groups (good decision in my

opinion)

> >is because it conflicts with RR's philosphy. Sobriety is a personal

decision

> >(supported by the skill of AVRT) to abstain. If a person has made such a

> >decision, why would that person need support?

>

> You may have missed some of my earlier posts. They need support because:

> they have made that decision many times before and not been able to stick

to it.

> They have multiple problems contributing to and enhanced by their

> alcoholism, and they need help dealing with those problems, and NO, social

> services are no near adequate to deal with them.

> Many alcoholics/addicts are self-medicating because they have undiagnosed

> or un-dealt with emotional/mental health issues. Simply not drinking is

not

> going to erase the self-hate an incest victim feels. Simply not getting

> high is not going to make the pain of being poor, even though you're

> working 50 hours a week, go away. Simply not drinking is not going to

> address issues such as your marriage is lousy, your husband abusive, but

> you can't afford to leave. Simply not drinking is not going to make your

> depression go away, especially if the reason you drank in the first place

> was because of severe depression.

> They need to learn to deal with anger and how to manage it appropriately

> vs. dealing with it by going out and getting drunk.

> They need to learn interpersonal skills which they didn't use because they

> turned to alcohol to absorb their problems.

> They need support to know there are others in the same boat who are having

> the same problems.

> They need help combatting the influences of drugs/alcohol in their lives.

> When your spouse/SO uses, when all your friends and neighbors use, when

> your drug of choice is available right outside your door, it's extremely

> difficult to stay off it. And no, people on public assistance cannot

> suddenly move. There are year-long waiting lists as it is.

So you are saying they need support? And it is my job as a fellow human

being to provide for their needs? I am not sure if that is what you are

saying. I clearly hear you saying " they need " but I don't hear from you who

is supposed to provide for those needs. Given my past reading of you, I

assume you are saying that is my duty, that I, or we the people, must attend

to those needs.

> Most of all, they need access to something like AVRT, and there are a hell

> of a lot of alcoholics/addicts who do not have access to the internet or

> knowledge of how to use a computer. In fact, most of the

alcoholics/addicts

> I know fit this category.

> If RR wants to change the judicial system's insistence on sentencing

people

> to AA, they've got to provide an alternative that is verifiable by the

> courts. Simply telling someone to visit a web page or read a book and work

> what is says is not verifiable by the courts. The alternative to this

would

> be to lock up everyone found guilty of DWI, no ifs, ands, or buts, no

> mercy, no nothing.

That is not the only solution. Soon the courts will not be able to

sentence people to AA. It is becoming more and more common not to do that.

People are being sentenced to courses, examinations or counseling, and they

are ordered by the court to follow the counselor's or agency's

recommendation. The recommendations those agencies make are less and less

AA, per se. What RR's other and most feasible alternative is is to make

itself and it's therapy known to those agencies, and pressure the whole

system to use the RR methods because they are superior, if indeed they are,

and they must show evidence.

The best solution, however, is to eliminate the stupid DWI law, and make

people responsible for their actions, not responsible for possible tragedies

that they might have caused, but did not. Alleviating the justice system of

the DWI laws and of course the drug laws, as the DWI law is only a small law

amongst many that are used in the " drug war, " and the burden of enforcing

and adminstering those laws can create a workable justice system. Instead

of focusing on law enforcement, proper rehabilitation could become a reality

when the government's resources are put to better use. Instead of punishing

people with rehabilitation, the justice system could create ways to help

criminals overcome their problems (rehabilitate themselves). Using money

otherwise spent on many guns, squad cars and prison cells, the system could

spend money on therapy (that works). Not a forced therapy, but a therapy to

which incarcerated people would have access to if they chose to utilize it.

No bribes for utilizing it, either, but the incentive that they may be able

to change their lives so that they don't end up hurting others, and,

ultimately, in jail again. Focusing on healing the person (in this case a

criminal), not focusing on healing a possible alcoholic or a person who may

have possibly committed a crime (such as vehicular manslaughter) had no one

intervened.

> >As to RR advocates being " minor league drunks " without war stories,

you're

> >simply mistaken. Most people who seek RR came from AA and were looking

to

> >escape or did not get get sober there.

> Then why are people here telling me that:

> 1) all anyone needs to do is access rational.org on the internet (as

though

> allalcoholics/addicts had access to the web)

> 2) it seems everyone here, and everyone or almost everyone who has used

> AVRT, did not lose everything they had. They managed to keep their jobs,

> their homes, their careers, their possessions. Alcohol did not so consume

> their lives that they lost everything.

> 3) When I have been talking about alcoholics and how to help alcoholics

> out, I'm met with talk about the myths of " demon rum " and that it's

> possible to drink in moderation. Hell, I know it's possible to drink in

> moderation, because I do so myself! It's not me I'm worried about--it's

the

> guys who, once they start drinking, can't stop unless they go through

> detox. The guys who are relatively sober when they have BACs of .28,

> because the rest of the time they're over .3 and still wanting more.

> 4) I'm told most people who drank heavily self-moderate. Yes, but were

they

> alcoholics? If AVRT helps only affluent, successful people who perhaps

> drink more than they should, but are not truly addicted, then it can't

very

> well tout itself as an alternative to AA.

I think if you put your point 1 with point 4 you can see the answer.

Because at this point, the only people (for the most part) RR has been

available to are the moderately well educated and moderately well to do. It

doesn't mean it can not work for others, if the information is available.

That is so obvious, why the double think, trying to not see that?

> You mentioned that RR does not " help "

> >drunks/addicts in the AA 12th step sense. You are correct. RR isn't

trying

> >to save the world. RR is out there if one wants it.

>

> I did not mention 12th step.

> RR is out there, but it's in hiding, and it's doing a lot to keep from

> being found. It's making no effort to change the modality of treatment in

> rehab centers besides blow smoke at AA. It's hard to find, especially if

> you don't access the internet. It rails against AA, but does very little

to

> offer an alternative that's available to the majority of alcoholics.

Again, why do you say this? Exactly how is RR supposed to go about

changing the modality of treatment in rehab centers? Why do you say it is

in hiding? Unlike AA, which is a selfless organization, RR doesn't proclaim

to be one, as far as I know. While AA says it does not advertise, don't

believe it, every member of AA is an advertisement for the group, the 12

steps, sobriety and the basic teachings of Christianity. I believe the

founder of RR has written books and constructed a website to share his

views. Is it also his job to personally change the minds of every AA zombie

working in every treatment facility? No, it's not. You can make it your

job, but he has done his (his job being whatever he determines for himself

his job is - you can't determine his job for him). If RR is better, and if

a free market of sorts continues to exist (I am not saying that industry is

very free at all) RR will grow, the superior service will be chosen, and

eventually the lesser service (the shitty service of AA) will be forced out

of business. If the founder of RR were to make a profit by selling his

service, then maybe there would be more reason for him to advertise that

service, but would it, or would he spend his own time and money to promote

and not see a return? Simple math says it is only possible and logical to

do so much, and how can you say no one is putting forth their own personal

resources to see the better " service " enter the market " ? I am sure they

are - not hiding like you accuse them.

> Besides, how do you

> >help a drunk who doesn't want to stop?

>

> how do you help a drunk who *does* want to stop, when there isn't any way

> for them to find out about RR? When there are no meeting places for them

to

> find out about alternative methods to get sober? When there is no

> clearinghouse for literature and information? And of course I mean

> something other than the web.

Nobody forced the alcoholic to become an alcoholic. Nobody forced the

alcoholic to drink everyday so that at this point in his life he can not

control his craving and can not stop on his own. It is no one's

responsibility but the drunk's to want to stop. And it is no one's

responsibility to aid the drunk in overcoming his urge.

Well... are you going to pay to rent those meeting places? Are you going

to pay for that literature? Who is going to meet in those meeting places,

if those who have went through the RR therapy no longer need to attend? Are

you going to pay someone to be there every week to set up the tables and

chairs, brew the coffee and set out the literature? AA is a cult, it has a

motive for doing such things, RR doesn't, as far as I know. RR is not about

becoming a selfless human being who devotes his energy to a group ... on the

contrary, I would suspect, those in RR focus on becoming a self-serving

human being who devotes his energy to his own pursuits and well-being, not

the well-being of others. AA has quite a monopoly in the treatment

industry, and being a cult that profits from it's position, it is not going

to let go of that monopoly easily. RR doesn't really have the means to post

literature in treatment facilities. The people who run the facilities would

have to do that, but they are steppers, and they so they don't. The way RR

can infiltrate this treatment industry is through private facilities that

like to make money, and from people (customers - alcoholic drinkers) who

really want results. When competitors find that those organizations using a

superior therapy (RR, if it is) are seeing better results and making more

money, and seeing that they themselves are losing customers to their

competition, they will make business choices to drop the cult of AA and use

something that works. That will take time, and will only work if RR is a

superior service and if the government does not secure AA's foothold with

some type of regulation (which unfortunately it very well may, if it can

find a way - the will is certainly there). For you to demand that RR does

more faster is futile.

> They speak out against AA, as do I and many others because

> > AA is dangerous...it kills people and is eating our culture at the root.

>

> Fine. But DO SOMETHING. Don't just bitch and moan. If you're going to

> " cancel " the 12 step movement (a silly claim) then do something to replace

> it. Something that's widely accessible, something that is verifiable and

> acceptable to the courts, something that caters to the poorest of the poor

> in addition to the middle and upper classes.

> RR does a lot of bitching and moaning against AA, and very little in the

> way of offering a viable alternative.

I told them (many people on this list) this same thing a few months ago.

I thought these people were wasting their time getting mad at AA. Well,

that's not true. There is so incredibly much happening and at stake these

days in relation to AA, medicine, psychiatry, and regional, state, national

and world politics that it is very important for people to bitch, to be

heard, and to not give up. No one has a solution for everything you just

mentioned, but when faced with something that is horrible, we must fight

that, and come up with solutions, even if they don't currently exist.

People have to make things happen, and some people here are doing that.

Who is RR - you speak about it like it's a person doing all this

bitching? Do you mean people who've written about RR on this list? Do you

mean the founder? Do you mean yourself, as a " member " of RR? I haven't

tried RR, I have enough to keep me busy, but why are you spending so much

time bitching about RR? Maybe because something hit a nerve?

> But the

> >next time you read the paper and find that a murderer, or pedophile or

rapist

> >is sent for " treatment " , ask yourself treatment for what, and where did

that

> >thinking come from?

>

> I would hope that if the person is schizophrenic or manic depressive or

> something like that, he's sent for medical/psychiatric treatment. But I

> also know that just giving my boyfriend, a 5 time DWIer, a book and

telling

> him to read it, is not going to cut it. The court has to require something

> of him. As it is, he's required to attend a 90 to 180 day residential

> treatment center. The ONLY place we could find was the Salvation Army.

(Not

> quite true, there was one other place run by Christian fundamentalists.)

> You think AA is bad, try the Salvation Army. I'd much rather my boyfriend

> be in a treatment center than in jail or prison, which is where he'd be

> right now if he wasn't at t he Salvation Army. both of us highly resent

> the forced Bible study, the required assessments of " spiritual growth " ,

the

> required chapel 3 times a week, the required AA meetings that are nothing

> more than a sermon on how you can achieve sobriety if you just give

> yourself to Jesus (led by the heroin addict and Jesus freak who ran off

> with $3500 of the Center's money one day.)

Yeah these government solutions are really great. What makes you think

the government can do any better than this? Look accross the board,

wherever big brother is there to help, the help seems pretty shitty. But I

guess you think it is better than no help at all? I am sorry your boyfriend

sounds pretty whacked. He's had more DWI's than me! I wonder if he thinks

he would be better off with this ongoing bullshit or maybe just a little

time in jail without all the hassle? Sitting in jail 2 or 3 days thinking

to one's self about how he got there probably does a lot more good than

hearing solid bullshit for 2 or 3 months. After all that bullshit, you

can't trust anything, especially yourself, and that is very dangerous, since

the only person who can possibly stop you from drinking, partying, going

bonkers and doing something incredibly stupid (again), is yourself. People

NEED to trust themselves, but are taught/brainwashed/forced not to.

> Given that there *will* be treatment centers (which I agree with, as I

> think it's better for a person to deal with and attempt to overcome their

> addiction, rather than for the taxpayers to pay for them to rot in jail)

if

> RR wants to overcome the 12 step industry, it's got to go into treatment

> centers and offer RR there.

Yeah right. I explained that the treatment centers aren't open to RR

just coming in. That's a very slow process, and will only succeed if RR is

really superior. But you have to consider this. When I argue with a person

who knows someone in AA about how AA is bad for people, and they argue back

that it helps people (and they have no first hand experience, they just

believe what has been pushed in the media) I can sometimes convince a few

(if I can keep them interested long enough) of all the bad things about AA.

I have convinced a few people of this type that AA is bad and was able to

explain why - but they weren't " in it " . Now try to convince someone in AA -

it is much much harder - they have learned all kinds arguments and will

consult with others in the fellowship and come back totally disbelieving

every word, and will usually become antagonistic and will end up calling you

stupid and not listen anymore. And you might think someone working in a

treatment center would be more level-headed than an alcoholic member of AA,

but then you find that almost all of those working in the treatment

facilities are alcoholics in AA! Not only do they have the interest of not

giving up the one thing that give's their lives meaning (AA) they also have

an even deeper interest (their pocket book - they get paid to preach and

teach AA) telling them not to believe you. And about the people who work in

treatment facilities that aren't alcoholic, they must be crazy or they know

AA is bullshit and just don't care. So the difficulty of convincing people

within the treatment industry that something else can work better is

obvious. Very hard thing to do. Very hard thing to change. But very much

worth changing, since it does not work. If it worked, why did your

boyfriend get 5 DWIs?

> But RR is mainly aimed at the functional alcoholic with computer access

and

> a life that hasn't fallen apart completely. Which is one reason it can

> claim such a high success rate. If you take the people most likely to

> succeed, it's not a surprise if you have a high success rate.

At least it is aimed at someone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At least someone

is finding it. At least someone is getting the help that you say they

" need. " I'd say that's a lot better than nobody. I'd say of the thousands

of people who have needed heart transplants, at least some got it! Probably

pretty well to do people, but you have to start somewhere, and if you look

at things economically, you can see why the rich, or wealthy, or well to do,

or affluent get things first, because they can pay for it. Trickle down

economics does work - it takes a long time. The first people got TV in the

1930s and they cost a very hefty sum. By the 1970s nearly every home in

America had a TV and now nearly every home in America has 3 TVs. It has

also taken a long time to get vaccines to every one in America, but you can

bet the rich got them first. That is just the way it is. Things become

more available, the cost and difficulty of obtaining things goes down. Then

more people are able to obtain it.

> I suppose in the not too distant future, there will be a

> >class action suit against General Motors for giving people the " disease

of

> >driving " . Sounds crazy right? It is. As for me, AA killed my spirit

and

> >nearly killed me.

It didn't kill your spirit. It stole it from you to use for its own

purposes. It made you think it was gone, and when you felt like you had no

spirit, you didn't want to be alive. Or maybe not, but I am glad you

retrieved it.

> If you did not have a problem controlling your intake of alcohol, why were

> you there?

I don't know her story, but maybe it was " suggested " that she be there?

> I don't care if you call it a disease, a social maladjustment, a sin, or

> whathaveyou. Someone will object to the terminology. Whatever it is, it's

a

> problem, a problem that needs to be addressed.

> I agree that AA is not for everyone, which is why I'm on this list. I also

> recognize that RR is painting itself into an exclusive little corner and

is

> doing next to nothing to let the people who most need it, to learn about

> it.

I agree it is a problem, and I think it depends on the person what the

label for the problem should be. I agree that that problem (actually any pr

oblem) needs to be addressed. I can't tell whom you suggest should address

the problem?

> I'm glad I'm no longer there. My wife and I had a couple

> >we were friends with, both in AA. We used to discuss the merits of our

> >recovery methods over dinner...just small talk..I wasn't interested in

> >proving anything to them, and they knew better then trying to 12 step me.

> >The wife in that couple died of an overdose. At the funeral I mourned.

> >After the funeral, I remember overhearing her program friends give the

same,

> >tired useless explanations... " she didn't do a good fifth step " , " not

enough

> >meetings " , " should've called her sponsor " AA itself was NEVER to blame.

The

> >slogan I've kept from AA is " there but for the grace of God " . I say it

in

> >silence, everytime I pass a meeting.

Steppers say don't work other people's programs, but maybe she'd have

had a better life had she worked yours. And perhaps some of her program

friends did question the steps after that. I just hope they found a better

direction if they did. There are so many ways people can go after AA, and I

am not sure if the majority who leave the steps are as fortunate as us.

Alas, I've left AA before, both progressing (most recently) and regressing.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/01 6:50:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,

malgeo@... writes:

<< This mailing list isn't a self-help group at all. It's a

discussion list. >>

Lemessee discussion list and self-help is mutually exclusive...

guess yer right in this case. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/01 6:50:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,

malgeo@... writes:

<< This mailing list isn't a self-help group at all. It's a

discussion list. >>

Lemessee discussion list and self-help is mutually exclusive...

guess yer right in this case. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/01 6:50:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,

malgeo@... writes:

<< This mailing list isn't a self-help group at all. It's a

discussion list. >>

Lemessee discussion list and self-help is mutually exclusive...

guess yer right in this case. Piper.

[Guest guest]

> So you are saying they need support? And it is my job as a fellow human

>being to provide for their needs?

No, guy, your job as an antisocial self centered parasite is to isolate

yourself. You don't need to be infecting anyone else. It's not your job nor

your place to be infecting others with your brand of hatred. No, no one

wants any help or advice from you.

I clearly hear you saying " they need " but I don't hear from you who

>is supposed to provide for those needs. Given my past reading of you, I

>assume you are saying that is my duty, that I, or we the people, must attend

>to those needs.

Then you're wrong, and you don't know what a support group is. But it's not

Trimpey's/RR's place to be telling people that they don't need support,

that all they need is AVRT--that's as bad as AA telling people that all

they need is to turn their lives over to a higher power.

> That is not the only solution. Soon the courts will not be able to

>sentence people to AA. It is becoming more and more common not to do that.

>People are being sentenced to courses, examinations or counseling, and they

>are ordered by the court to follow the counselor's or agency's

>recommendation.

Right--so where does RR fit into this? No meetings--oh, no, that's too

AAish. No access to information other than a web page and a book--what are

the courts supposed to do with that?

Look, I support AVRT, I dislike the monopoly of AA. That's why I want to

see RR become *proactive* rather than *reactive*.

The recommendations those agencies make are less and less

>AA, per se. What RR's other and most feasible alternative is is to make

>itself and it's therapy known to those agencies, and pressure the whole

>system to use the RR methods because they are superior, if indeed they are,

>and they must show evidence.

But RR doesn't want meetings, it doesn't want to be part of any kind of

rehab program, it's not making itself available to a vast majority of

alcoholics, it's isolating itself from becoming available to alcoholics

searching for a solution. In short, it's a great idea that's shooting

itself in the foot.

DWI laws came about because of the carnage that DWI causes. It's better to

prevent deaths by having a DWI law that prohibits people from driving

drunk, rather than allowing someone to drive drunk until they kill someone

else. As recently as a year ago, my BF said it shouldn't be illegal to

drive drunk unless he hurt someone. But why should that person have to pay

with their life just so my BF can drive intoxicated, when he doesn't need

to be driving anyway?

My BF used to say he could drive drunk and not have an accident. Now, after

3 accidents involving 2 totaled cars and 3 other severely damaged cars

($13,000 to a DPS car and $4000 to my truck plus unknown damage to the van

he totaled my mom's car against) he's beginning to realize that maybe he's

not infallible after all.

I'm not willing to risk my life and my property just to allow a drunk to

drive a dangerous machine on the roadways. I've already had to dodge drunk

drivers. I've already lost property to drunk drivers. I've lost friends to

drunk drivers. I don't want to lose anymore. Driving intoxicated is wrong,

and it shouldn't take an innocent person having to die to keep someone from

driving drunk.

Instead

>of focusing on law enforcement, proper rehabilitation could become a reality

>when the government's resources are put to better use. Instead of punishing

>people with rehabilitation, the justice system could create ways to help

>criminals overcome their problems (rehabilitate themselves). Using money

>otherwise spent on many guns, squad cars and prison cells, the system could

>spend money on therapy (that works).

Yes! Yes! Yes! Wow, we agree on something! That's what I'm pushing for!

That's why I want RR to become better known, to become more available!

> I think if you put your point 1 with point 4 you can see the answer.

>Because at this point, the only people (for the most part) RR has been

>available to are the moderately well educated and moderately well to do. It

>doesn't mean it can not work for others, if the information is available.

>That is so obvious, why the double think, trying to not see that?

THEN WHY WON'T TRIMPEY MAKE RR MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THESE PEOPLE????????? RR

is doing nothing to help poorer, less well to do people access RR. By

cancelling all meetings (though I still attend RR meetings) it is doing the

exact opposite.

> Again, why do you say this? Exactly how is RR supposed to go about

>changing the modality of treatment in rehab centers?

Allow it to be part of the program in treatment centers.

Why do you say it is

>in hiding?

yeesh, why do I have to sound like a broken record? Because it is

inaccessible and unavailable to the majority of alcoholics. Because there

are no meetings or other places where people can access information about

it, other than the web page.

If RR is better, and if

>a free market of sorts continues to exist (I am not saying that industry is

>very free at all) RR will grow, the superior service will be chosen

BETA was better than VHS. You see a bunch of BETA players in every house?

The better product does always not win out. BeOS was better than most of

the alternatives. Where are all the BeOS machines? and that operating

platform that IBM put out a few years ago--geez, what was it called? Can't

even remember now. But many computer geeks found it vastly superior to

Windoze. But it's no longer available, no longer supported, thanks to MS's

market hold. Atari computers had icons long before it occurred to Gates to

make an operating system that included them. And of course you know how you

can find an Atari in every home and office. And Linux, which I have no

personal experience with, but I'm told beats the pants off Unix and

Windoze, isn't exactly installed on every computer in every office in the

US.

The myth that the market always favors the better product is exactly that,

a myth.

>> how do you help a drunk who *does* want to stop, when there isn't any way

>> for them to find out about RR? When there are no meeting places for them

>to

>> find out about alternative methods to get sober? When there is no

>> clearinghouse for literature and information? And of course I mean

>> something other than the web.

>

> Nobody forced the alcoholic to become an alcoholic. Nobody forced the

>alcoholic to drink everyday so that at this point in his life he can not

>control his craving and can not stop on his own. It is no one's

>responsibility but the drunk's to want to stop. And it is no one's

>responsibility to aid the drunk in overcoming his urge.

You're not answering the question. You're dodging it. How is that alcoholic

supposed to find resources if those resources are hidden and not

accessible? You tell me how Ron, Robby, Felix, Cliff, , Pancho, and a

host of other alkies I know are supposed to find information about RR, if

they don't know how to operate a computer and don't have access to one.

It's not my responsibility to tell them about it, but I'm the only way

they're going to find out, if they are to find out. RR is making no effort

to be accessible to these folks. If RR so much as held informational and

educational meetings (which, in SA, we are fortunate to have, though they

are not widely publicized) it would be helping to inform these people. But

instead, Trimpey has said no more meetings, according to what someone here

said.

AA has quite a monopoly in the treatment

>industry, and being a cult that profits from it's position, it is not going

>to let go of that monopoly easily.

Especially when there is no viable altnerative.

RR doesn't really have the means to post

>literature in treatment facilities.

and refuses to allow AVRT to be taught in treatment facilities.

The way RR

>can infiltrate this treatment industry is through private facilities that

>like to make money, and from people (customers - alcoholic drinkers) who

>really want results.

Ah, so only rich people are entitled to results. The poor people who really

want results, but who can't afford $10,000 a month--well, I guess they're

just not worthy, are they?

When competitors find that those organizations using a

>superior therapy (RR, if it is) are seeing better results and making more

>money, and seeing that they themselves are losing customers to their

>competition, they will make business choices to drop the cult of AA and use

>something that works.

Okay, great--where has this happened? RR has been around for how long? Do

you know of any treatment facility that has dropped AA in favor of RR? No,

and it's not going to happen, because Trimpey won't allow AVRT to be taught

in treatment facilities--but he's happy to sit back and bellyache about AA.

> Yeah these government solutions are really great.

But the SA is not a government organization. I *wish* the government did

have a secular rehab place. But they don't. There is one place in Austin,

Austin Recovery Center, but you have to be sentenced there. Even though B.

was required to attend a 180 day residential treatment facility, he

couldn't get into ARC because he wasn't sentenced *there*.

What makes you think

>the government can do any better than this?

how could it do any worse?

Look accross the board,

>wherever big brother is there to help, the help seems pretty shitty.

As opposed to the lack of religious freedom and forced religion of the

Salvation Army? What shitty government help did you have in mind?

I wonder if he thinks

>he would be better off with this ongoing bullshit or maybe just a little

>time in jail without all the hassle? Sitting in jail 2 or 3 days thinking

>to one's self about how he got there probably does a lot more good than

>hearing solid bullshit for 2 or 3 months.

We're not talking 2 to 3 days in jail (which he's done several times over.)

He spent a total of 2 years in jail in California, and he's facing 3 years

in prison. As I mentioned before, Texas prisons are horrible, awful places,

and he would not survive with his body and his mind intact.

When he was in jail, he begged me to help get him out, because jail wasn't

doing him any good at all. He wanted to be out where he could do something

about his problem. Jail didn't do him any good. (Also, he got the shit beat

out of him in jail here in Texas--it wasn't so bad in California. The

Mexicans, who were in the vast majority, got the white guys to fight each

other, or they got them down on the floor and kicked the shit out of them,

including kicking them in the head. And a guy I know in the Bexar County

jail, a big guy who's done time in prison, said it's very much controlled

by racial gangs, that the gang leaders run the jail.) After a year in jail,

my BF was still addicted, and I think he got a DUI in CA 3 or 4 days after

being released from jail. That's why I say that someone who's merely not

drinking is not necessarily sober.

After all that bullshit, you

>can't trust anything, especially yourself, and that is very dangerous, since

>the only person who can possibly stop you from drinking, partying, going

>bonkers and doing something incredibly stupid (again), is yourself. People

>NEED to trust themselves, but are taught/brainwashed/forced not to.

And there are people (like B., who never really got into the whole AA

bullshit, because we immediately recognized it as bullshit) who have

trusted themselves time and again, and they've failed themselves time and

again. Just trusting yourself doesn't work if you're not trustworthy.

I explained that the treatment centers aren't open to RR

>just coming in.

You are right--treatment centers are set up around AA. But RR is not open

to going into treatment centers.

But very much

>worth changing, since it does not work. If it worked, why did your

>boyfriend get 5 DWIs?

He never worked the program. He never worked the steps. He never got into

AA because he couldn't get past the " powerlessness over alcohol " and

because he didn't get a sponsor and because he didn't believe all the god

stuff. Hell, he didn't admit he had a drinking problem until his 3rd or 4th

DWI! Yes, he was in denial of his addiction.

Trickle down

>economics does work - it takes a long time.

Evidence, please? I haven't seen it work yet. It hasn't worked in the U.S.

If it does indeed work, it must take 5 or 6 lifetimes to work--and we

haven't seen evidence of that yet.

The first people got TV in the

>1930s and they cost a very hefty sum. By the 1970s nearly every home in

>America had a TV and now nearly every home in America has 3 TVs.

But the richest people are many more times richer than the poorest people

now. There is a much wider income gap between rich and poor now than there

was 50 years ago. TVs are not evidence of trickle down economics.