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

February 7, 2001

> 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.

February 8, 2001

At 05:19 PM 2/8/01 +0000, you wrote:

>

>I wondered if someone would make this trite analysis. If you were

>really getting the whole shooting match at the website for nothing,

>who the hell would buy the books after visiting it?

I did. It's longer than the web site section, so has more reinforcement,

but there's really nothing new in it. One could achieve something of

the same effect by just visiting the web site multiple times.

The extra material in the book, aside from the simple repetition,

is more tangential stuff. I don't regret purchasing it because it's

a good addition to my library, but there really wasn't anything

new about AVRT.

> My local store

>sells beans at 9p a can when you can pay 50p or more elsewhere. It's

>what they call A LOSS LEADER - something you give away for nothing to

>lure the punter in tpo purchase more products. It's just normal

>capitalism. (Which is not meant to be a derogatory description).

I think the RR web course could better be described as a sample

than as a loss leader. It's a totally free small portion, which lets

you decide if you think it's B.S., if the small dose was enough

for you, or if you'd like to purchase a larger portion on your own

dime.

February 8, 2001