Re: Digest Number 662

[Guest guest]

Everyone:

To (arroyoh@...): I don't need a

dictionary quoted at me, thank you muchly. The

atheist who taught me, " Blessed Be " (seven years

before my first AA meeting) was not an alcoholic and

thus never heard of " We Agnostics " or any other AA

concept. Since you asked, " Venerate what? " however,

I'll say it again: " Venerate yourself! " Are you

offended when someone says, " Count your blessings. " ?

(and no, AA did not invent the expression) How about

when you sneeze and a stranger says, " Bless you. " ?

Grow up.

To JP (jeannep@...): Welcome aboard. I hope this

listserve helps you find whatever " works for you, "

though you'd better be careful when you mention the

steps, no matter how extensively you reword them. As

you can see, the thought police are already on the

beat. Thanks for the " brilliant " comment. I do try.

To benbradley@...: I've been a secretary

since 1982. I know what Microsoft Office is and how

to use it. I just started working from home and don't

yet have it, or a similar program, on my hard drive.

Even if I did, I know from recent past experience that

it severely truncates quotes in replies to e-mail

digests. I'll continue making it clear via quotes and

context when I am or am not replying to someone.

You observe that, " It's obvious that you're still in

AA. " No! Really? It's obvious that you have a

talent for stating the obvious! Did I not

forthrightly state repeatedly that I still go to a

select few very laid-back AA meetings, for which, in

case you didn't notice, I am ostensibly worthy of

ridicule?

And as for your comparison of my heresy to the Hare

Krishnas, if you were running a listserve devoted to

helping people " escape " the Hare Krishnas, would you

be all that surprised if some who signed on still had

some Hare Krishna beliefs? Would you kick them off

and leave them to fend for themselves, demanding that

they reach some state of " pure " deprogramming before

signing on? If so, why have a listserve? Just to pat

each other on the back for being such good little

ex-Hare Krishnas? Is it so impossible or undesireable

to both celebrate and assist?

Davetrippel@... asks whether I would like to

have a happy life while spending zero hours per week

on recovery. Nothing would please me more, Dave.

Tell me how because every time I've tried, including

many years before my first exposure to AA, I got and

stayed, as I stated, miserably drunk.

And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

" It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable. If most of

us were capable of such on a long-term basis, we would

neither have gone to AA in the first place nor now be

trying to recover from AA.

Along those lines, Wally (wagt@...) asks

whether my repeated relapses might be due to my

" belief system " that I can't achieve long-term

abstinence without AA and/or some program.

Admittedly long but necessary explanation as to

precisely why I say, " No. " :

I believed for over 10 years BEFORE my first AA

meeting that I was not an alcoholic, that I could

truly take it or leave it, that I just " occasionally "

drank too much, and that if I could simply learn to

" pace myself, " I could " enjoy " booze " like everybody

else. "

I truly believed this for a long time. I then went

from truly believing it to desperately wanting for it

to be true, despite growing evidence to the contrary,

because, as I said before, I really enjoy the buzz of

alcohol WAY more than so-called normal people.

My bottom? Waking up in the back seat of my car in a

church parking lot, having thrown up vodka and OJ all

over the back of the front seat, in my underwear, with

no idea where I was, then frantically checking the

bumpers and fenders for blood and/or body parts, then

driving up and down the road, freaking out, until I

found out I was 20 miles from the party I'd attended

the night before--with, to this very day, absolutely

no recollection of having left the party, gotten in my

car, and driven 20 miles--and I lived where the party

was being held! Where, in the midst of my blackout,

did I think I was going?

I then reported this incident to the psychotherapist I

was seeing for my depression. Three and a half cases

a week of sedative and I'm depressed? Go figure. Her

reply was, " Clifton, you readily admit you've pissed

away whole weekends on booze. Piss away an hour and

go to an AA meeting. " Somehow, this made sense, and

so, the next night, I went to my first AA meeting

ever, mentally fighting everything I heard.

I then spent the next six years going " in and out, "

trying desperately to prove them wrong, trying both

abstinence and moderation, both with and without

meetings, and never, by the way, working even one

single step! What do you mean, " powerless " ? Who's

got the funnel crammed down my throat?

Finally, after a 48-hour hangover from Hell, I got my

first sponsor, worked all 12 steps to the best of my

ability, put together a year and a half of abstinence,

and then got drunk one night. I spent the next six

years in that pattern, putting together a year or so

with AA, then saying, " Screw it. This is all BS, "

getting drunk, then coming back because there's so

little else available around here. I'm sick of it!

PLEASE READ THIS, EVERYONE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO

REPEAT IT: I am now at the point that I go to the

select AA meetings I can stomach, admittedly straining

my brain discarding or mentally translating the BS

into terms I can understand and appreciate and

gleaning what few pearls of wisdom I discover.

Reading non-AA-approved recovery literature on my own

helps. I do all of this because there are absolutely

no other recovery programs locally available, and

because, whether before or after that first AA

meeting, I've NEVER been able to string together more

than three months of " clean time " completely " on my

own. "

I am indeed weary of the platitudes, faulty and

circular logic, and anti-intellectual warnings with

which AA is riddled. I appreciate being on this

listserve, wherein I can see that I'm not crazy for

calling into question much of what I hear in AA

meetings.

Moreover, once I finish my inexpensive North Carolina

undergraduate education, I fully intend to do graduate

and postgraduate work in some major U.S. city where

more recovery options are available.

However, until then, especially since I'm on mood

stabilizers and antidiabetics, I will continue doing

whatever it takes to stay sober, including being on

this listserve AND going to AA. If you don't like it,

get over it.

Returning to Wally, my point is that the experience

came BEFORE the " belief system, " not the other way

around.

To Jules (juliehatchard@...), I can only

say thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! It's good,

amidst all the anger, bitterness, and sarcasm, to know

at least someone appreciates my insights, or at least

doesn't hate me for them.

And forgive me, all of you, if I'm not yet as

" 12-step-free " as you might prefer. I honestly wish I

were and signed onto this listserve for help, not

attitude.

" Screaming " at me doesn't help. Labelling me a

sell-out doesn't help. Attacking and mocking my

questions instead of answering them doesn't help. I

EXPECT such childish bullshit from Big Book thumpers

and step-Nazis. I'm sorry to see it's so prevalent

even among those who pride themselves on " critically

questioning " the 12 steps.

Likewise, thank you, " rita66@... " for clarifying

that " critically questioning " the program is what we

do here. Though, again, I read the guidelines when I

signed on, I wasn't aware that they disallowed

" critically questioning " each other when we reach

different conclusions!

Nor did I realize taking a topic ( " For Those Who Still

Choose To Go " ) directly from the same aadeprogramming

website that is used to subscribe people to this

listserve was taboo. Imagine my surprise!

I guess the next time I see something I don't like or

disagree with, instead of " critically questioning, "

I'll just offer an ad hominem attack or a carefully

placed " fuck you " like other people do! Maybe I can

recreate the scenario I've seen a couple of times this

past year and goad the people I don't like into

unsubscribing so I can then gossip about them: " See,

s/he wasn't really one of US anyway! " Is that the

kind of " tolerance " I'm supposed to emulate?

If that's the brand of " serenity " I have to look

forward to when I finally become completely

" 12-step-free, " it's no more attractive than the

ego-tripping " serenity " of the AA " authorities. "

And to such anti-AA gurus, I again say, Blessed Be . .

.. or Miserable Be. I really don't care. Have an

ordinary day. --CTToth

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Everyone:

To (arroyoh@...): I don't need a

dictionary quoted at me, thank you muchly. The

atheist who taught me, " Blessed Be " (seven years

before my first AA meeting) was not an alcoholic and

thus never heard of " We Agnostics " or any other AA

concept. Since you asked, " Venerate what? " however,

I'll say it again: " Venerate yourself! " Are you

offended when someone says, " Count your blessings. " ?

(and no, AA did not invent the expression) How about

when you sneeze and a stranger says, " Bless you. " ?

Grow up.

To JP (jeannep@...): Welcome aboard. I hope this

listserve helps you find whatever " works for you, "

though you'd better be careful when you mention the

steps, no matter how extensively you reword them. As

you can see, the thought police are already on the

beat. Thanks for the " brilliant " comment. I do try.

To benbradley@...: I've been a secretary

since 1982. I know what Microsoft Office is and how

to use it. I just started working from home and don't

yet have it, or a similar program, on my hard drive.

Even if I did, I know from recent past experience that

it severely truncates quotes in replies to e-mail

digests. I'll continue making it clear via quotes and

context when I am or am not replying to someone.

You observe that, " It's obvious that you're still in

AA. " No! Really? It's obvious that you have a

talent for stating the obvious! Did I not

forthrightly state repeatedly that I still go to a

select few very laid-back AA meetings, for which, in

case you didn't notice, I am ostensibly worthy of

ridicule?

And as for your comparison of my heresy to the Hare

Krishnas, if you were running a listserve devoted to

helping people " escape " the Hare Krishnas, would you

be all that surprised if some who signed on still had

some Hare Krishna beliefs? Would you kick them off

and leave them to fend for themselves, demanding that

they reach some state of " pure " deprogramming before

signing on? If so, why have a listserve? Just to pat

each other on the back for being such good little

ex-Hare Krishnas? Is it so impossible or undesireable

to both celebrate and assist?

Davetrippel@... asks whether I would like to

have a happy life while spending zero hours per week

on recovery. Nothing would please me more, Dave.

Tell me how because every time I've tried, including

many years before my first exposure to AA, I got and

stayed, as I stated, miserably drunk.

And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

" It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable. If most of

us were capable of such on a long-term basis, we would

neither have gone to AA in the first place nor now be

trying to recover from AA.

Along those lines, Wally (wagt@...) asks

whether my repeated relapses might be due to my

" belief system " that I can't achieve long-term

abstinence without AA and/or some program.

Admittedly long but necessary explanation as to

precisely why I say, " No. " :

I believed for over 10 years BEFORE my first AA

meeting that I was not an alcoholic, that I could

truly take it or leave it, that I just " occasionally "

drank too much, and that if I could simply learn to

" pace myself, " I could " enjoy " booze " like everybody

else. "

I truly believed this for a long time. I then went

from truly believing it to desperately wanting for it

to be true, despite growing evidence to the contrary,

because, as I said before, I really enjoy the buzz of

alcohol WAY more than so-called normal people.

My bottom? Waking up in the back seat of my car in a

church parking lot, having thrown up vodka and OJ all

over the back of the front seat, in my underwear, with

no idea where I was, then frantically checking the

bumpers and fenders for blood and/or body parts, then

driving up and down the road, freaking out, until I

found out I was 20 miles from the party I'd attended

the night before--with, to this very day, absolutely

no recollection of having left the party, gotten in my

car, and driven 20 miles--and I lived where the party

was being held! Where, in the midst of my blackout,

did I think I was going?

I then reported this incident to the psychotherapist I

was seeing for my depression. Three and a half cases

a week of sedative and I'm depressed? Go figure. Her

reply was, " Clifton, you readily admit you've pissed

away whole weekends on booze. Piss away an hour and

go to an AA meeting. " Somehow, this made sense, and

so, the next night, I went to my first AA meeting

ever, mentally fighting everything I heard.

I then spent the next six years going " in and out, "

trying desperately to prove them wrong, trying both

abstinence and moderation, both with and without

meetings, and never, by the way, working even one

single step! What do you mean, " powerless " ? Who's

got the funnel crammed down my throat?

Finally, after a 48-hour hangover from Hell, I got my

first sponsor, worked all 12 steps to the best of my

ability, put together a year and a half of abstinence,

and then got drunk one night. I spent the next six

years in that pattern, putting together a year or so

with AA, then saying, " Screw it. This is all BS, "

getting drunk, then coming back because there's so

little else available around here. I'm sick of it!

PLEASE READ THIS, EVERYONE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO

REPEAT IT: I am now at the point that I go to the

select AA meetings I can stomach, admittedly straining

my brain discarding or mentally translating the BS

into terms I can understand and appreciate and

gleaning what few pearls of wisdom I discover.

Reading non-AA-approved recovery literature on my own

helps. I do all of this because there are absolutely

no other recovery programs locally available, and

because, whether before or after that first AA

meeting, I've NEVER been able to string together more

than three months of " clean time " completely " on my

own. "

I am indeed weary of the platitudes, faulty and

circular logic, and anti-intellectual warnings with

which AA is riddled. I appreciate being on this

listserve, wherein I can see that I'm not crazy for

calling into question much of what I hear in AA

meetings.

Moreover, once I finish my inexpensive North Carolina

undergraduate education, I fully intend to do graduate

and postgraduate work in some major U.S. city where

more recovery options are available.

However, until then, especially since I'm on mood

stabilizers and antidiabetics, I will continue doing

whatever it takes to stay sober, including being on

this listserve AND going to AA. If you don't like it,

get over it.

Returning to Wally, my point is that the experience

came BEFORE the " belief system, " not the other way

around.

To Jules (juliehatchard@...), I can only

say thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! It's good,

amidst all the anger, bitterness, and sarcasm, to know

at least someone appreciates my insights, or at least

doesn't hate me for them.

And forgive me, all of you, if I'm not yet as

" 12-step-free " as you might prefer. I honestly wish I

were and signed onto this listserve for help, not

attitude.

" Screaming " at me doesn't help. Labelling me a

sell-out doesn't help. Attacking and mocking my

questions instead of answering them doesn't help. I

EXPECT such childish bullshit from Big Book thumpers

and step-Nazis. I'm sorry to see it's so prevalent

even among those who pride themselves on " critically

questioning " the 12 steps.

Likewise, thank you, " rita66@... " for clarifying

that " critically questioning " the program is what we

do here. Though, again, I read the guidelines when I

signed on, I wasn't aware that they disallowed

" critically questioning " each other when we reach

different conclusions!

Nor did I realize taking a topic ( " For Those Who Still

Choose To Go " ) directly from the same aadeprogramming

website that is used to subscribe people to this

listserve was taboo. Imagine my surprise!

I guess the next time I see something I don't like or

disagree with, instead of " critically questioning, "

I'll just offer an ad hominem attack or a carefully

placed " fuck you " like other people do! Maybe I can

recreate the scenario I've seen a couple of times this

past year and goad the people I don't like into

unsubscribing so I can then gossip about them: " See,

s/he wasn't really one of US anyway! " Is that the

kind of " tolerance " I'm supposed to emulate?

If that's the brand of " serenity " I have to look

forward to when I finally become completely

" 12-step-free, " it's no more attractive than the

ego-tripping " serenity " of the AA " authorities. "

And to such anti-AA gurus, I again say, Blessed Be . .

.. or Miserable Be. I really don't care. Have an

ordinary day. --CTToth

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Everyone:

To (arroyoh@...): I don't need a

dictionary quoted at me, thank you muchly. The

atheist who taught me, " Blessed Be " (seven years

before my first AA meeting) was not an alcoholic and

thus never heard of " We Agnostics " or any other AA

concept. Since you asked, " Venerate what? " however,

I'll say it again: " Venerate yourself! " Are you

offended when someone says, " Count your blessings. " ?

(and no, AA did not invent the expression) How about

when you sneeze and a stranger says, " Bless you. " ?

Grow up.

To JP (jeannep@...): Welcome aboard. I hope this

listserve helps you find whatever " works for you, "

though you'd better be careful when you mention the

steps, no matter how extensively you reword them. As

you can see, the thought police are already on the

beat. Thanks for the " brilliant " comment. I do try.

To benbradley@...: I've been a secretary

since 1982. I know what Microsoft Office is and how

to use it. I just started working from home and don't

yet have it, or a similar program, on my hard drive.

Even if I did, I know from recent past experience that

it severely truncates quotes in replies to e-mail

digests. I'll continue making it clear via quotes and

context when I am or am not replying to someone.

You observe that, " It's obvious that you're still in

AA. " No! Really? It's obvious that you have a

talent for stating the obvious! Did I not

forthrightly state repeatedly that I still go to a

select few very laid-back AA meetings, for which, in

case you didn't notice, I am ostensibly worthy of

ridicule?

And as for your comparison of my heresy to the Hare

Krishnas, if you were running a listserve devoted to

helping people " escape " the Hare Krishnas, would you

be all that surprised if some who signed on still had

some Hare Krishna beliefs? Would you kick them off

and leave them to fend for themselves, demanding that

they reach some state of " pure " deprogramming before

signing on? If so, why have a listserve? Just to pat

each other on the back for being such good little

ex-Hare Krishnas? Is it so impossible or undesireable

to both celebrate and assist?

Davetrippel@... asks whether I would like to

have a happy life while spending zero hours per week

on recovery. Nothing would please me more, Dave.

Tell me how because every time I've tried, including

many years before my first exposure to AA, I got and

stayed, as I stated, miserably drunk.

And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

" It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable. If most of

us were capable of such on a long-term basis, we would

neither have gone to AA in the first place nor now be

trying to recover from AA.

Along those lines, Wally (wagt@...) asks

whether my repeated relapses might be due to my

" belief system " that I can't achieve long-term

abstinence without AA and/or some program.

Admittedly long but necessary explanation as to

precisely why I say, " No. " :

I believed for over 10 years BEFORE my first AA

meeting that I was not an alcoholic, that I could

truly take it or leave it, that I just " occasionally "

drank too much, and that if I could simply learn to

" pace myself, " I could " enjoy " booze " like everybody

else. "

I truly believed this for a long time. I then went

from truly believing it to desperately wanting for it

to be true, despite growing evidence to the contrary,

because, as I said before, I really enjoy the buzz of

alcohol WAY more than so-called normal people.

My bottom? Waking up in the back seat of my car in a

church parking lot, having thrown up vodka and OJ all

over the back of the front seat, in my underwear, with

no idea where I was, then frantically checking the

bumpers and fenders for blood and/or body parts, then

driving up and down the road, freaking out, until I

found out I was 20 miles from the party I'd attended

the night before--with, to this very day, absolutely

no recollection of having left the party, gotten in my

car, and driven 20 miles--and I lived where the party

was being held! Where, in the midst of my blackout,

did I think I was going?

I then reported this incident to the psychotherapist I

was seeing for my depression. Three and a half cases

a week of sedative and I'm depressed? Go figure. Her

reply was, " Clifton, you readily admit you've pissed

away whole weekends on booze. Piss away an hour and

go to an AA meeting. " Somehow, this made sense, and

so, the next night, I went to my first AA meeting

ever, mentally fighting everything I heard.

I then spent the next six years going " in and out, "

trying desperately to prove them wrong, trying both

abstinence and moderation, both with and without

meetings, and never, by the way, working even one

single step! What do you mean, " powerless " ? Who's

got the funnel crammed down my throat?

Finally, after a 48-hour hangover from Hell, I got my

first sponsor, worked all 12 steps to the best of my

ability, put together a year and a half of abstinence,

and then got drunk one night. I spent the next six

years in that pattern, putting together a year or so

with AA, then saying, " Screw it. This is all BS, "

getting drunk, then coming back because there's so

little else available around here. I'm sick of it!

PLEASE READ THIS, EVERYONE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO

REPEAT IT: I am now at the point that I go to the

select AA meetings I can stomach, admittedly straining

my brain discarding or mentally translating the BS

into terms I can understand and appreciate and

gleaning what few pearls of wisdom I discover.

Reading non-AA-approved recovery literature on my own

helps. I do all of this because there are absolutely

no other recovery programs locally available, and

because, whether before or after that first AA

meeting, I've NEVER been able to string together more

than three months of " clean time " completely " on my

own. "

I am indeed weary of the platitudes, faulty and

circular logic, and anti-intellectual warnings with

which AA is riddled. I appreciate being on this

listserve, wherein I can see that I'm not crazy for

calling into question much of what I hear in AA

meetings.

Moreover, once I finish my inexpensive North Carolina

undergraduate education, I fully intend to do graduate

and postgraduate work in some major U.S. city where

more recovery options are available.

However, until then, especially since I'm on mood

stabilizers and antidiabetics, I will continue doing

whatever it takes to stay sober, including being on

this listserve AND going to AA. If you don't like it,

get over it.

Returning to Wally, my point is that the experience

came BEFORE the " belief system, " not the other way

around.

To Jules (juliehatchard@...), I can only

say thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! It's good,

amidst all the anger, bitterness, and sarcasm, to know

at least someone appreciates my insights, or at least

doesn't hate me for them.

And forgive me, all of you, if I'm not yet as

" 12-step-free " as you might prefer. I honestly wish I

were and signed onto this listserve for help, not

attitude.

" Screaming " at me doesn't help. Labelling me a

sell-out doesn't help. Attacking and mocking my

questions instead of answering them doesn't help. I

EXPECT such childish bullshit from Big Book thumpers

and step-Nazis. I'm sorry to see it's so prevalent

even among those who pride themselves on " critically

questioning " the 12 steps.

Likewise, thank you, " rita66@... " for clarifying

that " critically questioning " the program is what we

do here. Though, again, I read the guidelines when I

signed on, I wasn't aware that they disallowed

" critically questioning " each other when we reach

different conclusions!

Nor did I realize taking a topic ( " For Those Who Still

Choose To Go " ) directly from the same aadeprogramming

website that is used to subscribe people to this

listserve was taboo. Imagine my surprise!

I guess the next time I see something I don't like or

disagree with, instead of " critically questioning, "

I'll just offer an ad hominem attack or a carefully

placed " fuck you " like other people do! Maybe I can

recreate the scenario I've seen a couple of times this

past year and goad the people I don't like into

unsubscribing so I can then gossip about them: " See,

s/he wasn't really one of US anyway! " Is that the

kind of " tolerance " I'm supposed to emulate?

If that's the brand of " serenity " I have to look

forward to when I finally become completely

" 12-step-free, " it's no more attractive than the

ego-tripping " serenity " of the AA " authorities. "

And to such anti-AA gurus, I again say, Blessed Be . .

.. or Miserable Be. I really don't care. Have an

ordinary day. --CTToth

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> Re: Digest Number 662

>

>

>Everyone:

>

>To (arroyoh@...): I don't need a

>dictionary quoted at me, thank you muchly. The

>atheist who taught me, " Blessed Be " (seven years

>before my first AA meeting) was not an alcoholic and

>thus never heard of " We Agnostics " or any other AA

>concept. Since you asked, " Venerate what? " however,

>I'll say it again: " Venerate yourself! " Are you

>offended when someone says, " Count your blessings. " ?

>(and no, AA did not invent the expression) How about

>when you sneeze and a stranger says, " Bless you. " ?

>Grow up.

I never said I was offended by it. I wouldn't beat around the bush like

that. Since you like directness I'll be direct with you. I find you

offensive because you're the new breed of AA that attempts to portray

themselves as " new " when what you are is essentially the same old nonsense

in a pretty new, more palatable to the outside world, wrapper.

It's been my experience that an inordinate amount of AAs end what they

believe to be their pithy little posts with what they believe to be

spiritual quotes. It's not and ending with Blessed be does not indicate

" bless you " or " Bless me " for that matter. You're fooling yourself if you

think so. If you believe it does you needed that dictionary quote whether or

not you liked it or believe you needed it. You're no different than the

average AA in your tendency to misuse words. You're judged by the words you

use here or anywhere Toth and if you insist on using them incorrectly how

can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

ly I find it difficult to believe what you say about your atheist

friend above. Speaking from my own experience the only people who ever

talked about their atheism with me have been steppers. I'm not saying you

lied simply that I find it difficult to believe. Irregardless with quotes

like that it appears that your atheist friend subscribes to the " we

agnostics " version of atheism. And having no knowledge of you other than

what I see here I'm willing to bet you never used that " blessed be " in your

correspondence prior to AA.

The only people I've ever seen use " Blessed be " in correspondence have been

AA's. And frankly that's saying a hell of allot as I was raised in a

Catholic Home for Boys by a Semi-Cloistered Order of Roman Catholic Nuns.

Grow up yourself.

[Guest guest]

> Re: Digest Number 662

>

>

>Everyone:

>

>To (arroyoh@...): I don't need a

>dictionary quoted at me, thank you muchly. The

>atheist who taught me, " Blessed Be " (seven years

>before my first AA meeting) was not an alcoholic and

>thus never heard of " We Agnostics " or any other AA

>concept. Since you asked, " Venerate what? " however,

>I'll say it again: " Venerate yourself! " Are you

>offended when someone says, " Count your blessings. " ?

>(and no, AA did not invent the expression) How about

>when you sneeze and a stranger says, " Bless you. " ?

>Grow up.

I never said I was offended by it. I wouldn't beat around the bush like

that. Since you like directness I'll be direct with you. I find you

offensive because you're the new breed of AA that attempts to portray

themselves as " new " when what you are is essentially the same old nonsense

in a pretty new, more palatable to the outside world, wrapper.

It's been my experience that an inordinate amount of AAs end what they

believe to be their pithy little posts with what they believe to be

spiritual quotes. It's not and ending with Blessed be does not indicate

" bless you " or " Bless me " for that matter. You're fooling yourself if you

think so. If you believe it does you needed that dictionary quote whether or

not you liked it or believe you needed it. You're no different than the

average AA in your tendency to misuse words. You're judged by the words you

use here or anywhere Toth and if you insist on using them incorrectly how

can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

ly I find it difficult to believe what you say about your atheist

friend above. Speaking from my own experience the only people who ever

talked about their atheism with me have been steppers. I'm not saying you

lied simply that I find it difficult to believe. Irregardless with quotes

like that it appears that your atheist friend subscribes to the " we

agnostics " version of atheism. And having no knowledge of you other than

what I see here I'm willing to bet you never used that " blessed be " in your

correspondence prior to AA.

The only people I've ever seen use " Blessed be " in correspondence have been

AA's. And frankly that's saying a hell of allot as I was raised in a

Catholic Home for Boys by a Semi-Cloistered Order of Roman Catholic Nuns.

Grow up yourself.

[Guest guest]

> Re: Digest Number 662

>

>

>Everyone:

>

>To (arroyoh@...): I don't need a

>dictionary quoted at me, thank you muchly. The

>atheist who taught me, " Blessed Be " (seven years

>before my first AA meeting) was not an alcoholic and

>thus never heard of " We Agnostics " or any other AA

>concept. Since you asked, " Venerate what? " however,

>I'll say it again: " Venerate yourself! " Are you

>offended when someone says, " Count your blessings. " ?

>(and no, AA did not invent the expression) How about

>when you sneeze and a stranger says, " Bless you. " ?

>Grow up.

I never said I was offended by it. I wouldn't beat around the bush like

that. Since you like directness I'll be direct with you. I find you

offensive because you're the new breed of AA that attempts to portray

themselves as " new " when what you are is essentially the same old nonsense

in a pretty new, more palatable to the outside world, wrapper.

It's been my experience that an inordinate amount of AAs end what they

believe to be their pithy little posts with what they believe to be

spiritual quotes. It's not and ending with Blessed be does not indicate

" bless you " or " Bless me " for that matter. You're fooling yourself if you

think so. If you believe it does you needed that dictionary quote whether or

not you liked it or believe you needed it. You're no different than the

average AA in your tendency to misuse words. You're judged by the words you

use here or anywhere Toth and if you insist on using them incorrectly how

can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

ly I find it difficult to believe what you say about your atheist

friend above. Speaking from my own experience the only people who ever

talked about their atheism with me have been steppers. I'm not saying you

lied simply that I find it difficult to believe. Irregardless with quotes

like that it appears that your atheist friend subscribes to the " we

agnostics " version of atheism. And having no knowledge of you other than

what I see here I'm willing to bet you never used that " blessed be " in your

correspondence prior to AA.

The only people I've ever seen use " Blessed be " in correspondence have been

AA's. And frankly that's saying a hell of allot as I was raised in a

Catholic Home for Boys by a Semi-Cloistered Order of Roman Catholic Nuns.

Grow up yourself.

[Guest guest]

Good morning, Clifton,

No, the belief system that I referred to was the one that says that some

people are alcoholic and others aren't, and that those who are have lost

control of their drinking as a result of a physical difference between

themselves and other 'normal' people. Your response indicates that in fact

you did believe this to be true for before your first AA meeting. The

'desperately' says that the dichotomy ('alcoholic' vs. 'normal') was

actually a pretty big deal to you.

Btw, it all sounds vaguely familiar. Took me 10 years of

needing/loving/hating alcohol, wondering all along, especially toward the

end, if I was 'one of them,' to get to the first therapist and then to AA.

And then I was in and out of AA (not to mention various treatment programs)

for another 12 years, both with and without abstinence, control, sponsors,

steps, putting together the occasional 1.5 years 'sober' etc. etc. I rather

liked AA, and I still think it is a damned shame that everything it says

about alcoholism is wrong and that it doesn't work :-)

Furthermore, I see nothing (well, not much) wrong with going to a meeting

now and then for the support and social interaction. I didn't quit AA cold

turkey either.

--wally

Re: Digest Number 662

[snip]

> Along those lines, Wally (wagt@...) asks

> whether my repeated relapses might be due to my

> " belief system " that I can't achieve long-term

> abstinence without AA and/or some program.

>

> Admittedly long but necessary explanation as to

> precisely why I say, " No. " :

>

> I believed for over 10 years BEFORE my first AA

> meeting that I was not an alcoholic, that I could

> truly take it or leave it, that I just " occasionally "

> drank too much, and that if I could simply learn to

> " pace myself, " I could " enjoy " booze " like everybody

> else. "

>

> I truly believed this for a long time. I then went

> from truly believing it to desperately wanting for it

> to be true, despite growing evidence to the contrary,

> because, as I said before, I really enjoy the buzz of

> alcohol WAY more than so-called normal people.

>

> My bottom? Waking up in the back seat of my car in a

> church parking lot, having thrown up vodka and OJ all

> over the back of the front seat, in my underwear, with

> no idea where I was, then frantically checking the

> bumpers and fenders for blood and/or body parts, then

> driving up and down the road, freaking out, until I

> found out I was 20 miles from the party I'd attended

> the night before--with, to this very day, absolutely

> no recollection of having left the party, gotten in my

> car, and driven 20 miles--and I lived where the party

> was being held! Where, in the midst of my blackout,

> did I think I was going?

>

> I then reported this incident to the psychotherapist I

> was seeing for my depression. Three and a half cases

> a week of sedative and I'm depressed? Go figure. Her

> reply was, " Clifton, you readily admit you've pissed

> away whole weekends on booze. Piss away an hour and

> go to an AA meeting. " Somehow, this made sense, and

> so, the next night, I went to my first AA meeting

> ever, mentally fighting everything I heard.

>

> I then spent the next six years going " in and out, "

> trying desperately to prove them wrong, trying both

> abstinence and moderation, both with and without

> meetings, and never, by the way, working even one

> single step! What do you mean, " powerless " ? Who's

> got the funnel crammed down my throat?

>

> Finally, after a 48-hour hangover from Hell, I got my

> first sponsor, worked all 12 steps to the best of my

> ability, put together a year and a half of abstinence,

> and then got drunk one night. I spent the next six

> years in that pattern, putting together a year or so

> with AA, then saying, " Screw it. This is all BS, "

> getting drunk, then coming back because there's so

> little else available around here. I'm sick of it!

>

> PLEASE READ THIS, EVERYONE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO

> REPEAT IT: I am now at the point that I go to the

> select AA meetings I can stomach, admittedly straining

> my brain discarding or mentally translating the BS

> into terms I can understand and appreciate and

> gleaning what few pearls of wisdom I discover.

> Reading non-AA-approved recovery literature on my own

> helps. I do all of this because there are absolutely

> no other recovery programs locally available, and

> because, whether before or after that first AA

> meeting, I've NEVER been able to string together more

> than three months of " clean time " completely " on my

> own. "

>

> I am indeed weary of the platitudes, faulty and

> circular logic, and anti-intellectual warnings with

> which AA is riddled. I appreciate being on this

> listserve, wherein I can see that I'm not crazy for

> calling into question much of what I hear in AA

> meetings.

>

> Moreover, once I finish my inexpensive North Carolina

> undergraduate education, I fully intend to do graduate

> and postgraduate work in some major U.S. city where

> more recovery options are available.

>

> However, until then, especially since I'm on mood

> stabilizers and antidiabetics, I will continue doing

> whatever it takes to stay sober, including being on

> this listserve AND going to AA. If you don't like it,

> get over it.

>

> Returning to Wally, my point is that the experience

> came BEFORE the " belief system, " not the other way

> around.

>

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Good morning, Clifton,

No, the belief system that I referred to was the one that says that some

people are alcoholic and others aren't, and that those who are have lost

control of their drinking as a result of a physical difference between

themselves and other 'normal' people. Your response indicates that in fact

you did believe this to be true for before your first AA meeting. The

'desperately' says that the dichotomy ('alcoholic' vs. 'normal') was

actually a pretty big deal to you.

Btw, it all sounds vaguely familiar. Took me 10 years of

needing/loving/hating alcohol, wondering all along, especially toward the

end, if I was 'one of them,' to get to the first therapist and then to AA.

And then I was in and out of AA (not to mention various treatment programs)

for another 12 years, both with and without abstinence, control, sponsors,

steps, putting together the occasional 1.5 years 'sober' etc. etc. I rather

liked AA, and I still think it is a damned shame that everything it says

about alcoholism is wrong and that it doesn't work :-)

Furthermore, I see nothing (well, not much) wrong with going to a meeting

now and then for the support and social interaction. I didn't quit AA cold

turkey either.

--wally

Re: Digest Number 662

[snip]

> Along those lines, Wally (wagt@...) asks

> whether my repeated relapses might be due to my

> " belief system " that I can't achieve long-term

> abstinence without AA and/or some program.

>

> Admittedly long but necessary explanation as to

> precisely why I say, " No. " :

>

> I believed for over 10 years BEFORE my first AA

> meeting that I was not an alcoholic, that I could

> truly take it or leave it, that I just " occasionally "

> drank too much, and that if I could simply learn to

> " pace myself, " I could " enjoy " booze " like everybody

> else. "

>

> I truly believed this for a long time. I then went

> from truly believing it to desperately wanting for it

> to be true, despite growing evidence to the contrary,

> because, as I said before, I really enjoy the buzz of

> alcohol WAY more than so-called normal people.

>

> My bottom? Waking up in the back seat of my car in a

> church parking lot, having thrown up vodka and OJ all

> over the back of the front seat, in my underwear, with

> no idea where I was, then frantically checking the

> bumpers and fenders for blood and/or body parts, then

> driving up and down the road, freaking out, until I

> found out I was 20 miles from the party I'd attended

> the night before--with, to this very day, absolutely

> no recollection of having left the party, gotten in my

> car, and driven 20 miles--and I lived where the party

> was being held! Where, in the midst of my blackout,

> did I think I was going?

>

> I then reported this incident to the psychotherapist I

> was seeing for my depression. Three and a half cases

> a week of sedative and I'm depressed? Go figure. Her

> reply was, " Clifton, you readily admit you've pissed

> away whole weekends on booze. Piss away an hour and

> go to an AA meeting. " Somehow, this made sense, and

> so, the next night, I went to my first AA meeting

> ever, mentally fighting everything I heard.

>

> I then spent the next six years going " in and out, "

> trying desperately to prove them wrong, trying both

> abstinence and moderation, both with and without

> meetings, and never, by the way, working even one

> single step! What do you mean, " powerless " ? Who's

> got the funnel crammed down my throat?

>

> Finally, after a 48-hour hangover from Hell, I got my

> first sponsor, worked all 12 steps to the best of my

> ability, put together a year and a half of abstinence,

> and then got drunk one night. I spent the next six

> years in that pattern, putting together a year or so

> with AA, then saying, " Screw it. This is all BS, "

> getting drunk, then coming back because there's so

> little else available around here. I'm sick of it!

>

> PLEASE READ THIS, EVERYONE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO

> REPEAT IT: I am now at the point that I go to the

> select AA meetings I can stomach, admittedly straining

> my brain discarding or mentally translating the BS

> into terms I can understand and appreciate and

> gleaning what few pearls of wisdom I discover.

> Reading non-AA-approved recovery literature on my own

> helps. I do all of this because there are absolutely

> no other recovery programs locally available, and

> because, whether before or after that first AA

> meeting, I've NEVER been able to string together more

> than three months of " clean time " completely " on my

> own. "

>

> I am indeed weary of the platitudes, faulty and

> circular logic, and anti-intellectual warnings with

> which AA is riddled. I appreciate being on this

> listserve, wherein I can see that I'm not crazy for

> calling into question much of what I hear in AA

> meetings.

>

> Moreover, once I finish my inexpensive North Carolina

> undergraduate education, I fully intend to do graduate

> and postgraduate work in some major U.S. city where

> more recovery options are available.

>

> However, until then, especially since I'm on mood

> stabilizers and antidiabetics, I will continue doing

> whatever it takes to stay sober, including being on

> this listserve AND going to AA. If you don't like it,

> get over it.

>

> Returning to Wally, my point is that the experience

> came BEFORE the " belief system, " not the other way

> around.

>

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Good morning, Clifton,

No, the belief system that I referred to was the one that says that some

people are alcoholic and others aren't, and that those who are have lost

control of their drinking as a result of a physical difference between

themselves and other 'normal' people. Your response indicates that in fact

you did believe this to be true for before your first AA meeting. The

'desperately' says that the dichotomy ('alcoholic' vs. 'normal') was

actually a pretty big deal to you.

Btw, it all sounds vaguely familiar. Took me 10 years of

needing/loving/hating alcohol, wondering all along, especially toward the

end, if I was 'one of them,' to get to the first therapist and then to AA.

And then I was in and out of AA (not to mention various treatment programs)

for another 12 years, both with and without abstinence, control, sponsors,

steps, putting together the occasional 1.5 years 'sober' etc. etc. I rather

liked AA, and I still think it is a damned shame that everything it says

about alcoholism is wrong and that it doesn't work :-)

Furthermore, I see nothing (well, not much) wrong with going to a meeting

now and then for the support and social interaction. I didn't quit AA cold

turkey either.

--wally

Re: Digest Number 662

[snip]

> Along those lines, Wally (wagt@...) asks

> whether my repeated relapses might be due to my

> " belief system " that I can't achieve long-term

> abstinence without AA and/or some program.

>

> Admittedly long but necessary explanation as to

> precisely why I say, " No. " :

>

> I believed for over 10 years BEFORE my first AA

> meeting that I was not an alcoholic, that I could

> truly take it or leave it, that I just " occasionally "

> drank too much, and that if I could simply learn to

> " pace myself, " I could " enjoy " booze " like everybody

> else. "

>

> I truly believed this for a long time. I then went

> from truly believing it to desperately wanting for it

> to be true, despite growing evidence to the contrary,

> because, as I said before, I really enjoy the buzz of

> alcohol WAY more than so-called normal people.

>

> My bottom? Waking up in the back seat of my car in a

> church parking lot, having thrown up vodka and OJ all

> over the back of the front seat, in my underwear, with

> no idea where I was, then frantically checking the

> bumpers and fenders for blood and/or body parts, then

> driving up and down the road, freaking out, until I

> found out I was 20 miles from the party I'd attended

> the night before--with, to this very day, absolutely

> no recollection of having left the party, gotten in my

> car, and driven 20 miles--and I lived where the party

> was being held! Where, in the midst of my blackout,

> did I think I was going?

>

> I then reported this incident to the psychotherapist I

> was seeing for my depression. Three and a half cases

> a week of sedative and I'm depressed? Go figure. Her

> reply was, " Clifton, you readily admit you've pissed

> away whole weekends on booze. Piss away an hour and

> go to an AA meeting. " Somehow, this made sense, and

> so, the next night, I went to my first AA meeting

> ever, mentally fighting everything I heard.

>

> I then spent the next six years going " in and out, "

> trying desperately to prove them wrong, trying both

> abstinence and moderation, both with and without

> meetings, and never, by the way, working even one

> single step! What do you mean, " powerless " ? Who's

> got the funnel crammed down my throat?

>

> Finally, after a 48-hour hangover from Hell, I got my

> first sponsor, worked all 12 steps to the best of my

> ability, put together a year and a half of abstinence,

> and then got drunk one night. I spent the next six

> years in that pattern, putting together a year or so

> with AA, then saying, " Screw it. This is all BS, "

> getting drunk, then coming back because there's so

> little else available around here. I'm sick of it!

>

> PLEASE READ THIS, EVERYONE, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO

> REPEAT IT: I am now at the point that I go to the

> select AA meetings I can stomach, admittedly straining

> my brain discarding or mentally translating the BS

> into terms I can understand and appreciate and

> gleaning what few pearls of wisdom I discover.

> Reading non-AA-approved recovery literature on my own

> helps. I do all of this because there are absolutely

> no other recovery programs locally available, and

> because, whether before or after that first AA

> meeting, I've NEVER been able to string together more

> than three months of " clean time " completely " on my

> own. "

>

> I am indeed weary of the platitudes, faulty and

> circular logic, and anti-intellectual warnings with

> which AA is riddled. I appreciate being on this

> listserve, wherein I can see that I'm not crazy for

> calling into question much of what I hear in AA

> meetings.

>

> Moreover, once I finish my inexpensive North Carolina

> undergraduate education, I fully intend to do graduate

> and postgraduate work in some major U.S. city where

> more recovery options are available.

>

> However, until then, especially since I'm on mood

> stabilizers and antidiabetics, I will continue doing

> whatever it takes to stay sober, including being on

> this listserve AND going to AA. If you don't like it,

> get over it.

>

> Returning to Wally, my point is that the experience

> came BEFORE the " belief system, " not the other way

> around.

>

[snip]

[Guest guest]

> And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

> " It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable.

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I've made

comments to that effect. Here's my own experience,

for what it's worth:

I said in an earlier post that, even if a person has

no direct exposure AA or the 12 steps, they've still

been indoctrinated in a lot of ways. Statements such

as " alcoholism is a disease, " " an alcoholic can't stop

on their own, " " alcoholism can't be cured, only

arrested, " etc. are commonly presented in the media

and represented as established fact. All of these

statements imply that an " alcoholic " is indeed

*powerless* over their addiction.

Along with this is a larger trend in our culture which

is rather disturbing. I don't want to start a general

political debate - this isn't the place for it - but

I will say that the concept of individual responsibility

is, in some ways, an endangered species today. And,

speaking of such things is taboo in certain segments

of our culture. Consider the alarming number of

court cases is which defense attorneys offer explanations

such as " Mommy didn't love the defendant enough during

his childhood " to excuse the felonious behaviour of

sane adults.

The twelve step ideology and the alcoholism-as-disease

concept fit this larger trend perfectly. And, I can't

really blame someone for believing it, and spending

long periods of time in AA as a result. After all, if

someone's daughter developed pneumonia, and the parents

did nothing and the daughter died as a result, I really

couldn't be angry at the parents if they had been lied

to all their lives - by doctors, journalists, celebrities,

etc - and told that there were no effective treatments

for pneumonia and that nothing could be done. I would,

however, be furious with the people who had lied to them.

Most people who have had no personal experience with

alcohol abuse have very little specific knowledge of

what AA is all about. This includes a surprising number

of physicians, who are often shocked when someone shows

them the twelve steps. But, ask the average person on

the street, and they will tell you with absolute

certainly that alcoholism is a disease, etc.

Now, is it really surprising that when a person brought up

in a culture like this realizes that they are drinking

too much, their first thought is not, " I'm gonna quit, "

but rather, " I'm gonna get help, because I can't quit

on my own " ? And, is it really surprising that when

such a person does what seems natural (go to AA, which is

by far the most well-known program), and the notion of

powerlessness is pounded into his head, again and again

and again, 90 times in 90 days, that person often

doesn't question it, or uncomfortably accepts it?

Such a person has a *lot* of baggage to get rid of. That

person has been told thru his entire life, often by

respected medical professionals (who presumably know more

than him, can be trusted, and have the correct answers)

that he is powerless over his addiction. And, that concept

is comforting. " I wrecked my car, lost my job, and

ruined my marriage...but it was my disease, over which I

had no control, so I'm not responsible. " Everyone who

has ever accepted responsibility for their alcohol abuse,

myself included, has had to also accept the fact that,

if you'll pardon the language, they *fucked* *up*. Some

people just can't handle that.

None of this is meant to point a finger at you specifically,

Clifton. I don't know you, I don't know what your beliefs

or life story are, other than what you've said here. But -

and again, this is just my personal experience, what I've

observed in myself and in alcohol abusers I know - from what

I've seen, until someone is ready to not just accept, but

embrace the idea that they *are* responsible, and that they

*do* have control and power over their behavior, their

chances of kicking the habit are pretty slim.

I made the point earlier that drunks do control their

behavior to some extent - stopping drinking in order to

sober up in time for work the next day, etc. Let me offer

another example to illustrate what I mean.

Consider an AA member who has had a *very* rough day. The

boss has chewed him out, his car broke down on the way home,

etc. He might very well want a drink. Now, consider two

different scenarios:

1) He picks up the phone, calls his sponsor, and talks it

out with him. By doing so, he manages to avoid drinking.

2) He says to himself, " I've been dry for four months now,

and I know I can do it again. And dammit, this has been

the worst day I've had all year. I want a drink, and after

this bastard of a day, I deserve one. I'm gonna buy some

vodka and get a little blasted. "

Now, do you really think the person in scenario 2 is going

to call his sponsor? Hell, no. In situation 1, he's tempted

to drink, but he doesn't want to - he just doesn't trust himself

to resist the temptation on his own. In situation 2, he *wants*

to drink, and he has *decided* to drink. AA says that " it's

a *we* program, not 'I'. " But the decision to drink is, and

always has been, his alone.

The question I'm about to ask you is a deeply personal one,

and I'm not asking you to post an answer. And, there's no

hidden accusation here - I only ask that you think about it.

Have you ever considered - really considered - the idea that

the whole notion of powerlessness is a load of buffalo bagels,

that you *can* control your behavior, and that you are indeed

stronger than *any* temptation, at least where alcohol is

concerned?

> If most of us were capable of such on a long-term basis,

> we would neither have gone to AA in the first place nor now

> be trying to recover from AA.

Really? Wasn't it you who made the comment about how many

of the posts here were characterized by anti-AA vitriol?

Harsh animosity like that comes from personal experience,

not impersonal knowledge. I'd be willing to bet that most

of the people on this list tried AA at some point; I'd even

go further and bet that many tried it first. After all, it's

a generally accepted (though incorrect) idea in our culture

that AA is *the* treatment for alcohol abuse.

For most people who realize that their alcohol consumption

is excessive, but who have no detailed knowledge of alcohol

abuse and potential solutions, going to AA is a perfectly

natural (though tragic) first choice to deal with their

problem. That has nothing to do with the amount they drink

or the strength of their urges - it's just what most people

are taught, that's all.

And again - just my personal experience - but at the height

of my alcohol abuse, I was putting away a liter of vodka per

day, and was unemployed and living on charity. Someone made

the suggestion earlier that RR can only work for people who

are securely employed and only drink a little too much.

Without suggesting that RR is *the* only way to abstinence,

I will say that I'm an example that contradicts the idea

that RR only works in mild cases.

McKellan

[Guest guest]

> And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

> " It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable.

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I've made

comments to that effect. Here's my own experience,

for what it's worth:

I said in an earlier post that, even if a person has

no direct exposure AA or the 12 steps, they've still

been indoctrinated in a lot of ways. Statements such

as " alcoholism is a disease, " " an alcoholic can't stop

on their own, " " alcoholism can't be cured, only

arrested, " etc. are commonly presented in the media

and represented as established fact. All of these

statements imply that an " alcoholic " is indeed

*powerless* over their addiction.

Along with this is a larger trend in our culture which

is rather disturbing. I don't want to start a general

political debate - this isn't the place for it - but

I will say that the concept of individual responsibility

is, in some ways, an endangered species today. And,

speaking of such things is taboo in certain segments

of our culture. Consider the alarming number of

court cases is which defense attorneys offer explanations

such as " Mommy didn't love the defendant enough during

his childhood " to excuse the felonious behaviour of

sane adults.

The twelve step ideology and the alcoholism-as-disease

concept fit this larger trend perfectly. And, I can't

really blame someone for believing it, and spending

long periods of time in AA as a result. After all, if

someone's daughter developed pneumonia, and the parents

did nothing and the daughter died as a result, I really

couldn't be angry at the parents if they had been lied

to all their lives - by doctors, journalists, celebrities,

etc - and told that there were no effective treatments

for pneumonia and that nothing could be done. I would,

however, be furious with the people who had lied to them.

Most people who have had no personal experience with

alcohol abuse have very little specific knowledge of

what AA is all about. This includes a surprising number

of physicians, who are often shocked when someone shows

them the twelve steps. But, ask the average person on

the street, and they will tell you with absolute

certainly that alcoholism is a disease, etc.

Now, is it really surprising that when a person brought up

in a culture like this realizes that they are drinking

too much, their first thought is not, " I'm gonna quit, "

but rather, " I'm gonna get help, because I can't quit

on my own " ? And, is it really surprising that when

such a person does what seems natural (go to AA, which is

by far the most well-known program), and the notion of

powerlessness is pounded into his head, again and again

and again, 90 times in 90 days, that person often

doesn't question it, or uncomfortably accepts it?

Such a person has a *lot* of baggage to get rid of. That

person has been told thru his entire life, often by

respected medical professionals (who presumably know more

than him, can be trusted, and have the correct answers)

that he is powerless over his addiction. And, that concept

is comforting. " I wrecked my car, lost my job, and

ruined my marriage...but it was my disease, over which I

had no control, so I'm not responsible. " Everyone who

has ever accepted responsibility for their alcohol abuse,

myself included, has had to also accept the fact that,

if you'll pardon the language, they *fucked* *up*. Some

people just can't handle that.

None of this is meant to point a finger at you specifically,

Clifton. I don't know you, I don't know what your beliefs

or life story are, other than what you've said here. But -

and again, this is just my personal experience, what I've

observed in myself and in alcohol abusers I know - from what

I've seen, until someone is ready to not just accept, but

embrace the idea that they *are* responsible, and that they

*do* have control and power over their behavior, their

chances of kicking the habit are pretty slim.

I made the point earlier that drunks do control their

behavior to some extent - stopping drinking in order to

sober up in time for work the next day, etc. Let me offer

another example to illustrate what I mean.

Consider an AA member who has had a *very* rough day. The

boss has chewed him out, his car broke down on the way home,

etc. He might very well want a drink. Now, consider two

different scenarios:

1) He picks up the phone, calls his sponsor, and talks it

out with him. By doing so, he manages to avoid drinking.

2) He says to himself, " I've been dry for four months now,

and I know I can do it again. And dammit, this has been

the worst day I've had all year. I want a drink, and after

this bastard of a day, I deserve one. I'm gonna buy some

vodka and get a little blasted. "

Now, do you really think the person in scenario 2 is going

to call his sponsor? Hell, no. In situation 1, he's tempted

to drink, but he doesn't want to - he just doesn't trust himself

to resist the temptation on his own. In situation 2, he *wants*

to drink, and he has *decided* to drink. AA says that " it's

a *we* program, not 'I'. " But the decision to drink is, and

always has been, his alone.

The question I'm about to ask you is a deeply personal one,

and I'm not asking you to post an answer. And, there's no

hidden accusation here - I only ask that you think about it.

Have you ever considered - really considered - the idea that

the whole notion of powerlessness is a load of buffalo bagels,

that you *can* control your behavior, and that you are indeed

stronger than *any* temptation, at least where alcohol is

concerned?

> If most of us were capable of such on a long-term basis,

> we would neither have gone to AA in the first place nor now

> be trying to recover from AA.

Really? Wasn't it you who made the comment about how many

of the posts here were characterized by anti-AA vitriol?

Harsh animosity like that comes from personal experience,

not impersonal knowledge. I'd be willing to bet that most

of the people on this list tried AA at some point; I'd even

go further and bet that many tried it first. After all, it's

a generally accepted (though incorrect) idea in our culture

that AA is *the* treatment for alcohol abuse.

For most people who realize that their alcohol consumption

is excessive, but who have no detailed knowledge of alcohol

abuse and potential solutions, going to AA is a perfectly

natural (though tragic) first choice to deal with their

problem. That has nothing to do with the amount they drink

or the strength of their urges - it's just what most people

are taught, that's all.

And again - just my personal experience - but at the height

of my alcohol abuse, I was putting away a liter of vodka per

day, and was unemployed and living on charity. Someone made

the suggestion earlier that RR can only work for people who

are securely employed and only drink a little too much.

Without suggesting that RR is *the* only way to abstinence,

I will say that I'm an example that contradicts the idea

that RR only works in mild cases.

McKellan

[Guest guest]

" Arroyo " wrote:

> It's been my experience that an inordinate amount of AAs end what they

> believe to be their pithy little posts with what they believe to be

> spiritual quotes. It's not and ending with Blessed be does not indicate

> " bless you " or " Bless me " for that matter.

I've seen it used by certain people who believed themselves to be

spiritually enlightened, in lieu of typing what they really mean, which is

" fuck off. "

Dan

[Guest guest]

" Arroyo " wrote:

> It's been my experience that an inordinate amount of AAs end what they

> believe to be their pithy little posts with what they believe to be

> spiritual quotes. It's not and ending with Blessed be does not indicate

> " bless you " or " Bless me " for that matter.

I've seen it used by certain people who believed themselves to be

spiritually enlightened, in lieu of typing what they really mean, which is

" fuck off. "

Dan

[Guest guest]

" Arroyo " wrote:

> It's been my experience that an inordinate amount of AAs end what they

> believe to be their pithy little posts with what they believe to be

> spiritual quotes. It's not and ending with Blessed be does not indicate

> " bless you " or " Bless me " for that matter.

I've seen it used by certain people who believed themselves to be

spiritually enlightened, in lieu of typing what they really mean, which is

" fuck off. "

Dan

[Guest guest]

> > And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

> > " It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable.

>

[big snip]

and Clifton,

, I really like what you've posted here. You've said it

compassionately too.

Personal responsibility and personal decision making are at the crux

of the matter. And you are right, our culture constantly tells us

that we can't solve things on our own and that we need help. By

making alcoholism a disease, we define it as a problem that requires

assistance from the outside AND, at the same time we are able to

dodge responsibility for our behaviour when we are drinking. That is

a very powerful combination!

My treatment center taught the disease model and when I expressed

doubts about it, my counselor explained that seeing it as a disease

allowed us to get past the guilt our behaviour induced and begin to

change. I thought that was reasonable, and started to believe in the

disease theory.

It was also hammered into us that we would have the condition for

life and the least bit of alcohol would cause a downward spiral much

quicker than the spiral that got us to treatment in the first place.

I was filled with fear. I didn't want that. I decided to do what

they told me.

I had no access to any other point of view, or didn't believe that I

did. When I left AA (1995), I just left.

>

> Have you ever considered - really considered - the idea that

> the whole notion of powerlessness is a load of buffalo bagels,

> that you *can* control your behavior, and that you are indeed

> stronger than *any* temptation, at least where alcohol is

> concerned?

[snip]

> For most people who realize that their alcohol consumption

> is excessive, but who have no detailed knowledge of alcohol

> abuse and potential solutions, going to AA is a perfectly

> natural (though tragic) first choice to deal with their

> problem. That has nothing to do with the amount they drink

> or the strength of their urges - it's just what most people

> are taught, that's all.

This is VERY true. No other course of action was even mentioned in

my entire ordeal with this, in the TX center or out. IF another

option was discussed at all, it was quickly discounted as impractical

and, ironically, harmful. Over and over I heard that AA was the only

thing that " works. "

Clifton, I've been very annoyed with your posts, but you do seem to

be between a rock and a hard place: that of not being all AA, but

still having very strong AA beliefs.

In my own case, I found that having partial AA ideas and having some

of my own ideas created an internal conflict. After rejecting AA, I

could not support the idea of going back when I felt my drinking

start to " slide out of control " (quotes denoting how I was thinking

of it). None of the tricks to make AA any more palatable appealed to

me in the least little bit, which is one reason why your posts didn't

do a thing for me.

BTW, " Blessed Be " is a Wiccan term.

Also BTW, whenever I hear someone say " I don't mean to take your

inventory " or words to that effect, I absolutely know they are about

to take inventory! And when you misquoted Azure as AND took

her inventory, when she had not " extrapolated " anything but had

described her own experience AND you didn't respond to me when I

called you on it, then, yes, you come off as an " AA troll. "

[Guest guest]

> > And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

> > " It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable.

>

[big snip]

and Clifton,

, I really like what you've posted here. You've said it

compassionately too.

Personal responsibility and personal decision making are at the crux

of the matter. And you are right, our culture constantly tells us

that we can't solve things on our own and that we need help. By

making alcoholism a disease, we define it as a problem that requires

assistance from the outside AND, at the same time we are able to

dodge responsibility for our behaviour when we are drinking. That is

a very powerful combination!

My treatment center taught the disease model and when I expressed

doubts about it, my counselor explained that seeing it as a disease

allowed us to get past the guilt our behaviour induced and begin to

change. I thought that was reasonable, and started to believe in the

disease theory.

It was also hammered into us that we would have the condition for

life and the least bit of alcohol would cause a downward spiral much

quicker than the spiral that got us to treatment in the first place.

I was filled with fear. I didn't want that. I decided to do what

they told me.

I had no access to any other point of view, or didn't believe that I

did. When I left AA (1995), I just left.

>

> Have you ever considered - really considered - the idea that

> the whole notion of powerlessness is a load of buffalo bagels,

> that you *can* control your behavior, and that you are indeed

> stronger than *any* temptation, at least where alcohol is

> concerned?

[snip]

> For most people who realize that their alcohol consumption

> is excessive, but who have no detailed knowledge of alcohol

> abuse and potential solutions, going to AA is a perfectly

> natural (though tragic) first choice to deal with their

> problem. That has nothing to do with the amount they drink

> or the strength of their urges - it's just what most people

> are taught, that's all.

This is VERY true. No other course of action was even mentioned in

my entire ordeal with this, in the TX center or out. IF another

option was discussed at all, it was quickly discounted as impractical

and, ironically, harmful. Over and over I heard that AA was the only

thing that " works. "

Clifton, I've been very annoyed with your posts, but you do seem to

be between a rock and a hard place: that of not being all AA, but

still having very strong AA beliefs.

In my own case, I found that having partial AA ideas and having some

of my own ideas created an internal conflict. After rejecting AA, I

could not support the idea of going back when I felt my drinking

start to " slide out of control " (quotes denoting how I was thinking

of it). None of the tricks to make AA any more palatable appealed to

me in the least little bit, which is one reason why your posts didn't

do a thing for me.

BTW, " Blessed Be " is a Wiccan term.

Also BTW, whenever I hear someone say " I don't mean to take your

inventory " or words to that effect, I absolutely know they are about

to take inventory! And when you misquoted Azure as AND took

her inventory, when she had not " extrapolated " anything but had

described her own experience AND you didn't respond to me when I

called you on it, then, yes, you come off as an " AA troll. "

[Guest guest]

> > And I don't remember if it was you who said it but

> > " It's simple. Don't drink. " is laughable.

>

[big snip]

and Clifton,

, I really like what you've posted here. You've said it

compassionately too.

Personal responsibility and personal decision making are at the crux

of the matter. And you are right, our culture constantly tells us

that we can't solve things on our own and that we need help. By

making alcoholism a disease, we define it as a problem that requires

assistance from the outside AND, at the same time we are able to

dodge responsibility for our behaviour when we are drinking. That is

a very powerful combination!

My treatment center taught the disease model and when I expressed

doubts about it, my counselor explained that seeing it as a disease

allowed us to get past the guilt our behaviour induced and begin to

change. I thought that was reasonable, and started to believe in the

disease theory.

It was also hammered into us that we would have the condition for

life and the least bit of alcohol would cause a downward spiral much

quicker than the spiral that got us to treatment in the first place.

I was filled with fear. I didn't want that. I decided to do what

they told me.

I had no access to any other point of view, or didn't believe that I

did. When I left AA (1995), I just left.

>

> Have you ever considered - really considered - the idea that

> the whole notion of powerlessness is a load of buffalo bagels,

> that you *can* control your behavior, and that you are indeed

> stronger than *any* temptation, at least where alcohol is

> concerned?

[snip]

> For most people who realize that their alcohol consumption

> is excessive, but who have no detailed knowledge of alcohol

> abuse and potential solutions, going to AA is a perfectly

> natural (though tragic) first choice to deal with their

> problem. That has nothing to do with the amount they drink

> or the strength of their urges - it's just what most people

> are taught, that's all.

This is VERY true. No other course of action was even mentioned in

my entire ordeal with this, in the TX center or out. IF another

option was discussed at all, it was quickly discounted as impractical

and, ironically, harmful. Over and over I heard that AA was the only

thing that " works. "

Clifton, I've been very annoyed with your posts, but you do seem to

be between a rock and a hard place: that of not being all AA, but

still having very strong AA beliefs.

In my own case, I found that having partial AA ideas and having some

of my own ideas created an internal conflict. After rejecting AA, I

could not support the idea of going back when I felt my drinking

start to " slide out of control " (quotes denoting how I was thinking

of it). None of the tricks to make AA any more palatable appealed to

me in the least little bit, which is one reason why your posts didn't

do a thing for me.

BTW, " Blessed Be " is a Wiccan term.

Also BTW, whenever I hear someone say " I don't mean to take your

inventory " or words to that effect, I absolutely know they are about

to take inventory! And when you misquoted Azure as AND took

her inventory, when she had not " extrapolated " anything but had

described her own experience AND you didn't respond to me when I

called you on it, then, yes, you come off as an " AA troll. "

[Guest guest]

> [...]

> My treatment center taught the disease model and when I expressed

> doubts about it, my counselor explained that seeing it as a disease

> allowed us to get past the guilt our behaviour induced and begin to

> change. I thought that was reasonable, and started to believe in

the

> disease theory.

Ya know, I can almost see that as a argument in favor of the disease

theory. Almost, but not quite. Repeatedly beating oneself up over

a mistake doesn't do the person any good - at some point, the person

has to accept their past and make their peace with it. That's life.

But the costs of the disease model clearly outweigh the benefits. I'm

just glad someone didn't try that line on me when I was scared and

vulnerable - I might have bought into the disease model more than I

did. I thought I had heard all of the Stepford Lies by now, but this

is a new one to me.

> [...]

> This is VERY true. No other course of action was even mentioned in

> my entire ordeal with this, in the TX center or out. IF another

> option was discussed at all, it was quickly discounted as

impractical

> and, ironically, harmful. Over and over I heard that AA was the

only

> thing that " works. "

> [...]

Oh, yeah, that sounds *so* familiar!! I think I mentioned this

before, but when I was in detox, the staff refused to even admit the

existence of anything other than AA. Except that they presented NA

as an alternative to AA, and tried to convince us that the two had

nothing at all in common. Yeah, right. Finally, after repeated

requests on my part, a nurse slipped me some info on RR just before

my discharge, saying, " Please don't tell anyone I gave you this. "

I smelled a rat already, but what I didn't find out until later was

that, in many treatment centers, advocating anything other than the

twelve steps is grounds for dismissal.

Forgive me, I'm repeating myself, and venting a little. But maybe

someone out there is so new to all this that they haven't found out

yet that their doctors are advocating AA because of the guns held to

their heads.

One thing which is, perhaps, a reason for hope: I recently went to

visit a friend who was a patient in that same center. The policies

were very much the same, but I couldn't help noticing that virtually

all of the staff members who were there three years ago had

disappeared. I can only hope that maybe medical professionals are

becoming increasingly disgusted with the crock of dung which is the

twelve steps, and the unethical, counter-productive treatment

protocol they are expected to practice. But I remain skeptical.

McKellan

[Guest guest]

> [...]

> My treatment center taught the disease model and when I expressed

> doubts about it, my counselor explained that seeing it as a disease

> allowed us to get past the guilt our behaviour induced and begin to

> change. I thought that was reasonable, and started to believe in

the

> disease theory.

Ya know, I can almost see that as a argument in favor of the disease

theory. Almost, but not quite. Repeatedly beating oneself up over

a mistake doesn't do the person any good - at some point, the person

has to accept their past and make their peace with it. That's life.

But the costs of the disease model clearly outweigh the benefits. I'm

just glad someone didn't try that line on me when I was scared and

vulnerable - I might have bought into the disease model more than I

did. I thought I had heard all of the Stepford Lies by now, but this

is a new one to me.

> [...]

> This is VERY true. No other course of action was even mentioned in

> my entire ordeal with this, in the TX center or out. IF another

> option was discussed at all, it was quickly discounted as

impractical

> and, ironically, harmful. Over and over I heard that AA was the

only

> thing that " works. "

> [...]

Oh, yeah, that sounds *so* familiar!! I think I mentioned this

before, but when I was in detox, the staff refused to even admit the

existence of anything other than AA. Except that they presented NA

as an alternative to AA, and tried to convince us that the two had

nothing at all in common. Yeah, right. Finally, after repeated

requests on my part, a nurse slipped me some info on RR just before

my discharge, saying, " Please don't tell anyone I gave you this. "

I smelled a rat already, but what I didn't find out until later was

that, in many treatment centers, advocating anything other than the

twelve steps is grounds for dismissal.

Forgive me, I'm repeating myself, and venting a little. But maybe

someone out there is so new to all this that they haven't found out

yet that their doctors are advocating AA because of the guns held to

their heads.

One thing which is, perhaps, a reason for hope: I recently went to

visit a friend who was a patient in that same center. The policies

were very much the same, but I couldn't help noticing that virtually

all of the staff members who were there three years ago had

disappeared. I can only hope that maybe medical professionals are

becoming increasingly disgusted with the crock of dung which is the

twelve steps, and the unethical, counter-productive treatment

protocol they are expected to practice. But I remain skeptical.

McKellan

[Guest guest]

My treatment centre also plugged the disease model for just those reasons , i.e so that you would not feel guilty about having it ! The facility was for Health professionals , but the counsellors were all recovering AA ers . ( unqualified ) My counsellor was marvellous , however she kept plugging away at getting me to say I acepted that it was a disease . I discovered later that the person who ran the unit had asked her to comment for a report he submitted about me . ( I did not know about this ) he reporetd that I did not seem to accept that I had a real problem . this was on the basis of the fact that I did not accept AA stuff and the disease theory . This assessment had a very adverse

effect on my career , despite being sober . Without AA I have now been sober for nearly 2 years . As a dentist , and also having a degree in Psychology , and a diploma in Homeopathy , I think I have the intellectual capacity to make my own assessments of various theories !!!

[Guest guest]

My treatment centre also plugged the disease model for just those reasons , i.e so that you would not feel guilty about having it ! The facility was for Health professionals , but the counsellors were all recovering AA ers . ( unqualified ) My counsellor was marvellous , however she kept plugging away at getting me to say I acepted that it was a disease . I discovered later that the person who ran the unit had asked her to comment for a report he submitted about me . ( I did not know about this ) he reporetd that I did not seem to accept that I had a real problem . this was on the basis of the fact that I did not accept AA stuff and the disease theory . This assessment had a very adverse

effect on my career , despite being sober . Without AA I have now been sober for nearly 2 years . As a dentist , and also having a degree in Psychology , and a diploma in Homeopathy , I think I have the intellectual capacity to make my own assessments of various theories !!!

[Guest guest]

My treatment centre also plugged the disease model for just those reasons , i.e so that you would not feel guilty about having it ! The facility was for Health professionals , but the counsellors were all recovering AA ers . ( unqualified ) My counsellor was marvellous , however she kept plugging away at getting me to say I acepted that it was a disease . I discovered later that the person who ran the unit had asked her to comment for a report he submitted about me . ( I did not know about this ) he reporetd that I did not seem to accept that I had a real problem . this was on the basis of the fact that I did not accept AA stuff and the disease theory . This assessment had a very adverse

effect on my career , despite being sober . Without AA I have now been sober for nearly 2 years . As a dentist , and also having a degree in Psychology , and a diploma in Homeopathy , I think I have the intellectual capacity to make my own assessments of various theories !!!

[Guest guest]

The " no guilt " , or " letting you of the hook " ,

reasoning behind the disease model of alcoholism, has

had some logic to it. But AA, so far as I've even been

able to get *anything* out of it, also puts a strong

emphasis on being accountable for the stuff you do and

have done (what, with the whole " seeing your part "

business of 4 and 5, and of course the " amends " bit of

8 and 9). One more illogical contadiction, I suppose.

In my searching to see whether or not I should remain

an AA I determined, for myself, and have even gone so

far as to explain to an intellectual newcomer, or two,

that you just accept the " disease " thing as a

'belief', or at best convenient semantics . Not, by

any stretch, science or medicine (as it simply has no

basis in those things). It's " water to wine, loaves

and fishes " stuff, plain and simple. You buy into it

as part of a belief system; the same sort of

intellectual compromise that makes religion,

especially when dared to be taken literally, so often

so offensive to many. Most AAs I've encountered,

obviously, don't share my feelings.

I figured, like the thinker, or intellectual, who has

turned to christianity because they found a value in

the faith or the principles; not because they believe,

literally, in imaculate conceptions, virgin births,

and ressurection. I, were I to remain in AA, would do

so accepting the " disease " theory, and the sacramental

" steps " as the mythological hokum, the ritual, that

makes this particular, peculiar, religion tick.

I feel, strongly, that it has NO place in any

hospital, detox, or place of science or fact. No more

than being offered as a voluntary option.

It's simply not, in any true sense, a disease.

Hell, most folks, were they to shoot heroin for, say,

a week or two, would become hooked; it's the nature of

the stuff. Does that mean we're all, okay not all, 95%

of us, born with the " disease " of heroin addiction...

It's just plain dumb.

No, it's a belief you buy into to practice a faith; it

should be portrayed no differently.

--- CATSJP1000@... wrote:

> My treatment centre also plugged the disease model

> for just those reasons ,

> i.e so that you would not feel guilty about having

> it !

> The facility was for Health professionals , but the

> counsellors were all

> recovering AA ers . ( unqualified )

> My counsellor was marvellous , however she kept

> plugging away at getting me

> to say I acepted that it was a disease .

> I discovered later that the person who ran the unit

> had asked her to comment

> for a report he submitted about me .

> ( I did not know about this ) he reporetd that I did

> not seem to accept that

> I had a real problem . this was on the basis of the

> fact that I did not

> accept AA stuff and the disease theory . This

> assessment had a very adverse

> effect on my career , despite being sober .

> Without AA I have now been sober for nearly 2 years

> .

> As a dentist , and also having a degree in

> Psychology , and a diploma in

> Homeopathy , I think I have the intellectual

> capacity to make my own

> assessments of various theories !!!

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

The " no guilt " , or " letting you of the hook " ,

reasoning behind the disease model of alcoholism, has

had some logic to it. But AA, so far as I've even been

able to get *anything* out of it, also puts a strong

emphasis on being accountable for the stuff you do and

have done (what, with the whole " seeing your part "

business of 4 and 5, and of course the " amends " bit of

8 and 9). One more illogical contadiction, I suppose.

In my searching to see whether or not I should remain

an AA I determined, for myself, and have even gone so

far as to explain to an intellectual newcomer, or two,

that you just accept the " disease " thing as a

'belief', or at best convenient semantics . Not, by

any stretch, science or medicine (as it simply has no

basis in those things). It's " water to wine, loaves

and fishes " stuff, plain and simple. You buy into it

as part of a belief system; the same sort of

intellectual compromise that makes religion,

especially when dared to be taken literally, so often

so offensive to many. Most AAs I've encountered,

obviously, don't share my feelings.

I figured, like the thinker, or intellectual, who has

turned to christianity because they found a value in

the faith or the principles; not because they believe,

literally, in imaculate conceptions, virgin births,

and ressurection. I, were I to remain in AA, would do

so accepting the " disease " theory, and the sacramental

" steps " as the mythological hokum, the ritual, that

makes this particular, peculiar, religion tick.

I feel, strongly, that it has NO place in any

hospital, detox, or place of science or fact. No more

than being offered as a voluntary option.

It's simply not, in any true sense, a disease.

Hell, most folks, were they to shoot heroin for, say,

a week or two, would become hooked; it's the nature of

the stuff. Does that mean we're all, okay not all, 95%

of us, born with the " disease " of heroin addiction...

It's just plain dumb.

No, it's a belief you buy into to practice a faith; it

should be portrayed no differently.

--- CATSJP1000@... wrote:

> My treatment centre also plugged the disease model

> for just those reasons ,

> i.e so that you would not feel guilty about having

> it !

> The facility was for Health professionals , but the

> counsellors were all

> recovering AA ers . ( unqualified )

> My counsellor was marvellous , however she kept

> plugging away at getting me

> to say I acepted that it was a disease .

> I discovered later that the person who ran the unit

> had asked her to comment

> for a report he submitted about me .

> ( I did not know about this ) he reporetd that I did

> not seem to accept that

> I had a real problem . this was on the basis of the

> fact that I did not

> accept AA stuff and the disease theory . This

> assessment had a very adverse

> effect on my career , despite being sober .

> Without AA I have now been sober for nearly 2 years

> .

> As a dentist , and also having a degree in

> Psychology , and a diploma in

> Homeopathy , I think I have the intellectual

> capacity to make my own

> assessments of various theories !!!

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

The " no guilt " , or " letting you of the hook " ,

reasoning behind the disease model of alcoholism, has

had some logic to it. But AA, so far as I've even been

able to get *anything* out of it, also puts a strong

emphasis on being accountable for the stuff you do and

have done (what, with the whole " seeing your part "

business of 4 and 5, and of course the " amends " bit of

8 and 9). One more illogical contadiction, I suppose.

In my searching to see whether or not I should remain

an AA I determined, for myself, and have even gone so

far as to explain to an intellectual newcomer, or two,

that you just accept the " disease " thing as a

'belief', or at best convenient semantics . Not, by

any stretch, science or medicine (as it simply has no

basis in those things). It's " water to wine, loaves

and fishes " stuff, plain and simple. You buy into it

as part of a belief system; the same sort of

intellectual compromise that makes religion,

especially when dared to be taken literally, so often

so offensive to many. Most AAs I've encountered,

obviously, don't share my feelings.

I figured, like the thinker, or intellectual, who has

turned to christianity because they found a value in

the faith or the principles; not because they believe,

literally, in imaculate conceptions, virgin births,

and ressurection. I, were I to remain in AA, would do

so accepting the " disease " theory, and the sacramental

" steps " as the mythological hokum, the ritual, that

makes this particular, peculiar, religion tick.

I feel, strongly, that it has NO place in any

hospital, detox, or place of science or fact. No more

than being offered as a voluntary option.

It's simply not, in any true sense, a disease.

Hell, most folks, were they to shoot heroin for, say,

a week or two, would become hooked; it's the nature of

the stuff. Does that mean we're all, okay not all, 95%

of us, born with the " disease " of heroin addiction...

It's just plain dumb.

No, it's a belief you buy into to practice a faith; it

should be portrayed no differently.

--- CATSJP1000@... wrote:

> My treatment centre also plugged the disease model

> for just those reasons ,

> i.e so that you would not feel guilty about having

> it !

> The facility was for Health professionals , but the

> counsellors were all

> recovering AA ers . ( unqualified )

> My counsellor was marvellous , however she kept

> plugging away at getting me

> to say I acepted that it was a disease .

> I discovered later that the person who ran the unit

> had asked her to comment

> for a report he submitted about me .

> ( I did not know about this ) he reporetd that I did

> not seem to accept that

> I had a real problem . this was on the basis of the

> fact that I did not

> accept AA stuff and the disease theory . This

> assessment had a very adverse

> effect on my career , despite being sober .

> Without AA I have now been sober for nearly 2 years

> .

> As a dentist , and also having a degree in

> Psychology , and a diploma in

> Homeopathy , I think I have the intellectual

> capacity to make my own

> assessments of various theories !!!

>

>

__________________________________________________