Good Bye

[Guest guest]

Hi Cool Guy: Duaine M here: I helped stop the forced meetings. We at SOS don't want forced meetings. If we some how become one of them we will work hard and fast to put a stop to them. It's not us. Get it ?? We don't help with moderate drinking. We are a Abstinence Group. We give you back to your self. You are the one who does it, not us. --No Steps-- No one telling you how to do it--. It's the SOS Way. I am curious about your answer to this question Duaine... oncoerced meeting attendance - that is when people are forced to go tomeetings. Whether the meeting is AA, SOS, LSR or whatever, will themeeting do the people that attend it any good, if the vast majorityare there against their own will? How many people will constitute aworthwile meeting versus a meeting that is a waste of everyone'stime? I am not against SOS or any of these other AA alternatives, but Iam against people being sent to meeting of any kind against therewill. Enough about that, please tell me how SOS helps people to quit ormoderate drinking. I want to learn more about it. Thanks

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan: Duaine M here: I don't know what legal bullshit your talking about with SOS. There is none. There is no legal bullshit going on in SOS. Re: Re: Good Bye Cool_Guy:Just how cool are you?Erudite - learned. Showing great learning.The erudite Ken Ragge is still here. Some people just don't like his opinion.Personally, I don't like most of what I've read here in the last 2 or 3 days,or really I'm just rather bored with it, but that's okay - life goes on. Ifthe list fails to fill a sail or two for a long enough time, I'm free tounsubscribe. I do know this - based on on the legal bullshit I've read -I'll never join LSR/SOS. I've already rejected RR as really irrational, andnever got around to looking into SMART. I think I'll do what I've been doing- choosing to stay abstinent because I damn well want to.Jan-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<< > > Where is the "erudite Ken Ragge" that some 12-step-free groupieslong for?I hate it when I forget what erudite means and have to look it up inthe dictionary. It just makes me feel so... well, not erudite. >>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jan: Duaine M here: I don't know what legal bullshit your talking about with SOS. There is none. There is no legal bullshit going on in SOS. Re: Re: Good Bye Cool_Guy:Just how cool are you?Erudite - learned. Showing great learning.The erudite Ken Ragge is still here. Some people just don't like his opinion.Personally, I don't like most of what I've read here in the last 2 or 3 days,or really I'm just rather bored with it, but that's okay - life goes on. Ifthe list fails to fill a sail or two for a long enough time, I'm free tounsubscribe. I do know this - based on on the legal bullshit I've read -I'll never join LSR/SOS. I've already rejected RR as really irrational, andnever got around to looking into SMART. I think I'll do what I've been doing- choosing to stay abstinent because I damn well want to.Jan-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<< > > Where is the "erudite Ken Ragge" that some 12-step-free groupieslong for?I hate it when I forget what erudite means and have to look it up inthe dictionary. It just makes me feel so... well, not erudite. >>

[Guest guest]

> Devil Drink is a phrase to describe the attitude that alcohol

> is " bad. " You know like computers are bad, technology is bad... in

> your case, science is bad. And that attitude (not the phrase

> itself, you dolt) that alcohol is bad is supported by just about any

> group that deals with " alcoholism " that I have ever had the

> slightest exposure to. So grow up youngun. And for more bullshit

> (that is assumptions that suit your type) let me remind you of the

> disease theory, the gene bullshit and all the other shit you've made

> up and decided to take as fact.

There's not even anything like that phrase.... unless it's the idea that for

alcoholics, alcohol is bad enough that abstinence is the best solution to

avoid its problems.

Ohmygod, I used the " a " word again, abstinence. But I guess a definite

portion of this group refuses to believe that for people who are indeed

having that level of alcohol problems, abstinence is the best answer.

I know what Ken's been getting at all along with his " Devil Drink "

phrase.... since the first time I called him on it.... it's his visceral

dislike of abstinence groups. I've just been waiting to hear him say it, in

so many words... which he still hasn't.

He'll attack and slander LSR and SOS because, in his opinion, they're pretty

similar to AA without God.

Yep, similar in one BIG thing and that one thing only... a focus on

abstinence.

And yours too, I'm guessing, from your posts.

[Guest guest]

> Devil Drink is a phrase to describe the attitude that alcohol

> is " bad. " You know like computers are bad, technology is bad... in

> your case, science is bad. And that attitude (not the phrase

> itself, you dolt) that alcohol is bad is supported by just about any

> group that deals with " alcoholism " that I have ever had the

> slightest exposure to. So grow up youngun. And for more bullshit

> (that is assumptions that suit your type) let me remind you of the

> disease theory, the gene bullshit and all the other shit you've made

> up and decided to take as fact.

There's not even anything like that phrase.... unless it's the idea that for

alcoholics, alcohol is bad enough that abstinence is the best solution to

avoid its problems.

Ohmygod, I used the " a " word again, abstinence. But I guess a definite

portion of this group refuses to believe that for people who are indeed

having that level of alcohol problems, abstinence is the best answer.

I know what Ken's been getting at all along with his " Devil Drink "

phrase.... since the first time I called him on it.... it's his visceral

dislike of abstinence groups. I've just been waiting to hear him say it, in

so many words... which he still hasn't.

He'll attack and slander LSR and SOS because, in his opinion, they're pretty

similar to AA without God.

Yep, similar in one BIG thing and that one thing only... a focus on

abstinence.

And yours too, I'm guessing, from your posts.

[Guest guest]

> > I'll never join LSR/SOS. I've already rejected RR as really

> irrational, and

> > never got around to looking into SMART. I think I'll do what

I've

> been doing

> > - choosing to stay abstinent because I damn well want to.

>

> Are you sure that is what you want? I'd be interested in hearing

> reasons why any of those programs doesn't appeal or seems wrong...

I

> have heard a lot of bashing of all the various groups... AA the

most

> of course, but I have not read many reasoned criticisms. I'd like

> to do that.

>

You and me both Cool Guy ;-)

I don't think there is a lot " wrong " with any of the (non-AA) groups,

the problem seems to be with the style of advocacy and extremeism of

some of their members. I see a lot of " AA " in that, and I wonder if

that reflects the membership or ideas inherited from AA or is just

the natural way of humans in recovery groups?! Fwiw, I *did* benefit

(in AA, gasp) from needed companionship and practical help, while

getting a few crucial first months of abstinence. Yet I had already

payed handsomely to some of those b*******, before I got sober. :-(

I believe that actually stopping drinking was (for me) rather group-

independant and mostly prompted by a rapid decline in circumstances,

and helped by a kick-start from Acamprosate. I don't think I could

have been helped by any RG in that. Chilling thought! :-) A group was

important for resocialisation. I believe " Do it Yourself " advocates

fail to aknowledge that many of us simply *don't* have the support

network of family or friends often needed in early recovery (c.f. the

denial of anything non-AA being used, by AAs too!). In any real terms

drinking alcohol excessively is addictive and being told (even here)

that one *should* be able to " choose " not to drink, is imo of *zero*

practical help to so many.

Fwiw, I have been most impressed by most " cognitive " orientated RGs

e.g. SMART? I feel my (only) contribution to the AA format was the

dunkalogue, which I see as a kind of negative Cost Benefit Analysis?

SMART also seem to invest more time in concentrating on their *own*

methods, not AA's. I feel a disservice is being done to some non-AA,

if bashing of AA is the ONLY way their members can advocate their

group. One already senses the reaction of the general public, in part

seduced by AA's message, as they watch bemused as the ex-drunks roll

in the dust. I suspect fewer with " drink problems " will go to their

meetings as a result - Sad indeed. Hopefully something positive can

be achieved.

Mack

[Guest guest]

> > I'll never join LSR/SOS. I've already rejected RR as really

> irrational, and

> > never got around to looking into SMART. I think I'll do what

I've

> been doing

> > - choosing to stay abstinent because I damn well want to.

>

> Are you sure that is what you want? I'd be interested in hearing

> reasons why any of those programs doesn't appeal or seems wrong...

I

> have heard a lot of bashing of all the various groups... AA the

most

> of course, but I have not read many reasoned criticisms. I'd like

> to do that.

>

You and me both Cool Guy ;-)

I don't think there is a lot " wrong " with any of the (non-AA) groups,

the problem seems to be with the style of advocacy and extremeism of

some of their members. I see a lot of " AA " in that, and I wonder if

that reflects the membership or ideas inherited from AA or is just

the natural way of humans in recovery groups?! Fwiw, I *did* benefit

(in AA, gasp) from needed companionship and practical help, while

getting a few crucial first months of abstinence. Yet I had already

payed handsomely to some of those b*******, before I got sober. :-(

I believe that actually stopping drinking was (for me) rather group-

independant and mostly prompted by a rapid decline in circumstances,

and helped by a kick-start from Acamprosate. I don't think I could

have been helped by any RG in that. Chilling thought! :-) A group was

important for resocialisation. I believe " Do it Yourself " advocates

fail to aknowledge that many of us simply *don't* have the support

network of family or friends often needed in early recovery (c.f. the

denial of anything non-AA being used, by AAs too!). In any real terms

drinking alcohol excessively is addictive and being told (even here)

that one *should* be able to " choose " not to drink, is imo of *zero*

practical help to so many.

Fwiw, I have been most impressed by most " cognitive " orientated RGs

e.g. SMART? I feel my (only) contribution to the AA format was the

dunkalogue, which I see as a kind of negative Cost Benefit Analysis?

SMART also seem to invest more time in concentrating on their *own*

methods, not AA's. I feel a disservice is being done to some non-AA,

if bashing of AA is the ONLY way their members can advocate their

group. One already senses the reaction of the general public, in part

seduced by AA's message, as they watch bemused as the ex-drunks roll

in the dust. I suspect fewer with " drink problems " will go to their

meetings as a result - Sad indeed. Hopefully something positive can

be achieved.

Mack

[Guest guest]

> > I'll never join LSR/SOS. I've already rejected RR as really

> irrational, and

> > never got around to looking into SMART. I think I'll do what

I've

> been doing

> > - choosing to stay abstinent because I damn well want to.

>

> Are you sure that is what you want? I'd be interested in hearing

> reasons why any of those programs doesn't appeal or seems wrong...

I

> have heard a lot of bashing of all the various groups... AA the

most

> of course, but I have not read many reasoned criticisms. I'd like

> to do that.

>

You and me both Cool Guy ;-)

I don't think there is a lot " wrong " with any of the (non-AA) groups,

the problem seems to be with the style of advocacy and extremeism of

some of their members. I see a lot of " AA " in that, and I wonder if

that reflects the membership or ideas inherited from AA or is just

the natural way of humans in recovery groups?! Fwiw, I *did* benefit

(in AA, gasp) from needed companionship and practical help, while

getting a few crucial first months of abstinence. Yet I had already

payed handsomely to some of those b*******, before I got sober. :-(

I believe that actually stopping drinking was (for me) rather group-

independant and mostly prompted by a rapid decline in circumstances,

and helped by a kick-start from Acamprosate. I don't think I could

have been helped by any RG in that. Chilling thought! :-) A group was

important for resocialisation. I believe " Do it Yourself " advocates

fail to aknowledge that many of us simply *don't* have the support

network of family or friends often needed in early recovery (c.f. the

denial of anything non-AA being used, by AAs too!). In any real terms

drinking alcohol excessively is addictive and being told (even here)

that one *should* be able to " choose " not to drink, is imo of *zero*

practical help to so many.

Fwiw, I have been most impressed by most " cognitive " orientated RGs

e.g. SMART? I feel my (only) contribution to the AA format was the

dunkalogue, which I see as a kind of negative Cost Benefit Analysis?

SMART also seem to invest more time in concentrating on their *own*

methods, not AA's. I feel a disservice is being done to some non-AA,

if bashing of AA is the ONLY way their members can advocate their

group. One already senses the reaction of the general public, in part

seduced by AA's message, as they watch bemused as the ex-drunks roll

in the dust. I suspect fewer with " drink problems " will go to their

meetings as a result - Sad indeed. Hopefully something positive can

be achieved.

Mack