Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 At 01:35 AM 9/7/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > I was saying that *if* it were simply a matter of membership, then > > you would have been booted yourself (as would others, most > > likely). But without such a firm and rather unfair rule, it is > > someone's behavior on the list which matters. > >Well considering no-one mentioned banning someone just for XA >membership, it might have been easier just to make that point rather >than talk about hypothetical probelms of something no-one had >suggested - in any case it was a point in which we were already in >agreement. OK then. >He said something like " So much for the joys of the getting-sober-by- >yourself method. Think I'll stick with AA. " He made a general diss >against not remaining in AA, not abt Jan in particular. I could understand why he thought that, because Jan's adventures constituted almost all of the list traffic during that time period. That's all I was saying. > > Glance back over the archives since September 2 and perhaps > > you'll see what I mean. Anyone reading just that chunk of > > posts could easily conclude that this list is a bunch > >I think I can guess what the rest of that sentence would have been. Hmmm, I don't know why that got cut off. But the rest of it wasn't supposed to be " crap " or " shit, " if that's what you're thinking. It was something along the lines of " . . . crazy people who don't like AA because they want to keep getting drunk. " >Well the answer is that they shouldnt just read that chunk of posts >imo, take note of my reply to Jan, and also if they make that >conclusion sling their hook if thats what they have a mind to - with >ot without the sarcastic comment if they want. True enough. That'd certainly be a smoother reaction. >Well again I dont believe that that impression was reasonable, unless >you expect that everybody has to toe a line about *never* getting >drunk. No, I don't believe that. I just believe in being somewhat understanding towards people who are just starting to question AA dogma. There's a lot of crap in an AA-washed brain. If someone has been told for years that the only alternative to AA is wild drunkenness, then joins a 12-step-free list to find someone boasting and giggling about her and her boyfriend's drunken escapades, then IMO it is predictable for him to think " Yikes, I guess AA was right. " It would be nice if 12-step-questioners had a little more traffic. That'd be a good place to steer people like Rudy. Perhaps I'll try to dig up something I can post there. >hostile circumstances. It is arguable perhaps, that even if, say, >that AA was both always necessary and always sufficient for a person >to recover, that a person can still rationally, ethically, and >*spiritually* choose to remain true to what they believe is themself >and die from alcoholism. The " cure " is worse than the " disease " . >Now, I've never seen anyone here ever present that kind of argument, >but if thay did, as far as I see it, that's compatible with the 12sf >mission statement. I agree with this, and I don't want to stop anyone from posting about how much they enjoy drinking. My point is simply that it's understandable for someone fresh from AA to be shocked. I don't think it's right to boot someone for a completely human and understandable reaction; a better response would be an explanation coupled with a possible referral elsewhere. Again, a referral to 12-step-questioners might be the best solution for both the newbies and the lists. I should have some time to work on that referral file this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 At 01:35 AM 9/7/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > I was saying that *if* it were simply a matter of membership, then > > you would have been booted yourself (as would others, most > > likely). But without such a firm and rather unfair rule, it is > > someone's behavior on the list which matters. > >Well considering no-one mentioned banning someone just for XA >membership, it might have been easier just to make that point rather >than talk about hypothetical probelms of something no-one had >suggested - in any case it was a point in which we were already in >agreement. OK then. >He said something like " So much for the joys of the getting-sober-by- >yourself method. Think I'll stick with AA. " He made a general diss >against not remaining in AA, not abt Jan in particular. I could understand why he thought that, because Jan's adventures constituted almost all of the list traffic during that time period. That's all I was saying. > > Glance back over the archives since September 2 and perhaps > > you'll see what I mean. Anyone reading just that chunk of > > posts could easily conclude that this list is a bunch > >I think I can guess what the rest of that sentence would have been. Hmmm, I don't know why that got cut off. But the rest of it wasn't supposed to be " crap " or " shit, " if that's what you're thinking. It was something along the lines of " . . . crazy people who don't like AA because they want to keep getting drunk. " >Well the answer is that they shouldnt just read that chunk of posts >imo, take note of my reply to Jan, and also if they make that >conclusion sling their hook if thats what they have a mind to - with >ot without the sarcastic comment if they want. True enough. That'd certainly be a smoother reaction. >Well again I dont believe that that impression was reasonable, unless >you expect that everybody has to toe a line about *never* getting >drunk. No, I don't believe that. I just believe in being somewhat understanding towards people who are just starting to question AA dogma. There's a lot of crap in an AA-washed brain. If someone has been told for years that the only alternative to AA is wild drunkenness, then joins a 12-step-free list to find someone boasting and giggling about her and her boyfriend's drunken escapades, then IMO it is predictable for him to think " Yikes, I guess AA was right. " It would be nice if 12-step-questioners had a little more traffic. That'd be a good place to steer people like Rudy. Perhaps I'll try to dig up something I can post there. >hostile circumstances. It is arguable perhaps, that even if, say, >that AA was both always necessary and always sufficient for a person >to recover, that a person can still rationally, ethically, and >*spiritually* choose to remain true to what they believe is themself >and die from alcoholism. The " cure " is worse than the " disease " . >Now, I've never seen anyone here ever present that kind of argument, >but if thay did, as far as I see it, that's compatible with the 12sf >mission statement. I agree with this, and I don't want to stop anyone from posting about how much they enjoy drinking. My point is simply that it's understandable for someone fresh from AA to be shocked. I don't think it's right to boot someone for a completely human and understandable reaction; a better response would be an explanation coupled with a possible referral elsewhere. Again, a referral to 12-step-questioners might be the best solution for both the newbies and the lists. I should have some time to work on that referral file this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 At 01:35 AM 9/7/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > I was saying that *if* it were simply a matter of membership, then > > you would have been booted yourself (as would others, most > > likely). But without such a firm and rather unfair rule, it is > > someone's behavior on the list which matters. > >Well considering no-one mentioned banning someone just for XA >membership, it might have been easier just to make that point rather >than talk about hypothetical probelms of something no-one had >suggested - in any case it was a point in which we were already in >agreement. OK then. >He said something like " So much for the joys of the getting-sober-by- >yourself method. Think I'll stick with AA. " He made a general diss >against not remaining in AA, not abt Jan in particular. I could understand why he thought that, because Jan's adventures constituted almost all of the list traffic during that time period. That's all I was saying. > > Glance back over the archives since September 2 and perhaps > > you'll see what I mean. Anyone reading just that chunk of > > posts could easily conclude that this list is a bunch > >I think I can guess what the rest of that sentence would have been. Hmmm, I don't know why that got cut off. But the rest of it wasn't supposed to be " crap " or " shit, " if that's what you're thinking. It was something along the lines of " . . . crazy people who don't like AA because they want to keep getting drunk. " >Well the answer is that they shouldnt just read that chunk of posts >imo, take note of my reply to Jan, and also if they make that >conclusion sling their hook if thats what they have a mind to - with >ot without the sarcastic comment if they want. True enough. That'd certainly be a smoother reaction. >Well again I dont believe that that impression was reasonable, unless >you expect that everybody has to toe a line about *never* getting >drunk. No, I don't believe that. I just believe in being somewhat understanding towards people who are just starting to question AA dogma. There's a lot of crap in an AA-washed brain. If someone has been told for years that the only alternative to AA is wild drunkenness, then joins a 12-step-free list to find someone boasting and giggling about her and her boyfriend's drunken escapades, then IMO it is predictable for him to think " Yikes, I guess AA was right. " It would be nice if 12-step-questioners had a little more traffic. That'd be a good place to steer people like Rudy. Perhaps I'll try to dig up something I can post there. >hostile circumstances. It is arguable perhaps, that even if, say, >that AA was both always necessary and always sufficient for a person >to recover, that a person can still rationally, ethically, and >*spiritually* choose to remain true to what they believe is themself >and die from alcoholism. The " cure " is worse than the " disease " . >Now, I've never seen anyone here ever present that kind of argument, >but if thay did, as far as I see it, that's compatible with the 12sf >mission statement. I agree with this, and I don't want to stop anyone from posting about how much they enjoy drinking. My point is simply that it's understandable for someone fresh from AA to be shocked. I don't think it's right to boot someone for a completely human and understandable reaction; a better response would be an explanation coupled with a possible referral elsewhere. Again, a referral to 12-step-questioners might be the best solution for both the newbies and the lists. I should have some time to work on that referral file this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 I wasn't boasting or giggling about my boyfriends drunken escapades. In a message dated 9/7/01 10:10:03 AM Central Daylight Time, malgeo@... writes: << No, I don't believe that. I just believe in being somewhat understanding towards people who are just starting to question AA dogma. There's a lot of crap in an AA-washed brain. If someone has been told for years that the only alternative to AA is wild drunkenness, then joins a 12-step-free list to find someone boasting and giggling about her and her boyfriend's drunken escapades, then IMO it is predictable for him to think " Yikes, I guess AA was right. " >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 I wasn't boasting or giggling about my boyfriends drunken escapades. In a message dated 9/7/01 10:10:03 AM Central Daylight Time, malgeo@... writes: << No, I don't believe that. I just believe in being somewhat understanding towards people who are just starting to question AA dogma. There's a lot of crap in an AA-washed brain. If someone has been told for years that the only alternative to AA is wild drunkenness, then joins a 12-step-free list to find someone boasting and giggling about her and her boyfriend's drunken escapades, then IMO it is predictable for him to think " Yikes, I guess AA was right. " >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 I wasn't boasting or giggling about my boyfriends drunken escapades. In a message dated 9/7/01 10:10:03 AM Central Daylight Time, malgeo@... writes: << No, I don't believe that. I just believe in being somewhat understanding towards people who are just starting to question AA dogma. There's a lot of crap in an AA-washed brain. If someone has been told for years that the only alternative to AA is wild drunkenness, then joins a 12-step-free list to find someone boasting and giggling about her and her boyfriend's drunken escapades, then IMO it is predictable for him to think " Yikes, I guess AA was right. " >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 When and where did I ever say that I promoted drunkenness? There's a lot of grey between drunkenness, problem drinking, and abstinence. There's amount to consider. There's frequency. You see, aa told me I couldn't tell how much I would drink once I started. Well, I am exploring the addictions field with a very open mind. I just received 7 books from and Noble today (yeah for me) - authors like Szasz and Peele. I say that it is my decision to have 4 or 6 or 8 beers, and it is my decision to have no more than that. Guess what? I do seem to have the ability to say okay this is all I'm going to drink. Somehow, I'm not surprised. I also have the ability to choose not to drink. I'm not going to drink this weekend - I have stuff to do. I don't want a drink everyday. I spend a lot of time driving my daughter around, and looking for a job, and all kinds of other shit that people have to do. My daughter doesn't like me to drink even one beer, so I totally abstain around her. I want her to talk to me about her life, and she won't do that if I've been drinking. As for 's comments about advising other people to " kick him to the curb " and then me whining about my situation. The presumed difference in circumstances is that I am unemployed and I can't leave. Were I living in my own apartment, and just dating this man, I would have broke it off a long time ago. BTW - leaving aa has made me happier than I thought it would. As a matter of fact, I didn't even consider that it would have that effect. I was just tired of long time aa'ers who were still screwed up and criminal and I just finally decided I was getting more out of therapy in one year than I had in aa in ten years. I was tired of being a groupie and not being able to think for myself for fear of pissing someone off. Seems to be happening on this list too. So, I quit aa, and met some interesting people in other venues, and I won't go back. I've memorized all the literature anyway. And Dave posts some things about Bill W. that are really awful. That guy was a con artist crook. How did aa get so popular? Jan In a message dated 9/7/01 11:26:19 AM Central Daylight Time, rita66@... writes: << -- In 12-step-free@y..., wrote: > Pete wrote: > > >He said something like " So much for the joys of the getting-sober-by- > >yourself method. Think I'll stick with AA. " He made a general diss > >against not remaining in AA, not abt Jan in particular. > > I could understand why he thought that, because Jan's adventures > constituted almost all of the list traffic during that time period. > That's all I was saying. > ---------------- , I don't see that post the way you do. If Rudy had said, " Wow, I thought this was a list about alternative recovery programs [which he'd have been incorrect about, of course] but heck, it seems not to be about being sober at all " then I'd see your point. But to post " Well, so much for 'do-it-yourself' sobriety " -- that is saying much more -- it's saying that all claims of sobriety that don't involve going to AA and working steps, are spurious. And that's what pissed me off. Jan has NOT made any claim of sobriety, either 'do-it-yourself' or any other way, and is NOT " proof " of the failure of any abstinence effort. And Rudy never gave any introduction or anything -- I frankly do not believe he was here to learn about non-12-step ideas. He came in here LOOKING for fodder to support his preset conclusion that anyone rejecting 12-steppism is an active problem drinker. > > > Glance back over the archives since September 2 and perhaps > > > you'll see what I mean. Anyone reading just that chunk of > > > posts could easily conclude that this list is a bunch > > > >I think I can guess what the rest of that sentence would have been. > > Hmmm, I don't know why that got cut off. But the rest of it wasn't > supposed to be " crap " or " shit, " if that's what you're thinking. It > was something along the lines of " . . . crazy people who don't like > AA because they want to keep getting drunk. " > ---------------- People who already believe that will find grist for their mill here. People who have (pardon me) open minds will make no such conclusion -- at the very least, they would ask politely if this is a list that promotes drinking, or whether those committed to abstinence would be welcome and find like-minded folks. I can recall several newbies asking such questions in the past. ~Rita >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Personally, I don't think he was all that rude. I just think he was an aa'er who found my posts and didn't like them, and that was his response. Mandolin is rude. Rudy was not bad I don't think. Jan In a message dated 9/7/01 12:53:52 PM Central Daylight Time, malgeo@... writes: << From: rita66@... > , I don't see that post the way you do. If Rudy had said, " Wow, I thought this was a list about alternative recovery programs [which he'd have been incorrect about, of course] but heck, it seems not to be about being sober at all " then I'd see your point. OK ; fair enough. I think we can agree that Rudy erred in being rude, at least. I still don't think he was that bad, but there's room for reasonable people to differ. We didn't see enough of him to make a full evaluation of his motives and behavior. >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 From: rita66@... > , I don't see that post the way you do. If Rudy had said, " Wow, I thought this was a list about alternative recovery programs [which he'd have been incorrect about, of course] but heck, it seems not to be about being sober at all " then I'd see your point. OK ; fair enough. I think we can agree that Rudy erred in being rude, at least. I still don't think he was that bad, but there's room for reasonable people to differ. We didn't see enough of him to make a full evaluation of his motives and behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 From: rita66@... > , I don't see that post the way you do. If Rudy had said, " Wow, I thought this was a list about alternative recovery programs [which he'd have been incorrect about, of course] but heck, it seems not to be about being sober at all " then I'd see your point. OK ; fair enough. I think we can agree that Rudy erred in being rude, at least. I still don't think he was that bad, but there's room for reasonable people to differ. We didn't see enough of him to make a full evaluation of his motives and behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 From: rita66@... > , I don't see that post the way you do. If Rudy had said, " Wow, I thought this was a list about alternative recovery programs [which he'd have been incorrect about, of course] but heck, it seems not to be about being sober at all " then I'd see your point. OK ; fair enough. I think we can agree that Rudy erred in being rude, at least. I still don't think he was that bad, but there's room for reasonable people to differ. We didn't see enough of him to make a full evaluation of his motives and behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.