Re: Reasonably and thoughtfully

[Guest guest]

Ben Bradley wrote:

> At 10:08 PM 8/23/01 EDT, doglvr000@... wrote:

> >Sheila:

> >Your writing style is very similar to Watkins - and don't the

> ish

> >think it's correct to spell " organization " with an " s " or is that just your

> >bad typing? had a hotmail account too. hmmmmm.

> >Jan

>

> I was thinking it might be Diener, due to the desire to compare

> AA to unrelated organizations, and the " there's worse crimes than what

> goes on in AA " thing, as indicated in these quotes:

Jan, Ben,

It had occurred to me it might be Mona.

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hello, Jan, Ben and Ken,

Is there so much strength to my arguments that you

must find a messenger to shoot? This is really sad and makes 12 Step

programs look the picture of rationality and fairmindedness in comparison.

Would it be possible to stick to the subject or are witch hunts the last

tool in your armoury? Deiner, Watkins and Mona are whom?

SheilaP

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-free

>To: 12-step-free

>Subject: Re: Reasonably and thoughtfully

>Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:06:25 -0700

>

>

>

>Ben Bradley wrote:

>

> > At 10:08 PM 8/23/01 EDT, doglvr000@... wrote:

> > >Sheila:

> > >Your writing style is very similar to Watkins - and don't the

> > ish

> > >think it's correct to spell " organization " with an " s " or is that just

>your

> > >bad typing? had a hotmail account too. hmmmmm.

> > >Jan

> >

> > I was thinking it might be Diener, due to the desire to compare

> > AA to unrelated organizations, and the " there's worse crimes than what

> > goes on in AA " thing, as indicated in these quotes:

>

>Jan, Ben,

>

> It had occurred to me it might be Mona.

>

>Ken

>

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

"

In a message dated 8/24/01 9:36:09 AM Central Daylight Time,

Bilbo411@... writes:

<< G-day folks,

I have been asked by SheilaP, a friend of mine, to forward this

posting to the group. She views it as an attempt to coerce her into

conformity or silence and the methods used are similar to those used by the

groups that this group is supposed to be trying to expose.

Was Sheila booted off the list?

Let me remind you of one of the statements used in the welcome from the

12-step-free moderator upon joining the group.

" Perhaps our most important function is to provide the first place where

one can be critical and not be accused by a " unanimous majority " of groupers

of suffering from " one defect of character " or another. " unquote

I don't believe that Sheila's " inventory " was taken. Sheila hops right in

and starts telling us that our language is profane and aggressive, and not

only that, but quite possibly offensive to groupers. Well, guess what? A

few of us took issue with that, having been associated with aa, and really

fucked over by aa. I guess one or two of us is just a little PISSED OFF!

Okay? Like some people in this group have had their lives totally fucked up

because of COERCION to aa. They might be somewhat PISSED OFF! What a better

place for them to express that than here where they find that what happened

to them in aa is not an isolated thing; rather, it's systemic.

It appears that the group is now engaged in exactly the same processes

that 12-step-groups use in order to stifle reasoned, polite and effective

concerns as to the openess and democratic principles used to inform

vulnerable people. enstein has begot enstein.

Look dude, how many times does one have to reasonably and politely tell

Sheila that you don't change aa from the inside out? Besides, who wants to

volunteer for that? Reform will come from without. Sheila's been just a

little condescending in her replies I might add. If you pull that out of

your little writer's bag of tricks and use it, then you should realize that

it will come back. As per vulnerable, speak for yourself.

I realise that I, too, may be banned for having the effrontery to expose

these goings on but that is a risk I must take in the name of freedom of

expression.

Well, god bless you for so nobly taking that risk Mr. Hunter. I don't know

where you're from, but we don't say " cheers " here. Sometimes we say " later. "

Later.

Jan

-------------------------------------

Cheers.

Hunter.

>>

[Guest guest]

Ben:

I don't know what the list was like originally, but I like it. And if people

want to come and try to convince this list that aa can be gently reformed

from within, they can go fuck themselves, and we'll either tell them politely

or just straight out. Don't you leave the list. You, Tommy, and Dave have

been a source of links and information that I value. Screw , ,

Sheila and her friend . Delete their mail. Don't even read it.

Jan

In a message dated 8/24/01 10:26:24 AM Central Daylight Time,

benbradley@... writes:

<< At 03:30 PM 8/24/01 +0100, Hunter wrote:

>G-day folks,

> I have been asked by SheilaP, a friend of mine, to forward this

>posting to the group. She views it as an attempt to coerce her into

>conformity or silence and the methods used are similar to those used by the

>groups that this group is supposed to be trying to expose.

> Let me remind you of one of the statements used in the welcome from the

>12-step-free moderator upon joining the group.

> " Perhaps our most important function is to provide the first place where

>one can be critical and not be accused by a " unanimous majority " of

groupers

>of suffering from " one defect of character " or another. " unquote

> It appears that the group is now engaged in exactly the same processes

>that 12-step-groups use in order to stifle reasoned, polite and effective

>concerns as to the openess and democratic principles used to inform

>vulnerable people. enstein has begot enstein.

This list is dead. It has happened over the last year or so. I was

thinking when Ken stopped the list it was probably just as well that

it was over. There have been too many people who claim " AA isn't that

bad, there are only a few things that need changing... " Whether they

were sincere or not, it doesn't matter - they might as well have said

Amway or Scientology " isn't that bad " and " just a few changes " and it

will be fine.

Somone who says " if only the Catholic Church would accept same-sex

unions " , or " ...accept a woman's right to choice " , or whatever, " then

it would be okay " - someone who says these things and feels strongly

about them is still a Catholic, and wants to be in the Catholic Church,

or something a whole lot like it.

Likewise, an AA reformist is still an AA member. I was there. In my

third year I had become a more 'liberal' AA, with the Bob Earl tape,

watching Bradshaw on PBS, and thinking my (ex) sponsor was wrong

because he said " everything I need is in the first 164 pages of the

big book " and he ignored what it says at the bottom of page 133. If

only AA would change... I finally saw that the fundies were right in

a way - AA was designed to change people, not to let people change AA.

This is when I really left AA, rather than subject myself to its

ongoing attempts to change me.

Any reformist is going to look to us like some previous reformist

resubscribed to the list, trying to again defend the view that AA only

needs some small or moderate changes to be acceptable, " stiring up

trouble. " >>

[Guest guest]

Ben:

Really, stay and help make the list. Things go through changes. The pissing

matches don't really bother me - I can delete them if I want.

Jan

In a message dated 8/24/01 9:53:57 PM Central Daylight Time,

caenemy@... writes:

<<

>

> This list is dead. It has happened over the last year or so. I

was

> thinking when Ken stopped the list it was probably just as well that

> it was over.

Hi Ben,

Can't understand why you are saying this. This posts is

very upsetting to me, even more so then the 'reformist'

post - and from you.

What was it like a year ago- cause I have no

clue-only been here 4 or 5 months. I was probably the

happiest person that day I found this list and heard that

other people also could see some of the things mentioned

in Ken's book-also aadeprogramming. Also this list helps

me to re-evaluate ideas/thoughts/beliefs. Yes-at times

this is very,very difficult, but I've learned that when

brain is confused and not sorting things out clearly, I

let topic rest-will review at some later date. Never once

have I thought I'd go back to the aa ways-it's a very

sick program that takes advantage of people when they are

vulnerable. So I'm all for exposing the aa BS and tricks.

Does that mean I'm aware of them all-no way. Does the

conflicting arguments drive me nutty-yes. Sometimes I just

have to stop reading conflicts. Will sort it out at a later

date. And when I do, know exactly where I stand. Do I

still have some aa beliefs-probable-am I aware of it-probable

not. That is why we talk about it-yes?

Example:

I had a hell of a time with the spirital/religion issues.

Many times I had to put it on hold-it messed with my brains

to much. I was just why to confused to deal with it then.

When ready, the info was there to study, and come up with

my own conclusions. This list helped me do that.

There have been too many people who claim " AA isn't that

> bad, there are only a few things that need changing... " Whether they

> were sincere or not, it doesn't matter - they might as well have

said

> Amway or Scientology " isn't that bad " and " just a few changes " and

it

> will be fine.

> Somone who says " if only the Catholic Church would accept same-

sex

> unions " , or " ...accept a woman's right to choice " , or

whatever, " then

> it would be okay " - someone who says these things and feels strongly

> about them is still a Catholic, and wants to be in the Catholic

Church,

> or something a whole lot like it.

> Likewise, an AA reformist is still an AA member. I was there. In

my

> third year I had become a more 'liberal' AA, with the Bob Earl tape,

> watching Bradshaw on PBS, and thinking my (ex) sponsor was

wrong

> because he said " everything I need is in the first 164 pages of the

> big book " and he ignored what it says at the bottom of page 133. If

> only AA would change... I finally saw that the fundies were right in

> a way - AA was designed to change people, not to let people change

AA.

> This is when I really left AA, rather than subject myself to its

> ongoing attempts to change me.

This is why I can't understand you. You saying the

list is dead, reread what you wrote above. You had

'reformist' ideas at one time. To change most beliefs

overnight puts alot of us in a tizzy.

> Any reformist is going to look to us like some previous reformist

> resubscribed to the list, trying to again defend the view that AA

only

> needs some small or moderate changes to be acceptable, " stiring up

> trouble. "

> Not me - have not been an aa 'reformist'. Confused about

some of the things with aa - yes.

Also have concern for those who are getting caught in the

aa web, some don't make it out alive.

netty

ps-Ben, really a pissy post - what is it you want to

see happen here? >>

[Guest guest]

Friday, August 24, 2001, 11:06:49 AM, you wrote:

> Sheila honey:

> There is no strength to your arguments, which I thought were a point

> of view of sorts. Your writing is " passive " - I learned that in

> college :-) and lacks substance. Just don't agree with you about aa.

> Jan

I seem to have got this message a few times now- maybe the lingering

curse of Egroups regurgitating old messages. But it did occur to me

this time to ask about " passive writing " . Can you explain what that

means?

Joe B.