virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>I'll say it again: A person *doesn't* quit >> drinking and drugging until they *want* to. >And folks choose these offered options to jail > because of that, too.
If they're ever offered. Which never happens.
>>>>I think they should go with the *proven* >>>> method that works: don't pick up that first >>>> drink. >>>Plenty of people think that. And yet, so >>> many aren't. >>Because they don't really want to stop >> drinking. >I'm sure you believe that. Others believe > otherwise. "Really want to" isn't a technical > medical term, at any rate, is it?
Seeing as how alcoholism *isn't* a disease, it's the way it should be.
STAAM...@yahoo.com (STAAMFA) wrote: >"Virtualoso" >>>But perhaps not as bad as they do when >>> they "relapse." ... >>We just don't know, overall. >Don't know what Virt?
Virt doesn't know much of anything.
> Hard to tell what with the way you creatively > snipped his post.
t...@thegoz.com (Tom G.) wrote: >Henry Cotter wrote: >>>>See no drama just real treatment. >>>Curious. What is it if a judge sends >>> (coerces) a guy to go to a psychiatrist? A >>> counselor? Either that or jail? >>What about it? Psychiatrists and counselors >> are trained professionals who do things with >> their patients on an *individual* basis. One >> of the main things doctors(and other >> counselors) are taught is how to keep >> *careful* patient records. In AA, the "cure" is >> one size fits all. No exceptions. > Listen, you freakin' knucklehead, I went to > a shrink... After long hours of doing > essentially nothing but yak, she told me to > "just not drink"... Where the hell have I heard > *that* before...??
So that means she was incompetent because *you* didn't listen to her? Puh-lease. What she gave was very solid advice. *You chose* not to listen to it.
It's much like the person who takes a car to a mechanic and the machanic suggests that a person gets a tune up on their car every 25000 miles. Is it the mechanic's fault if the person then drives the car for 40,000 miles without a tune up and the car eventually breaks down?
>This coincided pretty much with my insurance > coverage runnin' out... You just don't seem to > get it; the shrinks send as many to A.A. as the > courts do...
All because the shrinks most likely get tired of drunks walking in and not listening to what they have to say. You even admitted it.
> Are they being coerced...?? No, they're gettin' > the bum's rush just like they did when they > went to court...
All because they choose not to listen to sound advice when it is given. A psychologist will tell you what's good, but you're wasting your money if you don't listen to them.
>>>I'm not understanding how the choices get >>> any better. >>Why are you so skeptical of those who've >> been trained to do a job? Do you take your >> car to be fixed to a person who has no idea >> what they're doing? > The shrinks aren't trained, clueless, they > pawn drunks off onto A.A....
When the drunks *don't listen* to what they say(like *you* did), what else are they supposed to do? Hold your hand?
erwi...@nospam.attbi.com (Erwin) wrote: >"Henry Cotter" <manofh...@webtv.net> wrote >>>>>>You asked how harmful it is I gave you >>>>>> two examples. One a direct example >>>>>> from my personal history with a >>>>>> childhood maid,and her AA husband, >>>>>> and the other through Kishline. >>>>>You gave two examples of people >>>>> messing up. >>>>At what? In Step 1, a person has to admit >>>> they're *powerless* over alcohol. >>>><snip> >>>In my opinion, you're missing the point of >>> the first step. >>*And we all know the old adage about >> opinions.......they're just like >>*assholes. Everyone's got one. >[I'm putting an asterisk next to your > statements. For some reason my reader won't > auto-indent this message.] >>>It was meant to be read with the emphasis >>> on the second 'we', setting the stage for the >>> proposal in step two that a higher power >>> could "restore us to sanity". >>*And that is a *mighty large* presumption to >> make. >Less large than your presumption that > "powerless" gives one an excuse if they slip.
Why? Step One *does* say one has to admit they're powerless over alcohol. Hence, they have *no control* over it.
>>*Not every alcoholic is insane. >There you go again missing the important > point of the step, that a "higher power" is the > way to sanity.
Which is *begging the question.* Are all alcoholics insane?
>>*In fact, a good portion *are not* insane. That >> was just Bill W projecting *his own* flaws >> onto everyone else. >No, it was Bill carrying his religion onto > everyone else.
Which was basically his own flaws. He had some serious delusions of granduer.
>>* Either that or he's basically saying >> alcoholics are just natural born sinners. >>*Which is not suprising in the least, seeing as >> where the main influence *of 12 Step >> ideology comes from: Frank Buchman pretty >> much saw all people *with the exception of >> those who listened to his words as sinners. >>*Bill W and Dr. Bob, both being loyal Oxford >> Group Movement members, *bought that >> line of logic; hook, line, and sinker. >>>1. We admitted we were powerless over >>> alcohol - that our lives had become >>> unmanageable. >>*And thus, when one "relapses"(i.e. drinks >> again), it's *not their *choice.* If you >> disagree with that, then you're not agreeing >> with the *1rst Step. >I don't agree with your interpretation of the first > step. Repeating it hasn't changed my mind.
But your "interpretation" *isn't* what Step One says. It's not my fault if you can't read.
>>>2. Came to believe that a Power greater >>> than ourselves could restore us to sanity. >>*With the presumption(a tall one at that) that >> everyone with alcohol *problems are >> "insane." Unfortunately for AA, insanity can >> *only* be *diagnosed by trained medical >> professionals. >Or by people reading your posts. You're a > weird person, Henry.
I know you are, but what am I?
>>*In such cases, anti-psychotics like >> Thorazine are prescribed and one is >> commited *to a mental institution.
tara.gre...@verizon.net (Tara) wrote: >Henry Cotter wrote: >>>I was making a joke.....but one with a point. >>> If you want every AA to be a perfect human >>> who does no harm to others, then you'd >>> better wait until humans are capable of that >>> first. >>What, are you implying that Step 7 *doesn't >> work*? Is this a hint that nobody can really >> work a "program" well, as written in the Big >> Book? >>Not that that is a shocking revelation...... >I'm making no implications one way or the > other about the steps as I have nothing really > to do with them.
So why are you here?
>Is trading one packaged box of ideas for > another one as fun as it looks?
garye...@swbell.net (GaryE) wrote: >manofh...@webtv.net (Henry Cotter) wrote: >>What about it? Psychiatrists and counselors >> are trained professionals who do things with >> their patients on an *individual* basis. One >> of the main things doctors(and other >> counselors) are taught is how to keep >> *careful* patient records. In AA, the "cure" is >> one size fits all. No exceptions. >What is the training for alcoholism for > psychiatrists?
Seeing as how it's not a disease, they don't need any. So what's the "training" that makes AA old-timers the end all and be all on alcoholism?
>>>I'm not understanding how the choices get >>> any better. >>Why are you so skeptical of those who've >> been trained to do a job? Do you take your >> car to be fixed to a person who has no idea >> what they're doing? >What is the training for alcoholism for > psychiatrists? Is there a curriculum with some > standard for treatment which is generally > recognized to do the job?
Why bother with that when the "cure" for alcoholism is to *not drink.* Even the best psychiatrist wouldn't be able to help somebody who's dead-set on getting drunk.
>>And when they are abusive, they tend to be >> caught rather quickly. >I don't think you can know that....it's what you > don't know that could be the problem. > Catching abusive professionals is pretty tricky > I understand.
How so? Professionals have ethics boards who look at this sort of stuff.
> Catching abusive AAs should be like shooting > fish in a barrel.
Only if you know who they are. But AA, being an *anonymous* organization, doesn't have a system of checks and balances. Not unless the sponsee speaks up in a meeting and someone who actually cares about the person's well-being(and not the "program") does something about it.
>> You see, psychiatrists have this little thing >> called an ethics board which oversees what >> they do. >Ethics boards? Do you really believe an ethics > board is going to take care of things?
In some cases it does.
> Accountants for big CPA firms have ethics > boards too....fat lot of good that did with > Enron and WorldCom and Global Crossing > and Qwest and Xerox...you're going to have > to do much better than this tact.
Yet they were *caught* at what they were doing. Say what you want to, but ethics boards *are* there. Where's AA's?
D'OH!
>> Too many grievances and the doctor may >> very well lose their license. >Some have. Some haven't yet have been > guilty of rather sordid affairs.
Which just proves that ethics boards do provide checks and balances.
>I'm also thinking of catholic priests and how > many of them wound up abusing children.
How about AA sponsers abusing their sponsees?
>I'm not too much for surface things anymore, > Window dressing like an ethics board or the > constitution of the U.S. Know what I mean?
If you consider such things as ethics commitees and the US Constitution to be "window dressing", then it must suck to be you.
>In all, I think the smell of money brings our a > lot of hustlers,doesn't it? That's the crux, isn't > it?
True enough. Money makes the world go round.....
>Now if old George can convince people that > funding parochial educations institution is > within the bounds of the Constitution
It *is* with vouchers controlled by the parents. Your ignorance of the subject doesn't mean it's "unconstitutional."
>(for strictly academics, of course, of course, of > course), then your fallacious argument that > AA is a treatment may boomerang on you.
Sure it won't. You see, school vouchers for the *parents* to *choose* which schools to send their children *is not* the same as sending a person to a religious organization or face jail.
The two don't even compare.
>> Counselors almost always have to file >> progress reports and describe their >> methods, which are then pored over by >> more qualified counselors/psychiatrists. >Would they report blow jobs from a patient?
'Tard.
>>Such a system of checks and balances >> *doesn't* exist in AA. >Checks and balances that rely on input from > the offender is not much is it?
*points*
*laughs*
That's why the *victim* can put forward their complaints. <shakes head sadly>
>> A sponsor can seriously, and with malice, >> fuck up one of their sponsee's heads and >> nobody in the fellowship will be the wiser. >I would agree with that and I would that > psychiatrists can do the same thing...despite > the ethics boards or checks and balances. > There are abuses, right despite these > 'safeguards'????
It just happens more often in AA. Or are you suggesting because a thing isn't perfect, we should just discard it?
>>Many won't even care if he's "working a >> program." >> This is *one* of the bugs in AA. It's the >> very nature of the organization. >>Pretty much. Trimpey has some queer >> ideas(but his AVRT is based on how the >> brain is built.) >And his methodology is not more effective > than anyone else's.
Point being?
>>Sure. The courts, if they bother to go with >> treatment at all, should do it *only* with >> *medical* professionals. AA is a religion, >> pure and simple. The courts have found that >> to be the case on multiple occasions. Thus, >> forcing people to go *is* a violation of the >> First Amendment. >Nothing is pure and simple except to the blind > and naive.
So 2+2 isn't simply 4 then, eh? Maybe you don't think it's simple to state that the sun rises in the east either. That says more about *you* than it does about a subject, however.
>I take it that if courts quit sending people to > AA, you would be satisfied.
Yup.
> That is, I suspect you don't begrudge people > who make choices to go to church their right > to do that?
Nope.
>I mean, are you posting in alt.chtistianity about > how stupid the christians are because you > feel you need to tell them?
Nope.
>Personally I hope that someone stops the > court stuff but I wonder if that is enough? Tell > me.
What's wrong? Can't take a little criticism of your Golden Calf?
"Erwin" <erwi...@nospam.attbi.com> wrote in message <news:GCHp9.6484$Fz.13716@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>... > "steve2000" <stevespe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > In my opinion, you're missing the point of the first step. It was meant > to > > > be read with the emphasis on the second 'we', setting the stage for the > > > proposal in step two that a higher power could "restore us to sanity".
> > > 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had > become > > > unmanageable. > > > 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us > to > > > sanity.
> > No offence
> None taken.
That's terribly gracious of u but it doesn't answer my point. This AA as Revelation shit sends a lot of newbies outta "the rooms".
> -- but it was the hairplitting, parsing and ponderous > > pronouncements about the BB that really pissed me off at RL meetings. > > It's a book. It ain't a bible.
> > aussie -- even the bible ain't a bible -- steve.
> >Charles, my patronising pal, Bill and Dr Bob > > were great men.
> You mean Bill W the con-artist, egomaniac, and liar who cheated on his > wife after writing the Big Book? The same man who suffered from > suicidal depression over a decade long while writing nonsense about > "serenity"? And Dr. Bob, the AA founder who *never* lost his compulsion > to drink, even though the Steps promise that?
> You'd make a great stand-up comic.
Grazie. Yr more than kind. Like it or not, my dear dear fellow, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are better because of them two. And, yes, I know the history.
In the words of a great philosopher-- "so fucking what?"
aussie steve.
> >AA would not be here today without them.
> Neither would AA be around without the Hitler-sympathizing Christian > fundamentalist preacher Frank Buchman.
In the words of ANOTHER great philospher... "Zeus moves in mysterious ways." sx
> >Umm F.H. The main flaw in virt's flaw ridden > > post, is that he assumes that "recovery from > > 12 steps" should be more than what it actually > > is.
> Because to him, recovery is just a 12 Step program. Period.
> >My primary concern is the coercion that AA > > allows to happen within it's doors.
> As if it can stop it. It is, afterall, an anonymous and anarchistic > organization. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. AA's recomend > the newcomer gets a sponsor(which many AA sponsors in turn think they > "know better" about how to run a sponsee's life than the sponsee does.) > I've personally got fed up with AA for two reasons:
> 1. Two very pushy sponsors(both of which told me what's "unacceptable > and acceptable" in my life, while being unable to control their *own* > lives without consulting their own sponsors/Higher Power/AA group.) > That and the fact that both had the *arrogance* to think I had to > account my day's events to them. Sorry, but *nobody* knows what is > better for me than I do. And anyone who suggests that I can't trust my > own judgement about what is good for me can go fuck themselves.
> 2. I got fed up with these "holier than thou" types who would talk to > you after a meeting about what you should do for your own "recovery". I > guess they know better, eh? Not according to their own words in the > meeting(where they say stuff like, "My best thinking got me here. I'd > be dead without AA. I can't control myself. I was a horrible person, > blah.) > One time, a guy told me I should stop smoking. I agreed in principle, > but had nothing but scorn for the chump. You see, while he was telling > me what I should do, he was lighting a cigarette *himself.* His talk to > me on quitting smoking was rather hollow, and when I mentioned it to > him, he gave this stupid grin and said "I'm one to talk, ain't I?" > Indeed, the fuckwit was dishing out "advice" he wouldn't follow himself. > As the great Mark Twain once said, "To do good is noble. To show > others how to do good is nobler.....and a lot easier."
> I've cut all ties off from AA and have felt the best I've felt in nearly > a year(I'm sure going to college and being in my third year for a > Bachelor's Degree of Science in Chemistry may have a part in helping > that along.)
> >As a consequence I've noted many of the > > flawed beliefs AA has instilled in it's > > members. I will comment on these when and > > as I choose.
> As well you should. There are *always* two sides to every argument. > Many pro-AA's just simply don't want to hear what those who criticise AA > have to say. According to AA "lojik", we're "sending alcoholics to > their death" by daring to speak out against the Inspired Word brought to > us by the Divine Messenger Bill W.
> >You're basic belief is wrong, both of you, > > People aren't powerless over alcohol and no > > recovery program is necessary at all.
> I concur. A decent recovery program from addictions stresses > *independance* instead of dependance. Dependance on a chemical > substance is what brought people to groups like AA in the first place. > Instead of teaching their members how to be independant, AA and it's > clones teach it's members to dependant on the *group.*
> I laugh out loud when I hear of AA's suggesting the book "Codependant No > More" to others. The punchline is that once they were codependant on > alcohol and now they're codependant on AA meetings.
> Just substitute their addiction with a new one and say they're "cured." > Classic bait and switch.
> >Individual counseling may be necessary in > > some cases but recovery group hardly. I don't > > discuss other recovery group alternatives, for > > the most part, because I know no such thing > > is necessary.
> They may be helpful though if they're constructive. Even AA can be > helpful if somebody is lucky to find an old-timer who doesn't spout off > the dogmatic bullshit. There *are* some genuine types in those rooms > who don't blindly practice Steppism, but they're exceedingly rare.
> >Virt knows what my beliefs are in this area and > > he also knows it's quite a bit more dramatic to > > assert that we don't care about what happens > > to people.
> Typical smear tactic: create a strawman which demonizes your enemy and > then attack it.
> It only fools those true believers in the one engaging in the logical > fallacy.
> >What do I beleive should happen: Real > > treatment from actual qualified degreed > > medical professionals which has as it's major > > component one on one counseling for as long > > as it takes for them to become grounded.
> Most psychiatrists are too busy to do that unless a person's willing to > pay out the wazoo. You can talk to a social worker or a psychologist, > who will be much cheaper, as they're not doctors. Psychiatrists deal > with the mentally ill. And most alcoholics *aren't* anymore mentally > ill than a person who's a pack-rat. They just have an addiction.
> >And one on one counseling that is grounded in > > science not faith. And it's not as though I > > haven't said that before.
> What kills me is that in AA rooms, there *never* is any mention about > scientific/medical advances in addiction. Time didn't just suspend > itself from the mid-1930's. Medicine has *advanced* far since that > time. Heck, back in the mid-30's, antibiotics and the electron > microscope weren't even used, 'fer crying out loud. Both of those are > huge advancements in the way medicine is practiced today.
> It's still a relatively new science, compared to other ones(like math, > chemistry, and physics.)
> >>That is what qualified medically degreed > >> professional counselors do based on > >> science. Much better for trusting than faith > >> based belief systems based on, well faith.
> >Only better if you have "faith" in a qualified > > medically degreed professional counselor.
> You're a fucking idiot. Virtually *anyone* with an MD is more qualified > to take care of counseling than 99.9% of AA's, who have *no* idea on > what counseling is whatsoever.
No you are the fucking idiot. You can go to all the "medically degreed professional counselors" in the world but if you have no "faith" in them or what they offer as treatment it is no "better" than you going to XA and having no "faith" in what they have to offer. What works for people with addictions is what they have "faith" in or believe will work.
t...@thegoz.com (Tom G.) wrote: >Henry Cotter wrote: >>When the drunks *don't listen* to what they >> say(like *you* did), what else are they >> supposed to do? Hold your hand? >>Grow up, man. > You're a goddam idiot, Henry...
virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>>>>Only better if you have "faith" in a >>>>> qualified medically degreed professional >>>>> counselor. >>>>You're a fucking idiot. Virtually *anyone* >>>> with an MD is more qualified to take care >>>> of counseling than 99.9% of AA's, who >>>> have *no* idea on what counseling is >>>> whatsoever. >>>Not according to eminent, highly qualified >>> MDs specializing in the fields of >>> counseling. Or according to numerous >>> doctors who know that their MD credential >>> hasn't prepared them more than anyone >>> else for any such thing, as such. >>You're a fucking idiot. >For taking doctor's word for it.
Which ones? The ones you "quoted"(although we all know you just made them up) *without* including *where* one can find the quotes?
>You don't believe them? Or are you merely > placing faith in some arbitrary ones of them, > based purely on what you, personally, prefer > to believe?
virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>>>What about it? Psychiatrists and >>>> counselors are trained professionals who >>>> do things with their patients on an >>>> *individual* basis. One of the main things >>>> doctors(and other counselors) are taught >>>> is how to keep *careful* patient records. >>>> In AA, the "cure" is one size fits all. No >>>> exceptions. >>> Listen, you freakin' knucklehead, I went >>> to a shrink... After long hours of doing >>>essentially nothing but yak, she told me to >>> "just not drink"... Where the hell have I >>> heard *that* before...?? >>So that means she was incompetent >> because *you* didn't listen to her? >> Puh-lease. What she gave was very solid >> advice. *You chose* not to listen to it. >>It's much like the person who takes a car to a >> mechanic and the machanic suggests that a >> person gets a tune up on their car every >> 25000 miles. Is it the mechanic's fault if the >> person then drives the car for 40,000 miles >> without a tune up and the car eventually >> breaks down? >One Mind Mechanic Gospel fits all, eh?
How's the shrink incompetent if the patient didn't listen to them?
Except that "Garth Wood, M.D." is a figment of Virt's imagination. Notice how he evades when he's asked to reveal *where* these "quotes" come from.
Never mind that the "quote" has no meaning whatsoever as the "psychiatrist" esseintially undercuts his "own" credibility, thus invalidating "his" whole point.
>>All because they choose not to listen to >> sound advice when it is given. A >> psychologist will tell you what's good, but >> you're wasting your money if you don't listen >> to them. >And you're at least just as likely, or researched > odds are actually more than likely, wasting > your money if you do. Even running the risk of > being harmed.
Only if one relies on faith healing and voodoo shamans.
>But some folks can enjoy it anyway: >Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey says: [forged > quote deleted]
And yet the source of this "quote" is not divulged. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>>Not that a chemistry student is the best >>> reference about whether doctors are >>> correct or not, regarding this. >>But I am, however, much more credible on >> the subject than you are. >If you wish to assume that I'm not more > actually qualified than you are on the subject.
It's as safe an assumption to make as the assumption that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
>>Doctors must have a strong basis in >> chemistry in order to even understand >> medicine(most of the MCAT and medical >> school cirriculum *is* based on chemistry.) >So a college chemistry student just really > wouldn't be in near enough of a position to > determine any doctor's expertise or credibility.
Like I said before, I'm more qualified on the subject than *you* are. That's all that matters for this thread.
virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>Ah, so since doctors are at least *honest* >> enough to admit they don't know everything, >> we should just dismiss the entire medical >> community, eh? >>Gosh, we have those "highly trained" 12 Step >> gurus who can help us! Burn the damn MDs >> and DOs at the stake and bring back the >> voodoo shaman, I tell you! >If you want to listen to doctors, then how can > you ignore what they have to say about how > AA is not only as good as any other known > way to go, but better than going to them for > alcoholism?
Funny, but not *one* of your "quotes" mentions AA or the "disease of alcoholism." Nice try, but no cigar.
>>And AA is perfect? Didn't think so either. >>Your anti-medical bias is quite amusing. >I quoted a bunch of top qualified, expert > doctors. Take it up with them, if you don't like > what doctors have to say about these things.
Funny, but I don't know *where* you picked those "quotes" from. As far as I know, you made them up seeing as how the source wasn't listed.
>Of course, you haven't quoted *any* that say > otherwise, however much you like to imagine > that.
Burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. Your claim, your burden of proof, kiddo.
virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>>Psychiatrist Garth Wood, M.D., says: >>> [forged quote snipped] >>*Where* does this quote appear? My money >> says that you just made this shit up. >LOL. You don't turn out to have such an "open > mind" after all.
Not to *obvious* bullshit.
> No, I didn't make it up at all.
Then why not reveal where I can find this "quote"? Why are you evading, PerVert?
> If you think that Dr. Wood did, then I suppose > you're stuck with how to believe in doctors > and what they have to say.
"Dr. Wood" doesn't exist until I see proof he does. As you refuse to show where the "quote" comes from, I can't verify it was actually said.
h2o4...@yahoo.com (h2o4me2) wrote: >>>Only better if you have "faith" in a qualified >>> medically degreed professional counselor. >>You're a fucking idiot. Virtually *anyone* with >> an MD is more qualified to take care of >> counseling than 99.9% of AA's, who have >> *no* idea on what counseling is whatsoever. >No you are the fucking idiot.
I know you are, but what am I?
> You can go to all the "medically degreed > professional counselors" in the world but if > you have no "faith" in them or what they offer > as treatment it is no "better" than you going to > XA and having no "faith" in what they have to > offer. What works for people with addictions is > what they have "faith" in or believe will work.
stevespe...@hotmail.com (steve2000) wrote: >>>Charles, my patronising pal, Bill and Dr Bob >>> were great men. >>You mean Bill W the con-artist, egomaniac, >> and liar who cheated on his wife after writing >> the Big Book? The same man who suffered >> from suicidal depression over a decade long >> while writing nonsense about "serenity"? >> And Dr. Bob, the AA founder who *never* >> lost his compulsion to drink, even though the >> Steps promise that? >>You'd make a great stand-up comic. >Grazie. Yr more than kind. Like it or not, my > dear dear fellow, there are literally hundreds > of thousands of people whose lives are better > because of them two. And, yes, I know the > history.
And like it or not, there have been many thousands *harmed* by their ideology.
>In the words of a great philosopher-- "so > fucking what?"
Who needs reason when we can have blind faith, huh?
>>>AA would not be here today without them. >>Neither would AA be around without the >> Hitler-sympathizing Christian fundamentalist >> preacher Frank Buchman. >In the words of ANOTHER great philospher... > "Zeus moves in mysterious ways."
Ah, so you support an ideology which had no problems with the Hitlerian genocides.......
garye...@swbell.net (GaryE) wrote: >>Seeing as how it's not a disease, they don't >> need any. So what's the "training" that >> makes AA old-timers the end all and be all >> on alcoholism? >I don't think they are. Are you reaching for an > argument?
Are you?
>>Why bother with that when the "cure" for >> alcoholism is to *not drink.* Even the best >> psychiatrist wouldn't be able to help >> somebody who's dead-set on getting drunk. >So then a pyschiatrist is not the answer?
I've said that all along.
>>How so? Professionals have ethics boards >> who look at this sort of stuff. >Are you a professional? Do you know how > well they function or not?
How's this relevant? Unless, of course, you are. Based on your posts, I find it hard to believe.
>>Only if you know who they are. But AA, being >> an *anonymous* organization, doesn't have >> a system of checks and balances. >No religions don't. Why do you think they > should? Maybe you should bring it up with > Falwell. He'll get a chuckly out of 'checks and > balances"
At least you admit AA is a religion.
>> Not unless the sponsee speaks up in a >> meeting and someone who actually cares >> about the person's well-being(and not the >> "program") does something about it. >You can't know that. You'd have to know what > goes on in all the meeting in all the meeting > places. You're drifting here.
Bullshit. How would *anyone* know what a sponsor is doing to a sponsee without the sponsee speaking up?
>>>Ethics boards? Do you really believe an >>> ethics board is going to take care of >>> things? >>In some cases it does. >I'm sure. And in some cases, abusers in AA > are called on it.
Where is AA's stats on this?
> But you see, it's a minority that 'abuse'. I don't > go to meetings anymore but when I did go for > between five and six years, it was mostly > people trying genuinely and honestly to help > other people. Like catholic priests and > pyschiatrists, there are going to be, > statistically, a few rotten apples.
Indeed.
>>>Accountants for big CPA firms have ethics >>> boards too....fat lot of good that did with >>> Enron and WorldCom and Global Crossing >>>and Qwest and Xerox...you're going to have >>> to do much better than this tact. >>Yet they were *caught* at what they were >> doing. Say what you want to, but ethics >> boards *are* there. Where's AA's? >AA is a religion.
So that excuses the abuses of some of it's members?
>>D'OH! >>Which just proves that ethics boards do >> provide checks and balances. >Checks and balances is a constitutional > phrase. Ethics boards are not 'checks and > balances' so you might try another phrase.
Checks and balances is *esseintially* what it is. Don't bandy about semantics with me, kiddo. You're just not good enough.
> There is no legislative, judicial, and executive > ethics boards, are there?
*coughs*
Strawman.
>>How about AA sponsers abusing their >> sponsees? >I think thats abhorrent. I think talking down to > me is a loser for you. But you can keep it up if > you think it does some good for you.
It always does do good for me. You see, on Usenet, the point is to show everyone else that you have a bigger cock than the other guy.
>>If you consider such things as ethics >> commitees and the US Constitution to be >> "window dressing", then it must suck to be >> you. >Bad phrase maybe. I think its too often > something which people think will assure that > fair play and justice will prevail but too often, > far too often, it doesn't and neither of those > instruments can do much about it.
But they set the framework for fairplay.
>I don't think we shouldn't have them, I just > don't think they make a great argument for > trying to keep the courts from sending drunks > to AA.
Only if you don't value your freedom of religion.
>That is what your after, isn't it?
As I'm an American, of course.
>>It *is* with vouchers controlled by the >> parents. Your ignorance of the subject >> doesn't mean it's "unconstitutional." >I'm not too ignorant. I've studied Constitutional > Law, have you?
Everyone past 7th grade has. What's your point? If the Supreme Court doesn't find it "unconstitutional" it's *not* unconstitutional. Period.
>>Sure it won't. You see, school vouchers for >> the *parents* to *choose* which schools to >> send their children *is not* the same as >> sending a person to a religious organization >> or face jail. >Technically it isn't and it certainly opens the > doors for churches to become non secular in > important activities which were > constitutionally prohibited before.
Only if one buys the hungus that children are *forced* to attend parochial schools against the parent's will. As this is not the case, it's not a violation of the US Constitution.
>>'Tard. >Low road time, huh? Invariably. Your not > much different from fanatic thumpers are > you?
I am a mirror of thy soul.
>>*points* >>*laughs* >was tough to respond to so this is it?
Darling, your posts get the respect that they deserve.
>>That's why the *victim* can put forward their >> complaints. <shakes head >>sadly> >creating scenarios that make you feel good is > something that thumpers do...hey... you got > company. Oh well, I guess the rest of this is > low road stuff...tant pis.
I notice you never bothered to address my point. Those who have grievances with the system can *file their own* complaints.
>>It just happens more often in AA. Or are you >> suggesting because a thing isn't perfect, we >> should just discard it? >Tell me how much more often it happens and > give me the comparative numbers that your > validated.
Next time type this in *cogent* English.
>>>>Pretty much. Trimpey has some queer >>>> ideas(but his AVRT is based on how the >>>> brain is built.) >>>And his methodology is not more effective >>> than anyone else's. >>Point being? >Did it really go over your head or you need to > be cute for the rest of the way?
*smack*
We're *not* talking about Jack Trimpey. We're talking about AA.
>>>Nothing is pure and simple except to the >>> blind and naive. >>So 2+2 isn't simply 4 then, eh? Maybe you >> don't think it's simple to state that the sun >> rises in the east either. That says more >> about *you* than it does about a subject, >> however. >non sequiter.
Only for idiots. Are you an idiot?
>>>I take it that if courts quit sending people to >>> AA, you would be satisfied. >>Yup. >Then what's all this other crap. Why don't you > just stick to your subject? Or do you think you > are so much better that you need to slum?
Can't stand someone slamming your Golden Calf, can you?
>>What's wrong? Can't take a little criticism of >> your Golden Calf? >hahahahaha...excuse me.... >It's better if you get your information correct. > Over here, I'm called anti AA by some of the > ones I seem to rattle.
But you're just as much a fanatical defender of it as any Bleeding Deacon is.
> Maybe I just like shooting out windows on > both sides of the street. When people get > emotional as you and the AA thumps, its no > big trick.
Who says I'm emotional? That must be you projecting.
> > "steve2000" <stevespe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > In my opinion, you're missing the point of the first step. It was meant > > to > > > > be read with the emphasis on the second 'we', setting the stage for the > > > > proposal in step two that a higher power could "restore us to sanity".
> > > > 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had > > become > > > > unmanageable. > > > > 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us > > to > > > > sanity.
> > > No offence
> > None taken.
> That's terribly gracious of u but it doesn't answer my point.
Phrasing it as a question would have helped me understand that you wanted an answer.
> This AA > as Revelation shit sends a lot of newbies outta "the rooms".
> sx
> > -- but it was the hairplitting, parsing and ponderous > > > pronouncements about the BB that really pissed me off at RL meetings. > > > It's a book. It ain't a bible.
> > > aussie -- even the bible ain't a bible -- steve.
Are you related to STAAMFA? Maybe his bastard son? I only quoted what you wrote, that is not forgery. "I know you are, but what am I?" are you sure you are in college and not elementery school? From what I can tell you are a pathatic scum bag who has been off the booze or drug for a few months who thinks he has all the answers about addiction and recovery, but knows jack shit about anything. Go fuck yourself and die mother fucker! LOL
virtual...@innocent.com (Virtualoso) wrote: >>>One Mind Mechanic Gospel fits all, eh? >>How's the shrink incompetent if the patient >> didn't listen to them? >The PsychSponsors always right, eh?
Babblefish time.......
>>>Except: >>>Psychiatrist Garth Wood, M.D. says: [forged >>> quote deleted] >>Except that "Garth Wood, M.D." is a figment >> of Virt's imagination. Notice how he evades >> when he's asked to reveal *where* these >> "quotes" come from. >They come from psychiatrist Garth Wood. MD. > Here's more from one of his books (published > by Harpers & Row):
*Which book*? What page? Didn't think so either.
>"In fact what is needed is that people learn > how to treat themselves ... referred perhaps, > in the case of drug abusers, to specialized > units with a heavy emphasis on discipline, or > in the case of alcoholics, to the very excellent > Alcoholics Anonyous"
I read this from Jack Mehoff, MD is his book:
"Alcoholics Anonymous is a sadistic cult, a parasite of society, much like the bacterium which causes food poisening. It is the worst influence on Western Civilization since the Black Plague of the Middle Ages. At it's best(which is stretching it a bit), it is much like the infamous Snake Oil going around selling religion as a cure all for all that ails you. Slicing your scrotum with a razor blade would help you more than joining the AA cult."
My quote has as much validity as yours.
>Listen the medically degreed medical doctor, > very familiar with a greast deal of his and > related professiosn and research of and on > them.
What *book* does this appear in? I have no way of verifying your quote. It's been four times, kiddo. And yet you're still being purposely vague.
That's hard evidence you're forging quotes, son.
>>Never mind that the "quote" has no meaning >> whatsoever as the "psychiatrist" esseintially >> undercuts his "own" credibility, thus >> invalidating "his" whole point. >You simply don't believe the doctor, because > you jusst don't like what he says?
Or maybe because I don't believe the "doctor" exists. Why be so vague as to where I can find the "quotes" if they actually exist?
>Tsk, tsk. If your auto mechanic tells you that > he just can't fix what's wrong with your car, do > you trust and believe someone else merely > because they tell you that they might be able > to and pay them anyway?
Strawman.
>>>But some folks can enjoy it anyway: >>>Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey says: [forged >>> quote deleted] >>And yet the source of this "quote" is not >> divulged. It doesn't take a genius to figure >> out why. >Pure denial.
Yes, that is what you're engaging in.
>The closed mind snaps shut when the light of > fuller truth is lit. Isn't that kind of pure > faith-based, myopic thinking exactly what you > wanted to free yourself of?
Tell me *where* to find the "quote" and I'll concede it exists. But the *only* reason why you keep tap dancing is because you know it *doesn't exist.*
|
