pedro01 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Surely posts vilifying something like AA say more about the poster themselves than anything they say about the alleged object? Why is that? When we use a discussion board to discuss something, we should raise points/concerns that others should counter. On the contrary, what seems to be defining AA members in this thread is their need to say something about the poster and not the topic at hand. So no - it says nothing about the personality of the poster. AA members appear to be mostly concerned about the sanctity of their dogma. I am concerned about putting dangerous ideas into people's heads. If that makes me a person guy, then so be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Surely posts vilifying something like AA say more about the poster themselves than anything they say about the alleged object? Why is that? When we use a discussion board to discuss something, we should raise points/concerns that others should counter. On the contrary, what seems to be defining AA members in this thread is their need to say something about the poster and not the topic at hand. So no - it says nothing about the personality of the poster. AA members appear to be mostly concerned about the sanctity of their dogma. I am concerned about putting dangerous ideas into people's heads. If that makes me a person guy, then so be it You seem to be in denial about more or less everything. Dealing with drink involves serious and genuine introspection......a guide helps, but your posts give the impression you have not started to do this.....they seem to be solely attributing blame externally all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Surely posts vilifying something like AA say more about the poster themselves than anything they say about the alleged object? Why is that? When we use a discussion board to discuss something, we should raise points/concerns that others should counter. On the contrary, what seems to be defining AA members in this thread is their need to say something about the poster and not the topic at hand. So no - it says nothing about the personality of the poster. AA members appear to be mostly concerned about the sanctity of their dogma. I am concerned about putting dangerous ideas into people's heads. If that makes me a person guy, then so be it You seem to be in denial about more or less everything. Dealing with drink involves serious and genuine introspection......a guide helps, but your posts give the impression you have not started to do this.....they seem to be solely attributing blame externally all the time. I don't think he is blaming anything or anyone. He claims he is no longer addicted to alcohol and got there through scientific means (medicines and therapy if I recall correctly). Kudos to him. Saying that dealing with drink requires serious introspection is misleading as one glove does not fit all. I did not need any lengthy "introspection", I was simply fed up and made up my mind to quit on 14 or 15 April and the next day, after two short self-hypnosis sessions, I quit. I did not need to sit in a circle and share everything with everyone, contemplate my life for weeks or months. I am not saying that does not work. But to infer that it is the only way is ridiculous, if not pompous bullshit. But then the AAers would say that I was not an alcoholic but rather a problem drinker. In other words, if you are able to stop a serious drinking problem on your own, you are not an alcoholic, you simply have a "drinking problem". It is funny that AA seems to have the monopoly alcoholism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cumgranosalum Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Part of the problem is AFTER you give up...if you still don't know why, you are undoubtedly more likely to start again... I agree that there is no one fix for all, but it looks to me as if most of the criticisms of fixes - the AA in particular - are based on an individual's unaddressed hangups. As whether or not you are an alcoholic; well all drinkers love to make excuses regardless of how much they drink....in many ways the term is it's own worst enemy.....it is that person's relationship with alcohol that is the problem...call it what you like....but using a vague definition as a get out clause is just further denial. i'm also very suspicious of those who "don't drink anymore" - for most people, this is a very rash statement to make.......and may even be way overconfident....again a lack of self-knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerryBScot Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Pedro you are it again, misrepresenting me and probably AA as well. In terms of what I say here I don't represent or speak for AA. I can only talk about my experience and readers can thereafter make their own judgements AA is not against alcohol. It has never been involved in any attempt to shape alcohol policy, influence opening hours, taxation levels or any other aspect of alcohol management. In the same way, you will not experience AA members dragging drunks out of bars. However it recommends that alcoholics should abstain from alcohol for life. It does not want you or me to stop drinking or to interfere in any way, shape or form with anyone else's enjoyment of alcohol ... except those who say they are alcoholics. So, yes, in this respect AA says alcohol is harmful for alcoholics but that is the extent of it. Not exactly controversial, I might add, and not indicative of an organisation s you claim which is against things. Only against alcohol for alkies ..... not really that reactionary, methinks. You like that line about God curing drunks but not children with cancer, don't you, Pedro, as you use it a lot?! AA is not based on any scientific theory. It makes no scientific claims. Anti-AA people like yourself always point to AA being a religious organisation. AA literature recognises there are many ways to recovery and allows for many different beliefs about God, including none. AAs would never attempt to score cheap points at the expense of sick children. Individual AAs have different views about many things, not just God. What we say here is not necessarily what AA advocates as policy. I have already intimated in this post that I am not an AA rep. Most AAs I know would recommend medically supervised detox in a hospital as a start for many active alcoholics during which a range of drugs may be administered to ease withdrawal and ward off potentially fatal DTs. I don't think there is anything controversial after discharge from detox to encourage people to maintain sobriety without mind altering drugs. However the final arbiter in that has to be the individual's physician: AA is clear on this, if a doctor recommends meds, then the patient should take them. AAs are most assuredly not scientists nor physicians. I've never heard anyone say in an AA meeting that you are not welcome or cannot speak if you have taken naltrexone. I have heard people ask those who have been drinking not to speak but to feel free to talk to members after the meeting. The whole business of the research into the effectiveness of different treatment methods is a veritable can of worms. The research you quote about AA is highly unreliable and dated and would need to be read and interpreted with great care. I doubt whether outcomes are good for many services which are trying to assist drunks and addicts. Death is the normal outcome for most of us. For instance my father's death certificate said 'myocardial infarction' and nowhere mentioned his alcoholism which was the cause of his fatal heart attack, the causa causandi, if you like. In the case of AA, effectiveness is an irrelevancy in any event. It doesn't need to prove it is effective to anyone other than to its members because it steadfastly refuses to take money from anyone other than people who say they are alcoholics. This is one reason why people despise AA - it doesn't take any public money and it doesn't take any private money like from the alcohol industry. You can't sponsor AA or The Big Book. It is literally the sum total of its members who literally are a group of drunks, and what's worse, we can't be bought! This actually means that a group will have to shut down if it doesn't have enough members attending and contributing to the cost of running the meeting. Yup, we pay rent often small amounts for rooms and if we can't pay, the meeting folds. There's no question of HQ stepping in and writing a cheque. And finally Pedro, you've even got GaryP at it! I am glad you're out of it, Gary, but AA meetings do not consist of people sitting around in a group and sharing everything. To conclude, I wouldn't bash any approach which tries to stop alcoholics drinking themselves to death. Whatever it takes. But, please, don't come on here and bash AA without expecting some of us to stand up and refute the BS. Pedro, when you write about AA, you tell me more about yourself than you do about AA and I want you to know I want you to be well and happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarryP Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Pedro you are it again, misrepresenting me and probably AA as well. In terms of what I say here I don't represent or speak for AA. I can only talk about my experience and readers can thereafter make their own judgements AA is not against alcohol. It has never been involved in any attempt to shape alcohol policy, influence opening hours, taxation levels or any other aspect of alcohol management. In the same way, you will not experience AA members dragging drunks out of bars. However it recommends that alcoholics should abstain from alcohol for life. It does not want you or me to stop drinking or to interfere in any way, shape or form with anyone else's enjoyment of alcohol ... except those who say they are alcoholics. So, yes, in this respect AA says alcohol is harmful for alcoholics but that is the extent of it. Not exactly controversial, I might add, and not indicative of an organisation s you claim which is against things. Only against alcohol for alkies ..... not really that reactionary, methinks. You like that line about God curing drunks but not children with cancer, don't you, Pedro, as you use it a lot?! AA is not based on any scientific theory. It makes no scientific claims. Anti-AA people like yourself always point to AA being a religious organisation. AA literature recognises there are many ways to recovery and allows for many different beliefs about God, including none. AAs would never attempt to score cheap points at the expense of sick children. Individual AAs have different views about many things, not just God. What we say here is not necessarily what AA advocates as policy. I have already intimated in this post that I am not an AA rep. Most AAs I know would recommend medically supervised detox in a hospital as a start for many active alcoholics during which a range of drugs may be administered to ease withdrawal and ward off potentially fatal DTs. I don't think there is anything controversial after discharge from detox to encourage people to maintain sobriety without mind altering drugs. However the final arbiter in that has to be the individual's physician: AA is clear on this, if a doctor recommends meds, then the patient should take them. AAs are most assuredly not scientists nor physicians. I've never heard anyone say in an AA meeting that you are not welcome or cannot speak if you have taken naltrexone. I have heard people ask those who have been drinking not to speak but to feel free to talk to members after the meeting. The whole business of the research into the effectiveness of different treatment methods is a veritable can of worms. The research you quote about AA is highly unreliable and dated and would need to be read and interpreted with great care. I doubt whether outcomes are good for many services which are trying to assist drunks and addicts. Death is the normal outcome for most of us. For instance my father's death certificate said 'myocardial infarction' and nowhere mentioned his alcoholism which was the cause of his fatal heart attack, the causa causandi, if you like. In the case of AA, effectiveness is an irrelevancy in any event. It doesn't need to prove it is effective to anyone other than to its members because it steadfastly refuses to take money from anyone other than people who say they are alcoholics. This is one reason why people despise AA - it doesn't take any public money and it doesn't take any private money like from the alcohol industry. You can't sponsor AA or The Big Book. It is literally the sum total of its members who literally are a group of drunks, and what's worse, we can't be bought! This actually means that a group will have to shut down if it doesn't have enough members attending and contributing to the cost of running the meeting. Yup, we pay rent often small amounts for rooms and if we can't pay, the meeting folds. There's no question of HQ stepping in and writing a cheque. And finally Pedro, you've even got GaryP at it! I am glad you're out of it, Gary, but AA meetings do not consist of people sitting around in a group and sharing everything. To conclude, I wouldn't bash any approach which tries to stop alcoholics drinking themselves to death. Whatever it takes. But, please, don't come on here and bash AA without expecting some of us to stand up and refute the BS. Pedro, when you write about AA, you tell me more about yourself than you do about AA and I want you to know I want you to be well and happy. Sorry but Pedro has not got me at it. I am not anti AA. Nowhere have I said I am. I have said go with what works for you and if that is AA all well and good. I just simply do not believe it is the only way as some AA members here seem to infer. Regardless, a good well thought out post Gerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerryBScot Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Sorry but Pedro has not got me at it. I am not anti AA. Nowhere have I said I am. I have said go with what works for you and if that is AA all well and good. I just simply do not believe it is the only way as some AA members here seem to infer. Regardless, a good well thought out post Gerry. Nice one, Garry, and thanks for not taking offence. I am delighted you had the common sense to decide you'd had enough and then to follow it through and do it and that you are reaping the happiness of your decision. What's important to me is you did it and that you did it your way does not in any way detract from your huge achievement and my admiration of it. Keep going strong and your message of hope is as important to me as any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big carl Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 When it comes to AA our friend Pedro is a troll. He cannot quietly accept that AA is not to his liking and leave us to it. Like a baby in a pram he has to throw his toys out and cry, because he doesn't like or agree with how AA works, its underlying philosophy and worst of all, its perceived 5% success rate. Like many critics of AA, Pedro's dislike of AA is based on fear and ignorance dressed up as being underpinned by scientific evidence, as is the way of the world - what defined me as a practising alcoholic in large part was also fear and ignorance. My approach tries to be one of 'live and let live' - my hope is that people can stop killing themselves with alcohol under the guise of having a good time. I really don't care how that is done. I accept there is more than one way to skin a cat. AA works for me and many others. In a place like Thailand it is a very viable option because support services for those attempting to address an alcohol problem are thin on the ground. If you want to go Pedro's route of medication, therapy and controlled drinking, that is fine too. Whatever works for you ... In the final analysis what does it for me is AA's extremely unscientific assertion that the number one offender for all alcoholics was resentment - the book says it kills more alcoholics than any other factor. That was my mental state as a practising alkie and to be honest I don't need to work very hard to be back to default. However when I heard folk in AA talk about resentment I knew I was in the right place because they were talking about me. I remember a nice middle class retired primary school teacher in S W London describing her resentment at discovering a pubic hair belonging to her lodger in the shower and what ensued over the next 72 hours; someone else came up with the unforgettable line: a resentment is taken not given; and another asked why would you let someone live rent free in your head? It's this stuff that sustains me in sobriety on a daily basis and I feel obliged to assert that today I am not obsessed with not drinking. I haven't had to practise any voodoo to get me on the right side of booze; I really don't think I'll drink today. I'm not saying only 15 hours until I go to bed when I can add another day to my count... Life is far from perfect but in myself I am happy. I am in a loving relationship with two great kids. I support myself. I am productive. I am optimistic abut the future. 'Twas never thus. Good luck Pedro. I wonder where he got the 5% if he knew any thing about AA he should know they don't keep records. You said because he doesn't like or agree with how AA works, its underlying philosophy and worst of all, its perceived 5% success rate. I would say based on all his posts he knows nothing and that is the root of his problem. Just another drunk who knows nothing and is not hurting enough to give it up. He probably bought a Big Book and a Basic text and is sitting on them waiting for them to do it for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big carl Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Surely posts vilifying something like AA say more about the poster themselves than anything they say about the alleged object? Why is that? When we use a discussion board to discuss something, we should raise points/concerns that others should counter. On the contrary, what seems to be defining AA members in this thread is their need to say something about the poster and not the topic at hand. So no - it says nothing about the personality of the poster. AA members appear to be mostly concerned about the sanctity of their dogma. I am concerned about putting dangerous ideas into people's heads. If that makes me a person guy, then so be it You seem to be in denial about more or less everything. Dealing with drink involves serious and genuine introspection......a guide helps, but your posts give the impression you have not started to do this.....they seem to be solely attributing blame externally all the time. I don't think he is blaming anything or anyone. He claims he is no longer addicted to alcohol and got there through scientific means (medicines and therapy if I recall correctly). Kudos to him. Saying that dealing with drink requires serious introspection is misleading as one glove does not fit all. I did not need any lengthy "introspection", I was simply fed up and made up my mind to quit on 14 or 15 April and the next day, after two short self-hypnosis sessions, I quit. I did not need to sit in a circle and share everything with everyone, contemplate my life for weeks or months. I am not saying that does not work. But to infer that it is the only way is ridiculous, if not pompous bullshit. But then the AAers would say that I was not an alcoholic but rather a problem drinker. In other words, if you are able to stop a serious drinking problem on your own, you are not an alcoholic, you simply have a "drinking problem". It is funny that AA seems to have the monopoly alcoholism. I am not going to make any thing up. There are a lot of people in AA for fellowship. They can not find it elsewhere. these type of people tend to drift away. But to get back to the point of AA being the only way. We have what we call the Big Book and on the cover it says it is the Basic text for AA. In it you will find the statement we do not claim to be the only way or some words to that affect. Some people go to off the wall treatment centers that work for them some just turn to religion and that works for them. There are lots of other methods that have some succses rates And many of people just deny it all and die. That works but it is a little to permanent for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big carl Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Surely posts vilifying something like AA say more about the poster themselves than anything they say about the alleged object? Why is that? When we use a discussion board to discuss something, we should raise points/concerns that others should counter. On the contrary, what seems to be defining AA members in this thread is their need to say something about the poster and not the topic at hand. So no - it says nothing about the personality of the poster. AA members appear to be mostly concerned about the sanctity of their dogma. I am concerned about putting dangerous ideas into people's heads. If that makes me a person guy, then so be it The very fact that you obviously know nothing yet continue to post as if you did says a lot about you. I am not telling you AA is the only way and have even mentioned to you that says in are big book that we are not the only way. Yet it all goes right over your head. Or is to complicated for you to understand? Keep on posting. In your own way you are kind of amusing. I get a bit hard with people like you.m Got tired of burying them long ago. You will find a lot of people who think like you in the Graveyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 As this thread has deteriorated into a circular argument about the pros and cons of AA - which never leads anywhere useful - it is now closed. AA works for many people and discouraging people from trying it is certainly not helpful. If someone finds that it doesn't work for them, and wants to try a different approach, that is also fine. But trying to aggressively deter people from AA is unacceptable on a forum designed to help people with drinking problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.