Quote
Edith Grove
Sheen thinks a lot of himself, don't he?

@#$%& idiot.

Quote
Title5Take1
He is different than those he named, inasmuch as they all had/have talent.

Quote
palerider22
Keith, supposidly....got hooked on drugs because of work...touring...to keep himself going. Sheen is just showing manic ego-centric and selfish behaviour...and bragging about it on CNN. Okay..it's all the same thing thing...but Keith was not like Sheen...and Sheen is definitely not Keith.

Oh...Keith has talent....

Quote
palerider22
Keith, supposidly....got hooked on drugs because of work...touring...to keep himself going. Sheen is just showing manic ego-centric and selfish behaviour...and bragging about it on CNN. Okay..it's all the same thing thing...but Keith was not like Sheen...and Sheen is definitely not Keith.

Oh...Keith has talent....

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

Quote
ineedadrink
hmm...
charlie sheen: a druggie + violent towards women = pathetic loser
brian jones: a druggie + violent towards towards women = a cool god
how does that work?
oh wait. brian played guitar in our favourite band. so he's exempt.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a Godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrine's violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a Godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrine's violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

Obviously addressing the falsehoods you state does no good. AA does not make the claims you attribute to it, nor definitive statements, though you do. Obviously you are angry at AA -- I couldn't know why -- but there is no need to spread BS.

Anyway, against my better judgement:

There is no such thing as an "AA Counselor".

AA is not associated or aligned with any outside entity. If a court sends someone to AA that has nothing to do with AA itself or its philosophy.

AA makes no claims for anyone who doesn't want the program or criticize other therapies. If willpower works for you then more power to you.

AA has no opinion on outside issues -- and has long been supported by the medical community. The literature encourages getting outside help.

AA states that this is how we did it -- not how you must do it. I know for myself that I cannot drink one drink safely -- and I do not want to. But again, if you or someone can -- "we tip our hat!"

I could go on but what's the point? But you are wrong about one more thing. It did save my life.

Enjoy your path....

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele

Quote
Wry Cooter

Quote
71Tele
Saw his interview this morning, where he was talking about his sobriety while obviously under the influence of something. Pretty amusing if it wasn't so transparently pathetic. I do agree with him about AA though. While it helps some people, AA's success rate is no better than any other program - or even no program at all. But somehow they have insinuated themselves into the US system (including the courts) as the "official" treatment for people with alcohol problems. There is just no proof that no person can cure themselves of a drinking problem, or that a problem drinker (or even serious alcoholic) must go to meetings the rest of their lives. AA asks us to accept all of this on faith. That doesn't mean I think that Sheen is serious about having solved his problems himself. he certainly does not look like someone who has come to any great realization that his behavior is responsible for most if not all of his problems. I am only saying the idea that AA is for everyone or the only path is a crock.

As someone who regularly attends AA (19 years sober next month), I would be the first to tell you that AA isn't for everyone. As far as success rates go, AA makes no claims -- however it is my experience that people who *work* the program generally get better. But not everyone is up for the "spiritual" aspect of it (not religious and certainly not defined -- I know several sober atheists). Your remark that AA has "insinuated" into the "US system" as the "official" treatment is absurd and patently off base. There is no promotion associated with AA. Any decisions of courts or treatment centers are theirs alone. There is no governing body of AA per se -- just recovering alcoholics helping other alcoholics. Certainly some members can act like zealots (and A-holes!) -- in my experience they are a small minority. Also I have never been told I have to go to meetings the rest of my life -- never heard anyone say that -- in fact I'm told to take it a day at a time.

"The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly don't wish to get in a pissing match here, But so much criticism of AA is wildly misinformed and often mean-spirited. It saved my life, y'know?

And I sure don't think it's for Keith!

I'm glad it saved your life - but YOU saved your life, not AA. As I said, I don't doubt it helps some people. Court-ordered attendance at AA meetings is a common occurence in the U.S., contrary to your statement. Much of AA is based on faith. When you try to reason with an AA counselor you get a lot of circular logic and catchphrases. My objections to AA (and there are many) are focused on the fact that it is an ideology which must be accepted on faith, not a medical treatment. AA does not allow the possibility that anyone can cure themselves, when there is absolutely no basis for that belief. AA doctrine insists that one MUST attend meetings - forever, or one has failed. This is the ideology of a cult, not of a sound medical or even psychological practice.

Yes, AA helps people who "work the program", and for those people AA is a Godsend. If the price one pays for giving up destructive behavior is buying into AA's ideology, then that's fine with me - but it's still an ideology. A judge forcing someone to attend AA meetings, even if AA's doctrine's violate the person's religious or philosophical beliefs is an example of what I called AA's insinuation into our institutions. There is simply no medical or scientific proof that AA is better than willpower, aversion therapy, or even moderation. It all depends on the person, the particulars of their problem, etc. I am quite sure there are many people who simply cannot take a drink. The problem is AA's insistence that it is simply not possible for ANY problem drinker to moderate their drinking, or never go to another meeting once they've stopped, etc. Again, this is doctrine taken on faith, not medical science.

Obviously addressing the falsehoods you state does no good. AA does not make the claims you attribute to it, nor definitive statements, though you do. Obviously you are angry at AA -- I couldn't know why -- but there is no need to spread BS.

Anyway, against my better judgement:

There is no such thing as an "AA Counselor".

AA is not associated or aligned with any outside entity. If a court sends someone to AA that has nothing to do with AA itself or its philosophy.

AA makes no claims for anyone who doesn't want the program or criticize other therapies. If willpower works for you then more power to you.

AA has no opinion on outside issues -- and has long been supported by the medical community. The literature encourages getting outside help.

AA states that this is how we did it -- not how you must do it. I know for myself that I cannot drink one drink safely -- and I do not want to. But again, if you or someone can -- "we tip our hat!"

I could go on but what's the point? But you are wrong about one more thing. It did save my life.

Enjoy your path....

I'm not angry at all. And you are repeating typical AA defenses. Party line stuff they always say when criticized. If AA doesn't have "counselors" it certainly has people who play that role, though they may call themselves something different. I spoke with them. I apologize if I used the incorrect nomencalture. My experience with AA made me learn more about it. AA is an ideology based on faith, not a medically-proven treatment program. Again, I have no problem with people belonging to it or benefiting from it. I DO have a problem with some of the misconceptions people have about it, and its intrusion into the court system, business, etc. I'm not even an atheist, so the "higher power" bit does not even trouble me. My objections are that I feel it is intellectually dishonest in the way it presents itself. You obviously have a need to defend it. Fair enough. And arguing with you about whether AA or YOU were the agency that "saved your life" is as useless as arguing with someone convinced that Jesus did, or Hare Krishna for that matter. Again, if that works for you, I have no problem. Hats off to you for taking the steps needed to turn things around. I certainly am not judging YOU. I feel the AA ideology - and it IS an ideology - is intellectually dishonest, and I have stated my reasons for that opinion. The idea that anyone with a substance abuse problem should run off and do a 12-step program has become consensus reality in our culture. It simply is not the answer for every person or every problem. So maybe we agree about that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-03-01 08:12 by 71Tele.