Anti-AA 'serenity haters club'

[Tony J]

Okay, someone just flamed my anonymously on the 'is aa a cult' comment page.

I am taking the liberty of opening up a thread for all the anit-AA's to gather and post their comments.

Bring it on............

[John Rutledge]

I break my silence to say only one thing - it is a wise Internet saying that goes, "Don't feed the trolls".

Yours from Heorot,

[Nightwatch]

JR,

I agree completely.

Claire

[Guest ASchwartz]

Toni, Claire, JR, Tony, et al,

First, no one should be flamed. Toni, please point me towards the comment on that part of the site. Obviously, I did not see it.

Second, as regards you AA haters club, as you call it, please be aware that there are many who are pro AA and who are neutral. They also have a right to their opinion.

While we discuss, we all need to be tolerant.

JR, please do not remain silent here. We need you and welcome you.

Allan

[Nightwatch]

Allan: It appears that Tony started this thread in response to Dr. Dombeck's note regarding his post, as follows:

drunk in a ditch - - Nov 4th 2009

Better Claire drunk in a ditch, than Tony J sober.

And, what proof do I have that Tony J is sober?

None whatever.

Dr. Dombeck's Note: Normally we'd censor a comment like this for its flamability, but I'm letting it through as an example of the type of content which should not be here. This place really ought to be for *comments*. Those of you who who want to have a dialog - especially one which is rancorous and flamy, please follow this link over to our Community/Forum in the addictions section, create an account if you don't have one, and be rancorous there. It's just a better place for this sort of back and forth backstabbing.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Nightwatch

[Tony J]

Nice try Claire but , that was not 'my' post.

That was one of your anti-AA friends.

Of course with all your anger and control issues you may very well end up drunk in a ditch, but I never wished it on you.

Allan: It appears that Tony started this thread in response to Dr. Dombeck's note regarding his post, as follows:

drunk in a ditch - - Nov 4th 2009

Better Claire drunk in a ditch, than Tony J sober.

And, what proof do I have that Tony J is sober?

None whatever.

Dr. Dombeck's Note: Normally we'd censor a comment like this for its flamability, but I'm letting it through as an example of the type of content which should not be here. This place really ought to be for *comments*. Those of you who who want to have a dialog - especially one which is rancorous and flamy, please follow this link over to our Community/Forum in the addictions section, create an account if you don't have one, and be rancorous there. It's just a better place for this sort of back and forth backstabbing.

[malign]

See, flame wars start when we don't check stuff first.

Tony, what are the odds that Claire's 'his' was meant to be 'this'?

At least we could check? Since I'm sure Claire agrees that you didn't flame yourself?

[Tony J]

Toni, Claire, JR, Tony, et al,

First, no one should be flamed. Toni, please point me towards the comment on that part of the site. Obviously, I did not see it.

Second, as regards you AA haters club, as you call it, please be aware that there are many who are pro AA and who are neutral. They also have a right to their opinion.

While we discuss, we all need to be tolerant.

JR, please do not remain silent here. We need you and welcome you.

Allan

I just checked again and I'm still a boy, so it's Tony.

Two of the AA haters have already joined. Too bad they're of the passive aggressive type though. They'll complain to the moderators and call me a troll but they won't debate me. They'll only speak to each other so they can validate each other's poo.

In order to have a tolerant discussion, both parties need to recognize each other. In the case of Claire and JR, they refuse to do even that.

They both think they're entitled to not only their opinion, but everyone elses too. They don't want anything on the board they don't approve of, in a word they are intolerant.

Fanatics always are.

Still, I'm glad they joined their club by posting and chosing to attack me and my thread rather than address the topic at hand.

I would have expected no less from either of them.

[Tony J]

See, flame wars start when we don't check stuff first.

Tony, what are the odds that Claire's 'his' was meant to be 'this'?

At least we could check? Since I'm sure Claire agrees that you didn't flame yourself?

Slim to none ?

:confused:

I just depends on how manipulative she actually is.

Only she knows for sure.........

[Nightwatch]

Tony:

If I made a mistake, I am sorry. I thought the "unsigned" flame on the comment section was yours; if you say it wasn't, I take you at your word.

However, it seems pretty clear that your objective in starting this thread was to antagonize others into engaging in a mean-spirited debate. While I am not averse to debate in general (as others can attest) I am not going to go down this road, and I encourage others to resist the impulse as well.

Claire

[Tony J]

Let's see, you've called me a troll, accused me of posting to flame myself and now you're trying to get your friends to not talk to me.

But I'm mean spirited ?

Not to mention all the lies and misinformation you pass on about AA.

No, I think maybe the mean spirit you see is your own.

Tony:

If I made a mistake, I am sorry. I thought the "unsigned" flame on the comment section was yours; if you say it wasn't, I take you at your word.

However, it seems pretty clear that your objective in starting this thread was to antagonize others into engaging in a mean-spirited debate. While I am not averse to debate in general (as others can attest) I am not going to go down this road, and I encourage others to resist the impulse as well.

Claire

[Ray Smith]

Not to mention all the lies and misinformation you pass on about AA.

It's easy to claim that people lie, care to point out specifically which lies are being told about AA?

[Tony J]

Her current lies have to do with AA's stance on prescription medication.

She claims that she has 'witnessed' 'several' people 'ordered' to stop taking medications.

She also claims that it is normal to be advised not to take pain medication under 'any circumstances' in AA.

Both of these claims go against AA's official literature and my own personal experience in AA meetings. I have heard (3rd party) of people being told to stop taking medication, but only in the context of passing the AA message of 'sponsors are not doctors' on. I have never, in over 12 years, heard a person relate first hand that they were advised to stop taking medication.

I assume that it has happened and will happen again. People often give each other bad advice. But to claim it is a working part of the AA philosopy is wrong.

When I asked her to give the names and State(s) of the groups where this advice was being given, she stopped talking. As usual.

Claire may not be a liar, she may be delusional. It's hard to say. But her information is toxic. It doesn't help AA correct it's own problems or a problem drinker get better.

It's easy to claim that people lie, care to point out specifically which lies are being told about AA?

[Nightwatch]

For the record, this is what I wrote, and what Tony is mischaracterizing:

Over my nine years of AA membership, I witnessed many instances of individuals being advised or ordered not to take medication.

With respect to addictive medications, such as pain killers (OxyContin, Percocet, etc.) and tranquilizers (Valium, Ativan) the advice was typically never to take these medications at all, under any circumstances, because the risk of relapse was too high.

Indeed, there is no doubt that there IS a risk of becoming addicted to addictive medications, so a cautionary tone regarding such medications is certainly appropriate. The problem is with the black and white prohibition: the notion that such medications are NEVER appropriate, under ANY circumstances, and that AA members who have no medical training are in a better position to make this judgment than the individual sufferer in conjunction with his or her doctor.

I should note that I am aware of instances in which the prohibition against taking pain meds led to a relapse on alcohol.

With respect to psychiatric medications....here, prohibitions against taking these meds are not universal. I recently read a study which found that approximately 12% of AA members do not "believe in" psych meds and would order their sponsees to stop taking them. I think this percentage is fairly accurate. Although perhaps 12% doesn't seem alarming, it means that a newcomer with a mental illness has a better than a 1 in 10 chance of winding up with such a person as his or her sponsor. Given that approximately half of AA members have some form of co-occurring mental illness (problems ranging from depression to schizophrenia) this is a real problem.

I have written about this before, but the experience of one young woman I knew in AA was instrumental in my decision to leave the program. This young woman had been abstinent from alcohol for 7 years. She was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and was prescribed medications by her treating psychiatrist. Her sponsor insisted that the diagnosis was wrong, that the sponsee was simply not spiritually fit, and ordered the sponsee to stop taking the meds. The sponsee followed this directive (another problem: people following their sponsor's advice, no matter how bad it is). Predictably, the young woman's now-untreated bi-polar disorder soon returned in full swing, and she relapsed. I was among the group of women who took her to the hospital following her relapse (she was extremely ill and required hospitalization for several days) and following the experience determined to talk to the sponsor who had given this advice. The astonishing thing about this conversation was the ignorance displayed by the sponsor. Even after her sponsee had relapsed and ended up in the hospital due to her horrific advice, the woman was unmoved, insisting that the problem was not bi-polar disorder but her sponsee's inability to be "rigorously honest."

This was not the sole reason for my decision to leave the program. There were other factors, including the presence of unchecked sexual predators in the program and my increasing awareness of large, abusive factions growing up in the fellowship (the Pacific Group, the Midtown Group) and nothing being done to stop it. But it was one reason I came to the conclusion that I could no longer be affiliated with a group that claims to do so much good....but which in fact does so much harm.

Claire

[Guest ASchwartz]

To ToniJ, Claire, and everyone,

In my opinion, regardless of who made the flaming comment against Claire, it was a terrible and uncalled for act of aggression. Claire does not deserve that kind of insulting and mean spirited treatment.

Toni, what concerns me is that you state that you did were not responsible for the flaming but, regardless, seem to think it was deserved and nowhere, have you expressed any regret for Claire possibly feeling hurt. I feel regret and I want to protect her and I didn't do the flaming!! In fact, I want to protect all of you no matter what your stance is on AA and 12 steps.

Again, all of you need to tone down the rehtoric. Not the discussion, just the emotional heat that causes inappropriate comments to impulsively spew out.

Claire, I will apologize to you because you deserve better. It should not have happened.

All of you, play nice!!!

Allan

[Tony J]

As you can see from Claire's post. No one is 'mischaracterizing' her views.

Claire is very good at stating her opinions, not so good at defending them.

Her normal response when challenged is to claim she's been mischaracterized and attempt to have the moderator remove the post. She also tries to discredit the poster and appeals to her friends to ignore the thread (silent treatment).

Anyway, the expanded post shows Claire ignores the fact that AA publishes official information regarding prescription drug use. She quotes her own uncited sources that say 12% of AA's would be against psychiatric medication and would 'order' their sponsees not to use it. This is another example of her lies and misinformation.

Since when do AA sponsors order anyone to do anything ?

And what is the source of this information.....something she read (or imagined she read?)

The official AA position is clear. Sponsors are not doctors. Medication should be taken as prescribed. It is also obvious that older members inherit the responsibility to pass this on. Including correcting other members when necessary.

Claire's example assumes a sponsor has direct control over a person. In her case a person with 7 years sobriety. In 7 years a person should already understand the limits of sponsorship and AA. That story is sad, but it seems to be involving multiple cases of mental illness interacting to create a tragedy. This is exactly what a well run group is designed to avoid. This tragedy is avoided more often than not in AA at large.

Midtown is an anomaly. Quitting AA because of midtown is like quitting going in the ocean because you saw Jaws.

I don't know much about the Pacific group. I know the anti-AA's like to pick at it. Maybe with some reason. I just figure people in California need to belong to one cult or another, so it's only natural they would make one out of an AA group. As the hippies die off that might settle down.

[David O]

Tony,

I want to limit my response to you statements visa viz those made by Claire. My goal is not to debate the merits of AA, but, more so to examine your statements and thereby to level the playing field.

Her current lies have to do with AA's stance on prescription medication. In reading through Claire’s recent posts I found no such claim; however, what I did find were anecdotal statements that members of AA were told by their sponsors to stop taking psychotropic medication.

She claims that she has 'witnessed' 'several' people 'ordered' to stop taking medications. Tony, it would seem that in order to empirically disprove this claim she has made, you would need to have been present in these discussions. You would have had to have been a “material witness,” which it appears you are not.

She also claims that it is normal to be advised not to take pain medication under 'any circumstances' in AA. Once again, if she has heard suggestions by sponsors or has spoken with sponsees who have informed her repeatedly that they were instructed not to take medications (even if MD prescribed), then her evidence is based on what she has been a witness to. If her experience is different than yours, this does not invalidate it or yours—these are two separate AA experiences, neither of which cancels out the merits of the other.

Both of these claims go against AA's official literature and my own personal experience in AA meetings. I have heard (3rd party) of people being told to stop taking medication, but only in the context of passing the AA message of 'sponsors are not doctors' on. I have never, in over 12 years, heard a person relate first hand that they were advised to stop taking medication. Nowhere in her writings does she make a claim that “official AA literature” prescribes AA members to stop taking medications. Secondly, your AA experience, while opposite to hers, and based on what has been written here by both of you, does not invalidate hers: conversely, hers does not invalidate yours. These are two diametrically opposed experiences, neither nullifies the other.

I assume that it has happened and will happen again. People often give each other bad advice. But to claim it is a working part of the AA philosopy is wrong. In reading her posts, she makes no claim that this is AA’s philosophy (as an organization), she does clearly state that she has been witness to AA members being instructed about their medications: there is no claim that this is official AA belief, as you suggest.

When I asked her to give the names and State(s) of the groups where this advice was being given, she stopped talking. As usual. I’m wondering if the reason she stopped talking was b/c she may have arrived at this conclusion that an honest and credible debate can only occur if the debate centers on two things: 1) that there is no name-calling and insulting language (delusional, manipulative, angry, etc.); and, 2) if those engaged in the debate stuck to the facts at hand (i.e., to what was actually stated and meant as opposed to conjecture). I’ve not asked Claire if this why she stepped off, but these would be the reasons I don’t get deeply involved in the merits of AA/12 step debate. I’ve made statements and even written a lengthy monologue on AA/12 step, but for the most part, try to stay out of the daily discussion for the 2 reasons above and because I’m not convinced that the unsolvable debate is helpful, healing or useful at this time.

I think a far more fruitful discussion would be one in which there was a comparative analysis made between AA/12 step programs, Rational Recovery, SMART Recovery, and the other available programs for those who are alcohol dependent. Such a discussion would require that folks study and be able to discuss the merits and weaknesses of each program—this would be more helpful, in my mind, than what I’ve seen here today. Of course, I’m aware that such a discussion will likely not occur for obvious reasons.

Claire may not be a liar, she may be delusional. It's hard to say. But her information is toxic. It doesn't help AA correct it's own problems or a problem drinker get better. Referring to other members as delusional (or other terms you’ve used) does not allow for an honest exchange of ideas… in fact, I would suggest that it further clouds the real issues and lowers the quality of the debate to off-color argumentation. I strongly encourage you to stick to the facts or the merits of the discussion and avoid insulting other members.

Regarding the “toxic” nature of her comments, are her comments toxic b/c she speaks to a different “truth” than yours, or b/c you disagree, or simply b/c they cause undue harm to others on the forum?

Actually, my thinking is that the very fundamental premise of this entire thread is toxic in nature, from its' very title to the first post with the statement, "bring it on" to JR's wise comment of not feeding in to the nature of the thread all the way to where it stands now. I think administrators and moderators are very reluctant to lock threads b/c people should be able to speak their mind; however, if the conversation continues to be divisive, then the decision has to be made despite Allan's clear warning to "play nice".

David

Edited November 5, 2009 by David O

[Nightwatch]

I think folks are missing something important here. This particular thread really has nothing to do with debating the merits of AA; it was clearly intended to provoke a particular reaction. Since that reaction hasn't been forthcoming, personal insults are being utilized. I'm not hurt. I'm simply not willing to participate in this.

Claire

[Tony J]

The flame was directed at me, not Claire.

To follow your logic you'll have to concern yourself with why Claire hasn't expressed any regret towards me. In fact she blamed me for the post, heeping insult upon injury. Yet she plays the victim so well, she has the moderators threatening to shut down the thread.

Do you guys actually work with people for a living ? Just asking.

I wouldn't prefer Claire drunk in a ditch to myself sober. I'd prefer myself sober to her in any state she happened to find herself in.

Also, my mother had a daughter but it wasn't me. Do you have any idea what I'm talking about ?

To ToniJ, Claire, and everyone,

Toni, what concerns me is that you state that you did were not responsible for the flaming but, regardless, seem to think it was deserved and nowhere, have you expressed any regret for Claire possibly feeling hurt.

All of you, play nice!!!

Allan

[David O]

I think we need some breathing room at this point. The thread is now locked and I'll leave it to an administrator or moderator to unlock it if they believe it can be salvaged and or is constructive for the forum. This is no longer a "debate" but has become more personalized than is warranted or necessary.

Tony, I'll be direct, you need to show fellow members more respect by avoiding insults, name calling, diagnosing of others or personalizing issues so that the forum becomes unsafe for members to post. This issue has surfaced before and the request is not unreasonable.

David