HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdh@Veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,alt.support,alt.recovery.sexual-abuse
Subject: Re: Do I snitch?
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:43:22 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <2AD2E383.5BE4@tct.com> lenore@tct.com (Lenore Cook) writes:

>Question - I want to call his boss anonomously and suggest that
>they may want to implement some checks to control their inventory
>better and hopefully catch this guy.  Also I would like to
>suggest that they check with some women who have suddenly quit
>recently and get the reason.i
>
>Concern - I am a co-dependent and am not sure if I'm trying 
>to control the situation 
>
>Should I do what I said above, or butt out?

Well, my guess is that on days in which my concern over recovery
from codependency conflicts with my desire to blow the whistle, I'd
say that personal recovery wins.  I can always snitch on a later day.

I think that if this were me, I'd first say the Serenity prayer, and
then try to sort out what I could do from what I couldn't.  Since in
that situation I'd have no authority over the man in question, I
wouldn't be able discipline him.  Nor could I force his company to do
it.  However, I could notify them of the problem and leave it at that.
Beyond that, it's probably out of my hands anyway.

I like your idea of calling in anonymously, and of asking them to
contact women who'd recently quit.  This would preserve the
confidentiality of your friend, which is of the utmost importance.  It
would be both codependent and abusive to break her confidentiality for
just about any reason.

As long as I wasn't wedded to the outcome if I did notify the company,
I don't think that it would jeopardize my recovery.  However, if I
suspected I'd fret over it every day until I'd heard that they'd done
something, I might conclude that I'd need to learn to let go of the
outcome before it would be healthy for me to do anything more than
just support my friend.

Also, I'd suggest to my friend that she document every inappropriate
thing that man does or tells her, beginning with what just happened.
She might not want to press charges right now, but she may well later.
Remember Anita Hill?

-r
From: aa751@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Fran Rosen)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Nicotine
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:07:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa751@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Fran Rosen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rons@soul.tv.tek.com (Ron Selberg) says:

>It's been awhile since I've posted. 
>Me and God willing, I will celebrate my second year on the 6th ov Nov.
>My addiction was/is alcohol and drugs.
>Now it's time to quit smoking.
>With the help of my doctor and the "patch", today is day one. 
>There is some craving but not at all like going cold turkey. 
>I'm doing it for me.
>And I am going to make it!
>Like the addict I am, I started smoking in the treatment center. Talk about
>switching addictions huh! So at least I have only a couple of years worth of 
>damage to repair.
>So wish me luck!
>Ron
> 
>

How are you doing, Ron?  I went on the patch August 30 and stayed on
it for three weeks, then took it off (I should have waited longer,
though, cause the withdrawal was kind of rough).  I hope you're
hanging in there!

Fran
-- 
        "Reality is always plural and mutable."  R. A. Wilson

Fran Rosen                                            CLINTON/GORE '92
     (aa751@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)|Singles Partyline (go party)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: barbaraj@csc.ti.com (Heart Dancer)
Subject: Re: Insanity Definition and Pres Debate (NON-POLITICAL)
Reply-To: barbaraj@csc.ti.com
Organization: Computer Science Lab, Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:33:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.184101.29400@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen) writes:
>> Does anyone out there remember the source of the quote, "Insanity is
>> doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something
>> different to happen?" (or words to that effect).

The last time I heard it, it was attributed to "either John Bradshaw or 
Earnie Larson.  I don't know who said it first."

BJ
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: fullerto@carp.cis.ohio-state.edu (timothy dwight fullerton)
Subject: Re: ANY A vs. Anything ?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:44:06 GMT

>In article <1110.779.uupcb@factory.com> bruce.baer@factory.com (Bruce Baer) writes:

>>stimulate the brain and promote growth. Arguing with yourself serves no
>>useful purpose. But, on the other hand I see no guidence of any kind
>>here.



	If you look for the guidance, you should find some.

	I, myself, don't post here unless I feel that I have some relevant
experience that was valuable to me, and that I think might be helpful to 
someone else.

		Tim



Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: ebh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Ed Horch)
Subject: Re: How I say the Lord's Prayer
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:14:09 GMT

>Have you tried *making* any suggestions?  Have you tried going to a 
>meeting and calling for a group conscience on whether the prayer
>should be said?

I have, in two different groups, one of which is considered more "ortho-
dox" AA and one which is considered more progressive.  Both ended in the 
same result.  The debates sounded very much like what has been going back 
and forth here in alt.recovery.  In the end, the majority ruled, and the 
Our Father stayed.  It's just too sacred to too many people.

I left the first group because of that, and several of its other right-
wing policies that made it more of a cult than AA in general already is.

I stayed with the second group, but am currently ineligible to lead its
meetings, because it is mandatory that the meeting leader closes with the 
Our Father and I refuse to say it or condone it.  (I get enough else out
of the group that I don't want to leave it over a single issue.)

-Ed
From: weiss@LEOPARD.CS.UIDAHO.EDU (Phil Weiss)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Insanity Definition
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:29:42 GMT
Reply-To: alt-recovery@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (alt.recovery)

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

The following comment is my opinion, and as such, probably doesn't
count for shit.

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

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

>> Does anyone out there remember the source of the quote, "Insanity is
>> doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something
>> different to happen?" (or words to that effect).

> The last time I heard it, it was attributed to "either John Bradshaw or 
> Earnie Larson.  I don't know who said it first."

That would figure.  There are two ideal examples of recovery.

Phil.

--
Philip Weiss    Laboratory for Applied Logic    weiss@leopard.cs.uidaho.edu
(Disclaimer: My views are not their views)      weiss872@snake.cs.uidaho.edu
From: dpaxton@ut-emx.uucp (Debi Paxton)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: RR vs. AA, or RR + AA?
Summary: Phone # for RR Headquarters?
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:45:52 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

I appreciate Richard's posting this information and stimulating
the discussion, whatever his motives.

I have  been passing along some of the information on Rational
Recovery to my SO, who (due to 7+ years in fundamentalist Christian
churches) is having a problem being comfortable with the concept of
g-o-d, particularly in articulating his discomfort in the presence
of so many true believers.  Does anyone know of an 800-number or an
address where we might find out about meetings in Austin, TX?  Also,
any other groups who do not emphasize the higher power = God.  
I myself had the good fortune to initially join a group where there
was very strong spirituality but little mention of God in the 
traditional religious sense.  For a long time I did a lot of mental
translating of the word g-o-d into concepts that fit into my world
view.  Now, I can sometimes even say God without flinching, as a 
sort of short-hand or code for a concept too large for me to define.
However, some people are not comfortable with that approach.  They
feel invalidated by the overwhelming religiosity in some groups,
and other approaches are definitely needed.

Thanks,

Debi

-- 
"Never imitate consciously, but do not worry about being an imitator;
take pains instead to admire what is good."

Debi Paxton                             		dpaxton@emx.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: enigma@netcom.com (Enigma)
Subject: Re: How I say the Lord's Prayer
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:40:42 GMT

In article <98104@bu.edu> ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes) writes:
>The implication being, I suppose, that people who *do* object to the
>prayer are just being kind of bitchy? I don't think that's quite fair.
>Myself, I really tried to roll with it, "take what you want and leave
>the rest" and all that, but I just can't, and I don't think that
>means there's something wrong with me. This argument that the program
>works so just ignore anything you dislike about it strikes me as one
>of the most invidious aspects of the AA mindset. If the program is
>so damned wonderful, why can't AA people be a little more open to
>suggestions on how to improve it, or make it more accessible to
>more people? 


Have you tried *making* any suggestions?  Have you tried going to a 
meeting and calling for a group conscience on whether the prayer
should be said?  Or going to a regional meeting and telling them
how you feel?  AA has no leaders, you know, and the only requirement
for membership is a desire to stop drinking.  Your voice has just
as much right to be heard as anyone's.

Holly


-- 
Holly McGrath   <enigma@netcom.com> 
1803 Mission Street, #339          
Santa Cruz, CA 95060              
(408) 479-4072  (voice mail)
From: nielsen@math.duke.edu (Jeanne Nielsen)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Spirituality
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:21:26 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
Originator: nielsen@cantor.math.duke.edu


     It's repeatedly emphasized to me that the twelve-step programs offer
a spiritual solution, and that this is a completely different thing than
a "religious" solution.  I'm interested to hear from some of the people
on this group who consider themselves atheist or agnostic: what does
spirituality mean to you, and how does it operate in your life?

     For me, I definitely feel that through the program I'm learning more
about my own spirituality and that I'm growing spiritually, and yet I
have a hard time articulating exactly what I mean by that.  I'm just
curious to hear some other people's perspectives.

				-Jeanne


-- 
Jeanne Nielsen  (nielsen@math.duke.edu)

"Sex is the mathematics urge sublimated."
		-M. C. Reed
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: joni@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (joni.dunlap)
Subject: Re: Insanity Definition and Pres Debate (NON-POLITICAL)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:59:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.184101.29400@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen) writes:
>Does anyone out there remember the source of the quote, "Insanity is
>doing the same thing over and over again and expecting something
>different to happen?" (or words to that effect).

I think it is insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting
different results.

This comes from the NA text. I think it is either said in the first or
second step. Sorry don't have my book here.

>
>I was listening to the debate on Sunday with some 12-Steppers and we
>all enjoyed this particular quote.  All of us knew it and suspected it
>to be recovery-oriented, but could not think of the source.  Does
>anyone out there have an idea?  Go ahead, shoot me if it's the Big
>Book ... :-)
>
> 
>*********************************************************************
>the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
>               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: bc@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Spirituality
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:21:47 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <5927@news.duke.edu> nielsen@math.duke.edu (Jeanne Nielsen) writes:
|     It's repeatedly emphasized to me that the twelve-step programs offer
|a spiritual solution, and that this is a completely different thing than
|a "religious" solution.  I'm interested to hear from some of the people
|on this group who consider themselves atheist or agnostic: what does
|spirituality mean to you, and how does it operate in your life?

When I posted my 12 steps, I got two responses from two close friends:

One is an avid stepper, and told me "well, that's fine, but just keep
the REAL steps where you can find them when these ones don't work." I
promised to do that.

The other is "allergic" to religion, and disliked my use of the words
"spiritual growth". (too close for comfort) So we discussed what I
meant by spiritual, and after a while, the friend said, "OH! You mean
EMOTIONAL growth!"

I thought about it for a bit, and realized that that wasn't exactly
it, but it is close enough for starters that a militant atheist might
be able to get past the religious wording and get a glimmer of
understanding.

So, paraphrased, the 12 steps say "We admitted we had a problem, and
discovered that until we "grew up", we would stay powerless to
overcome the problem. The other 10 steps comprise a way to "grow up.""

And to answer the avid steppers, yes, I do realize that this is a
"baby" version that is pretty much devoid of meaning and
effectiveness.

For me, writing stuff like this helps me understand what I'm doing
when I'm working the "real" steps. It also helps my friends understand
what I'm doing without them thinking I've turned into a robot zombie.

bill coderre
one day does it <CLUNK>
easy time <CLICK>
<whrrr>
From: amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: How I say the Lord's Prayer
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 17:25:11 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

On the West Coast, the Serenity Prayer is far more common than the Lord's
Prayer..at least so it seems here in the bay area.  There are options..
we have choices.  

Oh..you never can really win at this it seems.  That is you can't please
all the people all the time.  One person wants to change god to godess
at the start of the serenity pray.  And there are others that refuse to
say the serenity pray because of *.???.   I agree that I need to speak up
and participate in the group conscience.  
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Spirituality
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:46:48 -0600

>     It's repeatedly emphasized to me that the twelve-step programs offer
>a spiritual solution, and that this is a completely different thing than
>a "religious" solution.  I'm interested to hear from some of the people
>on this group who consider themselves atheist or agnostic: what does
>spirituality mean to you, and how does it operate in your life?

I'm an Zen Buddhist (agnostic, sort of) and spirituality is the deepest truth.
Everyone is good at heart -- just look at children. (Young ones, mind you, a 
lot of people are stained early in life.)

Spirituality is the goal of life. It is life.
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: AA Recovery isn't for everyone (Re: How I say the Lord's Prayer)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:18:01 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1992Oct9.174537.24317@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> mbs@odaat.lkg.dec.com.UUCP (Mark Sawyer) writes:
>The notion of what it means to "improve" AA is a subjective one.

My notion is to make it more accessible to people who aren't
Christians. Unless you think non-Christians just don't count
for as much as Christians, then this is hardly "subjective".

>You have your ideas regarding "improvements" but for the many that
>find AA fine the way it is, it is all-together possible that to
>"improve" AA, as you put it, might be to "break" AA.

This is precisely the possibility that I am rejecting, and
for what I believe are good reasons.

>Noone likes change, even when it might mean growth.

First of all, it's not quite fair to attribute this attitude to
everyone, but in any case, it's hardly a healthy one.

>But, given the "life or
>death" nature of this disease, I find it understandable that there
>are major concerns about changing AA to suit individuals that find
>parts of it difficult to accept.

And what about the "life or death" nature of the situations
of these individuals?

>First, I guess I'd like to assert that, first and foremost, AA as I
>know and practice it is a "spiritual" program, not a "religious"
>program.

With all due respect, I think this assertion is simply false.

>Also, without its "spiritual" aspects, there would be very
>little left.

I disagree. What I found valuable what I was looking for help
to stop smoking dope was the sense of support and community,
the awareness that here was a place where I could tell the
truth about the shit I was going through, and that others
would understand and be willing to help. Call this "spiritual",
if you want, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with
any Father Who Art In Heaven.

>The only things clearly defined in AA
>can be found in the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions and the AA Service
>Manual.  Check them out, you won't find any definitions of God or
>mandatory meeting formats or anything else of that nature.
...
>"de-Christianizing AA"???  I guess that presupposes that one
>believes that AA has been "Christianized".  I, however, don't
>subscribe to that theory.
....
>I've given the "Lord's Prayer Thing" some thought lately and I've
>come to the conclusion that in my area, greater Concord, NH), you
>would have about as much chance of holding back the tides as you
>would of removing the Lord's Prayer from meetings around here.  I
>don't know of any meetings in this area that don't say it and I've
>been to meetings in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode
>Island and Connecticut.  That's not to say that there aren't any but
>I've never been to a meeting that didn't end with the Lord's Prayer.

I cannot for the life of me see how you can reconcile this last
statement with the first two.

/Mark
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: How I say the Lord's Prayer
From: emiddlec@mora.gac.edu (Eric Middlecamp)
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:51:43 -0600

>Why push the mountain when you can go around it??
>
>Phillip Millman


	Because it's easier to push the mountain!
From: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com (Maurice E. Suhre)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: Wendy Kaminer's book
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:36:13 GMT
Organization: TRW, INC.

In article <Bvpq0D.9BA@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> escr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (elizabeth) writes:

>Anyway, I found this book to be extremely interesting and very
>insightful.  Her book centers around the idea that as a society we are
>getting caught up in this recovery movement that tells us that we are
>all victims. Kaminer explores how this attitude may be reflected in our
>society, such as the issue of responsibilty etc.  Kaminer went to many
>self help AA type groups and workshops to do research for this book and
>was disturbed by how people would sometimes pay these large sums of
>money to be told what to do and how to feel by people with little or no
>qualifications and would never question what they were being told.

It's time for a little historical perspective here.  Back in the late
60's early 70's the human potential movement was the darling of the
media.  It seemed like there were articles exposing encounter groups
about once a month in the press somewhere.  It's hard to believe it was
that often, but that was a long time ago and my memory may be faulty.

Later, the media turned their attention to the est organization.  There
lots of books and articles.  Almost the same routine, except the names
were changed :-)  The attention faded, even before the "training" was
retired and replaced by the Forum.

Now, it is "in" to be in AA (or some other self-help program).  Movie
stars are going public from time to time.  Betty Ford was a celebrated
recovery case.  And, not unsurprisingly, there are lots of articles and
media attention.  While I haven't read the Kaminer book, I see a pattern
repeating itself.

Regarding the above post, I would like to point out that the people who
"would sometimes pay these large sums" didn't do that at AA, OA, or any
other of the A's.  And, some of us need a little (or a lot) of
instruction.  I know several people who took the est training, and none
of them have regretted the experience.  
-- 
Maurice Suhre
suhre@trwrb.dsd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
From: lisa lynne davidson <lldavids@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: How I say the Lord's Prayer
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:36:15 GMT

I'm not offended but I'm not practicing Christianity, and I look at all
the prayers as ritual and touching and things like that.  Sometimes I
say it w/the others, sometimes I walk out when they start and go talk to
the people who hang out outside hoping the meeting seeps into them there.
I get comments from people, but so what?  Lasts about 2 seconds, and
nobody cares.  I find that I'm intolerant of people "witnessing" about
how Jesus saved their soul, but the problem when I'm pissed is not theirs.
I've been sober and pretty happy for 2 years now w/o having people act the
way I want in meetings, and maybe that's one of the lessons for me.  I
focus on the obnoxious born-agains sometimes, but there are many who
present alternatives and most don't talk about Jesus ast all.  Why would
I reject something because of something I wanted to fight over that really
doesn't have anything to do with the program itself?  I only do that when
I just want to fight.  Hell, I just had a sponsor who said she didn't care
if it was Martians keeping her sober, but SOMETHING was, and if she sees it
as a something and I see it as a process, we're both sober and people see
us both as having something to offer.
From: stellaa@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Stella Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: 8th step
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:54:15 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery
Subject: Re: How I say the Lord's Prayer
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:12:57 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <BvuwGG.A2C@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> lldavids@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lisa lynne davidson) writes:
>Why would
>I reject something because of something I wanted to fight over that really
>doesn't have anything to do with the program itself?  I only do that when
>I just want to fight.

The implication being, I suppose, that people who *do* object to the
prayer are just being kind of bitchy? I don't think that's quite fair.
Myself, I really tried to roll with it, "take what you want and leave
the rest" and all that, but I just can't, and I don't think that
means there's something wrong with me. This argument that the program
works so just ignore anything you dislike about it strikes me as one
of the most invidious aspects of the AA mindset. If the program is
so damned wonderful, why can't AA people be a little more open to
suggestions on how to improve it, or make it more accessible to
more people? It's almost like a kind of superstition, that if you
change a single detail - if you don't wear your "lucky tie" to a
job interview - then everything will fall apart. I'm tired of being
told that *I* and others like me have to do all the accepting of
the religiousness of AA. Why can't the religious AA people do a
little accepting of their own? No-one can stop you from praying
in your heart, if you so choose; why, they, is it necessary to
impose the spoken ritual on so many who find it an impediment?
Does anyone really believe that de-Christianizing AA would
undermine its effectiveness?

/Mark


Xref: sparky alt.recovery:3432 alt.support:1327