|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > February 2006 > Why are AA's unable to admit to the truth?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Why are AA's unable to admit to the truth?
|
|
|
| Why are AA's unable to admit to the Truth that alcoholism is not a
disease?
| |
| Mark Warner 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| tedw wrote:
> Why are AA's unable to admit to the Truth that alcoholism is not a
> disease?
This lame, broken-record shtick of yours is getting really old, tedw.
How 'bout a Fornicating With Sheep thread?
--
Mark Warner
SimplyMEPIS 3.3.1-1
lose .inhibitions when replying
| |
|
| I dunno. Why are trolls unable to stop trolling?
Not all AA's are so unable. One of AA's founders, Bill Wilson, said:
We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
speaking, it is not a
disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease.
Instead there are many
separate heart ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like
that with
alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical
profession by
pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we always called it
an illness, or a
malady -- a far safer term for us to use.
This is why the basic text of AA's "Big Book" did not include the word
"disease". I don't see why it should be a big deal, one way or
another. AA does not offer a medical treatment. AA members do not
need to defend the disease concept, which is what their Traditions call
an "outside issue".
Your question shows that you believe that there is such a thing as
"alcoholism", so how does its categorization as a disease, or not,
matter to the individual who is suffering from alcoholism? How do you
categorize alcoholism? As a psychological disorder? A behavior
problem? Sin?
John
| |
| Grace 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| Mark Warner wrote:
> tedw wrote:
>
>
>
> This lame, broken-record shtick of yours is getting really old, tedw.
>
> How 'bout a Fornicating With Sheep thread?
>
How 'bout that NA beer?
| |
| Robert McGregor 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
|
"John" <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139546981.677851.7610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This is why the basic text of AA's "Big Book" did not include the
> word
> "disease". I don't see why it should be a big deal, one way or
> another.
Jeez, now you've given Ted an easy win!
Why not actually read that "basic text" thoroughly first, before
claiming to know the "why's" of what's in it?
When you've read the sacrosanct 164 pages, by reading the story,
"Alcoholic Anonymous Number Three" you might even start to learn
something.
Bob
| |
|
| Robert McGregor wrote:
> Jeez, now you've given Ted an easy win!
So what if he wins? I did not know that there was a war. In that
case, I surrender like an AA should! I do not dispute his statement
that "alcoholism is not a disease".
But I am disputing his claim that "AA's are unable to admit" it. Since
Bill Wilson was able to admit it, that proves his claim wrong.
> Why not actually read that "basic text" thoroughly first, before
> claiming to know the "why's" of what's in it?
I have read it. Given the choice between your word and that of the
primary author of the "Big Book", I will believe Bill.
> When you've read the sacrosanct 164 pages, by reading the story,
> "Alcoholic Anonymous Number Three" you might even start to learn
> something.
What I said is still true, that the word "disease" is not used in the
basic text (i.e. the first 164) for the reason the book's primary
author stated. I never claimed that the word is not used in the
stories, or other AA literature. Of course it is. AA members did use
the word "disease" in private, but were aware that this might not be
technically accurate, so avoided its use writing collectively.
Instead, they called it an "illness" or "malady". In later literature
they did not bother being as circumspect, since by then the disease
concept of alcoholism was more popularly accepted.
BTW, Bill Dotson's story was not even included in the first edition,
but was added in the second. There were stories in the first which did
use the word (which is why I specifically referred only to the basic
text) but these are individual accounts, not the collective word of AA.
Note also that I did not deny that AA, as a whole, does currently state
that alcoholism is a disease. But AA's members are a diverse bunch,
and there are some who do not agree that alcoholism is technically a
disease, although perhaps only a small number. But whether it is a
single disease entity, a collection of different conditions (as Bill
implied) or a disease only in a metaphorical sense, or according to a
specific defintion of the word, I hardly see how the semantic
distinction matters to the individual AA member's recovery, or why AA
members should defend the idea.
If AA members simply say, "you win, alcoholism may not be a disease in
the precise sense that you mean," then they can avoid outside
controversy. Remember, you have to surrender to win!
John
| |
| Sharx35 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
|
"Grace" <gracehXXX@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:dsh61l01985@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Mark Warner wrote:
>
> How 'bout that NA beer?
How about it? I have to wonder why SOME people here INSIST on using it?
Their defensiveness indicates to me that they really KNOW that it is wrong
to drink it.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| Reply-To: no@dot.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-883.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Thoth/1.7.2 (Carbon/OS X)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.recovery.aa:549457
In article <1139555402.298069.182190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
John <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> So what if he wins? I did not know that there was a war. In that
> case, I surrender like an AA should! I do not dispute his statement
> that "alcoholism is not a disease".
>
> But I am disputing his claim that "AA's are unable to admit" it. Since
> Bill Wilson was able to admit it, that proves his claim wrong.
Oh, ted's in a war, alright. A war with Satan, for your soul.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| In article <1139545387.309522.240170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tedw <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Why are AA's unable to admit to the Truth that alcoholism is not a
> disease?
Why do self-proclaimed Special Christians troll like this unable to
admit that it's not a successful way to lure people to their website in
the hopes of converting them?
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| In article <1139546981.677851.7610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, John
<johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dunno. Why are trolls unable to stop trolling?
>
> Not all AA's are so unable. One of AA's founders, Bill Wilson, said:
> We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically
> speaking, it is not a
> disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease.
> Instead there are many
> separate heart ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like
> that with
> alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical
> profession by
> pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we always called it
> an illness, or a
> malady -- a far safer term for us to use.
>
> This is why the basic text of AA's "Big Book" did not include the word
> "disease". I don't see why it should be a big deal, one way or
> another. AA does not offer a medical treatment. AA members do not
> need to defend the disease concept, which is what their Traditions call
> an "outside issue".
>
> Your question shows that you believe that there is such a thing as
> "alcoholism", so how does its categorization as a disease, or not,
> matter to the individual who is suffering from alcoholism? How do you
> categorize alcoholism? As a psychological disorder? A behavior
> problem? Sin?
Oh Gawd... don't get him started. Again.
| |
| Robert McGregor 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| "John" <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139555402.298069.182190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
>
> What I said is still true, that the word "disease" is not used in
> the
> basic text (i.e. the first 164) for the reason the book's primary
> author stated.
http://tinyurl.com/clbay
| |
|
|
Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <1139545387.309522.240170@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> tedw <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Why do self-proclaimed Special Christians troll like this unable to
> admit that it's not a successful way to lure people to their website in
> the hopes of converting them?
| |
|
| The quote you link to says, "From [resentment] stem all forms of
spiritual disease..." It does not say that alcoholism is a disease.
OK, maybe I could have said, "the word 'disease' is not used to
describe alcoholism in the basic text..." Either way, it doesn't
change what Bill Wilson said.
John
| |
| Joe Jared 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.49.124.165
X-Trace: 1139581732 reader1.on.meganewsservers.com 1286 69.49.124.165:33643
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.recovery.aa:549468
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:10:02 -0800, John wrote:
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> So what if he wins? I did not know that there was a war. In that
Assuming Ted hangs out with the ir^wrational recovery crowd, his side sees
it as a war. The entire RR group appears to think that they can get more
customers by bashing AA. That is a win-lose philosophy at best, and yet
another cult at worse.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
| |
|
| Joe Jared wrote:
> Assuming Ted hangs out with the ir^wrational recovery crowd, his side sees
> it as a war. The entire RR group appears to think that they can get more
> customers by bashing AA. That is a win-lose philosophy at best, and yet
> another cult at worse.
Ted doesn't sound like RR to me. He doesn't think AA is religious
enough. Most RRs I've met think it's too religious.
John
| |
| Craig S. 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| "Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0PYGf.405$bd4.141@edtnps84...
>
> "Grace" <gracehXXX@spiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:dsh61l01985@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
> How about it? I have to wonder why SOME people here INSIST on using it?
> Their defensiveness indicates to me that they really KNOW that it is wrong
> to drink it.
"Using" it? Sometimes it's may be defensiveness, but generally it just
seems to be ridiculing a one-size-fits-all viewpoint like you've displayed
here.
| |
| Craig S. 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| "John" <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139577983.707824.161070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The quote you link to says, "From [resentment] stem all forms of
> spiritual disease..." It does not say that alcoholism is a disease.
> OK, maybe I could have said, "the word 'disease' is not used to
> describe alcoholism in the basic text..." Either way, it doesn't
> change what Bill Wilson said.
Instructions:
1. Find nit.
2. Pick it.
3. Repeat.
| |
| Robert McGregor 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
|
"John" <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139577983.707824.161070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The quote you link to says, "From [resentment] stem all forms of
> spiritual disease..." It does not say that alcoholism is a
> disease.
> OK, maybe I could have said, "the word 'disease' is not used to
> describe alcoholism in the basic text..." Either way, it doesn't
> change what Bill Wilson said.
>
Yeah, that AA number three story, "no, you have a disease ..." is
just another example ole "Stockbroker" Bill was a *real* bullshitter,
isn't it.
Bob
| |
| David M 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| Virtualoso wrote:
> Oh, ted's in a war, alright. A war with Satan, for your soul.
With which one would you want to spend eternity?
| |
|
| Actually I dont believe such a thing as Alcoholism exists. "Alcoholics"
are just heavy drinkers. They are not bodily different than anybody
else.
Heavy drinking is merely a means of escaping from the pain of their
own conscience. Alcohol makes you feel good when you are not good. I
wouldnt characterize it other than that. It is definetly a spirtual
problem not psychological or behavioral . It effects behavior of course
but there is a spirtual element since men/women should be more than
just dogs.
However, there are some very serious spiritual consequences result from
heavy drinking.
You can read about them on my website:
Http://Christianrecovery.blogspot.com
| |
| Pepperoni 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
|
>
> Ted doesn't sound like RR to me. He doesn't think AA is religious
> enough. Most RRs I've met think it's too religious.
>
If it were any more religious, we'd have too serve wine. The trustees won't
"go for it".
| |
|
| Robert McGregor wrote:
> Yeah, that AA number three story, "no, you have a disease ..." is
> just another example ole "Stockbroker" Bill was a *real* bullshitter,
> isn't it.
Well, you could certainly look at it that way. But that occurred in
1935, and he wrote the book in 1938, it may just be that his knowledge
of alcoholism developed in between. Certainly they had been informally
calling it a disease in private, just like I said earlier. In fact,
while writing the book, his partner, Dr. Bob Smith, wanted to call it a
disease to get across "hopelessness", but Wilson was worried about
accuracy in print. That he may not have been so concerned about
terminology in private maybe makes him a "bullshitter".
John
| |
|
| David M wrote:
> Virtualoso wrote:
>
>
>
>
> With which one would you want to spend eternity?
Between ted and Satan? Satan, hands down. I least I wouldn't be bored.
| |
|
| John wrote:
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, you could certainly look at it that way. But that occurred in
> 1935, and he wrote the book in 1938, it may just be that his knowledge
> of alcoholism developed in between.
Knowledge here on araa tends to be static. ;)
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| In article <pan.2006.02.10.14.28.52.457567@osirusoft.com>, Joe Jared
<joejared@osirusoft.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:10:02 -0800, John wrote:
>
>
> Assuming Ted hangs out with the ir^wrational recovery crowd, his side sees
> it as a war. The entire RR group appears to think that they can get more
> customers by bashing AA. That is a win-lose philosophy at best, and yet
> another cult at worse.
Oh, no... ted ain't an RRer at all. He's in the Roy Masters Hypnoxian
Cult.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-02-13, 10:59 am |
| In article <1139589131.078014.320540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
tedw <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Actually I dont believe such a thing as Alcoholism exists. "Alcoholics"
> are just heavy drinkers. They are not bodily different than anybody
> else.
>
> Heavy drinking is merely a means of escaping from the pain of their
> own conscience. Alcohol makes you feel good when you are not good. I
> wouldnt characterize it other than that. It is definetly a spirtual
> problem not psychological or behavioral . It effects behavior of course
> but there is a spirtual element since men/women should be more than
> just dogs.
>
>
> However, there are some very serious spiritual consequences result from
> heavy drinking.
> You can read about them on my website ....
Still hoping to drum up some readership there, eh? Hey, has anyone done
so yet?
| |
|
| tedw wrote:
> Actually I dont believe such a thing as Alcoholism exists. "Alcoholics"
> are just heavy drinkers. They are not bodily different than anybody
> else.
Aside from all the tissue damage and chemical imbalances caused by
chronic heavy drinking, delirium tremens, wet brain...
> Heavy drinking is merely a means of escaping from the pain of their
> own conscience. Alcohol makes you feel good when you are not good. I
> wouldnt characterize it other than that. It is definetly a spirtual
> problem not psychological or behavioral . It effects behavior of course
> but there is a spirtual element since men/women should be more than
> just dogs.
>
> However, there are some very serious spiritual consequences result from
> heavy drinking.
Doesn't sound that much different from the "Big Book". 'Cept for the
spelling...
John
| |
| Robert McGregor 2006-02-13, 11:00 am |
|
"John" <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139590373.296959.146200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> Well, you could certainly look at it that way. But that occurred
> in
> 1935, and he wrote the book in 1938, it may just be that his
> knowledge
> of alcoholism developed in between. Certainly they had been
> informally
> calling it a disease in private, just like I said earlier. In
> fact,
> while writing the book, his partner, Dr. Bob Smith, wanted to call
> it a
> disease to get across "hopelessness", but Wilson was worried about
> accuracy in print. That he may not have been so concerned about
> terminology in private maybe makes him a "bullshitter".
>
John, the only evidence I recall finding is that apart from
publishing as quickly as possible to resolve cash problems,
Bill was concerned about style over accuracy.
Could you please document the pertinent discussion/s between Smith
and Wilson.
Tyia
Bob
| |
| Tommy 2006-02-13, 11:00 am |
|
"Robert McGregor" >
> "John" <johndhynes@gmail.com>
>
> Jeez, now you've given Ted an easy win!
>
> Why not actually read that "basic text" thoroughly first, before claiming
> to know the "why's" of
Basic Text schmasic test, where are you all coming up with these texts???
Strikes me that this is a term that Drug addicts use.
Basic text - clean - dry
Cheers
Tommy
| |
|
| Well, I don't recall exactly which book I read it in, but it may have
been Not God by Ernest Kurtz. I seem to recall that he was worried
about possible criticism, both from medicine and religion. I Googled
around and found an article by him titled Alcoholics Anonymous and the
Disease Concept of Alcoholism at
http://www.bhrm.org/papers/AAand%20DiseaseConcept.pdf which on page 7
says:
In 1938, while preparing the manuscript of the A.A. Big Book, Bill
Wilson asked Dr. Bob Smith (a proctologist) about the accuracy of
referring to alcoholism as disease or one of its synonyms. Bob's
reply, scribbled in a large hand on a small sheet of his letterhead,
read: "Have to use disease -- sick -- only way to get across
hopelessness," the final word doubly underlined and written in even
larger letters (Smith [Akron] to Wilson, 15 June 1938).
John
| |
|
| The "basic text" of Alcoholics Anonymous is the term used to
distinguish the first 164 pages of the "Big Book" from the case studies
which follow. Many would also include the material before page 1. It
is the first part of the book which contains the original instructions
for following the AA program, which are supposed to represent the
collective wisdom of its early members.
By "Drug addicts", I presume you are referring to members of Narcotics
Anonymous, who call their basic text "the Basic Text". However, like
most things in NA, they got the term from AA.
John
| |
| Robert McGregor 2006-02-13, 11:00 am |
|
"John" <johndhynes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139628033.261350.319500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I don't recall exactly which book I read it in, but it may
> have
> been Not God by Ernest Kurtz. I seem to recall that he was worried
> about possible criticism, both from medicine and religion. I
> Googled
> around and found an article by him titled Alcoholics Anonymous and
> the
> Disease Concept of Alcoholism at
> http://www.bhrm.org/papers/AAand%20DiseaseConcept.pdf which on page
> 7
> says:
>
> In 1938, while preparing the manuscript of the A.A. Big Book, Bill
> Wilson asked Dr. Bob Smith (a proctologist) about the accuracy of
> referring to alcoholism as disease or one of its synonyms. Bob's
> reply, scribbled in a large hand on a small sheet of his
> letterhead,
> read: "Have to use disease -- sick -- only way to get across
> hopelessness," the final word doubly underlined and written in even
> larger letters (Smith [Akron] to Wilson, 15 June 1938).
>
> John
John, that's appreciated.
Thank you.
Bob
| |
| matilda@dont-ask-dont-tell.com 2006-02-13, 11:00 am |
| On 9 Feb 2006 20:23:07 -0800, "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Why are AA's unable to admit to the Truth that alcoholism is not a
>disease?
Why is tedw2@earthlink.net always trying to start trouble on this
newsgroup? Guess it's time to use the killfile....
| |
|
|
"tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1139589131.078014.320540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Actually I dont believe such a thing as Alcoholism exists. "Alcoholics"
> are just heavy drinkers. They are not bodily different than anybody
> else.
>
> Heavy drinking is merely a means of escaping from the pain of their
> own conscience. Alcohol makes you feel good when you are not good. I
> wouldnt characterize it other than that. It is definetly a spirtual
> problem not psychological or behavioral . It effects behavior of course
> but there is a spirtual element since men/women should be more than
> just dogs.
>
>
> However, there are some very serious spiritual consequences result from
> heavy drinking.
> You can read about them on my website:
> Http://Christianrecovery.blogspot.com
>
Ted, this may have been your experience... just a heavy drinker, used
alcohol to escape the pain of your conscience, should be more than just a
dog. Have you seen a dog smile with his head out the window zooming down the
hiway? Spiritual to me. What about Lassie risking her butt for Timmy?
Altruism, highly spiritual. Personally I don't suppose i was any different
from a dog when I was in the grips of my addiction, possibly less. At least
a dog knows enough to put food, shelter, water, etc. in front of licking his
balls to make himelf feel good.
| |
|
| BP wrote:
> Personally I don't suppose i was any different from a dog when I was in the
> grips of my addiction, possibly less. At least a dog knows enough to put
> food, shelter, water, etc. in front of licking his balls to make himelf feel
> good.
This is the kind of sharing ESH I *really* find courageous. I know its
confidential but I can't help wondering what your sponsor had to say
about *this*?
| |
| angryblaqueman2@yahoo.com 2006-02-17, 5:57 pm |
| "John, the only evidence I recall finding is that apart from
publishing as quickly as possible to resolve cash problems,
Bill was concerned about style over accuracy."
You would think that if the dread disease was condeming Alcoholics to
death you would focus on accuracy, but i guess if it was all about cash
flow, you would want a good read, hell.. why wait a while longer and
loose out on a few bucks?
| |
|
| angryblaqueman2@yahoo.com wrote:
> "John, the only evidence I recall finding is that apart from
> publishing as quickly as possible to resolve cash problems,
> Bill was concerned about style over accuracy."
>
> You would think that if the dread disease was condeming Alcoholics to
> death you would focus on accuracy, but i guess if it was all about cash
> flow, you would want a good read, hell.. why wait a while longer and
> loose out on a few bucks?
He was merely ahead of his time.
| |
| CHANGEISGOOD 2006-02-17, 5:57 pm |
|
Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <1139589131.078014.320540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> tedw <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Still hoping to drum up some readership there, eh? Hey, has anyone done
> so yet?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
| |
| Virtualoso 2006-02-17, 5:57 pm |
| In article <1140151172.235595.76970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
CHANGEISGOOD <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Virtualoso wrote:
>
> Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
Ye pray amiss.
| |
| Jerome 2006-02-23, 11:09 am |
| "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
[vbcol=seagreen]
Brilliant, once again I think you nailed it Ted.
Although I cringe at your explaination of the
solution ( as read from previous posts of yours ),
I applaud your description and understanding of the
malady.
I'll follow the link you left just to brush up....
and maybe the ceiling will open and the almighty
will appear. He'll bestow grace upon this self-indulgent
sufferer of self-imposed misery while milliions of
people world-wide suffer incomprehensible, undeserving
tragedy without so much as a hint of reprieve or rational
explaination.
Thanks,
Jerome
| |
| CHANGEISGOOD 2006-02-23, 11:10 am |
|
Jerome wrote:
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
> Brilliant, once again I think you nailed it Ted.
> Although I cringe at your explaination of the
> solution ( as read from previous posts of yours ),
> I applaud your description and understanding of the
> malady.
>
> I'll follow the link you left just to brush up....
> and maybe the ceiling will open and the almighty
> will appear. He'll bestow grace upon this self-indulgent
> sufferer of self-imposed misery while milliions of
> people world-wide suffer incomprehensible, undeserving
> tragedy without so much as a hint of reprieve or rational
> explaination.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerome
Be still and know
| |
|
| I'm not really here.
But check out the headers on this thing. (file~properties, however) On my
reader it sez my message (smiling dog, licking balls, etc.) was posted by
shaun ArE or sumsuch. My reader messed up or are the electrons scrambled?
Gone again
BP
"BP" <efU@efme.net> wrote in message news:UV3Jf.316$kg.33@news02.roc.ny...
>
> "tedw" <tedw2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1139589131.078014.320540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ted, this may have been your experience... just a heavy drinker, used
> alcohol to escape the pain of your conscience, should be more than just a
> dog. Have you seen a dog smile with his head out the window zooming down
the
> hiway? Spiritual to me. What about Lassie risking her butt for Timmy?
> Altruism, highly spiritual. Personally I don't suppose i was any different
> from a dog when I was in the grips of my addiction, possibly less. At
least
> a dog knows enough to put food, shelter, water, etc. in front of licking
his
> balls to make himelf feel good.
>
>
| |
| David M 2006-02-25, 4:25 pm |
| BP wrote:
> I'm not really here.
>
> But check out the headers on this thing. (file~properties,
> however) On my reader it sez my message (smiling dog, licking
> balls, etc.) was posted by shaun ArE or sumsuch. My reader
> messed up or are the electrons scrambled? Gone again
Run out of fairy dust?
| |
|
|
"David M" <dhmce@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4695ccFa40uaU1@individual.net...
> BP wrote:
>
>
> Run out of fairy dust?
>
>
I'd love to reply, David but I'm simply not here, not even lurking as far as
I know. And my self imposed exile begins again.... now
| |
| David M 2006-02-25, 4:25 pm |
| BP wrote:
> I'd love to reply, David but I'm simply not here, not even
> lurking as far as I know. And my self imposed exile begins
> again.... now
I still seeeee you. . . .
|
| |
|
|