Let me try again:
Excellent post, McGow. I wish you well with your new direction.
Joe, I wanted to address your comment about our unwillingness to dialog or find common ground with you all. Since you don't read ST, I'm sure you haven't seen the instances when we've said that we have some common ground with you Big Book guys.
I'm not sure if I can leave a link, but I wanted to direct you to a comment I wrote last year. At the end of the comment, I detail all the points I think we have in common. (You'll see that didn't go over very well.) I hope you have a look at it though, because I think the comment might be a good kick off to a real dialog.
You can find it on this thread: www.stinkin-thinkin.com/2010/03/04/denial/#comment-3957
(I added a space in the url, after "thinkin" in case it was the link that kept my comment from posting earlier.)
If that doesn't lead you to the comment, the time stamp on the comment is March 5 2010 11:10
Ok Friend, I tracked down your comment from March 5, 2010 regarding Court ordered attendance at AA meetings. I didn't find a detailed list of common points, though. But that may be my fault.
Here are things we agree on, at least things I thought we agreed on:
AA shouldn’t be the addictions treatment institution that it is, especially when the “inmates are running the asylum.”
In its present incarnation, as the cultic cesspool of Big Fish, who have no qualification to be sponsoring anyone, it does more harm than good.
People shouldn’t be sentenced to attend AA meetings.
There should be more medically sound and responsible addictions treatment available to those for whom BB AA doesn’t work. But the fact that everyone seems to think that AA is the answer tends to put this on the back burner.
Institutions like Hazelden should get the hell out of the way of progress; stop lobbying with the liquor companies; stop using AA as aftercare.
Dipshits like “Dr. Bob and Bill,” et al make a living off promoting the Conventional Wisdom that AA is for everyone.
AA should exist in its more proper niche as a spiritual/religious… whatever, where it can be honest about what it is, and stick to its principles, with some oversight and responsibility.
So, I THINK we agree on these points, but when we give examples (like my numerous “Keep Coming Back” posts, giving examples of people who have been sentenced to AA meetings), yall insist that no one HAS to go.
When we bring up the abysmal success rates, you guys fight about that, as if you believe that Pop AA really works (I mean, no one’s talking about BB AA meetings when they are talking statistics, and you do know that. Considering your own way of doing AA, success rates should be utterly irrelevant to you.)
I mean, you guys say it’s not for everyone, and when we point out the reasons why, you guys flip out.
I really do want to know why you feel that we are more of a danger to your conception of AA than AA itself is? I kinda like having you all around here, but I really think you picked the wrong hill to die on.
I might misremember this, but I asked Danny (real live recovered alcoholic) about this, and I think the bottom line there was that Pop AA is a good place to 12th Step new members for “Real AA.”
While we don’t believe what Danny believes, I still had a respectful dialog/argument with him, when he was around, which I suspect is because he’s confident about his position and we’re confident about ours. Neither has a reason to feel at all threatened by the other. There’s some common ground; there are places we agree to disagree, and there are issues we spar over.
Again, What gives?