Virtual Private Server (VPS) Hosting provided by Central Point Networking cpnllc.com
For some reason, the "Nodelist" and "Recent Callers" features are not working.
| Sysop: | Ray Quinn |
|---|---|
| Location: | Visalia, CA |
| Users: | 50 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 68:19:40 |
| Calls: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,886 |
| Messages: | 148,324 |
Check out the US 99 menu above for links to information about US Highway 99, after which the US 99 BBS is named.
Be sure to click on the Amateur Radio menu item above for packet BBSes, packet software, packet organizations, as well as packet how-to's. Also included is links to local and some not-so-local Amateur Radio Clubs.
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA beer?
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in their
beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic themselves.
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in their
beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated here for
the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the minimum
amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless, irritable,
and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in their
beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated here for
the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the minimum
amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless, irritable,
and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
So then all those folks claiming to be alcoholics, but who drink NA
beer without a problem over a long period of time, are not real
alcoholic?
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:06:50 +1000, Bob<nospam@invalid.net> wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in their
beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated here for
the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the minimum
amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless, irritable,
and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
Then these people better stop eating and drinking juices, etc.
from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alcohol-free-beer.html
Basically, the terms like alcohol free and non alcoholic given to near
beers are wrong since these beers do contain a very small content,
which usually is around 0.5 percent or even lesser, according to the
law in most of the countries. Generally according to the laws in
various countries, the percentage of alcohol in alcohol free beer is
usually less than 0.5 percent or even less û that amount of alcohol is
also found in many processed foods, canned foods and fruit juices.
Read on alcohol content of beer.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:06:50 +1000, Bob<nospam@invalid.net> wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in their
beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated here for
the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the minimum
amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless, irritable,
and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
Then these people better stop eating and drinking juices, etc.
from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alcohol-free-beer.html
Basically, the terms like alcohol free and non alcoholic given to near
beers are wrong since these beers do contain a very small content,
which usually is around 0.5 percent or even lesser, according to the
law in most of the countries. Generally according to the laws in
various countries, the percentage of alcohol in alcohol free beer is
usually less than 0.5 percent or even less û that amount of alcohol is
also found in many processed foods, canned foods and fruit juices.
Read on alcohol content of beer.
On 8/3/2011 7:06 AM, Bob wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in
their beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic
themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated
here for the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the minimum
amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless,
irritable, and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
So then all those folks claiming to be alcoholics, but who drink NA
beer without a problem over a long period of time, are not *real*
alcoholic?
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
So then all those folks claiming to be alcoholics, but who drink NA
beer without a problem over a long period of time, are not real
alcoholic?
By that reasoning tedw's small amount of wine with dinner is no
different than drinking .5% beer, after all it's not affecting either
one of them.
Apparently these people do not have the "phenomenon of craving" that
applies to the description of real alcoholics. However if they
/accidently/ ingested some alcohol by no means of _premeditation_ and
did not relapse into alcoholic drinking then they were most probably
granted a temporary reprieve from their Higher Power.
On 8/3/2011 8:43 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:06:50 +1000, Bob<nospam@invalid.net> wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your NA
beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in their
beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated here for >>> the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the minimum
amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless, irritable,
and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
Then these people better stop eating and drinking juices, etc.
The juice argument falls on deaf ears - if the amount of alcohol in an
NA beer is enough to trigger a relapse, then the few days old orange
juice or apple cider would as well.
from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alcohol-free-beer.html
Basically, the terms like alcohol free and non alcoholic given to near
beers are wrong since these beers do contain a very small content,
which usually is around 0.5 percent or even lesser, according to the
law in most of the countries. Generally according to the laws in
various countries, the percentage of alcohol in alcohol free beer is
usually less than 0.5 percent or even less ΓÇô that amount of alcohol is
also found in many processed foods, canned foods and fruit juices.
Read on alcohol content of beer.
For something to be legally called NA, it must contain LESS then .5% -
one half of one percent.
A regular beer has about 5% alcohol. Let's substitute m&m's for booze.
A pound of plain m&m's is around 500 m&m's. One beer = one pound of m&m's. Pour a pound bag into a bowl - sure is a lot of m&m's...
Now take ONE m&m out of another bag and cut it in half. Put that into
an empty bowl of the same size that you just poured the entire other
bag into. Looks rather alone doesn't it.
That's the difference.
Of course, your piece may even be smaller depending upon the actual
content of your particular NA beer.
We could do it again with peanut m&m's but it takes just over 2 1/2
pounds of peanut m&m's to get 500 so you'll need bigger bowls...
On 8/3/2011 8:43 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:06:50 +1000, Bob<nospam@invalid.net> wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your
NA beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in
their beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic
themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated
here for the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the
minimum amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless,
irritable, and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
Then these people better stop eating and drinking juices, etc.
The juice argument falls on deaf ears - if the amount of alcohol in
an NA beer is enough to trigger a relapse, then the few days old
orange juice or apple cider would as well.
On 04/08/11 00:18, JoeRaisin wrote:
On 8/3/2011 8:43 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:06:50 +1000, Bob<nospam@invalid.net> wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your
NA beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in
their beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic
themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated
here for the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the
minimum amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless,
irritable, and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
Then these people better stop eating and drinking juices, etc.
The juice argument falls on deaf ears - if the amount of alcohol in
an NA beer is enough to trigger a relapse, then the few days old
orange juice or apple cider would as well.
Falls on deaf ears? Your "expertise" is such that you know for sure and certain that an otherwise avoidable relapse has *never* been triggered
by few days old orange juice or apple cider?
Apparently these people do not have the "phenomenon of craving" that
applies to the description of real alcoholics.
On 8/3/2011 9:46 AM, Bob wrote:
On 04/08/11 00:18, JoeRaisin wrote:
On 8/3/2011 8:43 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:06:50 +1000, Bob<nospam@invalid.net> wrote:
On 03/08/11 21:30, mike wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Are you worried about that small amount of alcohol in your
NA beer?
No NA beer drinker is worried about the content of alcohol in
their beer because they are most probably non-alcoholic
themselves.
Particularly ironic the way tedw has been repeatedly denigrated
here for the small amount of alcohol /he/ drinks.
Apparently ARAA's NA defenders don't have a clue as to the
minimum amount of alcohol that can trigger Silkworth's "restless,
irritable, and discontented" syndrome amongst real alcoholics.
Then these people better stop eating and drinking juices, etc.
The juice argument falls on deaf ears - if the amount of alcohol in
an NA beer is enough to trigger a relapse, then the few days old
orange juice or apple cider would as well.
Falls on deaf ears? Your "expertise" is such that you know for sure and
certain that an otherwise avoidable relapse has *never* been triggered
by few days old orange juice or apple cider?
So then you /do/ advocate that alcoholics should not drink fruit juice,
or indulge in chocolate, or any other food containing traces of alcohol?
In article<xn0hhf29v70bty001@reader.albasani.net>,
"mike"<into.action.mike@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently these people do not have the "phenomenon of craving" that
applies to the description of real alcoholics.
Isn't it possible that that phenomenon of craving simply disappears
after time? (unless I suppose one continuously obsesses over it.)
I guess it /is/ possible, Ted. But that question cuts right to the heart
of the argument over whether alcoholism is physical, psychological, or a combination of the two.
The problem alcoholics have is they drink too much alcohol, not too
little, and no self respecting alcoholic would touch near beer.
In article<j1bq84$tjq$1@dont-email.me>,
"Charlie M. 1958"<always@impatient.com> wrote:
I guess it /is/ possible, Ted. But that question cuts right to the heart
of the argument over whether alcoholism is physical, psychological, or a
combination of the two.
Not sure I follow that. But then since I'm not a real alcoholic I
don't remember ever having the "phenomenon of craving." I just wanted
or needed a drink. ("needed a drink" meaning I was in withdrawal and
somehow knew that having a drink would take care of it.)
What I meant was this: Some theories propose that there is a physical difference from birth in the way an alcoholic's brain chemistry reacts
to alcohol. The craving is actually a manifestation of this physical difference. If this is true, it would stand to reason that craving would
not go away.
However, if alcoholism is purely psychological (or spiritual, if you
will), then, as tedw argues, craving would conceivably go away once
one's mental state improved, and one could drink moderately.
Now if you want to argue that an alcoholic should not drink NA beer
because he just /might/ be one of that very small number whose craving
is triggered by the smallest dose of alcohol, okay. But then you'd have
to advocate against all the other activities that have a minuscule
chance of leading to a relapse. Like leaving the house.
what amount of alcohol sets off craving. I'm not sure if anyone has ever done a scientific study of this, but it would be interesting (albeit
cruel) to administer varying amounts of alcohol to a bunch of alcoholics without their knowledge to see what would happen as far as them developing
a desire to drink at some point.
In article<j1bvgt$ga$1@dont-email.me>,
"Charlie M. 1958"<always@impatient.com> wrote:
What I meant was this: Some theories propose that there is a physical
difference from birth in the way an alcoholic's brain chemistry reacts
to alcohol. The craving is actually a manifestation of this physical
difference. If this is true, it would stand to reason that craving would
not go away.
Question is, do you still have feelings of craving even if you haven't
had anything to drink for a long time?
However, if alcoholism is purely psychological (or spiritual, if you
will), then, as tedw argues, craving would conceivably go away once
one's mental state improved, and one could drink moderately.
I have no idea whether I could drink moderately -- but I don't want to
risk finding out I can't.
I'm talking about a feeling that happens when the warm glow of the first drink begins to set in. You just /can't/ stop there and walk away. Even though you can think of a thousand intellectual reasons why you should
*not* have another drink, you *want* it as though your life depends on it.
For something to be legally called NA, it must contain LESS then .5% -
one half of one percent.
A regular beer has about 5% alcohol. Let's substitute m&m's for booze.
A pound of plain m&m's is around 500 m&m's. One beer = one pound of
m&m's. Pour a pound bag into a bowl - sure is a lot of m&m's...
Now take ONE m&m out of another bag and cut it in half. Put that into
an empty bowl of the same size that you just poured the entire other bag >into. Looks rather alone doesn't it.
That's the difference.
Of course, your piece may even be smaller depending upon the actual
content of your particular NA beer.
We could do it again with peanut m&m's but it takes just over 2 1/2
pounds of peanut m&m's to get 500 so you'll need bigger bowls...
In article<xn0hhf29v70bty001@reader.albasani.net>,
"mike"<into.action.mike@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently these people do not have the "phenomenon of craving" that
applies to the description of real alcoholics.
Isn't it possible that that phenomenon of craving simply disappears
after time? (unless I suppose one continuously obsesses over it.)
"doing pushups in the parking lot."
On 8/3/2011 12:24 PM, Ted L. wrote:
Question is, do you still have feelings of craving even if you haven't
had anything to drink for a long time?
No, absolutely not. But I think you misunderstand "craving" in this
context, which is perfectly understandable if you never experienced it.
I'm talking about a feeling that happens when the warm glow of the first drink begins to set in. You just /can't/ stop there and walk away. Even though you can think of a thousand intellectual reasons why you should
*not* have another drink, you *want* it as though your life depends on it.
F.H., 8/3/2011,4:19:46 PM, wrote:
"doing pushups in the parking lot."
That is a stupid expression and I do not agree with it.
One of the things I remember about my pot smoking days was that
continued smoking did not duplicate or improve the high. The difference
was, that with pot, I could see it. I didn't get progressively
stooopider, get all primeval and wind up in places I didn't belong with
my dick out. That made me, with pot, kinda like the guy who could come
home from work and have one martini.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:18:02 -0400, JoeRaisin
<joeraisin2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
For something to be legally called NA, it must contain LESS then
.5% - one half of one percent.
A regular beer has about 5% alcohol. Let's substitute m&m's for
booze.
A pound of plain m&m's is around 500 m&m's. One beer = one
pound of
m&m's. Pour a pound bag into a bowl - sure is a lot of m&m's...
Now take ONE m&m out of another bag and cut it in half. Put
that into an empty bowl of the same size that you just poured
the entire other bag into. Looks rather alone doesn't it.
I'm not very good with math, especially fractions, but if I
figure it right, it would take 50 cans of .01 NA beer (most are
.01) to equal one can of regular beer with 5% alc. [correct me
if this is wrong].
On 8/3/2011 3:36 PM, F.H. wrote:
One of the things I remember about my pot smoking days was that
continued smoking did not duplicate or improve the high. The difference
was, that with pot, I could see it. I didn't get progressively
stooopider, get all primeval and wind up in places I didn't belong with
my dick out. That made me, with pot, kinda like the guy who could come
home from work and have one martini.
I didn't smoke a lot of pot, so I guess I really don't have enough
experience to comment. But I do remember being "uncomfortably" fucked up
a couple of times, much the same as being drunker than I wanted to be.
There wasn't really much difference between the two substances for me.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:08:45 -0500,<Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com> wrote:
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:18:02 -0400, JoeRaisin
<joeraisin2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
For something to be legally called NA, it must contain LESS then
.5% - one half of one percent.
A regular beer has about 5% alcohol. Let's substitute m&m's for
booze.
A pound of plain m&m's is around 500 m&m's. One beer = one
pound of
m&m's. Pour a pound bag into a bowl - sure is a lot of m&m's...
Now take ONE m&m out of another bag and cut it in half. Put
that into an empty bowl of the same size that you just poured
the entire other bag into. Looks rather alone doesn't it.
I'm not very good with math, especially fractions, but if I
figure it right, it would take 50 cans of .01 NA beer (most are
.01) to equal one can of regular beer with 5% alc. [correct me
if this is wrong].
I think both you and Joe are doing the math wrong. 0.5% is one
tenth of 5%, so the correspondence would be 10 NA to 1 regular
beer--maybe a little greater difference, depending on how much
less than 0.5% the NA beer actually is.
So then you /do/ advocate that alcoholics should not drink fruit
juice, or indulge in chocolate, or any other food containing
traces of alcohol?
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:39:25 -0400, Ted H <theo@heise.nu> wrote:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/non-alcoholic-beer-brands.htmlmost NA beers contain 0.1% but O'douls has 0.4%
If my math is right, and from what you said, at 0.1% I have to
multiply what you said by 5, and that would be 50 NA beers to one
regular one. I think thats right. O'douls would be somewhere
around
12 or 13 of them, just a guess without all sorts of math. I'm
not in
the mood for any heavy math today!
If a person /had/ what was primarily an obsession, an escape, an habit
of overindulgence, something more akin to lifestyle, rather than a
chemical sensitivity, then *that* person might very well be better off,
once sober, staying *away* from individuals that constantly harp on a /suspected/ disease "doing pushups in the parking lot."
To me, it just means that I'm never cured... that if I decide to drink again, all the misery is still right there waiting for me. It also means that I don't get to start my drinking all over from the beginning, when there were no real consequences. If I start drinking again, I will
rapidly return to the horrible place I left off.
In article<j1cboa$nn5$1@dont-email.me>,
"Charlie M. 1958"<always@impatient.com> wrote:
To me, it just means that I'm never cured... that if I decide to drink
again, all the misery is still right there waiting for me. It also means
that I don't get to start my drinking all over from the beginning, when
there were no real consequences. If I start drinking again, I will
rapidly return to the horrible place I left off.
I've understood it mean that if/once you start drinking again, you will
be in as bad shape as if you'd been drinking the whole time -- not that
you will just quickly get back to where you were when you stopped, but
that you will be much farther along.
Not sure I believe that, but that's what I understand.
"Charlie M. 1958" <always@impatient.com> wrote in message news:j1bo2s$dji$1@dont-email.me...
So then you /do/ advocate that alcoholics should not drink fruit
juice, or indulge in chocolate, or any other food containing traces of
alcohol?
I have to wonder why some people HAVE to rationalize THEIR use of
so-called NON-alcoholic beer )that really DOES contain alcohol.
For starters: Fruit juice, chocolate, and any other food containing
traces of alcohol DOES NOT LOOK, TASTE, or SMELL like an alcoholic
beverage. NA beer DOES look, taste, and smell like an alcoholic
beverage, I.e. real beer.
Yes, I've heard it explained that way as well. That doesn't make sense
to me for one simple reason: Many of us were at the end of the line
(meaning near-death) when we quit drinking. So if I started again, how
could my drinking possibly be 15 years farther along?
"Charlie M. 1958" <always@impatient.com> wrote in message news:j1bo2s$dji$1@dont-email.me...
So then you /do/ advocate that alcoholics should not drink fruit
juice, or indulge in chocolate, or any other food containing traces of
alcohol?
I have to wonder why some people HAVE to rationalize THEIR use of
so-called NON-alcoholic beer )that really DOES contain alcohol.
For starters: Fruit juice, chocolate, and any other food containing
traces of alcohol DOES NOT LOOK, TASTE, or SMELL like an alcoholic
beverage. NA beer DOES look, taste, and smell like an alcoholic
beverage, I.e. real beer.
<Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com> wrote in message >news:n7hj375k5smg5qk5qeuo4a25nfguvajch5@4ax.com...
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:39:25 -0400, Ted H <theo@heise.nu> wrote:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/non-alcoholic-beer-brands.htmlmost NA beers contain 0.1% but O'douls has 0.4%
If my math is right, and from what you said, at 0.1% I have to
multiply what you said by 5, and that would be 50 NA beers to one
regular one. I think thats right. O'douls would be somewhere
around
12 or 13 of them, just a guess without all sorts of math. I'm
not in
the mood for any heavy math today!
Were you born dense or did you have to learn to be dense? Most NA
beer is JUST under .5 %. REAL beer is FIVE per cent or TEN TIMES NA
beer. In other words, YOU drank the equivalent of just under ONE
bottle of real beer. Time to reset YOUR sobriety date to ZERO.
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:08:45 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com<Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:18:02 -0400, JoeRaisin
<joeraisin2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
For something to be legally called NA, it must contain LESS then
.5% - one half of one percent.
A regular beer has about 5% alcohol. Let's substitute m&m's for
booze.
A pound of plain m&m's is around 500 m&m's. One beer = one
pound of
m&m's. Pour a pound bag into a bowl - sure is a lot of m&m's...
Now take ONE m&m out of another bag and cut it in half. Put
that into an empty bowl of the same size that you just poured
the entire other bag into. Looks rather alone doesn't it.
I'm not very good with math, especially fractions, but if I
figure it right, it would take 50 cans of .01 NA beer (most are
.01) to equal one can of regular beer with 5% alc. [correct me
if this is wrong].
I think both you and Joe are doing the math wrong. 0.5% is one
tenth of 5%, so the correspondence would be 10 NA to 1 regular
beer--maybe a little greater difference, depending on how much
less than 0.5% the NA beer actually is.
On 8/3/2011 4:39 PM, Ted H wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:08:45 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com<Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com> >> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:18:02 -0400, JoeRaisin
<joeraisin2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
For something to be legally called NA, it must contain LESS then
.5% - one half of one percent.
A regular beer has about 5% alcohol. Let's substitute m&m's for
booze.
A pound of plain m&m's is around 500 m&m's. One beer = one
pound of
m&m's. Pour a pound bag into a bowl - sure is a lot of m&m's...
Now take ONE m&m out of another bag and cut it in half. Put
that into an empty bowl of the same size that you just poured
the entire other bag into. Looks rather alone doesn't it.
I'm not very good with math, especially fractions, but if I
figure it right, it would take 50 cans of .01 NA beer (most are
.01) to equal one can of regular beer with 5% alc. [correct me
if this is wrong].
I think both you and Joe are doing the math wrong. 0.5% is one
tenth of 5%, so the correspondence would be 10 NA to 1 regular
beer--maybe a little greater difference, depending on how much
less than 0.5% the NA beer actually is.
I was looking at it as 1/2 of 1/100ths. 5% would be five hundred. A
least in my addled mind.
I was looking at it as 1/2 of 1/100ths. 5% would be five hundred. A
least in my addled mind.
Ah crap - never mind, as soon as I hit send I figured it out.
I did say I had an addled mind...
"Charlie M. 1958" <always@impatient.com> wrote in message >news:j1bo2s$dji$1@dont-email.me...
So then you /do/ advocate that alcoholics should not drink fruit
juice, or indulge in chocolate, or any other food containing
traces of alcohol?
I have to wonder why some people HAVE to rationalize THEIR use of
so-called NON-alcoholic beer )that really DOES contain alcohol.
For starters: Fruit juice, chocolate, and any other food containing
traces of alcohol DOES NOT LOOK, TASTE, or SMELL like an alcoholic
beverage. NA beer DOES look, taste, and smell like an alcoholic
beverage, I.e. real beer.
I was looking at it as 1/2 of 1/100ths. 5% would be five
hundred. A least in my addled mind.
"JoeRaisin" <joeraisin2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:j1coa8$9os$2@dont-email.me...
I was looking at it as 1/2 of 1/100ths. 5% would be five
hundred. A least in my addled mind.
Let's TRY again. MOST NA beer is approximately 0.5% alcohol, I.e.
HALF OF ONE PERCENT. Much regular beer, other than the 3.2 ilk, is approximately FIVE per cent alcohol by volume. FIVE per cent is TEN
TIMES HALF of one percent. In other words, TEN bottles of NA beer
would equal ONE bottle of real beer. IF O'Doul's is 0.4 per cent,
then FIVE divided by 0.4 or 12.5 bottles (12 1/2) of O'Doul's would
equal ONE bottle of REAL beer.
ROOT beer does not TASTE, LOOK, or SMELL like real beer. ORANGE
JUICE does not look, taste, or smell like an alcoholic drink. NA
beer *****does******.
In my 31+ years in the program, I've seen lots of assholes with the
kind of attitudes that include rationalizing the use of NA beer go
BACK OUT, many never to return, many died. I'm NOT claiming that
the NA beer did them in--I will state, though, that the SAME
attitudes that okay the use of NA beer can be found in those who go
back out. Many of them picked and chose what parts of the STEPS
they would do. Often, THEY mocked sponsorship because THEY
instinctively knew, in their little pea brains, how the Steps
should be worked. Well, time after time, they did NOT and
eventually drank again. EACH and EVERY person who had these lousy
attitudes eventually DRANK AGAIN.
Don't think I've EVER seen anyone work so fukin' hard to make
such a flimsy connection between NA beer and certain relapse...
Seems that bereft of a clue as to the minimum amount of alcohol that can >trigger Silkworth's "restless, irritable, and discontented" syndrome
amongst real alcoholics, that wildly extrapolated straw man of yours is >*really* the best you can do!
Where in the BB does it say that AA members must
stop using beer?
"JoeRaisin" <joeraisin2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:j1coa8$9os$2@dont-email.me...
I was looking at it as 1/2 of 1/100ths. 5% would be five hundred. A
least in my addled mind.
Let's TRY again. MOST NA beer is approximately 0.5% alcohol, I.e. HALF
OF ONE PERCENT. Much regular beer, other than the 3.2 ilk, is
approximately FIVE per cent alcohol by volume. FIVE per cent is TEN
TIMES HALF of one percent. In other words, TEN bottles of NA beer would
equal ONE bottle of real beer. IF O'Doul's is 0.4 per cent, then FIVE
divided by 0.4 or 12.5 bottles (12 1/2) of O'Doul's would equal ONE
bottle of REAL beer.
ROOT beer does not TASTE, LOOK, or SMELL like real beer. ORANGE JUICE
does not look, taste, or smell like an alcoholic drink. NA beer *****does******.
In my 31+ years in the program, I've seen lots of assholes with the kind
of attitudes that include rationalizing the use of NA beer go BACK OUT,
many never to return, many died. I'm NOT claiming that the NA beer did
them in--I will state, though, that the SAME attitudes that okay the use
of NA beer can be found in those who go back out. Many of them picked
and chose what parts of the STEPS they would do. Often, THEY mocked sponsorship because THEY instinctively knew, in their little pea brains,
how the Steps should be worked. Well, time after time, they did NOT and eventually drank again. EACH and EVERY person who had these lousy
attitudes eventually DRANK AGAIN.
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Where in the BB does it say that AA members must
stop using beer?
"The only relief we have to suggest is entire abstinence." >http://anonpress.org/bb/docsopin.htm
TIMES HALF of one percent. In other words, TEN bottles of NA beer wouldFirst, "most NA beer" is not .5%, it is LESS. Second, an interesting
equal ONE bottle of real beer. IF O'Doul's is 0.4 per cent, then FIVE
divided by 0.4 or 12.5 bottles (12 1/2) of O'Doul's would equal ONE
bottle of REAL beer.
thing about the NA beer is that I don't drink it much faster than soda
pop. Real beer went down much faster, but even then I never drank ten
or more in one hour.
ROOT beer does not TASTE, LOOK, or SMELL like real beer. ORANGE JUICE
does not look, taste, or smell like an alcoholic drink. NA beer
*****does******.
You forgot about how it FEELS and SOUNDS like an alcoholic drink as
well, but I ask again, so what?
On 8/3/2011 10:27 AM, Ted L. wrote:
In article<xn0hhf29v70bty001@reader.albasani.net>,
"mike"<into.action.mike@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently these people do not have the "phenomenon of craving" that
applies to the description of real alcoholics.
Isn't it possible that that phenomenon of craving simply disappears
after time? (unless I suppose one continuously obsesses over it.)
I guess it /is/ possible, Ted. But that question cuts right to the
heart of the argument over whether alcoholism is physical,
psychological, or a combination of the two.
Now as I understand it, no one really knows what causes alcohlism
(other than alcohol drank in sufficient quanties varying by
individuals). In the 'old days' alcoholism was viewed as a moral
failing, nothing else. Can we rule that out today, even though a good
deal of the BB is devoted to the idea that it is a moral failing?
I personally think it is a genetic brain malfunction (we agree that
the brain is determined by DNA, do we not?) I have a dad who drank
enough to float the Kate Adams from Natchez to New Orleans and I had a >mother who never touched a drop. I think I hit in between, somewhere.
Complicated problems take complicated theories, not simple ones, like
it is something that smells like alcohol, or that has a trace (no
matter how many traces one gets in various places) is the "cause" of
relapse into full blown. People can believe what they want but they
can't prove that. AA, for all its good works, does encompass a bit of >'brain washing', don't think just listen.
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:49:28 -0500, Gary <yexxxx@sbell.net> wrote:
Now as I understand it, no one really knows what causes alcohlism
(other than alcohol drank in sufficient quanties varying by
individuals). In the 'old days' alcoholism was viewed as a moral
failing, nothing else. Can we rule that out today, even though a good
deal of the BB is devoted to the idea that it is a moral failing?
I personally think it is a genetic brain malfunction (we agree that
the brain is determined by DNA, do we not?) I have a dad who drank
enough to float the Kate Adams from Natchez to New Orleans and I had a
mother who never touched a drop. I think I hit in between, somewhere.
Complicated problems take complicated theories, not simple ones, like
it is something that smells like alcohol, or that has a trace (no
matter how many traces one gets in various places) is the "cause" of
relapse into full blown. People can believe what they want but they
can't prove that. AA, for all its good works, does encompass a bit of
'brain washing', don't think just listen.
I dont see it as much a "moral" thing as it is escapeism. People who
dont or cant cope with life, are the ones who need to escape. Thus
they use alcohol or some other drugs. Of course there are other ways
to escape too, but alcohol is easy....
I dont see it as much a "moral" thing as it is escapeism. People who
dont or cant cope with life, are the ones who need to escape. Thus
they use alcohol or some other drugs. Of course there are other ways
to escape too, but alcohol is easy....
I think you are closer to a real cause/effect than anything I've read.
I certainly don't believe that
near beer is a cause effect, because there are more who drink it with
no consquences than do, and the ones who do may have already decided to >ditch the program and just 'warmed up' with near bear and they were
going to drink the 'real stuff' anyway. Near beer is a way to convince >someone who is going to drink real beer that it's OK. Not exactly
sound reasoning but that's why it fits an alcoholic.
Alcohol can be (for those who *need* ot. am escape from reality and
quite effective. If you escape enough, it becomes a habit and if you
think a habit is easy to break. try it sometime. Just habit, not some >mysterious 'craving' (except that it results from the body's objection
to withdrawal discomfort).
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:22:09 -0500, Gary<yexxxx@sbell.net> wrote:
I dont see it as much a "moral" thing as it is escapeism. People
who dont or cant cope with life, are the ones who need to escape.
Thus they use alcohol or some other drugs. Of course there are
other ways to escape too, but alcohol is easy....
I think you are closer to a real cause/effect than anything I've
read. I certainly don't believe that near beer is a cause effect,
because there are more who drink it with no consquences than do,
and the ones who do may have already decided to ditch the program
and just 'warmed up' with near bear and they were going to drink
the 'real stuff' anyway. Near beer is a way to convince someone
who is going to drink real beer that it's OK. Not exactly sound
reasoning but that's why it fits an alcoholic.
Alcohol can be (for those who *need* ot. am escape from reality
and quite effective. If you escape enough, it becomes a habit and
if you think a habit is easy to break. try it sometime. Just
habit, not some mysterious 'craving' (except that it results from
the body's objection to withdrawal discomfort).
Yep, I think that prety much sums up the whole cause of alcoholism
in most if not all people. This is where I see a difference between alcoholism/drug abuse, and smoking. alcoholism and drugs are both
escapes, where smoking is used as a "treat". I know that when I'm
busy and get certain things finished, I feel I deserve a treat.
Thats when I light a smoke. Alcohol and drugs can also be used as a
treat. For example, after a hard week at work, the weekend binge
seems lile a treat. But then the amounts get higher and soon
weekdays become days to drink, and the ESCAPE mechanism becomes
obvious. Eventually the booze is used to permanently escape from the exhausting job, or nagging wife, or whatever else. Alcohol is always
a method to get rid of things in life that are unpleasant. Get drunk
often enough and you will get fired from that job, or that nagging
wife will leave you, etc....
In the end, the addiction takes over, and even with smoking, it's
mostly the addiction that makes it hard to quit.
I have never seen alcoholism as a moral thing. Granted, alcoholics
often do immoral things when they are drunk, but the cause of
alcoholism has never been morals, it's escapeism...... from all the unpleasant aspects of life and in extremes, from life itself.... When
an alcoholic dies from alcoholism, they have indeed succeeded in
escaping from everything that bothered them in life. And when they
are numb from intoxication, they dont much care about death. It's
just part of the process....
On 8/5/2011 11:31 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:22:09 -0500, Gary<yexxxx@sbell.net> wrote:
I dont see it as much a "moral" thing as it is escapeism. People
who dont or cant cope with life, are the ones who need to escape.
Thus they use alcohol or some other drugs. Of course there are
other ways to escape too, but alcohol is easy....
I think you are closer to a real cause/effect than anything I've
read. I certainly don't believe that near beer is a cause effect,
because there are more who drink it with no consquences than do,
and the ones who do may have already decided to ditch the program
and just 'warmed up' with near bear and they were going to drink
the 'real stuff' anyway. Near beer is a way to convince someone
who is going to drink real beer that it's OK. Not exactly sound
reasoning but that's why it fits an alcoholic.
Alcohol can be (for those who *need* ot. am escape from reality
and quite effective. If you escape enough, it becomes a habit and
if you think a habit is easy to break. try it sometime. Just
habit, not some mysterious 'craving' (except that it results from
the body's objection to withdrawal discomfort).
Yep, I think that prety much sums up the whole cause of alcoholism
in most if not all people. This is where I see a difference between
alcoholism/drug abuse, and smoking. alcoholism and drugs are both
escapes, where smoking is used as a "treat". I know that when I'm
busy and get certain things finished, I feel I deserve a treat.
Thats when I light a smoke. Alcohol and drugs can also be used as a
treat. For example, after a hard week at work, the weekend binge
seems lile a treat. But then the amounts get higher and soon
weekdays become days to drink, and the ESCAPE mechanism becomes
obvious. Eventually the booze is used to permanently escape from the
exhausting job, or nagging wife, or whatever else. Alcohol is always
a method to get rid of things in life that are unpleasant. Get drunk
often enough and you will get fired from that job, or that nagging
wife will leave you, etc....
In the end, the addiction takes over, and even with smoking, it's
mostly the addiction that makes it hard to quit.
I have never seen alcoholism as a moral thing. Granted, alcoholics
often do immoral things when they are drunk, but the cause of
alcoholism has never been morals, it's escapeism...... from all the
unpleasant aspects of life and in extremes, from life itself.... When
an alcoholic dies from alcoholism, they have indeed succeeded in
escaping from everything that bothered them in life. And when they
are numb from intoxication, they dont much care about death. It's
just part of the process....
So in other words, escapism or a need, want or tendency, in general, to
avoid reality or life on life's terms beyond a prudent, relaxing, in moderation, pull off the jug, to occasionally kick back and relax for a
brief period, taking into consideration that we as human beings are
naturally inclined to some extent to be a tad hedonistic, and are apt to
turn to things outside out own internal resources that make us feel
better when reality makes us fee bad and prone to spend too much time at
the well glutting on the "Make Me Feel Good" stuff instead of getting
back to the grind, or as said at the conclusion of Voltaire's Candide,
"but let us cultivate our garden."
Are you saying you, I, we, all us ex-drunks were a pristine tableau rasa before taking that first drink and realizing for the most part, "That
made me feel Good! Hot damn! Gimme another one or two or three or more.
Fuck going back to work or cultivating the damn garden. Let them other
dum fuks do it, I go back at quitting time get my share and rewards come harvest time. Them stupid fsckers never gonna realize I been gone no way."
Are you saying that escapism is in no way an ugly step child of or even related to lack or virtue or moral foundation?
Hell, even the Islam have hard time saying Virtues and Vices without mentioning Moral in same sentence.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/felicities/3.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3otejsw
I jest don't git it. ;-)
CC
On 8/5/2011 12:33 PM, Charlie L. wrote:
On 8/5/2011 11:31 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:22:09 -0500, Gary<yexxxx@sbell.net> wrote:
I dont see it as much a "moral" thing as it is escapeism.
People who dont or cant cope with life, are the ones who need
to escape. Thus they use alcohol or some other drugs. Of
course there are other ways to escape too, but alcohol is
easy....
I think you are closer to a real cause/effect than anything
I've read. I certainly don't believe that near beer is a cause
effect, because there are more who drink it with no consquences
than do, and the ones who do may have already decided to ditch
the program and just 'warmed up' with near bear and they were
going to drink the 'real stuff' anyway. Near beer is a way to
convince someone who is going to drink real beer that it's OK.
Not exactly sound reasoning but that's why it fits an
alcoholic.
Alcohol can be (for those who *need* ot. am escape from
reality and quite effective. If you escape enough, it becomes a
habit and if you think a habit is easy to break. try it
sometime. Just habit, not some mysterious 'craving' (except
that it results from the body's objection to withdrawal
discomfort).
Yep, I think that prety much sums up the whole cause of
alcoholism in most if not all people. This is where I see a
difference between alcoholism/drug abuse, and smoking. alcoholism
and drugs are both escapes, where smoking is used as a "treat". I
know that when I'm busy and get certain things finished, I feel I
deserve a treat. Thats when I light a smoke. Alcohol and drugs
can also be used as a treat. For example, after a hard week at
work, the weekend binge seems lile a treat. But then the amounts
get higher and soon weekdays become days to drink, and the ESCAPE
mechanism becomes obvious. Eventually the booze is used to
permanently escape from the exhausting job, or nagging wife, or
whatever else. Alcohol is always a method to get rid of things in
life that are unpleasant. Get drunk often enough and you will get
fired from that job, or that nagging wife will leave you,
etc....
In the end, the addiction takes over, and even with smoking,
it's mostly the addiction that makes it hard to quit.
I have never seen alcoholism as a moral thing. Granted,
alcoholics often do immoral things when they are drunk, but the
cause of alcoholism has never been morals, it's escapeism......
from all the unpleasant aspects of life and in extremes, from
life itself.... When an alcoholic dies from alcoholism, they have
indeed succeeded in escaping from everything that bothered them
in life. And when they are numb from intoxication, they dont much
care about death. It's just part of the process....
So in other words, escapism or a need, want or tendency, in
general, to avoid reality or life on life's terms beyond a prudent,
relaxing, in moderation, pull off the jug, to occasionally kick
back and relax for a brief period, taking into consideration that
we as human beings are naturally inclined to some extent to be a
tad hedonistic, and are apt to turn to things outside out own
internal resources that make us feel better when reality makes us
fee bad and prone to spend too much time at the well glutting on
the "Make Me Feel Good" stuff instead of getting back to the grind,
or as said at the conclusion of Voltaire's Candide, "but let us
cultivate our garden."
Are you saying you, I, we, all us ex-drunks were a pristine tableau
rasa before taking that first drink and realizing for the most
part, "That made me feel Good! Hot damn! Gimme another one or two
or three or more. Fuck going back to work or cultivating the damn
garden. Let them other dum fuks do it, I go back at quitting time
get my share and rewards come harvest time. Them stupid fsckers
never gonna realize I been gone no way."
Are you saying that escapism is in no way an ugly step child of or
even related to lack or virtue or moral foundation?
Hell, even the Islam have hard time saying Virtues and Vices
without mentioning Moral in same sentence.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/felicities/3.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3otejsw
I jest don't git it. ;-)
CC
But the desire to relax and escape every now and then is pretty much
universal. So the real question is why does a certain percentage of
the population take it to the extreme?
Did we practicing alkies just make up the least moral and responsible
segment of society, or was there some additional /physical/ reason
why the escape provided by alcohol and/or other drugs seemed to have
greater power over us?
On 8/5/2011 12:33 PM, Charlie L. wrote:
On 8/5/2011 11:31 AM, Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:22:09 -0500, Gary<yexxxx@sbell.net> wrote:
I dont see it as much a "moral" thing as it is escapeism. People
who dont or cant cope with life, are the ones who need to escape.
Thus they use alcohol or some other drugs. Of course there are
other ways to escape too, but alcohol is easy....
I think you are closer to a real cause/effect than anything I've
read. I certainly don't believe that near beer is a cause effect,
because there are more who drink it with no consquences than do,
and the ones who do may have already decided to ditch the program
and just 'warmed up' with near bear and they were going to drink
the 'real stuff' anyway. Near beer is a way to convince someone
who is going to drink real beer that it's OK. Not exactly sound
reasoning but that's why it fits an alcoholic.
Alcohol can be (for those who *need* ot. am escape from reality
and quite effective. If you escape enough, it becomes a habit and
if you think a habit is easy to break. try it sometime. Just
habit, not some mysterious 'craving' (except that it results from
the body's objection to withdrawal discomfort).
Yep, I think that prety much sums up the whole cause of alcoholism
in most if not all people. This is where I see a difference between
alcoholism/drug abuse, and smoking. alcoholism and drugs are both
escapes, where smoking is used as a "treat". I know that when I'm
busy and get certain things finished, I feel I deserve a treat.
Thats when I light a smoke. Alcohol and drugs can also be used as a
treat. For example, after a hard week at work, the weekend binge
seems lile a treat. But then the amounts get higher and soon
weekdays become days to drink, and the ESCAPE mechanism becomes
obvious. Eventually the booze is used to permanently escape from the
exhausting job, or nagging wife, or whatever else. Alcohol is always
a method to get rid of things in life that are unpleasant. Get drunk
often enough and you will get fired from that job, or that nagging
wife will leave you, etc....
In the end, the addiction takes over, and even with smoking, it's
mostly the addiction that makes it hard to quit.
I have never seen alcoholism as a moral thing. Granted, alcoholics
often do immoral things when they are drunk, but the cause of
alcoholism has never been morals, it's escapeism...... from all the
unpleasant aspects of life and in extremes, from life itself.... When
an alcoholic dies from alcoholism, they have indeed succeeded in
escaping from everything that bothered them in life. And when they
are numb from intoxication, they dont much care about death. It's
just part of the process....
So in other words, escapism or a need, want or tendency, in general, to
avoid reality or life on life's terms beyond a prudent, relaxing, in
moderation, pull off the jug, to occasionally kick back and relax for a
brief period, taking into consideration that we as human beings are
naturally inclined to some extent to be a tad hedonistic, and are apt to
turn to things outside out own internal resources that make us feel
better when reality makes us fee bad and prone to spend too much time at
the well glutting on the "Make Me Feel Good" stuff instead of getting
back to the grind, or as said at the conclusion of Voltaire's Candide,
"but let us cultivate our garden."
Are you saying you, I, we, all us ex-drunks were a pristine tableau rasa
before taking that first drink and realizing for the most part, "That
made me feel Good! Hot damn! Gimme another one or two or three or more.
Fuck going back to work or cultivating the damn garden. Let them other
dum fuks do it, I go back at quitting time get my share and rewards come
harvest time. Them stupid fsckers never gonna realize I been gone no
way."
Are you saying that escapism is in no way an ugly step child of or even
related to lack or virtue or moral foundation?
Hell, even the Islam have hard time saying Virtues and Vices without
mentioning Moral in same sentence.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/felicities/3.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3otejsw
I jest don't git it. ;-)
CC
But the desire to relax and escape every now and then is pretty much universal. So the real question is why does a certain percentage of the population take it to the extreme?
Did we practicing alkies just make up the least moral and responsible
segment of society, or was there some additional /physical/ reason why
the escape provided by alcohol and/or other drugs seemed to have greater power over us?
Did we practicing alkies just make up the least moral and responsible >segment of society, or was there some additional /physical/ reason why
the escape provided by alcohol and/or other drugs seemed to have greater >power over us?
But the desire to relax and escape every now and then is pretty much >universal. So the real question is why does a certain percentage of the >population take it to the extreme?
Did we practicing alkies just make up the least moral and responsible >segment of society, or was there some additional /physical/ reason why
the escape provided by alcohol and/or other drugs seemed to have greater >power over us?
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its more >escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss of control.
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:48 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its more >>escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss of control.
Evidently you didn't wake up in strange places with the same beauty
queesns La Rocca did. If you had you would easily see the moral
implications.
I would guess the ones who can drink NA beverages and not go back to
drinking alcoholically ... are not real non-alchoholic alcoholics, of
course not to be confused with real alcoholics ... thus if you're not
a real non-alcoholic alcoholic but still are a real alcoholic then
drinking NA beverages won't have any affect on your real alcoholic
status concerning drinking real alcoholic beverages.
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:22:15 -0700, Tex <twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:48 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its more >>>escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss of control.
Evidently you didn't wake up in strange places with the same beauty
queesns La Rocca did. If you had you would easily see the moral >>implications.
Actually I did at times. I said in an earlier post that the moral
issues came later on while drunk, but they are the result not the
CAUSE of the alcoholism. When drunk, I (and everyone) has a "who
cares" attitude. That's just part of the beast....
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:53:49 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:22:15 -0700, Tex<twizzard@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:48 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its
more escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss
of control.
Evidently you didn't wake up in strange places with the same
beauty queesns La Rocca did. If you had you would easily see the
moral implications.
Actually I did at times. I said in an earlier post that the moral
issues came later on while drunk, but they are the result not the
CAUSE of the alcoholism. When drunk, I (and everyone) has a "who
cares" attitude. That's just part of the beast....
I would respectively disagree with you on this one. Just listening
to part of your own story and knowing parts of mine ... I would say
the moral issues came for some of us long before we even took the
drink.
Being raised in a guilt you to the max religion and having a brain
and seeing most of it was bullshit or didn't make sense ... the
moral codes were imprinted on one when imprinting was supposededly
possible ... even though intellectually I didn't buy into the
imprints they were definitely there ... my morality or lack of it
didn't come about after drinking ... drinking many times supplied the
courage (false courage many times) to buck the imprints or gave me
the 'I don't care" attitude to carry out the changes that had already
taken place within me but I didn't have the balls to excercise
openingly.
Granted the moral issues after drinking did for sure come into play
... but mainly because I allowed other to judge me by the morality
measures I had already quit buying into but didn't have the balls to
declare I had quit buying into them ... I'm not saying this caused
my alcoholism but at least for me most of any morality issues I
had/have aren't a result of my alcoholism either. But if for no other
reason than the courage ... it led to or helped me to drink ... the alcoholism some would say was already there ... it just needed the
drink to activate it ....so in that way at the very least morality
played a part.
Now ... being sober and the drinking doesn't play a part But like
most of my bull ... I don't expect anyone to buy into it ... I'm just
not prone to abandon it while it's working for me ... unless someone
offers up something that will work even better for me ... than after
some hesitation and poking at it I might give it a shot if the
gain/loss ratio favors the gain side enough to make taking the shot
worth the risk.
Like drinking a can or two of beer or even na beer ... what I have
to gain ain't much compared to what I could lose (at least by my
measurements and in my own mind).... that's why 'I' don't do either
anymore. Not because some thump says I can't or because some elder
statesman say I can because they can ....
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:53:49 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:22:15 -0700, Tex<twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:48 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its more
escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss of control.
Evidently you didn't wake up in strange places with the same beauty
queesns La Rocca did. If you had you would easily see the moral
implications.
Actually I did at times. I said in an earlier post that the moral
issues came later on while drunk, but they are the result not the
CAUSE of the alcoholism. When drunk, I (and everyone) has a "who
cares" attitude. That's just part of the beast....
I would respectively disagree with you on this one. Just listening to
part of your own story and knowing parts of mine ... I would say the
moral issues came for some of us long before we even took the drink.
Being raised in a guilt you to the max religion and having a brain and
seeing most of it was bullshit or didn't make sense ... the moral
codes were imprinted on one when imprinting was supposededly possible
... even though intellectually I didn't buy into the imprints they
were definitely there ... my morality or lack of it didn't come about
after drinking ... drinking many times supplied the courage (false
courage many times) to buck the imprints or gave me the 'I don't care" attitude to carry out the changes that had already taken place within
me but I didn't have the balls to excercise openingly.
Granted the moral issues after drinking did for sure come into play
... but mainly because I allowed other to judge me by the morality
measures I had already quit buying into but didn't have the balls to
declare I had quit buying into them ... I'm not saying this caused my alcoholism but at least for me most of any morality issues I had/have
aren't a result of my alcoholism either. But if for no other reason
than the courage ... it led to or helped me to drink ... the
alcoholism some would say was already there ... it just needed the
drink to activate it ....so in that way at the very least morality
played a part.
On 8/5/2011 1:39 PM, Tex wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:53:49 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:22:15 -0700, Tex<twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:48 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Evidently you didn't wake up in strange places with the same beauty
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its more >>>>> escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss of control. >>>>
queesns La Rocca did. If you had you would easily see the moral
implications.
Actually I did at times. I said in an earlier post that the moral
issues came later on while drunk, but they are the result not the
CAUSE of the alcoholism. When drunk, I (and everyone) has a "who
cares" attitude. That's just part of the beast....
I would respectively disagree with you on this one. Just listening to
part of your own story and knowing parts of mine ... I would say the
moral issues came for some of us long before we even took the drink.
Being raised in a guilt you to the max religion and having a brain and
seeing most of it was bullshit or didn't make sense ... the moral
codes were imprinted on one when imprinting was supposededly possible
... even though intellectually I didn't buy into the imprints they
were definitely there ... my morality or lack of it didn't come about
after drinking ... drinking many times supplied the courage (false
courage many times) to buck the imprints or gave me the 'I don't care"
attitude to carry out the changes that had already taken place within
me but I didn't have the balls to excercise openingly.
Granted the moral issues after drinking did for sure come into play
... but mainly because I allowed other to judge me by the morality
measures I had already quit buying into but didn't have the balls to
declare I had quit buying into them ... I'm not saying this caused my
alcoholism but at least for me most of any morality issues I had/have
aren't a result of my alcoholism either. But if for no other reason
than the courage ... it led to or helped me to drink ... the
alcoholism some would say was already there ... it just needed the
drink to activate it ....so in that way at the very least morality
played a part.
Seems to me that are born with an instinct toward moral behavior. How
that plays out, whether it develops or not is another matter. The
saying that the maturing process 'stops when the regular mood altering >starts,' is, I think, accurate. Not knowing your family of origin I
can't say, but in /mine/ religion or anything else authoritarian was
greeted with supressed derision because those rather forcefully
recommending it, clearly were not following its edicts in their *own*
lives. Kids hate hypocrites.
I think we instinctively look for behavior models to learn from and
/model/. When we have none..., or really *bad* ones, bad shit tends to >result. AA has plenty of folks who lacked decent role models. So do >prisons. A cultural phenomenon that is getting progressively worse IMO,
but then again, I have noticed that old farts tend to project negative >futures for some reason. :)
A young man may /know/ what is moral and what is not but if he is
immature, frustrated and angry (not to mention horny), the booze will
test him. We all know that. ;)
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:18:11 -0700, "F.H."<connectutoos@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 8/5/2011 1:39 PM, Tex wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:53:49 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:22:15 -0700, Tex<twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:11:48 -0500,
Ex-Ex-Alcoholic#967895.06@myplace.com wrote:
Evidently you didn't wake up in strange places with the same beauty
Still, I do not see any of this having moral implications. Its more >>>>>> escapeism = weakness = irresponsibility = addiction = loss of control. >>>>>
queesns La Rocca did. If you had you would easily see the moral
implications.
Actually I did at times. I said in an earlier post that the moral
issues came later on while drunk, but they are the result not the
CAUSE of the alcoholism. When drunk, I (and everyone) has a "who
cares" attitude. That's just part of the beast....
I would respectively disagree with you on this one. Just listening to
part of your own story and knowing parts of mine ... I would say the
moral issues came for some of us long before we even took the drink.
Being raised in a guilt you to the max religion and having a brain and
seeing most of it was bullshit or didn't make sense ... the moral
codes were imprinted on one when imprinting was supposededly possible
... even though intellectually I didn't buy into the imprints they
were definitely there ... my morality or lack of it didn't come about
after drinking ... drinking many times supplied the courage (false
courage many times) to buck the imprints or gave me the 'I don't care"
attitude to carry out the changes that had already taken place within
me but I didn't have the balls to excercise openingly.
Granted the moral issues after drinking did for sure come into play
... but mainly because I allowed other to judge me by the morality
measures I had already quit buying into but didn't have the balls to
declare I had quit buying into them ... I'm not saying this caused my
alcoholism but at least for me most of any morality issues I had/have
aren't a result of my alcoholism either. But if for no other reason
than the courage ... it led to or helped me to drink ... the
alcoholism some would say was already there ... it just needed the
drink to activate it ....so in that way at the very least morality
played a part.
Seems to me that are born with an instinct toward moral behavior. How
that plays out, whether it develops or not is another matter. The
saying that the maturing process 'stops when the regular mood altering
starts,' is, I think, accurate. Not knowing your family of origin I
can't say, but in /mine/ religion or anything else authoritarian was
greeted with supressed derision because those rather forcefully
recommending it, clearly were not following its edicts in their *own*
lives. Kids hate hypocrites.
I think we instinctively look for behavior models to learn from and
/model/. When we have none..., or really *bad* ones, bad shit tends to
result. AA has plenty of folks who lacked decent role models. So do
prisons. A cultural phenomenon that is getting progressively worse IMO,
but then again, I have noticed that old farts tend to project negative
futures for some reason. :)
A young man may /know/ what is moral and what is not but if he is
immature, frustrated and angry (not to mention horny), the booze will
test him. We all know that. ;)
You come back into active duty and already you have twisted my pea
brain and if I allow it will have me attempting to think once again.
I believe you have triggered an important question (to me) that I have
asked myself on a number of occasions at different points in my life.
I do believe as you say a young man may /know/ ... at least as far as
others have declared what is and what isn't, but I don't know if
others have gone thru it, I know I did, and that is laying aside the
whole package of is / isn't and forming a personal one ... hopefully
one that doesn't conflict with the herd too much ... so as to be
functional without bunches of bad consequences. :)
I do think their has been some trade off as to role models from my
youth to the present day and what is decent and isn't --- I believe
many of what I might have thought good role models in the 50's / 60's
would be considered bad today ... might be that has something to do
with my old fartness negative projections ... hell I don't know ...
My role model deal was a bit of a roller coaster. Started high,
shooting for acceptance from teachers and the "in crowd" so to speak but
I was always a bit of a loner too. With booze came the lowering of >standards. Then, trying to recapture some of the lost idealism. I'm >content with where I am now but my extended non conformity has left me
in a bit vulnerable. "So it goes."