Clarity Statements

[andyaddict]

I received The NA Way Magazine in the mail today (written 16 September 2001). As I browsed through it, I stopped to read the response from H&I Slim. In it was a reference to “clarity statements” used in Narcotics Anonymous meetings and H&I panel presentations. I would like to express my opinion as to why I believe these statements are inappropriate and contradict the spiritual principles in many of our traditions

Let me begin by saying I feel our First Tradition calls on each individual member to overlook the differences that may divide us, such as language, and focus on our common identity as unified members of a greater whole. Tradition One does not justify what one could define as self-righteous attempts to shoehorn members into certain beliefs about the propriety or impropriety of particular language. Our common welfare hinges not so much on our ability to impose uniformity as on every individual member’s willingness to surrender any defect standing in the way of unconditional acceptance

These “clarity statements” are often adopted in the name of group conscience, but the essay on Tradition Two in our Basic Text tells us that “true spiritual principles are never in conflict; they complement each other. The spiritual conscience of a group will never contradict any of our traditions.” The will of our ultimate authority ought to be expressed through this conscience—not the will of a few more popular individuals who may attempt to disguise political motives as spiritual ones.

The Basic Text tells us that our reaction to drugs is what makes us addicts, not what we used. The Third Tradition tells us that our desire to stop using is what makes us members, not what we say. It is not our job to pressure other members to talk or act “correctly.” We teach by example, welcoming others as they comfortably come to their own understanding of recovery, in God’s time.

Tradition Four speaks of group autonomy. With that autonomy comes a great measure of freedom, but this freedom does not come at the expense of principles embodied in other traditions. As stated in our Basic Text, when a contradiction exists between group autonomy and another tradition, “we have slipped away from our principles.”

Our message, as spoken of in our Fifth Tradition, ought to express love and focus our collective energy through the spirit of encouragement, patience, tolerance, and acceptance of all members at any phase in their development. To criticize, correct, reject, categorize, or disapprove of other members’ language is to carry a message of fear. If ever our message might be “blurred,” it would be as a result of the latter.

Many clarity statements borrow the name of Narcotics Anonymous and carry with them an implied blanket endorsement. To me, having served on a literature committee in NA and experienced some of the laborious efforts put into every piece of approved literature in our fellowship, these statements are very disturbing. These statements have not gone through this process of approval in NA. Consequently, groups and committees displaying, printing, and reading these statements are themselves contradicting our Sixth Tradition through the endorsement of an opinion, not the principles of NA.

What is the purpose of such clarity statements? To edit the language used by our members in communicating their experience, strength, and hope? Or could it be a self-righteous, misguided “control” issue, an attempt to organize NA, as such? Could this have the effect of creating a top-down bureaucracy dictating to our members, making our members responsible for serving the will of their service committees rather than the other way around? Remember our Ninth Tradition: “NA, as such, ought never be organized, but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.”

So, then, what is NA’s opinion of the “sober alcoholic” member? Answer: NA has no opinion. NA does not endorse language or concepts of addiction tied to specific drugs—but neither does NA oppose them. That is the simplicity of Tradition Ten. NA stands neutral on these issues, neither endorsing nor opposing. Therefore, groups and committees using statements opposing causes—language, in particular—are also in opposition to Tradition Ten.

We hear it said, over and over, that in recovery “we teach by example.” I have found that when an ideal or concept is repeated throughout a lesson, it ought to be given special consideration. The concept of “teaching by example” allows our fellowship to practice creative freedom while at the same time removing any threat of self-righteousness. This spiritual concept, taught in our Eleventh Tradition, is neither practiced nor encouraged through the implementation of clarity statements. The example of each member’s recovery and our success as a fellowship speaks for itself. This success is sufficient attraction to Narcotics Anonymous, making it unnecessary for us to promote any part of our program.

And finally, language specificity could never be an issue when humility is practiced through the spirit of anonymity in our Twelfth Tradition. When the principle of anonymity is squarely in place, members cannot be earmarked as “adjective addicts”; they can only be seen as simple, anonymous parts of a greater whole—they ought never be maliciously separated or distinguished from other recovering addicts. The principles of recovery that unite us ought always be paramount over the forces of personality that may divide us.

“Truly, anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions. Without it, the unity upon which personal recovery depends would dissolve in a chaos of conflicting personalities. With it, our groups are given a body of guiding principle, our Twelve Traditions, helping them join the personal strengths of their members in a fellowship that supports and nurtures the recovery of us all.” (It Works: How and Why, page 215)

Andy K, California, USA

http://www.na.org/admin/include/spaw...ay_jan2004.pdf

[kj3880]

Thanks for this. I have often wondered about this issue. One of my friends calls "adjective addicts" by another term: "Andas." Because they often say stuff like I'm John, an addict and a alcoholic. People visibly cringe when people identify this way at a lot of meetings I go to. I agree that people should be accepted no matter how they term their disease, but I do worry that they will stay sick unless they come to believe they are addicts, and that they are more the same then different from the rest of us. I see people using adjectives and andas as a way to set themselves apart.

A clarity statement isn't the way to help people who are trying to set themselves apart. In fact, it could make them feel more alienated, as Andy's post details.

My friend R, as I've shared before, identifies herself as "R, a blessed recovering addict." I think it kind of bothers me because she has often shared that she thinks she isn't as much of a "loser" as the other addicts at NA (she makes an exception for me. I guess I'm lucky...lol). I'm kind of afraid that she will identify herself right on out of the room one day as too good for most of us.

I must admit to wondering if I was too functional to really belong in NA for quite awhile. Almost everyone but me had lost everything to their disease. But step work has shown me that I'm just as sick, just luckier than many, and I was already more informed about NA, so that I was fortunate to be able to know what to do when I realized I had a problem. Now I try to explain this to R, but it doesn't seem to work. I hope she sticks around long enough to come to believe.

Just for today, God, keep me vigilant against my own ego, which can float me right out of recovery.

Love,
KJ

[Gmoney]

I could probably take the time to write a lengthy essay on [1] how and why clarity statements are not in conflict with any of our traditions, [2] how a mere "suggestion" regarding NA language is no more of attempt to pressure anyone than the suggestion to attend meetings, work steps, or adhere to Traditions, [3] how there is no control issue behind the suggestion, and [4] how unity doesn't always mean uniformity...but I won't.

Andy is entitled to his well-written opinion, but that doesn't mean he is right.

This success is sufficient attraction to Narcotics Anonymous, making it unnecessary for us to promote any part of our program.

Does that include step work, service, meeting attendance, and sponsorship? Lol!!

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I could probably take the time to write a lengthy essay on [1] how and why clarity statements are not in conflict with any of our traditions, [2] how a mere "suggestion" regarding NA language is no more of attempt to pressure anyone than the suggestion to attend meetings, work steps, or adhere to Traditions, [3] how there is no control issue behind the suggestion, and [4] how unity doesn't always mean uniformity...but I won't.

Andy is entitled to his well-written opinion, but that doesn't mean he is right.



Does that include step work, service, meeting attendance, and sponsorship? Lol!!

Yes it does my friend.

a

[Gmoney]

Thanks Andy. How you been?

[Lily]

KJ,

Your friend needs to humble herself (it is her pride that she thinks others are bigger losers than she) and no one can do that for her, only her.... All you can do is pray for her.

Sheila

[huntsober]

Wow neat thread. Thanks>>>

I am far from a good writer like many of you. I can share that I must agree with Andy. I got clean long before all of this organized NA movement started. I liked it the way it use to be but I must follow along with the others, keep my mouth shut and keep what i can use and pass on the rest.

I fought many hours and work many days over the basic test. Little did any of us know back then that it would grow to this. The promotional behavior of trying to make NA grow has done more harm than good.

I am sure many will jump my comments and run to town however they are mine and I am secure enough in my ego to not allow others to shake my feelings. NA works, it worked in 1984 and it works now. The steps worked then too. I do enjoy the step guides and the How and why it works. We fought hard battles over these.

In my area they chant words like sick sick sick. and others during the beginning of the readings at meetings. Back in the day many sold their items and sold their blood to pay for the printing of those words. And now they are disrespected. We fought many hours of Lit work all over the country for these words. Its sad...

I have stepped aside to make coffee, set up chairs and hug newcomers. This is where my heart of service is today. I will not participate in the promo, NA police, shoehorning that goes on in NA. Looking back I would not have come in the door if I saw this going on then.

In service to the newcomer

I remain
Joe H
9/9/84

[andyaddict]

Right on Joe, my sponsor/spiritual advisor got clean the last time on September 1st '76, I hear LOTS of stories of how the BT came about - I wasn't a part of that regrettably. He, for the longest time, got hood-winked into NA purism, bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

Well, then "I" came along... lol. They told me in treatment that I had it all, an alcoholic, addict, and chemical dependant - so, to be true to my recovery I felt the need to introduce myself as such. Not having any knowledge into NA's self-righteous political agendas, I thought those nazi's were just angry kill-joys and to just tolerate them and their sarcastic remarks at all the meetings I attended.

However, I started getting a resentment as their craap didn't add up. So I started looking for more and more adjectives to introduce myself with and made sure that I got to introduce myself two to three times a meeting, reading, sharing, announcements etc. Well, my "sponsor" didn't like that much and actually attacked me in a variety of ways himself.

Yet I kept coming back and came back clean. I began reading my books and went to numerous book studies (3-5 a week). We would get into philosophical program and tradition discussions and, believe it or not, after about a year or so, he came to the same conclusion that I had - that it didn't matter what people called themselves as long as they kept coming back.

a

[Gmoney]

...after about a year or so, he came to the same conclusion that I had - that it didn't matter what people called themselves as long as they kept coming back.

Now, THAT is what I agree with.

My story is somewhat similar, Andy...but different.

In my 2nd to last rehab, I was forced to say I was an alcoholic because of the red tape associated with the funding and patient requirements for that facility. The executive director told me himself, that if I did not admit to being an alcoholic I would be discharged with an "incompletion." I needed to have "completion" stamped on my documentation for insurance and EAP purposes, so I kissed a$$ and said what I had to say. Deep down I knew that I could take or leave alcohol and my experience showed that I didn't exhibit any of the alcoholic tendencies they taught us about in treatment. I drank to fit in, not to get drunk. I was a former pothead and a crackhead. Needless to say, I left with a resentment.

By the time I entered my last treatment, I didn't need anyone to tell me what I was. I knew I was a drug addict. The counselors at this facility didn't pressure clients to claim what they were, but they did promote 12 step meeting attendance. With AA being the "preferred" fellowship, we (the clients) were disproportionately steered towards AA. Out of the 6 meetings we were bused to a week, 5 were AA "open" meetings. During my 45 day stay, it didn't take long for my need to fit in to take over. I mimicked what I saw and heard. I was everything from a cross-addicted maniac to an "Anda." When I got a chance to share (which was rare because AA oldtimers frowned on "pigeons" talking) I called myself an alcoholic just to feel a part of and to keep the peace. Many AA oldtimers would give you a cut-throat stare if you identified as a alcoholic-addict.

I came to NA on an invitation by a woman I met at a AA meeting. By this time, I had almost 90 days clean. I was biased. I had heard all the negative talk about NA and I figured it wasn't the place for me. I shared my concerns with her and she assured me NA was nothing like I had heard. She was right. I was welcomed with love and care, but I continued attending both fellowships for my 1st 2 years in recovery. I got an NA sponsor and began step work at 4 months clean...it was then that I discovered that I required no adjectives to describe who I was.

Early on in NA, I witnessed the same intolerance I experienced in AA. I identified myself as a alcoholic-addict in an NA meeting and half the room looked at me like I was crazy. After the meeting, a member approached me and asked me, "How many diseases do you have?" I even recall an NA member accusing me of violation traditions by CARRYING (not reading) an AA Big Book in my hand into a meeting. When I asked him to show me in the literature where it said I couldn't do that, he was speechless. I learned early on that I had to read the literature for myself, and not go by hearsay, in order to learn what NA was about.

Over time I began to learn about the NA Purist Movement and why it was needed. I don't claim to be an NA Historian or anything like that, but I do understand that "singleness of purpose" is highly important in any fellowship. I'm also well aware that many of our members went overboard when it came to what is NA and what it is not. IMO, we addicts tend to be excessive about almost everything (hence the labels - NA Nazi's or NA Police). Many of the "dinosaurs" who were so intolerant when I first joined have made a complete turnaround and softened their stance when it comes to how people share or identify themselves in meetings. Some view the softer, friendlier, "New NA" as not NA at all...yet the program still works and the fellowship still grows.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I could go through each tradition or step and tie spiritual principles to how a clarity statement CAN BE appropriate and not in any way an expression of self-righteousness or control. I could also share about how simple suggestions can be taken or left behind without the complications of trying to figure out the intentions behind them. I could also talk about how change happens whether I like it or not (I remember when gas was 40 cents a gallon!! LOL!!) and how some things have to happen in order for things to be how they should be.

NA is not AA, nor should it have to be. When NA was newer, I can understand how there was a need to establish itself as separate and distinct. Yet, I appreciate the new NA because no newcomer should have to feel like they "made a boo boo" when they identify themselves as something other than an addict. I believe that, given time, all members eventually learn that addiction is "all-inclusive" and the adjectives aren't required. For me, a clarity statement is a simple reminder that drugs are just a symptom of a greater problem...and some of us may need to have that fact pointed out.

Sorry for the long post (but you know I could keep going...right?) LOL!!

tflms

[Thanks2HP]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I could probably take the time to write a lengthy essay on [1] how and why clarity statements are not in conflict with any of our traditions, [2] how a mere "suggestion" regarding NA language is no more of attempt to pressure anyone than the suggestion to attend meetings, work steps, or adhere to Traditions, [3] how there is no control issue behind the suggestion, and [4] how unity doesn't always mean uniformity...but I won't.
Andy is entitled to his well-written opinion, but that doesn't mean he is right.

I believe andyaddict is correct but I'm open minded enough to welcome reading an essay stating otherwise... should you change your mind and write it.

After years of attending A.A. meetings I started dating a woman in N.A. I felt welcome at her regular meetings even though I still identified as an alcoholic. I've since started to identify as an alcoholic in A.A. and an addict in N.A. Both programs offer recovery and I'm not about to get hung up on what the specific substance was. "You say tomato, I say tomahto"...

A few years ago we went to a rather large N.A. Meeting that she hadn't been to in a while. I hadn't been exposed to the clarity statement so when it was read it caught me by surprise. I felt alienated and certainly did not feel welcome to share.

Now that I feel comfortable identifying as either depending on the meeting the clarity statement doesn't bother me as much but when I catch myself thinking about how it might alienate a newcomer I have to remind myself that I am powerless over the fact that it is being read. I try to "speak the lingo" of the meeting I'm in but I've been here a while. I don't expect a newcomer to do the same. I personally don't care what anyone identifies as so long as they want help with their problem. I hope they get the help they need rather than worry about "using clear NA language", which is part of the Clarity Statement read at meetings in my area. I don't think there is much to be "clear" about when one is a newcomer and if new then how would one know what "clear NA language" is? The version 'round here also includes: "this is not to be better than or different from". Isn't asking people to use the proper jargon requesting that they be different from the people not using the proper jargon?. Maybe I just don't get it...

I attend both fellowships and try to respect them by using the appropriate terminology but I have slipped a couple of times during a share, using language of the one fellowship in the other. Much better than any other kind of slip... Fortunately no Gestapo rounded me up and booted me out. In fact, not a word was said about it.

I like what FightingIrish wrote on "Drugs in AA (drugs in AA)" Thread:

Originally Posted by FightingIrish

This is purely supposition, but perhaps we forget how it is for the newcomer? If I read this discussion at one week sober I think I would have run screaming for the hills. <snip> Does anyone get hurt by a little patience in helping people get their situation sorted out?

Peace...

[andyaddict]

I now usually get a giggle out of when someone tries to rationalize a Conformity Statement as "not" being about control.

I hear it said it is to "teach."

I ask why?

And basically it seems there is no other reason for this indoctrination other than to change someone else’s "behavior." Well, one would think if the intent is to change someone's behavior than it’s kinda seeking management and control is it not? Doesn’t the Ninth Tradition define the term “organized” as having management and control? Hence the intent would confound the spirit of Tradition Nine.

Then they argue “Well… it’s only suggested…” Well… I say that is a manipulative way of circumventing the direct dictates of control, yet it is implied none the less – else, and again we ask, what is its intent, its ultimate goal? To indoctrinate people into a belief system that, in the end, would change their behavior; that is the goal.

The behavior they seem to want changed is the use of the “words” alcoholic and sober. To me that seems so juvenile and immature – like second graders in school. Who cares, this is a spiritual program that deals with our relationship with God, not a political program pontificating with linguistics.

The only people that continue to argue from that point are ones, I believe, who are so lost in self-deception that they cannot identify their defects of character even if they were displayed right under their nose.

In closing, the Conformity Statement is NOT NA approved literature or opinion - to suggest or imply that it is by reciting it during the reading of APPROVED literature is not only deceptive but also apparently in opposition to Tradition Six via an endorsement of.

[Gmoney]

I now usually get a giggle out of when someone tries to rationalize a Conformity Statement as "not" being about control.

Since I've only heard the term "conformity statement" from you, Andy, I'll conclude we're still talking about the Clarity Statement. I, too, am amused when folks try to justify that the statement is about controlling the behaviors of others.

I believe andyaddict is correct but I'm open minded enough to welcome reading an essay stating otherwise... should you change your mind and write it.

Naw...I'll pass. This subject has been beaten to death here at SR in the past. To go into to it any further would be just re-writing some of what I've already said in previous posts. Feel free to search the site, I'm sure you'll find opposing words by myself and others.

I'm done.

[2ala2]

[huntsober]

Back in the day I and others would go to AA mgts and call them out everytime we heard the word addict.LOL

I am the older softer NA member now. I love the statements "
IMO, we addicts tend to be excessive about almost everything (hence the labels - NA Nazi's or NA Police). Many of the "dinosaurs" who were so intolerant when I first joined have made a complete turnaround and softened their stance when it comes to how people share or identify themselves in meetings. Some view the softer, friendlier, "New NA" as not NA at all...yet the program still works and the fellowship still grows."

That hits me.. Facts are facts IF I want too I can qualify for well over some 36 different 12 step fellowships.....But due to the love and OPENMINDEDNESS I find in most NA mgts on this planet I attend NA. I sponsor AA members, I attend their soberty birthdays at AA mgts. I respect THEIR traditions by NOT sharing of Identifing myself in their meetings. Its a respect thing and it is a graditude thing. A big change for me than back in the day.

Other purist can even go further...As in Where did the 12 steps come from.

Carl Jung, Dr. Silkworth and several leaders in the religous sector teamed up....
Review The book of James, Corinthians 13..and the Sermond on the mound. This deal went WAY back before 1956 or 1936.,...Check out 1849 in England...

We are all blessed. Every member of EVERY 12 Step fellowship. We have a back door entrance to the spritual world.

As for the 36+ fellowships I could join...the steps work for all.
I remain
Joe H

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

I think Andy just read this thread and posted his old NA Way article again on this subject. (yawn)

[Gmoney]

Pay attention to the first two words:

I think Andy just read this thread and posted his old NA Way article again on this subject. (yawn)

Not an attack, Andy...merely speculation. Yet I find it funny that you can say stuff like this (like it's okay):

The only people that continue to argue from that point are ones, I believe, who are so lost in self-deception that they cannot identify their defects of character even if they were displayed right under their nose.

Stop the madness. So...are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this subject are like that? Yeah...whatever.

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by Gmoney

So...are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you on this subject are like that? Yeah...whatever.

So... are you saying the reason this bothers you so much is because you see a kernel of truth in it and can't accept/admit it?

[Gmoney]

Originally Posted by andyaddict

So... are you saying the reason this bothers you so much is because you see a kernel of truth in it and can't accept/admit it?

I never said it bothered me "much" or a little bit. I just noticed it and thought it was funny because you talk so much about self-righteousness, being juvenile and immature. You can call me observant, but you can't do my 4th or 5th steps for me. Here's something I've learned about defects of character: a person can know their defects very well, and still choose to act on them (for whatever reason). It would be presumptuous of me to conclude otherwise.

You're a smart guy. I'd think you'd know better.

And no...I see no truth, only a well written and persuasive opinion. Fortunately, I'm not so easily persuaded or impressed. As the old saying goes, "You can cover a pile of $hit with sugar..."

[andyaddict]

Ok then, you seemed to almost boast at how you could write a persuasive essay that would easily counter that pile of $hit I dumped. Here's a challenge, write it.

I'll help you out a little though. You're going to have a hard time getting around Tradition Six and Ten as the fellowship has disavowed, not once, but twice an "approved" status of that statement, first in '99 and then again in '06 World Service Conferences. This is made worse when reflecting upon the garbage the fellowship HAS approved recently - Self Support and the Sponsorship Book - both admittedly massive failures. Now if those two passed and the CS didn't, you can see in actuality what a conceptual disaster it must be.

Then if you seek to run the WB Bulletin route, well, might I suggest you reread Traditions Two, Nine, and Concept Twelve. There is not and has never been any precedent for the WB to dictate ideology or behavior from a position of service as compared to authority. In fact, it is now being discussed by the current board whether or not to remove B13 from our web page, the too find it too controversial and disunifying for today’s NA.

I’ve spoken to two of the Board members that were on the board at that time and questioned the bulletin’s intent. Neither of them supported it but stopped short of apologizing for it. The board member I questioned said that the anti-AA portions (the only portions cited repeatedly by CS followers) were basically the brainchild of only one other board member from Nv. – who has recently passed on.

Or per se you wanted to squirrel out the path of the Fourth Tradition (which is usually the last recourse), might I suggest that though it is “legal” (the group has the right to be wrong) it does not compliment all other traditions therefore leaving the spiritual premise of your interpretation of Tradition Four in question.

But hey, good luck on that, if of course you take that challenge. I’ll understand if you don’t as I believe there is little, if any, spiritual justification for reciting a CS. And without spirituality it is outside the scope of our steps, traditions, and program as a whole.

In Loving Service and Fellowship
Andyaddict
Los Angeles

[Gmoney]

Ok then, you seemed to almost boast at how you could write a persuasive essay that would easily counter that pile of $hit I dumped. Here's a challenge, write it.

There you go! I'm reminded of a Spanky & Our Gang show where one of the characters dares the other to knock the chip off their shoulder. LOL!! Stop the madness!!

You're pretty good at jumping to conclusions, Andy...I'll say that. Fortunately, what "seems" one way to you doesn't have to be truth or fact. I did not boast or brag, nor did I insinuate I'd be persuasive. Just like you can't do my step work for me, you can't put words in my mouth. I simply made a statement and one word in that statement that you obviously overlooked was the word "PROBABLY." I actually said:

I could probably take the time to write a lengthy essay...

That sure as heck doesn't sound (or seem) like a boast to me (or no one else, probably...).

I do not have to prove or disprove ANYTHING to satisfy your ego or my own. I refuse to take the flimsy bait. Your challenge holds no value for me...I'll pass.

[andyaddict]

The reason why?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!!

Naa... just kidding.

I'm sitting here kinda cracking up a bit. I know it was a double edged sword. I know if you DID try to write something convincing you would look weak in that "I" told you to do it - not to mention setting yourself up for a lengthy debate against someone that "might" know as much or more about the topic than you.

On the other hand, if you DIDN'T write something, it appears to prove my point that my position on the debate of conformity statements is undebatable.

I'm actually getting ready for a 5000 mi road trip starting this evening. Yet while I was gone I didn't want to see this wonderful piece of work go unnoticed for all that time. I figured I'd breathe some new life into it <evil grin>.

I do however have a history around this topic, I wouldn't have put so much time and energy into it were it just a passing phase. I've witnessed and experienced some atrocious and horrendous behavior directed toward innocent members, with that behavior justified by the ethnocentricity taught by that statement.

I'll share about it later.

a

[Gmoney]

The reason why?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!!

Naa... just kidding.

Your obsession is showing. But the REAL reason was given to you. You can accept it or not...no sweat off my back. The real reason is:

I do not have to prove or disprove ANYTHING to satisfy your ego or my own. I refuse to take the flimsy bait. Your challenge holds no value for me...I'll pass.

Here's what cracks me up:

I know it was a double edged sword. I know if you DID try to write something convincing you would look weak in that "I" told you to do it - not to mention setting yourself up for a lengthy debate against someone that "might" know as much or more about the topic than you.

On the other hand, if you DIDN'T write something, it appears to prove my point that my position on the debate of conformity statements is undebatable.

Still trying to bait me, eh? Give it up. You look weak continuing to do so. If I were to write something countering your essay, it would be because I said I "probably" could do so. Your challenge was futile, immature and denied. And by NOT writing anything, I don't assist your mental masturbation nor do I engage in trying to prove something that requires no proof. When confronted with evidence vs. opinion, I'll always go with evidence. Regardless of your obsession with this issue, hundreds or thousands of NA meetings around the globe continue to read a Clarity Statement in their meetings - even the groups that read your article years ago. It is very, very obvious that not everyone agree with you (or even care about what you have to say).

I do however have a history around this topic, I wouldn't have put so much time and energy into it were it just a passing phase.

I know. As I said, it's an obsession with you. One that, IMO, drives you to arrogance. As someone stated to you on another site:

"How is it, Andy, that you always seem to find the most controlling possible ways to "defend" against control? Looks a lot like self will from here... inciting, inflaming, accusing, and getting very defensive when yr covers get pulled, accusing some more people of "control."

IMO, the truth requires no defense. It is what it is. But, yet, you can say others can't recognize their defects? What do the kids say?

"It takes one to know one."

[kj3880]

Dang it all, I want some answers. Letting go of the debate, can someone tell me why it bothers me to my very soul when people can't just identify as "I'm so-and-so, an addict." I think it's because I know deep down that if they can't even say they're a plain old addict, just like the rest of us messed up addicts, they have zero chance of recovery unless and until they do. I think that is why the first step is the first step.

I know almost nothing about the history and I'm just a beginner at the literature study, but this principle seems important to me. I wish I had some places I could point to in the literature (G, send me some in a PM if you don't want to put them here, please!) that would make it clearer to my friend, with many more years than me clean, who's convinced that it isn't important how people identify themselves as long as they show up.

I can see his point, I wouldn't ever want to run anyone new out of the rooms on a technical. But I think if they stick around for a while, identification as an addict, having that one disease, it is quite important to their recovery. It isn't important to me personally for them to do it, I don't take personal offense, as I've seen some do about this, but it might save their lives, I feel, and keep them around the rooms if they can surrender in that very basic way and identify.

Maybe that is why it bothers me a bit when the little newcomer gal that wants me to sponsor her does her Anda thing, but it doesn't bother me when others do it. I feel a bit of a sense of duty, as her temporary sponsor, to help her out with that concept. With others, I feel if they aren't coming to me for suggestions and guidance, it isn't my place to suggest or guide, and especially not to hate on them. Just to accept. Still though, it isn't ideal, IMO, to identify as anything other than an addict at an NA meeting. It separates you out, and that can lead to you leaving the fellowship. JMHO.

Love,
KJ

[2ala2]

The best thing I came out of from this thread is that you two old timers are so very human.
My opinion on the clarity statement or the likes is this:
I would use any excuse to work a 12 step program. I am also willing to label myself as 'anything' as long as that thing had obsessive/compulsive characteristics.
I don't want to upset you, but i honestly feel that your argument is a luxury.
It was also entertaining....for a while, lol

[andyaddict]

Originally Posted by kj3880

Dang it all, I want some answers.

I wish I had some places I could point to in the literature (G, send me some in a PM if you don't want to put them here, please!) that would make it clearer to my friend, with many more years than me clean, who's convinced that it isn't important how people identify themselves as long as they show up.

Love,
KJ

Well, where is it at in the literature? There's a quote they use, from the middle of a sentence, from the middle of paragraph, from the middle of a page, taken out of context, which they often quote "...our identification as addicts is all inclusive..." and then they run/ran with it for decades.

In my opinion it kind of smacks of illiteracy, as there would only be a small probability that sentence would have been written with the word "identification" used in the sense of "label." Research for yourself, nearly everywhere in our literature the word identification is used it would make much more sense if substituted with the word "association" and NOT "label."

Yet there are those among us that have made up there mind and will NEVER see it that way. See, the word association conforms with the principle of unity and anonymity where the word label seems to conform to management and uniformity. One reason I feel some people cannot change their thinking is because they were programmed that way in the beginning, this would be easily demonstrated when practicing the "stroop test."

See, most cannot disprove what was written above, and sidetrack the argument by going after my character - even pulling attacks from other boards. Yet on none of these other boards has anyone produced anything new to counter ANY of the initial musings put forth at the head of this thread.

Sure, I can be immature and obsessive when it comes to this topic - yet I initially come with some substance to my argument, not red-herring (diversionary), against the person (personal attacks), and circular reasoning (it is because it is), false authority (what WB says goes), or bandwagon (other meetings or conventions use it) ... none of these address the argument presented above, these are called philosophical fallacies, merely flaws in logical debate.

a