in na there is a dillema
Guest
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fremont, NE
Posts: 810
Originally Posted by kj3880 
Really? You want them escorted out? I want NA to welcome anyone who has a substance abuse problem, alcohol, street drugs, glue, pills, whipped cream canisters, whatever, and if they mis-speak, then we can help educate them gently without alienating them. We might be saving a life when we welcome an alcoholic at an NA meeting. They can probably learn to say "addict" I guess. Maybe I'm just an ignorant newcomer.
kj
kj
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2
The importance of clarity in our language while still welcoming all.
Below is the text of the World Service Bulletin written by NA trustees which describes why the clarity of our language is important (for the same reasons that the founders of AA stated that the single mindedness and unity of purpose in their language was critical to their survival). Most folks don’t really get that, I’ve found – that the importance of the language issue really comes from Bill Wilson and AA.
In our home group, we use the clarity statement but add "Please remember this is only a suggestion and all are welcome here."
WORLD SERVICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES BULLETIN #13
Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
This article was generated by the World Service Board of Trustees in November 1985 in response to the needs of the fellowship. This bulletin was revised during the 1995-1996 conference year.
The question of just how Narcotics Anonymous relates to all other fellowships and organizations is one which may generate controversy within our fellowship. In spite of the fact that we have a stated policy of "cooperation, not affiliation" with outside organizations confusion remains. One such sensitive issue involves our relationship to the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Letters have been received by the World Service Board of Trustees asking a variety of questions about this relationship.
Narcotics Anonymous is modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous. Nearly every NA community in existence has leaned to some degree on AA in its formative stages. Our relationship with that fellowship over the years has been very real and dynamic. Our fellowship itself sprang from the turmoil within AA over what to do with the addicts knocking on its doors. We will look at our roots for some perspective on our current relationship to AA.
Bill W, one of AA's co-founders, often said that one of AA's greatest strengths is its single-minded focus on one thing and one thing only. By limiting its primary purpose to carrying the message to alcoholics, and avoiding all other activities, AA is able to do that one thing supremely well. The atmosphere of identification is preserved by that purity of focus, and alcoholics get help.
From very early on, AA was confronted by a perplexing problem: "What do we do with drug addicts? We want to keep our focus on alcohol so the alcoholic hears the message, but these addicts come in here talking about drugs, inadvertently weakening our atmosphere of identification." The steps were written, the Big Book was written—what were they supposed to do, rewrite it all? Allow the atmosphere of identification to get blurry so that no one got a clear sense of belonging? Kick these dying people back out into the streets? The problem must have been a tremendous one for them.
When they finally studied the problem carefully and took a stand in their literature, the solution they outlined possessed their characteristic common sense and wisdom. They pledged their support in a spirit of "cooperation, not affiliation." This farsighted solution to a difficult concern paved the way for the development of the Narcotics Anonymous Fellowship.
But still, the problem that they wished to avoid would have to be addressed by any group that tried to adapt AA’s program of recovery to drug addicts. How do you achieve the atmosphere of identification so necessary for surrender and recovery if you let all different kinds of addicts in? Can someone with a heroin problem relate to someone with an alcohol or marijuana or Valium problem? How will you ever achieve the unity that the First Tradition says is necessary for recovery? Our fellowship inherited a tough dilemma.
For some perspective on how we handled that dilemma, one more look at AA history is helpful. Another thing Bill W. frequently wrote and spoke about was what he called the "tenstrike" of AA—the wording of the Third and Eleventh Steps. The whole area of spirituality versus religion was as perplexing for them as unity was for us. Bill liked to recount that the simple addition of the words "as we understood Him" after the word "God" killed that controversy in one chop. An issue that had the potential to divide and destroy AA was converted into the cornerstone of the program by that simple turn of phrase.
As the founders of Narcotics Anonymous adapted our steps, they came up with a "tenstrike" of perhaps equal importance. Rather than converting the First Step in a natural, logical way ("we admitted that we were powerless over drugs..."), they made a radical change in that step. They wrote, "We admitted that we were powerless over our addiction..." Drugs are a varied group of substances, the use of any of which is but a symptom of our disease. When addicts gather and focus on drugs, they are usually focusing on their differences, because each of us used a different drug or combination of drugs. The one thing that we all share is the disease of addiction. With that single turn of a phrase, the foundation of the Narcotics Anonymous Fellowship was laid.
Our First Step gives us one focus: our addiction. The wording of Step One also takes the focus of our powerlessness off the symptom and places it on the disease itself. The phrase "powerless over a drug" does not go far enough for most of us in recovery—the desire to use has been removed—but "powerless over our addiction" is as relevant to the oldtimer as it is to the newcomer. Our addiction begins to resurface and cause unmanageability in our thoughts and feelings whenever we become complacent in our program of recovery. This process has nothing to do with "drug of choice." We guard against the recurrence of our drug use by applying our spiritual principles, before a relapse. Our First Step applies regardless of drug of choice and length of clean time. With this "tenstrike" as its foundation, NA has begun to flourish as a major worldwide organization, clearly focusing on addiction..
As any NA community matures in its understanding of its own principles (particularly Step One), an interesting fact emerges. The AA perspective, with its alcohol-oriented language, and the NA approach, with its clear need to shift the focus away from specific drugs, don’t mix well. When we try to mix them, we find that we have the same problem as AA had with us all along! When our members identify as "addicts and alcoholics" or talk about "sobriety" and living "clean and sober," the clarity of the NA message is blurred. The implication in this language is that there are two diseases, that one drug is separate from another, so a separate set of terms is needed when discussing addiction. At first glance this seems minor, but our experience clearly shows that the full impact of the NA message is crippled by this subtle semantic confusion.
It has become clear that our common identification, our unity, and our full surrender as addicts depends on a clear understanding of our most fundamental principles: We are powerless over a disease that gets progressively worse when we use any drug. It does not matter what drug was at the center for us when we arrived. Any drug we use will release our disease all over again. We recover from the disease of addiction by applying our Twelve Steps. Our steps are uniquely worded to carry this message clearly, so the rest of our language of recovery must be consistent with our steps. We cannot mix these fundamental principles with those of our parent fellowship without crippling our own message.
Both fellowships have a Sixth Tradition for a reason: to keep each one from being diverted from its own primary purpose. Because of the inherent need of a Twelve Step fellowship to focus on one thing and one thing only, so that it can do that one thing supremely well, each Twelve Step fellowship must stand alone, unaffiliated with everything else. It is in our nature to be separate, to feel separate, and use a separate set of recovery terms, because we each have a separate, unique primary purpose. The focus of AA is on the alcoholic, and we ought to respect that fellowship’s perfect right to adhere to its own traditions and protect its focus. If we cannot use language consistent with that, we ought not go to their meetings and undermine that atmosphere. In the same way, we NA members ought to respect our own primary purpose and identify ourselves at NA meetings simply as addicts, and share in a way that keeps our message clear.
A casual, cursory glance at AA’s success in delivering recovery to alcoholics over the years makes it abundantly clear that theirs is a successful program. Their literature, their service structure, the quality of their members' recovery, their sheer numbers, the respect they enjoy from society—these things speak for themselves. Our members ought not embarrass us by adopting a "we're better than them" posture. That can only be counterproductive.
As a fellowship, we must continue to strive to move forward by not stubbornly clinging to one radical extreme or the other. Our members who have been unintentionally blurring the NA message by using drug-specific language such as "sobriety," "alcoholic," "clean and sober," "dope fiend," etc., could help by identifying simply and clearly as addicts, and using the words "clean," "clean time," and "recovery," which imply no particular substance. We all could help by referring to only our own literature at meetings, thereby avoiding any implied endorsement or affiliation. Our principles stand on their own. For the sake of our development as a fellowship and the personal recovery of our members, our approach to the problem of addiction must shine through clearly in what we say and do at meetings.
Our members who have used these arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many sorely needed stable members, would do well to re-evaluate and reconsider the effects of that kind of behavior. Narcotics Anonymous is a spiritual fellowship. Love, tolerance, patience, and cooperation are essential if we are to live our principles.
Let's devote our energies to our personal spiritual development through our own Twelve Steps. Let's carry our own message clearly. There's a lot of work to be done, and we need each other if we are to be effective. Let's move forward in a spirit of NA unity.
(Reprinted from Newsline Vol. 2, No. 6.)
In our home group, we use the clarity statement but add "Please remember this is only a suggestion and all are welcome here."
WORLD SERVICE BOARD OF TRUSTEES BULLETIN #13
Some thoughts regarding our
relationship to Alcoholics Anonymous
This article was generated by the World Service Board of Trustees in November 1985 in response to the needs of the fellowship. This bulletin was revised during the 1995-1996 conference year.
The question of just how Narcotics Anonymous relates to all other fellowships and organizations is one which may generate controversy within our fellowship. In spite of the fact that we have a stated policy of "cooperation, not affiliation" with outside organizations confusion remains. One such sensitive issue involves our relationship to the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Letters have been received by the World Service Board of Trustees asking a variety of questions about this relationship.
Narcotics Anonymous is modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous. Nearly every NA community in existence has leaned to some degree on AA in its formative stages. Our relationship with that fellowship over the years has been very real and dynamic. Our fellowship itself sprang from the turmoil within AA over what to do with the addicts knocking on its doors. We will look at our roots for some perspective on our current relationship to AA.
Bill W, one of AA's co-founders, often said that one of AA's greatest strengths is its single-minded focus on one thing and one thing only. By limiting its primary purpose to carrying the message to alcoholics, and avoiding all other activities, AA is able to do that one thing supremely well. The atmosphere of identification is preserved by that purity of focus, and alcoholics get help.
From very early on, AA was confronted by a perplexing problem: "What do we do with drug addicts? We want to keep our focus on alcohol so the alcoholic hears the message, but these addicts come in here talking about drugs, inadvertently weakening our atmosphere of identification." The steps were written, the Big Book was written—what were they supposed to do, rewrite it all? Allow the atmosphere of identification to get blurry so that no one got a clear sense of belonging? Kick these dying people back out into the streets? The problem must have been a tremendous one for them.
When they finally studied the problem carefully and took a stand in their literature, the solution they outlined possessed their characteristic common sense and wisdom. They pledged their support in a spirit of "cooperation, not affiliation." This farsighted solution to a difficult concern paved the way for the development of the Narcotics Anonymous Fellowship.
But still, the problem that they wished to avoid would have to be addressed by any group that tried to adapt AA’s program of recovery to drug addicts. How do you achieve the atmosphere of identification so necessary for surrender and recovery if you let all different kinds of addicts in? Can someone with a heroin problem relate to someone with an alcohol or marijuana or Valium problem? How will you ever achieve the unity that the First Tradition says is necessary for recovery? Our fellowship inherited a tough dilemma.
For some perspective on how we handled that dilemma, one more look at AA history is helpful. Another thing Bill W. frequently wrote and spoke about was what he called the "tenstrike" of AA—the wording of the Third and Eleventh Steps. The whole area of spirituality versus religion was as perplexing for them as unity was for us. Bill liked to recount that the simple addition of the words "as we understood Him" after the word "God" killed that controversy in one chop. An issue that had the potential to divide and destroy AA was converted into the cornerstone of the program by that simple turn of phrase.
As the founders of Narcotics Anonymous adapted our steps, they came up with a "tenstrike" of perhaps equal importance. Rather than converting the First Step in a natural, logical way ("we admitted that we were powerless over drugs..."), they made a radical change in that step. They wrote, "We admitted that we were powerless over our addiction..." Drugs are a varied group of substances, the use of any of which is but a symptom of our disease. When addicts gather and focus on drugs, they are usually focusing on their differences, because each of us used a different drug or combination of drugs. The one thing that we all share is the disease of addiction. With that single turn of a phrase, the foundation of the Narcotics Anonymous Fellowship was laid.
Our First Step gives us one focus: our addiction. The wording of Step One also takes the focus of our powerlessness off the symptom and places it on the disease itself. The phrase "powerless over a drug" does not go far enough for most of us in recovery—the desire to use has been removed—but "powerless over our addiction" is as relevant to the oldtimer as it is to the newcomer. Our addiction begins to resurface and cause unmanageability in our thoughts and feelings whenever we become complacent in our program of recovery. This process has nothing to do with "drug of choice." We guard against the recurrence of our drug use by applying our spiritual principles, before a relapse. Our First Step applies regardless of drug of choice and length of clean time. With this "tenstrike" as its foundation, NA has begun to flourish as a major worldwide organization, clearly focusing on addiction..
As any NA community matures in its understanding of its own principles (particularly Step One), an interesting fact emerges. The AA perspective, with its alcohol-oriented language, and the NA approach, with its clear need to shift the focus away from specific drugs, don’t mix well. When we try to mix them, we find that we have the same problem as AA had with us all along! When our members identify as "addicts and alcoholics" or talk about "sobriety" and living "clean and sober," the clarity of the NA message is blurred. The implication in this language is that there are two diseases, that one drug is separate from another, so a separate set of terms is needed when discussing addiction. At first glance this seems minor, but our experience clearly shows that the full impact of the NA message is crippled by this subtle semantic confusion.
It has become clear that our common identification, our unity, and our full surrender as addicts depends on a clear understanding of our most fundamental principles: We are powerless over a disease that gets progressively worse when we use any drug. It does not matter what drug was at the center for us when we arrived. Any drug we use will release our disease all over again. We recover from the disease of addiction by applying our Twelve Steps. Our steps are uniquely worded to carry this message clearly, so the rest of our language of recovery must be consistent with our steps. We cannot mix these fundamental principles with those of our parent fellowship without crippling our own message.
Both fellowships have a Sixth Tradition for a reason: to keep each one from being diverted from its own primary purpose. Because of the inherent need of a Twelve Step fellowship to focus on one thing and one thing only, so that it can do that one thing supremely well, each Twelve Step fellowship must stand alone, unaffiliated with everything else. It is in our nature to be separate, to feel separate, and use a separate set of recovery terms, because we each have a separate, unique primary purpose. The focus of AA is on the alcoholic, and we ought to respect that fellowship’s perfect right to adhere to its own traditions and protect its focus. If we cannot use language consistent with that, we ought not go to their meetings and undermine that atmosphere. In the same way, we NA members ought to respect our own primary purpose and identify ourselves at NA meetings simply as addicts, and share in a way that keeps our message clear.
A casual, cursory glance at AA’s success in delivering recovery to alcoholics over the years makes it abundantly clear that theirs is a successful program. Their literature, their service structure, the quality of their members' recovery, their sheer numbers, the respect they enjoy from society—these things speak for themselves. Our members ought not embarrass us by adopting a "we're better than them" posture. That can only be counterproductive.
As a fellowship, we must continue to strive to move forward by not stubbornly clinging to one radical extreme or the other. Our members who have been unintentionally blurring the NA message by using drug-specific language such as "sobriety," "alcoholic," "clean and sober," "dope fiend," etc., could help by identifying simply and clearly as addicts, and using the words "clean," "clean time," and "recovery," which imply no particular substance. We all could help by referring to only our own literature at meetings, thereby avoiding any implied endorsement or affiliation. Our principles stand on their own. For the sake of our development as a fellowship and the personal recovery of our members, our approach to the problem of addiction must shine through clearly in what we say and do at meetings.
Our members who have used these arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many sorely needed stable members, would do well to re-evaluate and reconsider the effects of that kind of behavior. Narcotics Anonymous is a spiritual fellowship. Love, tolerance, patience, and cooperation are essential if we are to live our principles.
Let's devote our energies to our personal spiritual development through our own Twelve Steps. Let's carry our own message clearly. There's a lot of work to be done, and we need each other if we are to be effective. Let's move forward in a spirit of NA unity.
(Reprinted from Newsline Vol. 2, No. 6.)
I posted the link to that bulletin earlier in ths thread (and too many times to count here at SR!!) LOL!!
Women Do Recover!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: So Cal/SE TX
Posts: 210
all I know is there is a lot of thought and energy going into some of this and I SURE HOPE YA'LL PUT THIS MUCH ENERGY INTO SERVICE WORKING in Narcotics Anonymous rather than just debating and arguing the points of whether or not NA should tell you how to talk and what words to say when you do talk.
I AM STRAIGHT NA ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE - ITS MY HOME but.... I still think that there is some way over thought bull$hit that we come up with. I hate ..."the internal and external forces" what the f is that - who is trying to get us??? the extraterrestrials and $hit? I hate that but.... I am not gonna waste a lot of MY LIFE getting worked up over it or trying to figure out why is does or doesn't fit in with our program.
I would rather make sure that someone is answering the phoneline for the newcomer, or puttting up a poster or doing a psa so the newcomer knows that we have a spot for him/her, or going to a prison and giving my ESH so that just that one inmate knows they never have to be there again if they don't want to, or even more fun a dance where I can fellowship with people like me who have found a new way of life. If I waste a bunch of time behind this keyboard typing about stuff that really doesn't do $hit for the newcomer I have lost the focus anyway.
Just my opinion.....
I AM STRAIGHT NA ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE - ITS MY HOME but.... I still think that there is some way over thought bull$hit that we come up with. I hate ..."the internal and external forces" what the f is that - who is trying to get us??? the extraterrestrials and $hit? I hate that but.... I am not gonna waste a lot of MY LIFE getting worked up over it or trying to figure out why is does or doesn't fit in with our program.
I would rather make sure that someone is answering the phoneline for the newcomer, or puttting up a poster or doing a psa so the newcomer knows that we have a spot for him/her, or going to a prison and giving my ESH so that just that one inmate knows they never have to be there again if they don't want to, or even more fun a dance where I can fellowship with people like me who have found a new way of life. If I waste a bunch of time behind this keyboard typing about stuff that really doesn't do $hit for the newcomer I have lost the focus anyway.
Just my opinion.....
Awaiting Email Confirmation
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,942
"Hi, my name is Tom and I'm grateful to be in recovery."
That's all I've ever said for identification in NA meetings, I've been going to them for over 4 years.
I've told sponsees they can identify themselves as the second coming of Jesus if they want to, just come to the meetings, share, don't pick up the first one, and keep coming back.
("If they identify themselves as "alcoholics" they need to be escorted out of the meeting by the 2 biggest members....". I hope that was a joke - what is the only requirement for membership?
)
That's all I've ever said for identification in NA meetings, I've been going to them for over 4 years.
I've told sponsees they can identify themselves as the second coming of Jesus if they want to, just come to the meetings, share, don't pick up the first one, and keep coming back.
("If they identify themselves as "alcoholics" they need to be escorted out of the meeting by the 2 biggest members....". I hope that was a joke - what is the only requirement for membership?
)
Live it
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 255
One of the first things that I learned in NA is that people are people, principles are principles, and people will never be principles, no matter how hard they try. They can, however, become principlED, with practice. For addicts, this is rare because becoming principled means enduring pain for the sake of principle, which goes against our addict natures. However, if we can do it, we cure ourselves of our disease.
Since addiction is incurable, it seems no one ever quite masters this. I'm waiting to be proven wrong.
Anyway, I learned that addicts love drama and that they will MAKE drama where there is none. This is because principle (pain, discipline, commitment and hard work) seems painful and hard compared to just creating a big, sloppy pile of crap for someone else to clean up.
Try not to contribute further to the problem and you will grow spiritually, I say.
Since addiction is incurable, it seems no one ever quite masters this. I'm waiting to be proven wrong.
Anyway, I learned that addicts love drama and that they will MAKE drama where there is none. This is because principle (pain, discipline, commitment and hard work) seems painful and hard compared to just creating a big, sloppy pile of crap for someone else to clean up.
Try not to contribute further to the problem and you will grow spiritually, I say.
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Urworstnitemar
That had to be the most ignorant thing i ever heard.
Long live the conformity statment lol
Long live the conformity statment lol
I too wish the Conformity Statement a long life. Let it live long in our memories as an egregious example of what not to do in the future. Let us learn from our mistakes, allowing them to foster our spiritual growth for generations to come.
a
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
The NA Clarity Statement
There has been much debate in recent years over whether the NA Clarity Statement that is read in NA meetings across the globe is inappropriate or contradictory to the spiritual principles of the NA Traditions. Before I delve into why I believe the NA Clarity Statement is quite in line with the 12 Traditions of NA and deemed very appropriate by many groups, I’d like to say that I also believe the original intent of the Clarity Statement was not about control, politics or conformity. Just as the Basic Text of NA tells us that we come to an understanding of the program for ourselves, what I’m about to write is based on my understanding, my interpretation and my experience.
Our 1st Tradition speaks of unity, and one way to consider placing our common welfare first is to understand that each group plays a part in the well-being of NA. The importance of group unity encourages our groups to look past their specific needs and wants by placing the welfare of the worldwide fellowship ahead of their own. As individual members, we are taught that, “In Narcotics Anonymous we find that what is best for the group is usually good for us.” (Basic Text, page 59)
Yet, nowhere in our 1st Tradition are we told to ignore our differences – there’s a major difference between focusing on our similarities and overlooking our differences. In fact, our 1st Tradition tells us that unity isn’t the same thing as uniformity. Just because we join NA and get involved doesn’t mean our stories become identical or we begin to speak the same language (i.e., Spanish, French, etc.). As it says in our Just For Today book, “We addicts are a varied bunch, coming from different backgrounds, having used different drugs, and recalling different experiences. Our differences don’t disappear in recovery; for some, those differences become even more pronounced.” Even our Basic Text tells us that some of us went to greater extremes than others and that we differ in degree of sickness and rate of recovery.
With such a varied bunch, and keeping in mind that our diversity is our strength, how do we find common ground to communicate our experiences with one another without continually pointing out those things that make us different? Well, our 1st Tradition also tells us that some of the spiritual principles important to our unity are surrender, acceptance and anonymity. The essay in Chapter One of our Basic Text not only poses the question “Who’s An Addict?” but it goes on to share the experience of our fellowship. Once we learn that, “As addicts, we have an incurable disease called addiction,” (Basic Text, page 7) we no longer need to introduce or identify ourselves with adjectives that divide us or imply uniqueness. Through the spiritual principles of surrender, acceptance and anonymity, we practice focusing on our similarities instead of our differences and enhance our ability to relate to one another. A Clarity Statement can be used as a learning tool for those who are unaware that introducing themselves by the drugs they used divide us more than unite us.
Our 2nd Tradition (in the Basic Text) tells us that we are concerned with protecting ourselves from ourselves and the nature of leadership in NA. It goes on to tell us that our decisions should truly be an expression of God’s will; we don’t control – we serve. There are those who insist that clarity statements are a form of control and manipulation. They contend that the clarity statements “suggestion” implies control with the intent to indoctrinate people into a belief system that would change their behavior. Well, I’m inclined to ask, “Isn’t that what a program is all about?” I mean…think about it – there are many suggestions given in our meetings that aren’t WSO or fellowship approved. Does that mean they’re unspiritual or political attempts to manipulate behavior? I doubt it. We’re “suggested” to attend meetings, work steps, don’t use no matter what, get involved in service, get a sponsor, read the literature, carry the message, be grateful, practice spiritual principles, etc…According to nit-picking and flawed logic, the entire program of Narcotics Anonymous is a political and unspiritual conspiracy to control the way addicts behave. Now, here’s another question: Is offering a suggestion that helps such a bad thing? I would say not, especially considering where I came from before I took the suggestions.
For anyone to say that the offering of a suggestion that would assist addicts (in referring to themselves as what they are) is unspiritual and against God’s will, they may just have a problem with accepting God’s will as expressed through the group’s conscience and not the group’s conscience being problematic. Tradition Two tells us that unfounded pride and self-will can destroy a group if given authority. I have yet to learn of any NA group that was destroyed as a result of reading a clarity statement. Although it is true that strong personalities can dictate the decisions made by a group, it isn’t always true that these decisions are not a true expression of God’s will. Very often, those who struggle with the decisions made in the name of group conscience are talked about in Tradition Two:
“The self-seekers soon find that they are on the outside, causing dissension and eventually disaster for themselves.” – Basic Text, page 61
Some of us are just die-hards. Many of the anti-clarity statement folks carry a grudge because they haven’t been successful at altering the fellowship’s behavior themselves (the same thing they claim clarity statements do). It can be seen in their obsession to crusade their cause for years and years to no avail. An unwillingness to practice acceptance and surrender can fuel their desire to prove themselves right and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong. It is my understanding that God’s will is done whether I like it or not.
Tradition Three tells us that desire is the only requirement for membership in Narcotics Anonymous. It also tells us that membership is not automatic when someone walks in the door or when the newcomer decides to stop using – membership means more than just being an addict; it means making a decision. One of the decisions we have to make early on is whether we’re addicts or not, right? The anti-clarity statement folks would probably argue that our 3rd Tradition tells us to teach by example and not attempt to pressure new members to talk or act like we do. This is true, yet a clarity statement is no more of an attempt to pressure or control than any other aspect of the NA program (as previously mentioned). In the 3rd Tradition (Basic Text), it clearly states, “We are addicts, and our problem is addiction.” It does not say we’re addicts & alcoholics. It does not say our problem is addiction and alcoholism. Clarity isn't the same as conformity and the "twisting" or "spinning" of the terms is merely a tactic used to manipulate or control the views of those who oppose a clarity statement.
No, how we introduce ourselves in an NA meeting isn’t what makes us members of NA, but our literature tells us, “It’s true that, if we want the kind of recovery we see in the member’s we respect, we’ll want to practice the kind of program that’s made their recovery possible.” (Just For Today – “The Only Requirement” - page, 166) Contrary to the anti-clarity statement folk logic, one of the ways we teach by example is through using the literature. The literature provides examples for us. Some would insinuate that if the literature isn’t approved by the fellowship, it’s bad, it’s wrong or it’s no good. Open-mindedness allows me to understand that even fellowship-approved literature isn’t always agreed with. Some anti-clarity statement folks like to mention that the clarity statement was tossed out by CAR, but what they don’t tell you is what failed CAR was making ONE uniform Clarity Statement. Why? The reason is because it’s a group autonomy issue and not to be decided by “the fellowship.” I guess some of us conveniently overlook the fact that the group is higher on the service structure than the WSO, CAR or a literature committee.
Which brings us to Tradition Four; This is where it gets interesting. The Basic Text tells us that autonomy for our groups is necessary for our survival - having the right or power to self-govern without outside control. This is a right, not a privilege. It is true that autonomy provides a great deal of freedom, yet there are those who insist that the use of clarity statements in our meetings violates the principles contained in other traditions and ultimately creates a contradiction. I see no contradiction or violation. Funny thing is, the opponents of clarity statements tend to assume that groups that are pro-NA are anti-AA, so they point the finger and accuse the group(s) of being self-righteous or misguided. I suppose they never took the time to read in our literature where it says:
“No matter how a group structures its meetings, all NA groups are encouraged to keep the focus of their meetings on recovery from the disease of addiction.” – IWH&W, page 153
I contend that one way to assist a group’s focus on the disease of addiction is to remind those attending that, in NA, we don’t have multiple diseases like addiction AND alcoholism, for example. And since NA groups are encouraged (suggested) to focus on addiction, it’s not a contradiction of our principles for the group to encourage (suggest) those attending to do likewise. Tradition Four also tells us that we need to be mindful of the message we send to newcomers. By keeping our focus, in our meetings, on recovery from the disease of addiction, we educate and inform newer members of the difference between treatment, rehab and recovery the NA way. Tradition Four states that we have an effect on NA as a whole if we’re not RECOGNIZABLE as an NA meeting. A clarity statement included in the group’s format certainly provides that recognition. In Narcotics Anonymous, we are addicts and our disease is addiction. We aren’t chemically dependent, cross-addicted or alcoholic-addicts.
Our Fifth Tradition tells us that our primary purpose is to carry “the message” to the addict who still suffers. The message we carry is the message of NA, not the message of other fellowships, treatment centers or rehabs. NA’s message is that an addict, any addict, can stop using drugs, lose the desire to use, and find a new to live. Our message isn’t drug specific, and contrary to the views of those who speak against a clarity statement, those who might “blur” our message are those who haven’t learned or haven’t been taught what our message is. The same encouragement to focus on the disease of addiction that it mentioned in our 4th Tradition applies in our 5th. The use of clarity statements in our meetings are a practice of the principles of love, guidance, unity, responsibility and anonymity. Some would say that clarity statements are used to criticize, correct, reject, categorize or disapprove of other member’s language. What they fail to examine is that a statement cannot do any of these things…only people can. Since the most important thing that we do, as a fellowship, is carry the message, it does us a disservice to obsess over the ill-will of a select few. It has been said:
“....so much politically motivated control exercises are done in the name of “not scaring off the newcomer". I don’t know where your newcomers are coming from.....but most of the new folks I run into in NA were at crack shacks and shooting galleries or living in violent and dysfunctional living situations....or getting out of jail or the psyche ward....its pretty far fetched that we are scaring them off.....most of the time when I scratch past "scaring the newcomer" it comes down to making the already comfortable members of NA even more comfortable.....Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable as the old saying goes.”
When taking into consideration our 6th Tradition, it is important to be open-minded. There are those who would have us believe that the clarity statements that our groups adopt, print and read in their meetings aren’t “approved” by Narcotics Anonymous and are an endorsement of an opinion, not the principles of NA. As I’ve already stated, the service structure in NA has the groups at the top and the literature committees that serve the groups below them. The service committees do not tell groups what is or is not NA. The main endorsement a clarity statement offers is an endorsement of NA’s 1st step. It is NA’s opinion that we are addicts and our disease is addiction. There is no contradiction to the principles of NA there. Some anti-clarity statement folk say that clarity statements “borrow” the NA name. NA groups do not have to borrow the NA name because they are NA (see Tradition 4). In NA, we have adapted or adopted many things we did not create or claim origin for. Are we to also refrain from using the Serenity Prayer because some may claim we're borrowing it? More nit-picking and straw grasping.
Groups are autonomous (in part) because groups have different needs. I’m willing to bet that there are places where a clarity statement has been an incredibly useful tool. I’m also willing to bet that some NA areas find it's not necessary anymore; Oh well…good for us! Yet some places may still struggle and find that statement useful. Some meetings have found the bulletin on methadone important and useful. Some meetings have a statement asking that members leave weapons or drug paraphernalia outside; it's not "approved literature," but it sure is important for those meetings.
To those that may inquire about the purpose of a clarity statement - all they have to do is keep in mind our primary purpose; carrying the message of Narcotics Anonymous to the addict who still suffers. To suggest that the clarity statement is a “power move” orchestrated by unnamed self-righteous control mongers in an attempt to organize NA (further than it is already) is illogical. They believe that WSB bulletins dictate how groups conduct themselves (i.e., the “top-down bureaucracy”), but never acknowledge that it is the groups (and individual members within them) that seek input from the WSB, and the bulletins are merely offered as a tool for them to determine their own interpretation of the principles contained in our steps and traditions. The individuals who complain that clarity statements are against what NA stands for fail to recognize that no contradiction of our 6th tradition (or any tradition) exists because NA groups do not need to “borrow” what is already theirs (the NA name). The groups ARE Narcotics Anonymous.
Our 9th Tradition tells us that our service committees and service boards are directly responsible to those they serve, right? Is it too much of a stretch to comprehend that they do just that when they respond to the questions our fellowship seek answers for? Is it also too much of a stretch to realize that the conclusions the WSB offer will not be accepted by everyone in NA? Even our 12 Traditions tell us that we’re going to have differences of opinion, internal controversies, communication problems, and troubles with individuals and groups outside the Fellowship. I’m inclined to believe that troubles come from “inside” the fellowship when we don’t agree to disagree. It is always important to remember that unity doesn’t equal uniformity.
There are those who will tell you that NA doesn’t oppose or endorse language associated with specific drugs and will try to convince you that the 10 tradition supports their view. They’ll indirectly claim that a clarity statement involves NA into public controversy or an outside issue. Just because NA has no opinion about the “sober alcoholic” doesn’t mean NA doesn’t have an opinion about the NA program itself. As our literature states over and over, NA is a fellowship of addicts who come together for the purpose of recovery from the disease of addiction. To reiterate this in our meetings via a clarity statement is not an opposition to any cause – it is supportive, complimentary and congruent to NA’s cause and an opinion of its own program. As I’ve stated before, there are those who view anything pro-NA as anti-AA, or any other fellowship and such is not the case.
While it is true, that in NA, we teach by example…it is also true that some learn soon, some learn later, and some never learn at all. Our literature states that NA is “a program for learning,” and that we are all students and teachers in the program of NA. The term “creative freedom” is mentioned numerous times in our 4th tradition, and some would have us believe that teaching by example allows creative freedom and removes any threat of self-righteousness. How easily they underestimate the power of self-righteousness, eh? I contend that it is the creative freedom of our groups that allow them to decide for themselves which “learning tools” they’ll employ to keep their meetings focused on recovery from the disease of addiction. Our 11th tradition speaks to personal anonymity, but how can personal anonymity be practiced when we're using language that indicates uniqueness? The 11th tradition also tells us that when we engage in public relations activity, that we are to speak “simply and directly” of what NA is. How are we teaching what NA is about when we refer to ourselves as “addicts and alcoholics?” Although it may seem redundant, a clarity statement is no more or less a “teaching tool” than any of the other readings (or literature, period) used in our meetings, and the logic that we teach by example justifies the elimination of all our readings in hopes that we’ll “get it” by word of mouth only.
The debate will continue: are we presented with a dilemma? This question is best left answered by each group and each member for themselves. I believe it is important to always remember that each group has an equal place in the fellowship of NA. No group is more important than another and all groups have the freedom to apply principles in whatever ways seem best to them. Autonomy in NA gives groups the freedom to act on their own to establish an atmosphere of recovery, to serve their members, and to fulfill their primary purpose.
tflms,
G
There has been much debate in recent years over whether the NA Clarity Statement that is read in NA meetings across the globe is inappropriate or contradictory to the spiritual principles of the NA Traditions. Before I delve into why I believe the NA Clarity Statement is quite in line with the 12 Traditions of NA and deemed very appropriate by many groups, I’d like to say that I also believe the original intent of the Clarity Statement was not about control, politics or conformity. Just as the Basic Text of NA tells us that we come to an understanding of the program for ourselves, what I’m about to write is based on my understanding, my interpretation and my experience.
Our 1st Tradition speaks of unity, and one way to consider placing our common welfare first is to understand that each group plays a part in the well-being of NA. The importance of group unity encourages our groups to look past their specific needs and wants by placing the welfare of the worldwide fellowship ahead of their own. As individual members, we are taught that, “In Narcotics Anonymous we find that what is best for the group is usually good for us.” (Basic Text, page 59)
Yet, nowhere in our 1st Tradition are we told to ignore our differences – there’s a major difference between focusing on our similarities and overlooking our differences. In fact, our 1st Tradition tells us that unity isn’t the same thing as uniformity. Just because we join NA and get involved doesn’t mean our stories become identical or we begin to speak the same language (i.e., Spanish, French, etc.). As it says in our Just For Today book, “We addicts are a varied bunch, coming from different backgrounds, having used different drugs, and recalling different experiences. Our differences don’t disappear in recovery; for some, those differences become even more pronounced.” Even our Basic Text tells us that some of us went to greater extremes than others and that we differ in degree of sickness and rate of recovery.
With such a varied bunch, and keeping in mind that our diversity is our strength, how do we find common ground to communicate our experiences with one another without continually pointing out those things that make us different? Well, our 1st Tradition also tells us that some of the spiritual principles important to our unity are surrender, acceptance and anonymity. The essay in Chapter One of our Basic Text not only poses the question “Who’s An Addict?” but it goes on to share the experience of our fellowship. Once we learn that, “As addicts, we have an incurable disease called addiction,” (Basic Text, page 7) we no longer need to introduce or identify ourselves with adjectives that divide us or imply uniqueness. Through the spiritual principles of surrender, acceptance and anonymity, we practice focusing on our similarities instead of our differences and enhance our ability to relate to one another. A Clarity Statement can be used as a learning tool for those who are unaware that introducing themselves by the drugs they used divide us more than unite us.
Our 2nd Tradition (in the Basic Text) tells us that we are concerned with protecting ourselves from ourselves and the nature of leadership in NA. It goes on to tell us that our decisions should truly be an expression of God’s will; we don’t control – we serve. There are those who insist that clarity statements are a form of control and manipulation. They contend that the clarity statements “suggestion” implies control with the intent to indoctrinate people into a belief system that would change their behavior. Well, I’m inclined to ask, “Isn’t that what a program is all about?” I mean…think about it – there are many suggestions given in our meetings that aren’t WSO or fellowship approved. Does that mean they’re unspiritual or political attempts to manipulate behavior? I doubt it. We’re “suggested” to attend meetings, work steps, don’t use no matter what, get involved in service, get a sponsor, read the literature, carry the message, be grateful, practice spiritual principles, etc…According to nit-picking and flawed logic, the entire program of Narcotics Anonymous is a political and unspiritual conspiracy to control the way addicts behave. Now, here’s another question: Is offering a suggestion that helps such a bad thing? I would say not, especially considering where I came from before I took the suggestions.
For anyone to say that the offering of a suggestion that would assist addicts (in referring to themselves as what they are) is unspiritual and against God’s will, they may just have a problem with accepting God’s will as expressed through the group’s conscience and not the group’s conscience being problematic. Tradition Two tells us that unfounded pride and self-will can destroy a group if given authority. I have yet to learn of any NA group that was destroyed as a result of reading a clarity statement. Although it is true that strong personalities can dictate the decisions made by a group, it isn’t always true that these decisions are not a true expression of God’s will. Very often, those who struggle with the decisions made in the name of group conscience are talked about in Tradition Two:
“The self-seekers soon find that they are on the outside, causing dissension and eventually disaster for themselves.” – Basic Text, page 61
Some of us are just die-hards. Many of the anti-clarity statement folks carry a grudge because they haven’t been successful at altering the fellowship’s behavior themselves (the same thing they claim clarity statements do). It can be seen in their obsession to crusade their cause for years and years to no avail. An unwillingness to practice acceptance and surrender can fuel their desire to prove themselves right and everyone who disagrees with them as wrong. It is my understanding that God’s will is done whether I like it or not.
Tradition Three tells us that desire is the only requirement for membership in Narcotics Anonymous. It also tells us that membership is not automatic when someone walks in the door or when the newcomer decides to stop using – membership means more than just being an addict; it means making a decision. One of the decisions we have to make early on is whether we’re addicts or not, right? The anti-clarity statement folks would probably argue that our 3rd Tradition tells us to teach by example and not attempt to pressure new members to talk or act like we do. This is true, yet a clarity statement is no more of an attempt to pressure or control than any other aspect of the NA program (as previously mentioned). In the 3rd Tradition (Basic Text), it clearly states, “We are addicts, and our problem is addiction.” It does not say we’re addicts & alcoholics. It does not say our problem is addiction and alcoholism. Clarity isn't the same as conformity and the "twisting" or "spinning" of the terms is merely a tactic used to manipulate or control the views of those who oppose a clarity statement.
No, how we introduce ourselves in an NA meeting isn’t what makes us members of NA, but our literature tells us, “It’s true that, if we want the kind of recovery we see in the member’s we respect, we’ll want to practice the kind of program that’s made their recovery possible.” (Just For Today – “The Only Requirement” - page, 166) Contrary to the anti-clarity statement folk logic, one of the ways we teach by example is through using the literature. The literature provides examples for us. Some would insinuate that if the literature isn’t approved by the fellowship, it’s bad, it’s wrong or it’s no good. Open-mindedness allows me to understand that even fellowship-approved literature isn’t always agreed with. Some anti-clarity statement folks like to mention that the clarity statement was tossed out by CAR, but what they don’t tell you is what failed CAR was making ONE uniform Clarity Statement. Why? The reason is because it’s a group autonomy issue and not to be decided by “the fellowship.” I guess some of us conveniently overlook the fact that the group is higher on the service structure than the WSO, CAR or a literature committee.
Which brings us to Tradition Four; This is where it gets interesting. The Basic Text tells us that autonomy for our groups is necessary for our survival - having the right or power to self-govern without outside control. This is a right, not a privilege. It is true that autonomy provides a great deal of freedom, yet there are those who insist that the use of clarity statements in our meetings violates the principles contained in other traditions and ultimately creates a contradiction. I see no contradiction or violation. Funny thing is, the opponents of clarity statements tend to assume that groups that are pro-NA are anti-AA, so they point the finger and accuse the group(s) of being self-righteous or misguided. I suppose they never took the time to read in our literature where it says:
“No matter how a group structures its meetings, all NA groups are encouraged to keep the focus of their meetings on recovery from the disease of addiction.” – IWH&W, page 153
I contend that one way to assist a group’s focus on the disease of addiction is to remind those attending that, in NA, we don’t have multiple diseases like addiction AND alcoholism, for example. And since NA groups are encouraged (suggested) to focus on addiction, it’s not a contradiction of our principles for the group to encourage (suggest) those attending to do likewise. Tradition Four also tells us that we need to be mindful of the message we send to newcomers. By keeping our focus, in our meetings, on recovery from the disease of addiction, we educate and inform newer members of the difference between treatment, rehab and recovery the NA way. Tradition Four states that we have an effect on NA as a whole if we’re not RECOGNIZABLE as an NA meeting. A clarity statement included in the group’s format certainly provides that recognition. In Narcotics Anonymous, we are addicts and our disease is addiction. We aren’t chemically dependent, cross-addicted or alcoholic-addicts.
Our Fifth Tradition tells us that our primary purpose is to carry “the message” to the addict who still suffers. The message we carry is the message of NA, not the message of other fellowships, treatment centers or rehabs. NA’s message is that an addict, any addict, can stop using drugs, lose the desire to use, and find a new to live. Our message isn’t drug specific, and contrary to the views of those who speak against a clarity statement, those who might “blur” our message are those who haven’t learned or haven’t been taught what our message is. The same encouragement to focus on the disease of addiction that it mentioned in our 4th Tradition applies in our 5th. The use of clarity statements in our meetings are a practice of the principles of love, guidance, unity, responsibility and anonymity. Some would say that clarity statements are used to criticize, correct, reject, categorize or disapprove of other member’s language. What they fail to examine is that a statement cannot do any of these things…only people can. Since the most important thing that we do, as a fellowship, is carry the message, it does us a disservice to obsess over the ill-will of a select few. It has been said:
“....so much politically motivated control exercises are done in the name of “not scaring off the newcomer". I don’t know where your newcomers are coming from.....but most of the new folks I run into in NA were at crack shacks and shooting galleries or living in violent and dysfunctional living situations....or getting out of jail or the psyche ward....its pretty far fetched that we are scaring them off.....most of the time when I scratch past "scaring the newcomer" it comes down to making the already comfortable members of NA even more comfortable.....Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable as the old saying goes.”
When taking into consideration our 6th Tradition, it is important to be open-minded. There are those who would have us believe that the clarity statements that our groups adopt, print and read in their meetings aren’t “approved” by Narcotics Anonymous and are an endorsement of an opinion, not the principles of NA. As I’ve already stated, the service structure in NA has the groups at the top and the literature committees that serve the groups below them. The service committees do not tell groups what is or is not NA. The main endorsement a clarity statement offers is an endorsement of NA’s 1st step. It is NA’s opinion that we are addicts and our disease is addiction. There is no contradiction to the principles of NA there. Some anti-clarity statement folk say that clarity statements “borrow” the NA name. NA groups do not have to borrow the NA name because they are NA (see Tradition 4). In NA, we have adapted or adopted many things we did not create or claim origin for. Are we to also refrain from using the Serenity Prayer because some may claim we're borrowing it? More nit-picking and straw grasping.
Groups are autonomous (in part) because groups have different needs. I’m willing to bet that there are places where a clarity statement has been an incredibly useful tool. I’m also willing to bet that some NA areas find it's not necessary anymore; Oh well…good for us! Yet some places may still struggle and find that statement useful. Some meetings have found the bulletin on methadone important and useful. Some meetings have a statement asking that members leave weapons or drug paraphernalia outside; it's not "approved literature," but it sure is important for those meetings.
To those that may inquire about the purpose of a clarity statement - all they have to do is keep in mind our primary purpose; carrying the message of Narcotics Anonymous to the addict who still suffers. To suggest that the clarity statement is a “power move” orchestrated by unnamed self-righteous control mongers in an attempt to organize NA (further than it is already) is illogical. They believe that WSB bulletins dictate how groups conduct themselves (i.e., the “top-down bureaucracy”), but never acknowledge that it is the groups (and individual members within them) that seek input from the WSB, and the bulletins are merely offered as a tool for them to determine their own interpretation of the principles contained in our steps and traditions. The individuals who complain that clarity statements are against what NA stands for fail to recognize that no contradiction of our 6th tradition (or any tradition) exists because NA groups do not need to “borrow” what is already theirs (the NA name). The groups ARE Narcotics Anonymous.
Our 9th Tradition tells us that our service committees and service boards are directly responsible to those they serve, right? Is it too much of a stretch to comprehend that they do just that when they respond to the questions our fellowship seek answers for? Is it also too much of a stretch to realize that the conclusions the WSB offer will not be accepted by everyone in NA? Even our 12 Traditions tell us that we’re going to have differences of opinion, internal controversies, communication problems, and troubles with individuals and groups outside the Fellowship. I’m inclined to believe that troubles come from “inside” the fellowship when we don’t agree to disagree. It is always important to remember that unity doesn’t equal uniformity.
There are those who will tell you that NA doesn’t oppose or endorse language associated with specific drugs and will try to convince you that the 10 tradition supports their view. They’ll indirectly claim that a clarity statement involves NA into public controversy or an outside issue. Just because NA has no opinion about the “sober alcoholic” doesn’t mean NA doesn’t have an opinion about the NA program itself. As our literature states over and over, NA is a fellowship of addicts who come together for the purpose of recovery from the disease of addiction. To reiterate this in our meetings via a clarity statement is not an opposition to any cause – it is supportive, complimentary and congruent to NA’s cause and an opinion of its own program. As I’ve stated before, there are those who view anything pro-NA as anti-AA, or any other fellowship and such is not the case.
While it is true, that in NA, we teach by example…it is also true that some learn soon, some learn later, and some never learn at all. Our literature states that NA is “a program for learning,” and that we are all students and teachers in the program of NA. The term “creative freedom” is mentioned numerous times in our 4th tradition, and some would have us believe that teaching by example allows creative freedom and removes any threat of self-righteousness. How easily they underestimate the power of self-righteousness, eh? I contend that it is the creative freedom of our groups that allow them to decide for themselves which “learning tools” they’ll employ to keep their meetings focused on recovery from the disease of addiction. Our 11th tradition speaks to personal anonymity, but how can personal anonymity be practiced when we're using language that indicates uniqueness? The 11th tradition also tells us that when we engage in public relations activity, that we are to speak “simply and directly” of what NA is. How are we teaching what NA is about when we refer to ourselves as “addicts and alcoholics?” Although it may seem redundant, a clarity statement is no more or less a “teaching tool” than any of the other readings (or literature, period) used in our meetings, and the logic that we teach by example justifies the elimination of all our readings in hopes that we’ll “get it” by word of mouth only.
The debate will continue: are we presented with a dilemma? This question is best left answered by each group and each member for themselves. I believe it is important to always remember that each group has an equal place in the fellowship of NA. No group is more important than another and all groups have the freedom to apply principles in whatever ways seem best to them. Autonomy in NA gives groups the freedom to act on their own to establish an atmosphere of recovery, to serve their members, and to fulfill their primary purpose.
tflms,
G
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: md
Posts: 3,042
G, this is a very well-written and well-thought out thesis. I personally have become more tolerant (step-work) with people who identify as "So-and-so, a blessed recovering gambling sexaholic pill-popper and alcoholic dope-fiend." But I still like to say just "KJ, an addict." I like to keep it simple. I think there is nothing more basic to our purpose then to get newcomers to identify more closely with us. Might help them stick and stay.
When I first came in, I was looking for any reason to disqualify myself. If everyone in the room had given their DOC, and all had been, say, heroin and coke, I wouldn't have stuck, because I'd have maybe thought "this doesn't apply to me, it's for street abusers, only, and I won't fit in here." That's why I'm glad that at my first meeting most of the people said just "addict." It helped me feel at home. And that is all I can share, what helped me. It might not help others as much as it seems to help me. I don't like the title of the "Conformity Statement" so much. Maybe it could be called something else, like "Suggested Introduction Statement." IDK.
Love,
KJ
When I first came in, I was looking for any reason to disqualify myself. If everyone in the room had given their DOC, and all had been, say, heroin and coke, I wouldn't have stuck, because I'd have maybe thought "this doesn't apply to me, it's for street abusers, only, and I won't fit in here." That's why I'm glad that at my first meeting most of the people said just "addict." It helped me feel at home. And that is all I can share, what helped me. It might not help others as much as it seems to help me. I don't like the title of the "Conformity Statement" so much. Maybe it could be called something else, like "Suggested Introduction Statement." IDK.
Love,
KJ
9
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
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.
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.
:rotfxko
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.
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...
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
Originally Posted by daydream
Me thinks jmb123, whose sole post on this site was to resurrect this thread, was a sock puppet.... gee, I wonder who it could be :wtf2
Also on 5/6/04: http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...d-version.html
Om, Aum, Ohm...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Punxsutawney/Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,797
NOTE: This is in no way meant to be a statement of position or an opinion, educated or otherwise. Just trying to spread a little lightheartedness around this morning....
Peace & Love,
Sugah
Peace & Love,
Sugah
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
