Conflict
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK 
Secular just means, not religion-based - that's a lot of territory.
The secular/religious divide is a direct consequence of the prevalence of 12-Step recovery, and in the context of this forum, 'secular' largely means 'not 12-Step'.
I'm frankly surprised that no one else has caught this, as it is in the SC forum description itself: "Alternatives to 12 Step Recovery."
AVRT does not address grievances from secularists (dictionary definition) against religion. It is simply a logic engine, patterned after the Addictive Voice itself, and when applied, it will identify the Addictive Voice, regardless of the source.
Religious, or otherwise.
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
tatsy, just to say that 'staunch AAer' does NOT equate to 'religious God proponent', and i am calling that out not to sideline this thread but because those kinds of statements are harmful misinformation and i see a lot of those kinds of uninformed statements made in SC about AA and they are very close to bashing. They are certainly derogatory and dismissive. yet they are allowed here in SC and numerous.
would i want that censored?
no.
but i would like it acknowledged.
would i want that censored?
no.
but i would like it acknowledged.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost ..."
Posts: 5,273
Oh man, I love bacon.
Also, thank you MG, for your time and thoughtful consideration in working to make a place for everyone.
I think my main concern is the "personal attacks" card. You can't throw that card every time someone makes a point you don't agree with. (I'm using "you" in the general sense here, just to clarify).
Personal attacks are not ok with me, which I already clearly stated. What is also not ok with me is framing statements that are not personal attacks as personal attacks. I asked for a specific example so that I could better understand what you mean by that.
On a side note, being dogmatic isn't against the rules is it? Some may find it tiring or off-putting, or not a good way to be, but is it actually against the rules?
Also, thank you MG, for your time and thoughtful consideration in working to make a place for everyone.
I think my main concern is the "personal attacks" card. You can't throw that card every time someone makes a point you don't agree with. (I'm using "you" in the general sense here, just to clarify).
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK
I was talking about a directed personal attack. Is that ok with you, or not ok?
On a side note, being dogmatic isn't against the rules is it? Some may find it tiring or off-putting, or not a good way to be, but is it actually against the rules?
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 10,681
Honestly, you guys are really intelligent and have really long, wordy posts.
I have a lot of stress all day at work and my brain gets too foggy to read all of it.
If you see a personal attack, report it. Don't assume we see it.
I have a lot of stress all day at work and my brain gets too foggy to read all of it.
If you see a personal attack, report it. Don't assume we see it.
Not all better, getting better
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Beautiful Inner Banks of NC
Posts: 1,702
Originally Posted by andyh
we clearly need to take two-page breaks in contentious threads to talk about bacon, like in the old days 
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
Originally Posted by RecklessEric
Why would an AA member want to post here?
Genuine question.
Genuine question.
i don't get the question.
i am a member of AA. why on earth would i not want to post here or anywhere and chat with folks like you?
being a member of AA hasn't turned me into someone who can't be interested in you, your journey to sobriety, or encouraging others in what works for them or in asking questions about any and all "methods".
your question leaves me wondering if being a member of one 'group' to you implies one only wants to interact with other members in that group?
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 10,681
Forums are up and descriptions are updated. I'm really tired so let me know if you want something changed. I still have to put some stickies up and rule definitions, but it's a start.
I also had to be careful with wording due to copyright issues.
I also had to be careful with wording due to copyright issues.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
I found a personal attack for analysis that I made 12 hours ago here. Post #55
Originally Posted by GerandTwine
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK
Who is the student and who is the teacher? That seems to be part of the problem, some people seem to consider themselves self-appointed teachers and decide who the students are, and make use of third-party "examples" to make their teaching points. That's not really consistent with polite discourse on a forum involving many different perspectives, and in fact it strikes some as a bit culty.
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK
So here we go with the directed personal attacks.
Originally Posted by GerandTwine
Your right, sorry Jeffrey,
Here’s what I should have posted. Please accept my apologies.
I think some have done a great job at teaching people all about their beliefs regarding addiction recovery. They are teachers and everyone else is a student of what they believe. Teaching AVRT is actually quite a more narrow and specific activity since AVRT is a simple dissociative filtering technique. (Which some may have negative beliefs about). That’s ok, too. Nothing harmful in pointing out what someone believes. But that doesn’t mean I can’t point out what AVRT is.
My purpose was to focus on the teacher student conundrum.
For instance it’s ok for someone to accuse someone else of impolite and cultish behavior, and because no one is named it is not an attack. (notice I’m not using any names right now to hopefully avoid this post being called an attack.)
Whereas, if a named person is accused of being a teacher and the rest of us students, that is an attack needing immediate identification and attention.
I’m not sure, is this deduction on track?
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 847
Originally Posted by andyh
here's an example of what I would consider constructive discussion regarding AVRT:
https://www.soberrecovery.com/forums...ml#post6845471 (Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT) Discussion — Part 6)
https://www.soberrecovery.com/forums...ml#post6845471 (Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT) Discussion — Part 6)
Why has no one started a LifeRing or SMART discussion thread, for example? Would that not be constructive in balancing the perceived influence of AVRT on Secular Connections?
All that is needed is another Terminally Unique...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost ..."
Posts: 5,273
Ok, I think I understand better now. When a poster says something like:
they aren't really attacking Gerandtwine by calling him impolite or culty, just someone else who has "used a third party example to make a teaching point" exactly the way Gerandtwine has done, but not like not him specifically or anything.
Who is the student and who is the teacher? That seems to be part of the problem, some people seem to consider themselves self-appointed teachers and decide who the students are, and make use of third-party "examples" to make their teaching points. That's not really consistent with polite discourse on a forum involving many different perspectives, and in fact it strikes some as a bit culty.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost ..."
Posts: 5,273
Originally Posted by Algorithm
All that is needed is another Terminally Unique...
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Forums are up and descriptions are updated. I'm really tired so let me know if you want something changed. I still have to put some stickies up and rule definitions, but it's a start.
I also had to be careful with wording due to copyright issues.
I also had to be careful with wording due to copyright issues.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK
If it matters to you, and I'm convinced now that it does not matter, I did not have any specific person in mind, certainly not GeraldTwine. You are, of course, free to read whatever you like into anything.
But I have come up with another discovery. It IS OK to name a person specifically and it won’t be an attack, IF it is in regards to a disclaimer about that person being the subject of an observation.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: "I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost ..."
Posts: 5,273
Originally Posted by JeffreyAK
If it matters to you, and I'm convinced now that it does not matter, I did not have any specific person in mind, certainly not GeraldTwine. You are, of course, free to read whatever you like into anything.
Also, I asked about a specific example of a personal attack that you've experienced here that breaks the rules of the forum.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by soberlicious
I can appreciate that self-appointed teachers and culty people don't appeal to your senses, but are they breaking the rules by being that way?
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
