There are currently 2 users online.
PLease feel free to come over and let her have it.
It is woman like her who keep AA in the DARK AGES of the 1950's
Wed, 03/21/2012 - 07:33
Massive, for the sake of accuracy, you do know that pedophilia involves prepubescent children, right? It might be a sick sex offense, but 13th Stepping a 16 year old would not be pedophilia. Not minimizing here, just being precise.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:31
Is a bad bad idea. It's like letting a wolf into the chicken coop. These meetings give teenagers to predators on a silver platter.
Your husband started one at 24?? Sorry, but 24 is too old to be hanging around minors. I wouldn't ever allow my 16 year old to attend but if she did (my hypothetical child of course lol) I'd honestly prefer her at a regular meeting. I wouldn't want her in a young peoples meeting with a bunch of minors and a 24 year old to "help" them out
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:09
My impression of the 24-year-old participant would be one of facilitator, not somebody who was looking to "be hanging around minors". First you want adult supervision for minors, then you turn around and tacitly identify the potential supervisor as a predator. What do you people want?
Ironic, nice try, but you have no idea what you would do with an addicted or alcohol-dependent 16-year-old daughter. Once you've had one, then you'll be qualified to weigh in on that topic. Would you want her in an adult meeting with pervs and criminals? Not likely. Okay, then, what would you do? Let's say you have no insurance to pay for therapy for her. What's your next step? Ask your family for a never-ending handout so she can get some professional help? Court and marry a stable, employed guy with insurance that provides a family plan? Manage her very complex and resistant condition yourself? Today you have no way of knowing how you would manage a situation that will not occur in your lifetime for a minimum of 17 years (including gestational period). I'd be interested to hear your solution then, but today your hypothesis has no value for me.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Persephone In Exile
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:22
What choice would you have, exactly, Becket? Considering how we here feel about 12 step programs and the dangers involved, why would we trust our children to them? You couldn't pay me to send any of my children to one of these groups, no matter how bad their problems were.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:40
My child is up and grown. Never had a moment's concern about substances where she was concerned, and I still don't. But other critical conditions did come up, such as sexual abuse. I put her in individual therapy which her father and I paid for. For the record, I did take her to meetings when she was a toddler and a young child. She was never exposed to fighting or sexual impropriety in any meeting. Her father was an alcoholic, as am I, and she was fortunate enough to be surrounded by people discussing solutions to the drink problem and not trying to score crack outside the doors. She is now in her late 20s and tells me she has had one glass of wine in her life. She does not want to get involved with substances and so she has not. This was a long time ago, though. Evidently meetings have changed. But she was always protected and always with me in the meetings that I attended with her; very rarely did anyone ever break out into profanity.
I would not pay anyone to send their children to one of these groups as they are portrayed today. My point is that one cannot construct solutions for the problems of a child unless and until that child is a reality. Then, based on economic and philosophical considerations at that time, solutions to said problems can be developed. It simply is not helpful or enlightening to propose what one would do IF . . . It's just vapor.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:54
Wow- unbelievable. The problem of children and older minors in meetings IS a problem NOW. That is why we are discussing it. Actually you can construct safety ahead of problems as well. In fact that is the way it is supposed to be with minors. There are certain protocols in place for them. Just not in AA.
Articles of Criminals In Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymouswww.nadaytona.org
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 13:04
Let me put it this way: yes, the problems exist now. Keep after it if you think you have solutions. But an individual cannot say with any certainty what he or she would do for a troubled child until they get to the point where the child is a reality. Ironic says she would NEVER do this and NEVER do that - she doesn't know that until a real kid - not a virtual one - is giving her grief enough for her to consider entertaining options.
Now do you get it? And are you always so pugnacious?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 13:10
And that is fine for you. I was asking what people who see these problems would exactly do in that situation. Not everyone's children here are hypothetical, and some that are will someday be reality. What to do then?
Good news with your daughter though, glad she's OK. She doesn't, by any chance, suffer from PCOS does she?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 15:26
I didn't realize you were asking any questions in your previous post. But I'll try to answer the questions in your post from 3/19, 16:10:
It is not up to me to create solutions for people with children. I did my stretch raising my own. AA and associated fellowships are not of great concern to me now. Today's parents should make their own decisions regarding minor children in or around meetings. It's not up to me to guide them. Whatever circumstances face these parents, I'm certain they will make decisions that sit right within their consciences. It is likely these parents, and those who will soon be parents, will be making changes within their groups to accommodate their children. I don't disagree that AA - as portrayed on this forum - can present overt/covert dangers in a way that I never saw during my tenure in the rooms, so caveat emptor, everyone - heads up.
My daughter is fine and I'm grateful for that. She does not have PCOS (why?) but I'm not unfamiliar with the condition, as I have a cousin in Pennsylvania who is infertile because of it. Her fertility, so far, can't be medically regulated. It was quite a blow. Do you have PCOS?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 16:58
It's just extremely clear to me after my own experience that sending my own kids to, well, ANY of the places I was sent is not an option, and that includes the treatment centers. Certainly not any meetings around here, though, either, and NEVER NA. Meaning that if that sort of problem developed within my own family, we'd be on our own in terms of coming up with a solution. That's actually a scary thought, when you get right down to it.
Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:19
Yea, I agree with Ironic. :) Hi !
Sun, 03/18/2012 - 23:10
The Perpetrator and AA is to blame as well/
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 05:20
Lisa says: THEY (meaning 13 steppers) are responsible.
Massive says: THEY (meaning AA) are responsible.http://stop13stepinaa.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/tradition-10-11-and-12-mo...
But you didn't say it. On that particular blog. Yet.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 05:28
When cornered and all else fails the protectors of the AA faith will result to the usual minimization tactics on any and all posts and then degrade to playing word games even though they know what the actual meaning and intention of the original words are. In other words they are just playing mind games to deflect the discussion in an attempt to protect the cult of Alcoholics Anonymous and the con man who started it.
"Tradition 10 - Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the AA name ought never be drawn into public controversy." Please follow orders from the Interchurch Center if you are an AA member and don't comment.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 05:52
When cornered and all else fails the protectors of the anti-AA faith will result to the usual maximization tactics on any and all posts and then degrade to playing word games even though they know what the actual meaning and intention of the original words are. In other words they are just playing mind games to deflect the discussion in an attempt to destroy the [fill in any convenient pejorative] of Alcoholics Anonymous and the [fill in another convenient pejorative].
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 05:41
What's the REAL agenda?
Massive says: "Yes something should be done. But in our opinion, not just warn them. Its not enough."http://stop13stepinaa.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/tradition-10-11-and-12-mo...
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 05:46
Reconnaissance for weaknesses and possible minimization attacks?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 05:55
Maybe a mission statement is needed:http://www.orange-papers.org/forum/node/788
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 06:48
Stop acting like you are clueless to the real agenda.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:13
You could clue me in. When I first started on the blogs, I thought your issue was that AA had religious overtones and that mandated persons should have a choice. Then it trickles down to that you really just don't think that AA should be a choice at all. I really thought you were a Constitutional advocate, and I agree that options should be made available but that AA should be one, too. Every person that believes as you do should be signing up to become SMART (or anything elses) facilitators in their locales so that there can actually be choices. In many, AA is the only game in town and people get mandated there that don't even have alcohol problems, which abuses everyone.
I'm still working on the park deal, Anti. I have people in MB on board with that if the group is not giving back in some form, they should be. Not only because it is an observance of the traditions, but because it could set a positive example for the other groups that choose to meet there. Until I speak with someone at that group, I don't even know if they are making a donation of some kind. You've also never told me if doing the meeting beach blanket style would work for you as it would get them out of the pavillion. This is what causes me to think that expulsion from the park is the only thing that will appease you. I mean, there are treed areas there, aren't there?
What was proposed to me is that they reserve the space and pay the fee. This gives them the space elgally for three hourse. If they use all that time, fine, but they could always vacate sooner. There should be a sign (like those realtor signs) that could be put up an hour before the meeting, giving notice to others that this space is reserved by permit from when to when. That way, people won't be surprised if they are asked to move on when the coffee crew shows up. I propose that the opening statements remind everyone of the spiritual nature of the program and to refrain from using profanity (we do that in our 67th Avenue group), remembering the open nature of the meeting and that such shares can be overheard. I propose that they take any trash generated by th group home with them. We do that at our picnics. Smoking is allowed by city ordinance. Nothing changes there.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:20
To be clear, personally, I do not think meetings where mandated criminals are sent belong in the park.
I do not think organizations of any kind should monopolize the park or have repeated meetings.
Especially ones with playgrounds. Also there is the monopolization of the pavilion, which citizens have a problem with. Many areas do restrict how many times a place can be rented.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:35
The problem with letting them rent out the pavilion in advance is that they use it every week. What if someone else would like to use it one Sunday?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:52
Exactly Ironic. This a beautiful riverfront park and very popular. People love to have birthday parties, family reunions, sometimes memorials for those that have passed, wedding receptions, churches etc.
Sunday morning is a very sought after time as well as the afternoon. The pavilion needs to be shared, so the community that pays their taxes can actually use it. It is not fair that any group monopolize the pavilion.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:58
But this is an early Sunday meeting. I wouldn't think that most people would be there for those kinds of events until later, even on Sunday. AAs pay taxes, too. Anti, in any of those articles is there even a first name to go by? Surely someone from that group is identified somehow... I'll call their central office again.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:01
Actually you are wrong. They are plenty who use the park starting in the wee hours of the morning to walk their dogs, and exercise. Many start parties in the morning all the time!
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:08
Well, they wouldn't be using the pavilion on Sunday to walk dogs and exercise. They would just have to start their party later, and, of course, they would have to rent the pavilion too if they want to be assured of using it. I can understand starting a party at 10:00 on a Saturday, but not on Sunday. I could very well be wrong, but when I go to parks on Sunday mornings, it's rather with the point that it won't be heavily occupied due to church. I liek the relative privacy.
Now I am beginning to feel that you don't want The Sunrise Group to pay. Is that true?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:15
Please, people do use the pavilion at 9;00 am in the morning on Sunday. More than one person has parties and events. It is not fair to say that no one can ever use the pavilion in the morning anymore but AA. It is monopolizing. It is not fair. There are people who use the pavilion who are there to enjoy it after walking dogs or exercising, or just enjoying the scenery.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:33
Then we are back to that no one uses it for free. It should be a pay only accomodation. If you aren't willing to pay, it doesn't matter who you are. It seems as if we are trying to build in exceptions. Although you have never stated that AAs aren't welcome in the park, isn't that what your behavior says? The beach blanket set up is totally free and there could be no expectation of payment or assumption that you would or should reserve. Can you address this option? Do any of these AAs live in the neighborhood? Perhaps a regular attendee would be interested in storing a shade tent during the week for use on Sunday.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 15:33
of the coveted pavilion. Maybe AAs can use it every OTHER week or something like that, but it simply isn't fair to allow them to be the only ones to use it at the same time every Sunday all year, whether they pay or not.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 16:17
That is how the community feels about it. AA has hogged it for years.Not paying added salt to the wound,but it still wasn't fair that nobody else could use it, and to monopolize it is just selfish. To show no concern for the locals or the children really reflects on Alcoholics Anonymous. No group or organization should be able to do that, whether it is AA or not.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 16:27
What would happen if some people legitimately rented out the pavilion one Sunday (and paid)? What if these people who rented it were there when the AAs tried to set up their meeting?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 16:45
Well if you read the stories at http://nadaytona.org/rude-awakening/ you hear stories from the locals.
In fact they have had a fit when other people rented it during the time of their meeting. With all the controversy and the website that talks about it, their numbers have shrunk to what they once were. They now go to a smaller pavilion, because locals kept having confrontations with AA members Sunday morning. They even started crap on Christmas Day and tried to bully people out of the pavilion. As you can see from the picture on the websites front page, it is very close to the playground, and you can see a little boy driving by on the trail where he can over hear their vulgarity etc.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:53
But her problem was that they didn't pay rent. So now they may be in a position to do away with that objection. If someone else wants to rent the pavillion, they still can. Just later in the day because that slot is taken. It wouldn't matter who rented it. The WHO shouldn't even matter.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 07:59
Clara- I have clearly stated that I had more problems with the group than their refusal to pay rent.
You know that! It does matter who rents it Clara. Because it should be available to others as well in the morning and not have AA monopolize the pavilion forever.
Also this is not just about me. As you very well know the community is not in favor of AA totally monopolizing the park pavilion.
You have stated that you have more than one issue and I tried to work with them in my remedy plan. Of course, those are just suggestions and nothing enforceable. I know that you have problems with language, but I've heard worse language on this board than I have in a meeting. There will always be someone to flout that, but all you can do is suggest. As for totally monopolizing, AA has this one meeting there. One morning a week. That is not monopolizing.
I'm trying to meet your objections, Anti. But that's the flip of the coin. You can raise issue that they don't pay, but what happens if someone does? Then they have legitimate rights, the same that you and I would have.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:21
Sunday mornings are when many people have their day off. This is why people rent it out on the weekends and want to use it on the weekends. So it is monopolizing the park at a popular time for people to use it. Most parks are more populated on the weekends.
I really resent your stating that just because others may not appreciate you trying to warn them has any merit? So what? The rooms need to be safer for all, this includes minors.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:27
Please don't resent it. I didn't say it for that purpose. But it is a fact. What is a warning for you is a call for another. We had hotels in MB that don't advertise some of their group sales in the welcome part of the paper for that very reason - brownie troops, high school groups and the like - whereas they might welcome the Estee Lauder or DeWit convention or some such.
I agree that it is a weekend, but if it is rented, that person is a paying customer with rights. Is it possible to limit them to 90 minutes? That's time to get the coffee going and for clean up after the meeting.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:01
No Clara, monopolizing the park every Sunday is not in the best interest of the community. That is why people are upset! They hog it. They dont care about any others but themselves.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:04
Last i checked there were no 3 year olds on this board. What does the language on this board have to do with the vulgarity around children and exposing them to sexual predators and violent felons?
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 15:52
Language is language and there are people that have pointed it out. Why do you have to be three for poor language to be unacceptable? I don't think cussing in meetings is necessary and sometimes you have to tell people to knock it off.
Thos predators are already out there. As my sponsor told me, most never get caught, never get prosecuted and you can find there anywhere. I personaly don't want people at AA that don't want to be there, and I believe that the only mandates cases should be those where alcohol played a part. My husband's story include spousal abuse during his last drunk. He hit his wife during a blackout and woke up to see his house in ruins, the wife and kids gone. Does that incident make him an abuser that all should be wary of? Many people in AA have behaved in a lot of different ways when they were drunk that they would never be like sober. As Penny said, the difference for a felon is that he got caught. I wish I had the estimates of what is lurking out there in front of me.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 13:00
These meeting belong in the jails or prisons where the criminals should be held until their mandate time has expired. Criminals do not belong on the streets. It's not just AA meetings that are affected. Three days ago, two friends of mine were abducted off the street, driven to various ATMs to get cash out of their accounts, and then stabbed and dumped on the highway. One of my friends snapped a photo of one of these perps with his phone - he looks to be about 17 years old. A manhunt is underway. Both victims survived. But this is what happens when criminals are roaming free. They are not just causing mayhem in AA meetings.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 13:42
Holy Water, you have got to be kidding me? I don't want to ask outright but I am curious where you live. I'm aware that this can happen anywhere, but it is not something that we ever have a problem with in my town.
I commented not to long ago about my car and my hubby's car getting broken into and both were ransacked..twice in a month..and that about sent me loopy. That's about the only "crime" that we've had to deal with personally. We realize that we're lucky that it isn't worse. I grew up in Chicago where people sleep with one eye open, and I see the news of course, but when it happens to a person close to you it definitely becomes more real.
I get your point about AA not being the only org that has seen crime, and there are many other movements that need attention. Some desperately so. You mentioned above that one day we can all move on to our next little project and become involved (that AA won't get a scratch and stay intact). In response to that I'd like to make it clear that I didn't up and choose this battle. I wasn't looking for it (actually I just wanted some peace) and I've never before been involved with any kind of advocacy. At least at this level. I was affected by some of AA's problems first, and then decided that I wanted to help do my part to raise awareness to them and the others. I believe it's necessary and I'm passionate about it. It's not about being angry and fighting just for the sake of it, and I'm not planning my next battle. LOL.
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 20:14
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:06
Clara, dont you think it is possible to take issue than more than one thing with AA? Correct I have a problem with AA on a constitutional level. I also have a problem with AA inviting minors to meetings without safeguards. Since I have learned so much about AA, I do not believe in much of their messages.
I NEVER stated that they should not exist at all. I take issue with other things about 12 step programs, but I am not going to keep reiterating it.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:20
Oh, yes, Anti. I have issues myself with AA. But, as I said, I thought it was an anti God thing what with the religious overtone, and then the remarks that people could overhear God talk at the meeting. You haven't stated it, but I have felt it inferred through your posts. If that is correct, I apologize. I have asked you several time about alternate places in the park, beachstyle meeting... yet you've never responded. I'm don't think it is the pavilion as much as you just don't want the meeting in the park. If that isn't true, then tell me they are welcome to be there. The city even acknowleges that much in that the group has the right to assemble. It wouldn't be the first meeting in a city park. Some meet there to accomodate people that have no transportation. We had some downtown for that purpose.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:24
An anti- God thing? I believe in separation of church and state. I am a christian. It is silly to think anyone who believes in the separation of church and state are ' anti-god'.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 08:35
I got that from your post that people in the park are shouting God at their meetings, which they can. Was that offensive to you? Why was it of note to you? I too believe in separation between church and state. I am still waiting for someone to tell me where AA has ever accepted federal money as was alleged.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 11:59
I take issue to them screaming " God is the only way". First that goes against their stated traditions. I heard a member get up afterwards saying they were not religious, and was obviously uncomfortable with the message the leader was screaming. They scream cuss words and horror stories not suitable for children.
As a Christian I do not believe Christianity is the only way to sobriety. What message does that send to atheists, muslims etc? I dont like that AA states they are not religious yet are hollering God is the only way.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 12:50
You know, one Sunday morning I was walking in an east side neighborhood and I heard the most godawful ruckus coming from the the street . . . tambourines and voices, all singing in harmony, of all things, something about "God shall wipe all tears away . . ." It was hot. The windows to the church were open. And this stuff was spilling out into the street!!
I'm not a Baptist. I took issue with that.
Mon, 03/19/2012 - 14:32
Who could care what a person says in a meeting? If he is talking about his higher power, he CAN say that. Do you listen to these meetings from your front porch? You already know who goes to what meeting.
I don't understand how you could be offended by something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. You aren't invited yet you make a point to overhear what they say. How self centered are you?