Everyone,

I know we've all gotten worked up about the recent attempts to post about TSM over at soberrecover.com only to get banned by the moderators.

I had a very good email discussion with one of the moderators/administrators tonight. There is alot more going on here than them just not wanting to hear what we have to say. soberreovery.com is a big community and they have been targeted by people and groups who have raised some serious hell over there and caused alot of trouble. The soberrecovery.com moderators and admins are very cautious now and error on the safe side, to protect their users.

If we choose to participate in their community, we need to be mindful of these problems they've had in the past and keep our posts as non-intrusive as possible. We also need to be careful about how we present TSM, especially as it relates to continued drinking. We may want to start a separate thread here to talk about this and how best to present the drinking aspect of TSM to others.

There is no doubt that some of us who posted over there were nailed when we should not of been because of the previous problems this community has had. I feel I have come to an agreement with the moderators at SR as to how we are to participate in their forum.

Above all else, no more sneaking into their community. I gave my word that I would not sneak in there and I said I'd vouch for this community that it would not sneak in there. I trust you will all stand behind me on this.

Ultimately, we want share our success with others.

Comments?

Q

It sounds positive your dialogue because doors can close all too easily and it could have turned nastier . Now the score is known . I gather they understand why you sneaked in and it won't be necessary again .

Maybe a way to proceed would be to clear with the administrator that we'd like to present a limited number of key points on a thread, to address the issue of continued drinking and its merrits to start off i'd put the following
points :

1. Above all , as always that Sinclair and Eskapa insist that people do not break comfortable abstinence to take up tsm , It' s for people currently drinking and struggling with the very fearful notion of no alcohol .
2. That the task of abstiinence does instill great fear and whilst one day they may be under great pressure to do it until that day comes they continue drinking for years - the presence of an alternative is a great safety net for such people
i.e : DO SOMETHING rather than NOTHING .
3. Nothing ventured nothing gained argument : Try it and try something else later
like conventional abstiinence if tsm prooves unsatisfactory .
4. To abridge the key sticking point that one drinks for the buzz , because that kept cropping up in last night's battle and will always do so . The point that it's not the buzz although we fully understand that argument as it always seemed so
new experience has changed our position and expectations .

If you reckon this a good way the thread you suggest could gather the necessary
points to present .
My 2c .

People seemed open about what they were doing, so there were only a few people trying to 'sneak in' to www.soberrecovery.com, weren't there? (And then only because they had been banned without contact from the mods there, and mostly without any reason supported by their own terms of use.) Others expressed an intention to sign up legitimately and post within the own rules.

I think this whole issue's appeared to be bigger than it really is/was. And, this is just my opinion, having another thread on the subject makes it look bigger again. I wish this thread was simply part of the other thread, or at least called something like 'We shouldn't try to sneak into soberrecovery.com'.

Anyway, hopefully we'll have gained some pointers on approaching other communities where some people will really benefit from TSM and all the knowledge we have here.

It sounds like a huge headache to be part of that site and present any information on TSM. I don't have the patience I don't think to write (hopefully) informative posts that are scrapped for no reason and with no warning. But if others here are willing to in the hope of helping out a few folks over there, I think that's wonderful and all power to you guys

I'll keep an eye on developments just to see if I should go back and edit the post where I was quite rude about that site. If it was more an administrative 'mis-step' than anything else I'll be more than happy to take back what I said.

First off, I'm not cured yet and until I am, have no real interest in battling with moderators or people who reject TSM. That will probably change after I'm cured.

Please elaborate on this point: There is alot more going on here than them just not wanting to hear what we have to say. soberreovery.com is a big community and they have been targeted by people and groups who have raised some serious hell over there and caused alot of trouble.

So far, all I've seen are moderators who are censoring people who have expressed their honest experience about TSM for no other reason than they disagree with the notion of continued drinking. Until I see another reason offered for the censorship, I'm not buying the position that we should not post our views over there. It's censorship and is not consistent with their own guidelines. Unless their rules are, "We reserve the right to censor posts we disagree with", then what they are doing is entirely illegitimate and wrong.

But for me personally, I'm letting it drop until I'm cured.

It is tedious I agree with 8 days , and it is censorship I agree with Nick .
But if they Q suggests they would ease up their position if approached in a certain way , if they do become more supple the gains of communicating about tsm to alot of people is the potential benefit . To have that i'd go the extra mile for peace and
at least second Q to place a thread there (if that is what he wishes to do ).
But if they censored that then we really are all losers and it should be dropped .

I'm speaking here as a member and not as a moderator.

I visited there and suffice it to say it was not my cup of tea. But others have joined and posted there, for their own reasons.

Q, I'm not sure I'm at all comfortable with you apparently assuming the rule of spokesperson for our community, "vouching" for the members of this board without discussing it on this board first.

I'm also uncomfortable with the title you chose for this thread. From what I have read on these boards, you are the only one who has described behavior that could be construed as sneaking onto their site: Masking your IP address and registering under another name after you were banned there. By saying "Stop Sneaking . . . .", I infer you are accusing others of sneaking.

I'm sure you had only good intentions but I feel pretty strongly that you have crossed some boundaries here.

Those are my thoughts. I'll be interested to hear how others feel.

I did not sneak into any forum and I resent any implication otherwise. I follow procedures to register and honestly tell my story. I answered a question posted on soberrecovery.com about Dr. Eskapa's book. For that I was banned. It's a shame that soberreovery.com and other like organizations are so closed-minded. Some of their memebers will die because they did not hear about TSM. These organizations need not worry - I will no longer try to educate their members.

"Rigid orthodoxy is based on fear, not faith" - unknown.

regards,
Tom

What does "sneaking in" mean?

Mike

Hi Lena,

Yes, I agree with the points you have made - particularly the one above. If anyone is going to act on behalf of our community, it is courteous to discuss this first with the community's members.

V.

I have to admit, I was a little taken aback by your response here Lena.



I've never claimed to be the spokesperson for this community. I posted my email interaction (with the exception of the very last message, which I will also post) with the SR administrator here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=703

If you read what I wrote, you will see that made statements such as:
- "We are good people...."
- "We are just trying to help..."
- etc.

With respect to their concern that WE were "sneaking into their site," I responded with: "You have my word that I will respect soberrecovery rules. I will also talk with those over at thesinclairmethod.com about respecting the rules at SR as well and to be mindful of what they say when coming over. "

These are hardly statements whereby I am claiming to be the spokesman for thesinclairmethod.com.




This is the part that really rubbed me wrong....

I clearly stated what I did with respect to logging back into that site. I initially went in as QfromTSM and was immediately banned on my home IP address. Yesterday, I went back in on my office IP address as String, then was banned after several posts. I then emailed the administrator. I have not been back to their forums since.

I am not accusing others of "sneaking in," the SR administrator/moderators are. From the first email they sent me "You are one of several new members in the last couple of days who posted about the Sinclair Method on many forums. That is an indication of trolls or spammers using the forum for free advertising or pushing an outside agenda. These same members are sneaking in as new members. One posted a rude remark about the moderator."

Apparently, they have measures in place that are telling them multiple people associated with TSM are coming back after being banned.



I'm sorry you feel that way, but I disagree with you. I don't feel I've crossed any boundaries.

Honestly, you are throwing the wrong person under the bus. I've done nothing but promote TSM and this community, mostly from a personal experience aspect.

Q