Banned from soberrecovery.com

eight days a week · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:31 pm

Quote:

...I know the main concern the moderators had was the remark about being cured and able to control your drinking even if it's true for you.

A site that won't let people report that they've been able to control their drinking, much less that they've been CURED?

Outrageous. Makes no sense at all.

My interest in their site is now nil.

lena · **Joined:** Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:07 pm **Posts:** 929

Eight -- There's an old saying: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

eight days a week · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:45 pm

lena wrote:

Eight -- There's an old saying: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Sure, but if that self-same pig sets up a website called 'thesingingpig.com' he or she shouldn't be surprised if people ask him for a song!! :lol:

~Q~ · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:26 pm

lena wrote:

Q -- I really don't think we need a lecture from you about minding our manners when we are off this board. I think it's presumptious of you to say something like that to the admin of the other board. This thing is out of hand.

I have not been lecturing anyone.

I don't understand why you are having such a problem with all of this. IMO, this is all free speech. I can say what ever I want in a private conversation with someone else. In the spirit of being open, I chose to post the messages here so those who do want to go over to SR will know what the moderators think about it.

I did what I said I was going to do in my messages (i.e., I said something) If people want to be involved over there and talk about TSM (and some of us do), then these people will need to do so as I've outlined (based on the messages from the moderators) or anything they post will be deleted and they will get banned.

No one is forcing anyone to go over there, nor is any of what has been said here being forced on anyone.

It is simply FYI.

Q

N101CS · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:41 pm

Alright, alright... (kids)

~Q~ is free to say what he wants to in messages to others on SR. Lena is equally free to criticize what ~Q~ said if she feels like doing so. I don't care about any of that.

What I DO care about is people going over there and in any way violating their rules while at the same time letting it be known that you're "from" this board. I wouldn't be happy to see misbehavior but I'd be downright pissed if it reflected badly on all of us here. I'm not saying anyone did this (because I don't know) but I'd prefer it not happen.

Keep in mind that this forum is VERY tolerant of dissent. I believe open (even sometimes unpleasant) dialog is more important than anything else. Other site admins don't share this belief and seek to quash ideas that don't align with theirs. Unfair? Youbetcha. But it's their forum. There's no First Amendment on their board (or this one, for that matter).

Remember, we could almost look like a cult in the eyes of someone looking in from the outside. The last thing we need is to look like a bunch of nutjobs or shills.

RV

bob3d · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:54 pm

{content deleted by user}

~Q~ · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:47 pm

Final email received just now from soberrecovery.com:

"I activated your account again and will replace your thread.
I edited out the links to your forum. It is against the rules for everyone to post forum or blog links. You can put the link in your profile as your home page.

AA topics are off topic on the secular connection's forum so that might be a good place to post if you want to avoid 12 step debates.

Please review the rules carefully. No one was banned for the content of their posts. You were banned for being suspected trolls due to the number of group posts within a couple of days.

Most forums are suspicious of that. It's best to share and become a member first so you won't be considered a spammer when you go to other forums who have a lot of trouble with trolls and spam.
We move swiftly because we read 1,500 to 2,000 posts per day. We get regular daily spam posts for treatment centers and all kinds of things.

The posts on your thread were not very welcoming. Maybe it is becuase they didn't get to know you first. Also they are protecting their own sobritey.

Our forum has progressed a lot as new members particiapate. It took me years to get the secular forum moving smoothly. They started out just like the members who are bashing us on your forum.

Thank you,
MG"

N101CS · **Posted:** Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:01 pm

Okay, sounds like things are going smoothly over at the RR board. ~Q~ I'm glad you and MG got things smoothed over.

I don't want to hear anyone else bashing the folks at RR. Yes, their philosophy is different and they do seem to be supported by mainstream treatment centers, but their motives aren't nefarious. Frankly, I'd be very suspicious if a bunch of their folks came over here en masse and started rocking the boat. I probably wouldn't ban them but I'd certainly be watching closely.

I'm curious as to who posted a link to sinclairmethod.com, because as everyone here knows that's a commercial site for a ripoff clinic that charges $3500 to administer $100 drugs. Sure there is some medical management but there is no excuse for turning alcohol treatment into such a big profit center. It's not unlike the doctor I talked to who wanted $150 per week to write me 7-day naltrexone prescriptions. Greedy thief.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

eight days a week wrote:

Hi dreadnought, welcome to the community here

dreadnought54321 wrote:

...The question remains.....Can you stop taking the drug and go back to normal drinking?

Its a straight forward question that can be answered with a yes or a no.

Yes you can, but eventually you will become readdicted, which would be madness in my opinion compared to continuing to take Nal (only before drinking) and remaining totally in control of your consumption.

Once you are 'cured' taking Nal every time is preventative medicine as far as I see it.

dreadnought54321 wrote:

I will say this, addiction is not a learned behavior. Its genetic fundamentally. Those with the genetic markers will "learn" the behaviour and those without wil never "learn" the behavoiur. Its why %90 of the population have no problem going out and having a couple of drinks and being done. If it was a learned behaviour, every would be a drunk.

I believe it's both. Have there been any studies which show that people without genetic disposition to certain addictions will not develop physical dependency if they consume enough over time?

I agree that it is preventative medicine. There have not been studies done because you cant prove or disprove a negative. People without the genetic markers will never drink enough to develop physical dependence in the first place.

dreadnought54321 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:08 pm **Posts:** 55

lena wrote:

Read Eskapa's book if you truly want to know and discuss/debate rather than to argue. If you don't want to shell out twelve bucks for the book, there are links to some chapters on the board index. There's also a host of links to the studies supporting the method.

There is a genetic component to predisposition to alcoholism, but alcohol addiction is learned as that term is understood to apply to classical conditioning. It also can be learned by those without a genetic predisposition. I am an example that if one drinks hard enough, for long enough, addiction is possible without the gene.

WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR with the definition of "cure." It is, restored to a healthy, or non-pathological, state. That describes our brains when we are cured. IF we choose to drink after we are cured, we take naltrexone to prevent re-addiction. Your polio analogy is off the mark. You get a polio vaccine to prevent ever getting polio. (By the way, you can use naltrexone to keep from getting addicted to alcohol in the first place, but unlike a vaccine you must take it each time you drink because it does not remain active i the system like a vaccine). You can be cured of pneumonia and get it again.

If you want to learn about TSM, there is much information here. We welcome informed debate.

There are several types of diseases. Polio is a viral disease that was cured with a vaccine. MMR(Measles Mumps Rubella) are bacterial diseases which a vaccine is administered for. There are other conditions and syndromes that will never be cured but always treated, such as the common cold, and flu. As they are recurring and are a unique strain of virus each time, so one never gets the "same" cold. You cant be cured of pneumonia because each strain is different and your body develops an immunity to each particular strain of the virus. There is not "one" pnunemonia.

And then there are genetic diseases, all of which have a cure through gene therapy.

""I am an example that if one drinks hard enough, for long enough, addiction is possible without the gene"" How do you know that you do not have the genes for addiction? And yes I like healthy debate.

Banned from soberrecovery.com

Who is online