Is there a way to save this thread? I'd like to read it over (and over) again. It sure is a real deterrent!!
Thanx everybody!!

Back to the original question of this post. I think it is self-explanatory just by putting it back into context - the start of Chapter 5, Into Action:

"RARELY HAVE we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.

There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average.

There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest."

I thank my to HP for the fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous where there are no loopholes like this to exclude someone from recovery.

An addict, any addict, can stop using drugs, lose the desire to use, and find a new way to live.

*I am thankful to...

Typos suck LOL!!!

Lucysdad, I don't see that as loopholes for exclusion, it's just an honest observation that some will try and fail.

No programme of recovery can guarantee 100% success for everyone, surely?

i just want to be clear....

This post is a year and a half old. I was a royal effin mess when I wrote it. Guess what....

I AM SOBER TODAY.

And for the record, "constitutionally incapable" is impossible to prove. A person can ONLY be labeled constitutionally incapable postmortem. And even then it makes too many assumptions about the person's intentions WHILE they were alive.

The term is a fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc... After the fact therefore because of the fact.

If it were proper use of the term, we might say... I was constitutionally incapable until I wasn't.

Just get honest right? Bill W was not able to recover from his multi -addictions of smoked - sex etc.

If they brilliant man couldn't get honest - then honesty isn't the problem.

He search all his life for medical solutions via self medications of LSD and the above self medications and never found them.

The three legged stool he knew as phsical, spiritual , medical.

see Dr, Kippers book Addiction Solution, Bill would have love it, it came out 75 years later in 2010..

Michael in Kansas

FALLACY.

After the fact, therefore because of the fact.

He did not get sober. Therefore he must have been constitutionally incapable.

Wrong. He just didn't get sober before his number was called.

It is not a loophole. It is BS. One who is dishonest MAY never get sober. One who IS honest may ALSO never get sober. Too many other variables. The steps work in spite of us. Honest or not, half measures availed us nothing. The result was nil until we let go aboslutely (paraphrased).

Peace.

AA's path to sobriety is such a simple thing, and yet there is no end to the attempts to make it complicated.

Augusta.... When a person is trying desperately to find a WAY to get sober, it does not ALWAYS come easy.

Some "get it" immediately. Some struggle for a long time.

Those who struggle do NOT struggle BECAUSE they complicate it. They complicate it BECAUSE they struggle.

We each fight our individual battles. It took me a little longer and a little more pain than I ever would have CHOSEN for myself.

I did not complicate to divert myself from sobriety. I complicated because I was trying desperately to figure it out. What else is a person to do except what they KNOW? I grew up fending more myself and only knew to do things my way.

At the point surrender, simplicity just finally happened. I WANTED to get sober a LONG time before that surrender came.

I guess I find your remark a bit condescending and presumptuous.

How simple was it for you in the beginning? You must have been one of those who decided one day they wanted to get sober and so you did, never to go back. That is fine. It is not that for everyone.

A freindly reminder.

No one speaks for A A, so the when a person use us or we they

seem to think they do.

Thats called Grandiosity.

I'm well aware it is not simple for people to find sobriety...my beloved first sponsor went through rehab 3 times before she gained sobriety. I've sponsored and met many others who have the same history.

Yes, I spent a month in rehab and never drank again, though I assure you it was not easy.

I just get weary of what I see as 'the talking heads', and I believe many do create complications where there are none. Long sobriety has taught me that too many get frustrated and go back to drinking in part because of being burdened with too many words. Keeping things simple means keeping things uncomplicated.

I did not even make a reference to AA in my last post where I only used "they" to speak in reference to human nature. And I quickly used myself as an example.

No grandiosity from me in these posts either. Defensiveness... maybe. Not sure what you are talking about.

Augusta.... I agree wholeheartedly that keeping it simple is necessary.

I just did not see where your pointing out the complexity in this discussion was helpful. It felt belittling. The original post was made when I was in the thick of trying to GET the simple program. It was another year before I finally ended up in rehab where I found relief in the simplicity.

Continuing the discussion.... I was only responding the debate presented by various posters. Nothing wrong with a little healthy debate.

The A A program that I read says

I resign from the debating society.

Michael in Kansas