Chris Deile Responding To Internet Gossip Against Me

Posted in the Sedro-Woolley Forum

Chris Deile

Bellingham, WA

#1 Sep 11, 2009
Responding to gossip/slander against me on a French chat forum that shows up when Google searching my name (responding here since my post there doesn't appear on Google search)...

[I'm known more here in Bellingham by my middle name--Bruce--the homeless man with service dog that has spoken often under public comment at Bellingham city council meetings]

Newsgroups: alt.recovery.aa
From: PrinceMyshkin82
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:58:57 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Chris Deile Responding To The Gossip Here

Terrible discussion! But thanks for showing how malicious gossip and
slander have plagued me (Chris Deile) in places of employment, etc.
Imagine this discussion inciting hatred against me in the workplace
behind my back. I don't speak French, so replying here is a challenge
(registering through Google on this French site), but will try.

First off, I don't consider myself an "Ex-Gay" (as this forum
erroneously asserts). That's a political term most often used by those affiliated with anti-gay legislation, etc. As a bi-sexual, I was able to
choose heterosexuality as God's will for myself years ago (1997). But I
have no idea if other people have a choice in the matter of sexual
orientation, and I don't even know if heterosexuality is my true
orientation. However, I'm quite okay with it, and believe in faith that it
is.

The bible has specific verses against homosexuality. Yet the
bible's overall ambiguity (I have a quote by Reinhold Niebuhr about
the moral ambiguity of all righteous people in history that I'll try
and find and post here soon) makes it impossible in my mind to assert
that all people have a choice in the matter of sexual orientation.

So since deciding on heterosexuality in 1997, I haven't been involved
in any anti-gay or pro-gay politics. I did support discussion under
public comment at a city council meeting in Wichita Falls, TX opposing
the public library putting "Heather Has Two Mommies" in the children's
section. I don't think children should be taught sexual diversity
before they're taught the stork doesn't deliver babies.
Dattebayo

Bellingham, WA

#2 Sep 11, 2009
Good for you. Do you want a cookie?
Chris Deile

Yakima, WA

#3 Sep 13, 2009
Dattebayo wrote:
Good for you. Do you want a cookie?
"As if!" lol

[hint hint...'Clueless']
Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#4 Jul 25, 2013
Curious as to why certain posts of mine--this one from almost four years ago--come up when Googling my name. This thread is not objectionable--still agree with what I wrote then--but why does it, and a letter of mine to Christianity Today from 2001--over ten years ago--why do they come up when I've numerous posts since then/letters published in newspapers and magazines? Who is manipulating the internet? Lately slanderous things against me have appeared--someone writing terrible stuff as though they were me, using my name, and clearly posing as me since they've posted on same forum I do. What is this all about?

These posts that appear, and that letetr from 2001 do not have enough megabytes (?) to appear like this at random. It's very unfortunate for me being unable to answer slander as who knows which posts of mine will remain and which will be removed (which keeps happening as well).

Targeted by anonymous, faceless people causing me harm whenever someone Google's my name.

Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#5 Jul 25, 2013
And people with enough power, Google insiders, to determine what appears where. Regarding that "Ted W"--I responded after signing up through Google (only way allowed to respond on that forum) only to have certain posts of mine manipulated and removed. This can be maddening for anyone hoping to have a fair say on the internet.
Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#6 Jul 27, 2013
Here's a revision of 'Some of Us'(have to break it up into several posts):

“SOME OF US”

Alcoholics Anonymous ‘How It Works’ absolutism (recited during the beginning of AA meetings):

“With all the earnestness at our command, we beg of you to be fearless and thorough from the very start. Some of us have tried to hold onto our old ideas and the result was nil until we let go absolutely…Half measures availed us nothing…We asked His protection and care with complete abandon. Here are the steps we took….”
Fulfilling such imperatives as to let go absolutely with no old ideas remaining, etc. is to live in perfect communion with God perennially. Therefore, a daily 3rd step (surrender to God) would not only be absolutely unnecessary but a misnomer: If old ideas have crept back in at any point following having let go absolutely, requiring another letting go, one hasn’t let go absolutely to begin with. Absolutely means absolutely, particularly in the context of “half measures availed us nothing” and “the result was nil until…”, thereby rendering a daily 10th step [moral inventory] moot as well since there would be no faults (sins) to tally.
Caveats seeming to rescind the absolutism actually don’t since that which is stated imperative cannot be annulled (caveat here to mean “1b. an explanation to prevent misunderstanding”; Webster’s New International). For example, the caveat “No one among us has been able to maintain anything like perfect adherence to these principles…the principles we have set down are guides to progress not spiritual perfection”: At this point absolutist perfectionism is admitted to be impossible. But it had already been emphatically insisted upon preceding the 12 steps. And,“We are not cured of alcoholism. What we have is a daily reprieve contingent upon the maintenance of our spiritual condition”(Big Book; p.85): Yet what is to be maintained when one has [purportedly] let go absolutely?


Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#7 Jul 27, 2013

‘How It Works’, when stating,“Some of us have tried to hold onto our old ideas”, etc. implies the majority of AA members have let go of their “old ideas”(original sin in religious terms) absolutely. However, Appendix II,‘Spiritual Experience’[AA “Big Book”; 3rd Ed.], contains the caveat of many being relieved to find a sudden religious experience (like Bill W.’s) was unnecessary to successfully work the steps [“Most of our experiences are what the psychologist William James calls the ‘educational variety’ because they develop slowly over a period of time.”, etc.]. Thus, most of us are “some of us” and not “we” who “beg of you”(to be absolutist in a guilt inducing manner). Consequently, Appendix II, which grants working the steps a learning process and not an event appears inconsistent.
“Here are the steps we took”, not “Here are the steps we are taking over the span of a lifetime”. Moreover,“If you want what we have and are willing to go to any lengths to get it” not “If you want what we are gradually getting over a lifetime of working the steps and are willing to go to any lengths to get that which we are ever so gradually getting through a learning process”. And, forthwith,“To show other alcoholics precisely how we have recovered is the main purpose of this book”(Forward to Big Book; 1st Ed.); i.e.“Our stories disclose in a general way what it was like, what happened, and what it’s like now”. Finally,“Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps”, not otherwise, we thence commenced compelling newcomers to get on their knees in our presence when turning their lives and wills over to the care of God as we understood Him.
That’s what Dr. Bob did, beginning a custom AA sponsors (“spiritual advisors”) continue today worldwide [even though the Big Book instructs differently; p. 63]. Ebby T. hadn’t required Bill W. to get on his knees; Bill W. hadn’t required Dr. Bob to get on his knees; it had only involved one alcoholic sharing with another on a mutual basis reportedly. But because Dr. Bob “always emphasized the religious angle very strongly when working with others”(Big Book; p.292; 3rd Ed.), and worked in collusion with local judges court ordering people to attend AA, this custom epitomizes Oliver Cromwell coercion more so than a “voluntary program” of “attraction not promotion”[Far more severe laws are needed to deter drunk driving; decades of court ordered AA haven’t worked]
Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#8 Jul 27, 2013

Although AA states it is spiritual and not religious, Harry Emerson Fosdick’s review of AA’s “Big Book”(1st Ed.) states:“The core of their whole procedure is religious”. And the following quotes by doctors William D. Silkworth and Harry M. Tiebout depict a religious context:“…under these conditions the patient turns to religion with an entire willingness and readily accepts, without reservation, a simple religious proposal”(italics added); “Considering the presence of the religious factor”; “Because of this initial confidence, identical experience, and the fact that the discussion is pitched on moral and religious grounds…”; “…it is paramount to note that the religious factor is all important even from the beginning…”; “Alcoholics Anonymous is the name applied to a group of ex-alcoholics who, through a therapeutic program which a definite religious element…”; “…found an answer to his drinking problem in a personal religious experience”[‘AA Comes of Age’; pgs. 304-309]
Regarding Ebby, Bill and Dr. Bob, none had let go absolutely: Ebby T. drank again. Bill W. had a sudden religious experience removing his desire to drink, followed by his working the steps, yet shared of suffering waves of self-pity and resentment throughout his first two years of sobriety. Bill W.’s “dry drunk” periods later led to his (and wife Lois, Father Dowling, and other AA’s) using LSD in sobriety, believing it to improve the alcoholics relationship with God by removing self—ego—and making room for God [see AA’s ‘Pass It On’]. Dr. Bob fought cravings for alcohol his first year and a half of sobriety, cravings that continued after he had worked the steps (they were 6 steps back then). So, being mortal men, the co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous had not let go absolutely [see online ‘Forgetting Reinhold Niebuhr’; New York Times; 9/18/2005—Niebuhr was a Protestant theologian and author of the Serenity Prayer that AA later began reciting at the beginning of meetings].
Appendix II:“Though it was not our intention to create such an impression, many alcoholics have nevertheless concluded that in order to recover they must acquire an immediate and overwhelming ‘God consciousness’ followed at once by a vast change in feeling and outlook”.
Alcoholics concluding that show the caveats haven’t rescinded the absolutism. Resulting in an enigmatic dichotomy of “God conscious” members appearing “happy, joyous and free”(having fulfilled the imperatives purportedly) and “half measures” members chronically aware of not having done so. False guilt is the consequence that can lead an alcoholic back to drinking, or to seek oblivion through myriad forms in order to assuage a troubled conscience.“Strait is the gait and few there be that find it” or “Beware the Pharisees”?

“The basenesses so commonly charged to religions accounts are thus, almost all of them, not chargeable at all to religion proper, but rather to religion’s wicked practical partner, the spirit of corporate dominion.”
William James ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’
Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#9 Jul 29, 2013
Footnote following AA Comes of Age citation:

A.A. World Services, Inc.
Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#10 Jul 29, 2013
"Some of Us" puts my 2001 Christianity today letter into perspective. Wondered where the abusiveness is coming from in AA so finally got around to looking at AA's teachings more critically. Even though love and tolerance is the code of AA (Big Book), it's not valued. Concluding it's AA being court ordered (people forced there against their will or else be put in jail) ruining the group dynamics, and AA's primary teaching based in absolutism.

It is the absolutism that incurs guilt, and the guilt (as well as people being taught if they stop attending AA they'll get drunk) leaves one accepting the abuse.

I've seen many people abused in AA, myself most definitely included.

So even though I wrote that letter in 2001, hadn't had a more specific understanding of the harmful aspect of AA's teachings until the past few years and most recently when looking at 'How It Works' from the absolutist angle.
Chris Deile

Vancouver, WA

#11 Jul 29, 2013
One other note, I quit attending AA for over five years and didn't get drunk. There are other stoo I've known that have stayed sober after leaving AA completely. It's unfortunate because there is much that's good about AA.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sedro-Woolley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
PETA offers humane education in wake of teen's ... Sep 16 Kurtz 1
WA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Washingto... (Oct '10) Sep 14 anti obama 2 717
cult reportedly in Sedro-Wooley (Jun '10) Aug 25 Jeff Sjolander 66
World Champion Sonnon advocates for dyslexia ed... Aug '14 Seth Ashford 1
US Bicycle Route 10 is approved for Washington ... Aug '14 Great 4
Covington seeks funding for LED lights Aug '14 Shelly Slader 1
AA and False Guilt Jul '14 Bruce Deile 19
•••

Sedro-Woolley News Video

•••
•••

Sedro-Woolley Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Sedro-Woolley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Sedro-Woolley News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Sedro-Woolley
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••