These days the working definition is

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #256,117 by tuberculosis 5/20/06 6:20:53 PM Reply	These days the working definition is if you are repeatedly experiencing negative consequences as a result of your drinking and you don't modify your behavior, you're an alcoholic. Negative consequences include things like wrecking your car, losing your job etc. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #256,119 by pwhysall 5/20/06 6:24:56 PM Reply	AKA "staying normal" Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #256,124 by bionerd 5/20/06 6:48:19 PM Reply	Not necessarily Because you can abuse etoh and experience negative consequences and not have a physiological/pyschological dependency. Or, you can be etoh dependent and not experience any negative consequences because you have an army of enablers protecting you from from said consequences. Follow your MOUSE

Today I had to sit for an exam - (bionerd) - (21) - May 19, 2006, 07:57:36 PM EDT

What was the definition of alcoholic? - (ben_tilly) - (6) - May 19, 2006, 08:16:23 PM EDT

Re: What was the definition of alcoholic? - (pwhysall) - (5) - May 20, 2006, 06:47:48 AM EDT

depends on the deginition of normal doesnt it -NT - (boxley) - (3) - May 20, 2006, 08:39:42 AM EDT

These days the working definition is - (tuberculosis) - (2) - May 20, 2006, 06:20:53 PM EDT

AKA "staying normal" -NT - (pwhysall) - May 20, 2006, 06:24:56 PM EDT

Not necessarily - (bionerd) - May 20, 2006, 06:48:19 PM EDT

You're more or less right. - (bionerd) - May 20, 2006, 11:15:55 AM EDT

Thats a tough one. - (Silverlock) - May 20, 2006, 02:05:52 AM EDT

I got my scores today - (bionerd) - (12) - June 9, 2006, 08:55:05 PM EDT

Ironic - (ben_tilly) - June 9, 2006, 09:34:03 PM EDT

Excellent! Should we invite Cable back? -NT - (Another Scott) - (2) - June 9, 2006, 09:47:21 PM EDT

I don't think that was exactly an addition problem - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:08 AM EDT

He didn't know how to ADD? -NT - (imqwerky) - June 9, 2006, 10:34:58 PM EDT

Way to go! - (imqwerky) - (1) - June 9, 2006, 10:12:57 PM EDT

I can share a few good ones with you. - (bionerd) - June 9, 2006, 11:44:07 PM EDT

there's an invitation... - (cforde) - June 10, 2006, 02:22:19 AM EDT

Impressive! - (warmachine) - (2) - June 10, 2006, 06:12:36 AM EDT

Why, thank you! - (bionerd) - (1) - June 10, 2006, 08:48:55 AM EDT

Just imagine how well you'd have done... - (jb4) - June 16, 2006, 10:35:52 AM EDT

Too early in the morning - (jbrabeck) - June 10, 2006, 06:54:27 AM EDT

Woo! Nicely done! - (Meerkat) - June 10, 2006, 07:55:58 PM EDT

I can use his toes to plug my holes.
85 ms