Step 1. Get home from work.
Step 2. Grab a beer.
Steps 3 through 12. Drink as many beers as needed.
Step 13. Call whiskey drinkers assholes.
When do you get to decide how much I can drlnk at home?
We don’t. Your wife does. 
I understand, now. You’re what we in the community call “dry drunk.”
Find and replace ever odd-numbered beer with a whiskey – you can go all day and never miss a meeting.
It’s funny how you describe a “huge gulf” in extremes of behavior but exclude that middle when you describe my position. Nowhere have I said that drunkenness is limited to being shitfaced or being “freakin’ hammered.” Unless you are like QuickSilver and exhibit absolutely no external signs of alcohol use, then most people don’t go from being stone-cold sober to “freakin’ hammered” like flipping a light. Why do you think that my observation of someone exhibiting the signs of alcohol use are limited to being “freakin’ hammered”? People – depending on their own physical tolerance of alcohol and the amount of alcohol they have consumed – exhibit behavior along a continuum. It doesn’t take you pinging the “freakin’ hammered” end of the continuum for me to start noticing.
It’s pretty clear that you have no interest in actually understanding what is “in my mind.” You’ve decided that you’re going to interpret everything I say in a way that offends you.
Yes rubs forehead but even in that wide middle ground of drunkenness, people don’t always… you know what? Just… never mind. You are a *very *stupid person. Your toupee looks terrible, btw, but then again, I’ve never seen one that didn’t. Cheerio!
No, really, what? That they don’t always do something that I notice? What exactly is your objection to what I’m saying – that when I start noticing the effects of alcohol intoxication, I no longer want to be in that company. What is so very stupid about that?
So you don’t have a problem being around drunk people, you don’t want to be around obnoxious people.
That is, you don’t want to be around obnoxious people, regardless of sobriety. You have chosen to refer to such people as “drunk,” despite the fact that “drunk” has an established and recognized meaning already. You then seemed … surprised, I suppose, when this lead to confusion.
“Obnoxious” is both too narrow and too broad a term. Of course, on the one hand, I don’t like being around obnoxious people. But then that’s not saying much at all. And on the other hand I’m not sure that anyone else would agree that the behavior that I want to avoid is “obnoxious” in any objective sense.
I don’t buy that any one of you with me in that situation would object to the term “drunk,” or “tipsy,” or “buzzed,” or “happy,” or “high” (in the obsolete sense of slight alcohol intoxication) – whatever you want to call it or that you would necessarily call it “obnoxious.”
Hah! This is great! And it is exactly what my AA sponsor said to me in my first (sober) month in the program (almost 20 years ago). Really, it’s not too different than anybody else who’s made a change (e.g. losing weight, getting in shape, buying a new car) going on and on about it in their initial rush of enthusiasm. I’d call that guy a douche bag regardless of what he was talking about. But what he was doing is in no way a tenet of AA. See, AA’s policy is attraction not promotion. So when people dis AA cause they hear someone spouting off in public about AA and being all judgemental about the habits of others, what you are hearing are people violating the tenets of the program. You don’t hear the non-judgemental AAs because, well, they aren’t going to do that sort of thing.
Make no mistake, AA has as many or more jerks as any other gathering of people – probably more given the selection process - but the ones who warrant attention as the best examples of the program’s positive effects are least likely to be obvious.