There is a school of thought in AA that 'honest' sharing is the sharing of unprocessed negative impressions and first thoughts about those negative impressions. This would hold that any share that is well constructed, positive, cheerful, insightful, or funny, any share that is not messy, directionless, and incoherent, any share by someone who has processed the situation is dishonest.
This is, of course, nonsense. The person who compliments only the unhappy on their honesty probably has honest scepticism about the effectiveness of the programme and genuinely believes people are 'putting it on'. Let's leave that question aside.
Is there such a thing as dishonest sharing?
I think there is. Sometimes a person shares very general truths about the programme with no personal exemplification, no amplification, no real content beyond platitudes, with no apparent emotional connection to what is being said, no conviction that what is being said is true. Of course, this is better than nothing and better than sharing things that are untrue or, worse than that, unprocessed material. But the ideal is to find something to say that has personal meaning for one, to share what we were like, what happened, and what we are liked now, using this is the vehicle to make programme points.