From Arthur S., Tim T., and Jon Markle

- - - -

From: "Arthur S" <ArtSheehan@...>
(ArtSheehan at msn.com)

Jared on this one I guess we'll have to do the old friendly "agree to
disagree." There are two things though I find interesting:

1. By the definition of "a group vs a meeting" you advocate, none of the
early groups would qualify as a group

2. In a July 1946 Grapevine article titled "The Individual In Relation to
A.A. as a Group" Bill W wrote:

"... Yet Point Three in our A.A. Tradition looks like a wide-open invitation
to anarchy. Seemingly, it contradicts Point One. It reads, 'Our membership
ought to include all who suffer alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who
wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend on money or
conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may
call themselves an A.A. Group'. This clearly implies that an alcoholic is a
member if he says so; that we can't deny him his membership; that we can't
demand from him a cent; that we can't force our beliefs or practices upon
him; that he may flout everything we stand for and still be a member ..."

[Here's the part I find most interesting]

"... In fact, our Tradition carries the principle of independence for the
individual to such an apparently fantastic length that, so long as there is
the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most anti-social,
the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and
announce to us that a new Alcoholics Anonymous Group has been formed.
Anti-God, anti-medicine, anti-our Recovery Program, even anti-each
other-these rampant individuals are still an A.A. Group if they think so!
..."

I rest my case.

Cheers
Arthur

- - - -

From: Tim T. <pvttimt@...> (pvttimt at aol.com)

I've always thought that a simple explanation is
that a group is registered with GSO and has a
group number. ???? A meeting is not registered.

Occam's razor anyone?

Tim T., an alky.

- - - -

From: Jon Markle <serenitylodge@...>
(serenitylodge at mac.com)

All that means absolutely nothing to most people, ya know.

The only explanation that makes any sense, or has any practical
reality is that the difference between a meeting and a group is
simple: A meeting is not registered. A group is registered. That's
it. Simple.

They both function in the same way. The rest is simply an exercise in
semantics, as far as I can see. And AA's will argue 'till pigs fly
over semantics! <GRIN>

Most groups I'm familiar with, haven't got a clue what this much
detail means. Nor do they care, in reality. Too much organization at
this level and AA looses it's meaning for most people . . . except
those who get off, get their jollies on "control issues" and obsess
over the nitty gritty details of running things.

Such is NOT the AA that the average alcoholic is familiar with.
Neither do they (I) wish to have much to do with such emphatically
declared guidelines.

All groups remain autonomous. Many groups simple ignore, or do not
care to subscribe to 12 concepts. And there are many who do not even
subscribe to the suggested 12 traditions. They still remain AA
groups, because they say they are and have no affiliation with any
other process. They exist to carry the message of AA to the next
alcoholic. They do not care about all this other bother.

So . . . I don't understand your post in that context. But, I also do
not particularly care to understand it either. Too much organization
simply makes "us" sick, in my experience.

Hugs for the trudge.

Jon (Raleigh)
9/9/82

- - - -

Original Message from: J. Lobdell
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Hi! Arthur
As you point out, the Conference-approved pamphlet "The Group" says that
"The main difference between meetings and groups is that A.A. groups
generally continue to exist outside the prescribed meeting hours, ready to
provide Twelfth Step help when needed. A.A. groups are encouraged to
register with G.S.O., as well as with their local offices: area, district,
intergroup or central office." As I understand it, the means for existing
outside of "meeting hours" -- that is, to be more than simply a meeting --
is to have the service structure suggested in that pamphlet, and to link
with Intergroup (by means of an Intergroup Representative) and with the
General Service Structure (by means of a GSR). Hence my statement that the
creation of the service structure leads to a quick test of what's a group
and what's a meeting. I did not say that was AA's view -- as you well know,
neither I (having studied AA) nor you (having studied AA and being an active
member of the General Service Structure, as you say) can speak for AA. The
"Twelve Concepts" may not be ambiguous, but the "Twelve Concepts" plus "The
Group" pamphlet seem to present a certain degree of ambiguity (see also Jack
Norris's attempt to distinguish between special-purpose groups, which may
suffer from the "other affiliations" problem, and special-purpose meetings).
I remained convinced that, if there is to be a distinction between a group
and a meeting, it must lie in participation in the service structure, and
the quickest test is whether there is a GSR or could be if requirements
("suggestions") for selection as GSR can be met. Of course, if a group
which has two meetings says each one is a separate group, and claims the
right therefore to two GSRs, presumably General Service must go along with
it (I know an example in Area 59, District 36). Yes, a group is a group if
it says it's a group, if you like -- that's the historical precedent, with
which we as historians are concerned -- but the proof (another historical
precedent for much of AA) is in the action. If it acts like a group, it's a
group. If it doesn't, what's the point of saying it is one? And btw, if
there are no home-group members, what is it that's a group? [P.S. -- I think
NA refers to a GR, tho' here I speak under correction.]--
Jared