The following is extracted from a letter by Michael Bruwer, MD, in the
magazine "Parabola", Vol XII, No 4, November 1987: 'Jung's position on
alcoholism and the recovery from it did not spring solely from his own mind
and his discoveries about the religious nature of the psyche. Jung trained
at the Burgholzli Asylum in Zurich. Its former director August Forel turned
it over to his student Eugen Bleuler, who was Jung's teacher. When Forel
first took over running the asylum he was very humbled by his terrible
results from treating alcoholics, which he did by trying to enjoin them to a
pattern of moderate drinking (wine was still part of the regimen for staff
and patients). Forel was then strongly influenced by his local shoemaker
Jacob Bosshardt, a member of the local society of the Blue Cross, a
Methodist abstainers' group. At Forel's invitation Bosshardt successfully
treated a number of Forel's patients with abstinence. Forel was so impressed
that he implemented the abstinence program coupled with aftercare for
alcoholics at the Burgholzli. Forel became an abstainer himself. His staff
followed his example, including Bleuler and the young Dr Jung. Jung
maintained his abstinence until continued harrassment and belittlement for
it by Sigmund Freud induced him to cease abstaining. Forel is respected in
Switzerland where he appears on the thousand-franc note and on a stamp. It
is to him and his shoemaker Jacob Bosshardt that we must look for a major
root of AA."


>From: "Fiona Dodd" <fionadodd@...>
>Reply-To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
>To: <aahistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Jung
>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:53:18 +0100
>
>Have just read Jungs Memories, Dreams and Reflections in which he speaks of
>treating an American patient for "alcoholic neurasthenia".
>According to the account by Jung, the man had an ordinay neurosis couple
>with a formidable mother complex. "He came from a rich and respected
>family,
>had a likeable wife and no cares-externally speaking. Only he drank too
>much." The mother owned a large company and the son occupied  a leading
>position in it. After a brief treatment he stopped drinking but as soon a
>she wa sunder the mothers influence again, he took to the bottle. Jung
>approached the mother during her next visit to Switzerland and convinced
>her
>to let the son go from his position otherwise he would die from alcoholism.
>The patient went on to forge a successful career and overcame his
>alcoholism.
>
>Anyone any idea who this guy was? All of this occured around 1909. He makes
>no further mention in this book of treating other alcoholics. I find it
>interesting that by the time he came to treat Rowland H he was no longer
>treating alcoholism as being a manifestation of a neurosis.
>
>Fiona
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes.
http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/

Have just read Jungs Memories, Dreams and Reflections in which he speaks of
treating an American patient for "alcoholic neurasthenia".
According to the account by Jung, the man had an ordinay neurosis couple
with a formidable mother complex. "He came from a rich and respected family,
had a likeable wife and no cares-externally speaking. Only he drank too
much." The mother owned a large company and the son occupied  a leading
position in it. After a brief treatment he stopped drinking but as soon a
she wa sunder the mothers influence again, he took to the bottle. Jung
approached the mother during her next visit to Switzerland and convinced her
to let the son go from his position otherwise he would die from alcoholism.
The patient went on to forge a successful career and overcame his
alcoholism.

Anyone any idea who this guy was? All of this occured around 1909. He makes
no further mention in this book of treating other alcoholics. I find it
interesting that by the time he came to treat Rowland H he was no longer
treating alcoholism as being a manifestation of a neurosis.

Fiona


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mitchell,
   I never claimed that the twelve page document was false or forged. The terms
"putative" and "purported" refer to your conclusion that the first page was an
"outline" of the Big Book. It was no such thing. Please review your own How It
Worked book where you make that claim repeatedly on pages 96, 98 and 102.[eg,
"Hank wrote, in his outline for the book, p. 102"].
   "Hanks ideas" did not make it into the Big Book.  There is no evidence, direct
or circumstantial, that the purported outline was even circulated to anyone
other than Bill or Hank, let alone becoming the "guidelines for the writing
efforts of AA's founders,who supplied their manuscripts (sic)", as claimed in
your book at page 98.  The ideas in those twelve pages did not make it into the
big book, at least until the 1941 Second Printing when Hank's ideas about
spiritual experience were included in the Spiritual Experience Appendix. It
would be helpful if you posted the alleged samples of Hank's writings on the
Internet, so impartial parties could compare those writings with the purported
"outline".
   love+service,
   john lee
vist@...> wrote:

How I came upon that document was in fact to verify
that it actually was Hank’s handwriting. I was asked
by the then archivist at Stepping Stones to view the
pages there. They had no samples of Hank’s handwriting
to compare it with.

I brought a few of Hank’s handwritten letters with me
and we compared the document against actual samples.
Another verification came through Merton M. who also
is familiar with Hank’s writing (both style and actual
handwriting). To my knowledge, Merton and I are
probably two of the very few people around who
actually could verify Hank’s handwriting. Neither Nell
Wing nor Frank M. had samples of Hank’s handwriting to
compare it to when I brought copies of the document to
them.

While some may argue semantics, what I wrote was that
“Hanks ideas” was his outline FOR the book and not an
outline OF the book. Hank’s notations were part of the
discussion stages not only for the writing of the book
but for the promotion of the book as well. The book
was not yet written at that time and the first chapter
was in the dictation stage. They were also discussing
the demographics of what type of persons the stories
would represent. Not included with Hank’s proposal
published on-line was another document outlining
prospective authors. These authors were not listed by
name but by the listing of whether or not they were
low bottom or high bottom, whether or not they had
slipped, their occupation, geographic location, etc.
Not published on the net but included with the
document was also a list of occupations of
prospective authors for the story section. There were
25 occupations numbered and listed. Some had a check
next to the name. I’m not sure what the check
signified but I will not where they appeared with an *
(The first two are pretty obvious):
1. Broker *
2. Surgeon
3. Politician
4. Executive *
5. Sales Manager *
6. Author *
7. Radio Man
8. Laborer *
9. Accountant *
10. Proprietor very large retail business *
11. Housewife *
12. Mechanic *
13. Judge *
14. Insurance *
15. Teacher
16. Upholsterer
17. Gardener
18. Salesman
19. Book Agent
20. Test car driver
21. Farmer
22. Laboratory technician
23. banker
24. athlete
25. Oil man

John States that : “The first page is not an "outline"
of the Big Book, as claimed by some, but appears to be
an outline of a Business Plan to promote the Book.”
The first page is actually an outline of the
proceeding pages. If it were merely a business plan to
promote the book why then would it list:

• Preface of the book
• The Program
• The aim of the book
• What is an alcoholic
• The medical chapter
• In the book should be suggestions regarding
hospitalization
• Dr. Silkworth letters

Page 2 states under “Why the Book,” that “The work has
become so broad that full time assistance and
direction is needed. This costs money (which has been
offered by foundational funds) however the alcoholics
believe it should come from within their own
experience.”

On page 3 under “Questions and Answers” it asks in
part:
• How do I know this will work with me? Why is this
method better than any other religious method? (It is
not – this is only a step toward a religious
experience which should be carried forward in
Christian fellowship no matter what your church)
• Will I fail if I cannot keep my conduct up to these
highest standards?
• What happens when an alcoholic has a sexual relapse?

Under Suggestions for Chapter 1 on page 5 it calls for
“A History of the work – Possibly this could be
carried on the first two pages of the book. This
history should establish proof of success of the work
and carry ‘hope’ to everyone that reads that much. The
opening of the book should arouse the emotion of
hope.” This does not sound like a sales promotion but
rather a suggestion relating to the actual writing and
outline for the book.

This document relates not only to the sales and
promotion of the yet unwritten book, it addresses
proposals for what Hank feels should be included and
why these subjects should be included.

There is no significance as to where in the document
Bill wrote “Hanks ideas”. Bill wanted to identify
whose ideas these were and the bottom of the page was
open. Hank probably handed these pages to Bill and
they discussed them. Bill wanted to file these with
materials relating to the writing of the book as the
book was being written and wrote “Hanks ideas” as a
means of identification of whose ideas the were. Bill
did not hand Hank a blank piece of paper with the
title Hank’s Ideas and ask Hank to write an essay.
Hank and Bill were partners in the work and the fact
that equal partners do not need to quibble about
whether or not Bill’s notation came BEFORE or AFTER
the “purported” outline of suggested ideas for the
book and promotion of the book. Taking the document in
its entirety, it is in no way just a sales promotion
prospectus or “Business Plan.” Given the fact that
Bill and Hank were partners in the writing of the
book, they bounced ideas off each other in that very
small office on the 6h floor at 17 William St in
Newark. Also, to infer that Hank’s ideas did not make
it into the book does not take into account what is
addressed in the entire document. Maybe not specific
subject titles on the cover page but in fact what
made it into the book IS covered in this document.

In conclusion – Verification that the document was
Hank’s handwriting was made by comparing actual
letters written by Hank against the original document
by several individuals – Frank M., Nell Wing, myself,
Merton M. and the then archivist at Stepping stones.
The document came from Stepping Stones and were part
of Bill’s materials relating to the writing of the
book. Bill’s handwriting as to “Hanks ideas” was also
verified by the aforementioned individuals.

To infer that just because Bill annotated “Hanks
ideas” AFTER the title page as anything other than as
a means of identifying the document is also a stretch
and to question the veracity of the document by words
such as purported or putative implies fabrication. The
FACT that the document was verified to be Hank’s
handwriting by at least four individuals including the
former archivist at GSO, the then current archivist at
GSO, the then archivist at Stepping Stones and
probably the only two other people in the world who
had samples of Hank’s actual handwriting would
probably stand up in court. The FACT that this
document was part of Bill’s papers relating to the
writing of the book and was housed in the archival
repository at Bill and Lois’ home at Stepping Stones
would verify its authenticity and also stand up in
court. The FACT that if one looked at any author’s
notes during the writing process of their books or
papers one would usually not find these documents,
ideas, scribbling, etc. dated or titled. I am also
sure that if one looked at the handwritten story
submissions also stored at Stepping Stones you would
not find these dated or titled either. The actual
titles for the stories in the book were not submitted
by the authors of the stories but were decided upon
AFTER the stories were submitted. I take umbrage to
the inference of fabrication as well. I did not seek
out this document. At the time it was discovered I was
asked as one of probably only two or three people in
the world familiar with Hank’s handwriting and in
possession of actual letter written by Hank to verify
the handwriting. As a matter of course I showed the
document and samples of Hank’s handwriting to several
other “experts” in AA documents to verify my findings.

Mitchell K.

--- johnlawlee <johnlawlee@...> wrote:

> Although styled as "Hanks [sic] letter [sic]", the
> twelve pages of
> lined tablet appear to be handwritten notes from
> two, or possibly
> three, different persons. The pages are undated and
> untitled. The
> handwriting saying "Hanks ideas" is most likely Bill
> Wilson's
> inscription, but does anyone have facts to
> authenticate that any of
> the writing on those twelve pages is Hank
> Parkhurst's? It is
> significant that the notation "Hanks ideas" come
> AFTER the purported
> outline,not before; consequently, Hank's ideas would
> be the material
> coming after the putative outline. The first page
> is not
> an "outline" of the Big Book, as claimed by some,
> but appears to be
> an outline of a Business Plan to promote the Book.
> In any case, few
> if any of those ideas made their way into the Big
> Book. It seems
> quite a stretch to claim that the first page is an
> outline of what
> became the Big Book. While "Hanks ideas" didn't make
> it into the
> manuscript or the First Printing, they DID become
> the incubator for
> the Spiritual Experience Appendix in the Second
> Printing [and
> subsequent printings/editions].
> john lee






---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you for your post, Mitch, it clears up a bit of the intrigue about
this rare archival item.
If the "printer's manuscript" was purchased three years ago for $1.56
millions what will speculators pay this year?
On one hand I am saddened that the item has not been placed in the AA
Archives at GSO, and remain amused that its auction brings such deep
pocketed people to the bidding. The AA Archives had no opinion on its
auction in 2004 and I wouldn't expect any comment this year. Looks like
"aahistorylovers" can help bring this in the light of day...I had the
opportunity in 2004 to present the Sotheby's activity to my Area in its
annual Big Book Conference and in my talk I shared that establishing private
archives collections is an AA's personal choice. Some can spend a lot of
money pursuing and purchasing AA memorabilia and may God bless them if they
can keep their sobriety in the process.

How we get to this point in 2007-this manuscript belonged to the estate of
Barry L, the author of AAWS' Living Sober and a close friend of Lois Wilson.
He also served as the chief writer for Al-Anon's Lois' Story. Apparently she
held sympathy for Barry's claim that the early 1970s General Service Board
had not competitively paid him for the work on the AAWS book and she gave
the manuscript to him as a gift. 25 years later Barry's heirs decided to
cash in on its sale. Of course, the item was a cherished part of Bill's
estate, given to Barry in friendship.

Bill's handwriting may or may not have been written in later years as he
inventoried many of his papers (preceding the mid-1950s AA history project?)
and I can't help but assume that the "book outline" from Hank was input
toward a consensus on just how to organize and title the chapters. Another
egroup recently discussed the authorship of the Big Book, which is
"officially" denoted by the General Service Board as written by Bill, but
the number of editors and the wide scope of building the consensus on its
final form tells a beautiful story!
Hank's organization skill was indispensable and Bill W.'s and Bob S.'
insightful writing (as well as the AAs writing their own personal stories)
was priceless. The assistance of Jim S. of Akron, Tom U. of NYC, Ruth Hock's
dictation-typing, her language ability, and the last-minute editing by the
Cornwall Press staff on the verbiage all came together to bring this work
home to the world in February 1939.

I am a better and more appreciative AA member and historian because of the
actions of those founders.
Rick, Illinois

p.s. in that talk on the Big Book's history, instead of dropping names that
no one would remember, the career occupations of Big Book writers (in all
the first three editions) brought an insight to those at the conference and
I credited this egroup (and our initial 'aahistorybuffs') as a primary
source. Love to you all, ---R.




   _____

From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell K.
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:11 AM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AAHistoryLovers] Re: Big Book "Outline"



.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=6460000/grpspId=1705237878/msgId
=4294/stime=1177854919/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How I came upon that document was in fact to verify
that it actually was Hank’s handwriting. I was asked
by the then archivist at Stepping Stones to view the
pages there. They had no samples of Hank’s handwriting
to compare it with.

I brought a few of Hank’s handwritten letters with me
and we compared the document against actual samples.
Another verification came through Merton M. who also
is familiar with Hank’s writing (both style and actual
handwriting). To my knowledge, Merton and I are
probably two of the very few people around who
actually could verify Hank’s handwriting. Neither Nell
Wing nor Frank M. had samples of Hank’s handwriting to
compare it to when I brought copies of the document to
them.

While some may argue semantics, what I wrote was that
“Hanks ideas” was his outline FOR the book and not an
outline OF the book. Hank’s notations were part of the
discussion stages not only for the writing of the book
but for the promotion of the book as well. The book
was not yet written at that time and the first chapter
was in the dictation stage. They were also discussing
the demographics of what type of persons the stories
would represent. Not included with Hank’s proposal
published on-line was another document outlining
prospective authors. These authors were not listed by
name but by the listing of whether or not they were
low bottom or high bottom, whether or not they had
slipped, their occupation, geographic location, etc.
Not published on the net but included with the
document was also a list of occupations of
prospective authors for the story section. There were
25 occupations numbered and listed. Some had a check
next to the name. I’m not sure what the check
signified but I will not where they appeared with an *
(The first two are pretty obvious):
1. Broker *
2. Surgeon
3. Politician
4. Executive *
5. Sales Manager *
6. Author *
7. Radio Man
8. Laborer *
9. Accountant *
10. Proprietor very large retail business *
11. Housewife *
12. Mechanic *
13. Judge *
14. Insurance *
15. Teacher
16. Upholsterer
17. Gardener
18. Salesman
19. Book Agent
20. Test car driver
21. Farmer
22. Laboratory technician
23. banker
24. athlete
25. Oil man

John States that : “The first page is not an "outline"
of the Big Book, as claimed by some, but appears to be
an outline of a Business Plan to promote the Book.”
The first page is actually an outline of the
proceeding pages. If it were merely a business plan to
promote the book why then would it list:

• Preface of the book
• The Program
• The aim of the book
• What is an alcoholic
• The medical chapter
• In the book should be suggestions regarding
hospitalization
• Dr. Silkworth letters

Page 2 states under “Why the Book,” that “The work has
become so broad that full time assistance and
direction is needed. This costs money (which has been
offered by foundational funds) however the alcoholics
believe it should come from within their own
experience.”

On page 3 under “Questions and Answers” it asks in
part:
• How do I know this will work with me? Why is this
method better than any other religious method? (It is
not – this is only a step toward a religious
experience which should be carried forward in
Christian fellowship no matter what your church)
• Will I fail if I cannot keep my conduct up to these
highest standards?
• What happens when an alcoholic has a sexual relapse?


Under Suggestions for Chapter 1 on page 5 it calls for
“A History of the work – Possibly this could be
carried on the first two pages of the book. This
history should establish proof of success of the work
and carry ‘hope’ to everyone that reads that much. The
opening of the book should arouse the emotion of
hope.” This does not sound like a sales promotion but
rather a suggestion relating to the actual writing and
outline for the book.

This document relates not only to the sales and
promotion of the yet unwritten book, it addresses
proposals for what Hank feels should be included and
why these subjects should be included.

There is no significance as to where in the document
Bill wrote “Hanks ideas”.  Bill wanted to identify
whose ideas these were and the bottom of the page was
open. Hank probably handed these pages to Bill and
they discussed them. Bill wanted to file these with
materials relating to the writing of the book as the
book was being written and wrote “Hanks ideas” as a
means of identification of whose ideas the were. Bill
did not hand Hank a blank piece of paper with the
title Hank’s Ideas and ask Hank to write an essay.
Hank and Bill were partners in the work and the fact
that equal partners do not need to quibble about
whether or not Bill’s notation came BEFORE or AFTER
the “purported” outline of suggested ideas for the
book and promotion of the book. Taking the document in
its entirety, it is in no way just a sales promotion
prospectus or “Business Plan.”  Given the fact that
Bill and Hank were partners in the writing of the
book, they bounced ideas off each other in that very
small office on the 6h floor at 17 William St in
Newark. Also, to infer that Hank’s ideas did not make
it into the book does not take into account what is
addressed in the entire document. Maybe not specific
subject titles on the cover page but in fact  what
made it into the book IS covered in this document.

In conclusion – Verification that the document was
Hank’s handwriting was made by comparing actual
letters written by Hank against the original document
by several individuals – Frank M., Nell Wing, myself,
Merton M. and the then archivist at Stepping stones.
The document came from Stepping Stones and were part
of Bill’s materials relating to the writing of the
book. Bill’s handwriting as to “Hanks ideas” was also
verified by the aforementioned individuals.

To infer that just because Bill annotated “Hanks
ideas” AFTER the title page as anything other than as
a means of identifying the document is also a stretch
and to question the veracity of the document by words
such as purported or putative implies fabrication. The
FACT that the document was verified to be Hank’s
handwriting by at least four individuals including the
former archivist at GSO, the then current archivist at
GSO, the then archivist at Stepping Stones and
probably the only two other people in the world who
had samples of Hank’s actual handwriting would
probably stand up in court. The FACT that this
document was part of Bill’s papers relating to the
writing of the book and was housed in the archival
repository at Bill and Lois’ home at Stepping Stones
would verify its authenticity and also stand up in
court. The FACT that if one looked at any author’s
notes during the writing process of their books or
papers one would usually not find these documents,
ideas, scribbling, etc. dated or titled. I am also
sure that if one looked at the handwritten story
submissions also stored at Stepping Stones you would
not find these dated or titled either. The actual
titles for the stories in the book were not submitted
by the authors of the stories but were decided upon
AFTER the stories were submitted. I take umbrage to
the inference of fabrication as well. I did not seek
out this document. At the time it was discovered I was
asked as one of probably only two or three people in
the world familiar with Hank’s handwriting and in
possession of actual letter written by Hank to verify
the handwriting. As a matter of course I showed the
document and samples of Hank’s handwriting to several
other “experts” in AA documents to verify my findings.


Mitchell K.

--- johnlawlee <johnlawlee@...> wrote:

> Although styled as "Hanks [sic] letter [sic]", the
> twelve pages of
> lined tablet appear to be handwritten notes from
> two, or possibly
> three, different persons. The pages are undated and
> untitled. The
> handwriting saying "Hanks ideas" is most likely Bill
> Wilson's
> inscription, but does anyone have facts to
> authenticate that any of
> the writing on those twelve pages is Hank
> Parkhurst's? It is
> significant that the notation "Hanks ideas" come
> AFTER the purported
> outline,not before; consequently, Hank's ideas would
> be the material
> coming after the putative outline.  The first page
> is not
> an "outline" of the Big Book, as claimed by some,
> but appears to be
> an outline of a Business Plan to promote the Book.
> In any case, few
> if any of those ideas made their way into the Big
> Book. It seems
> quite a stretch to claim that the first page is an
> outline of what
> became the Big Book. While "Hanks ideas" didn't make
> it into the
> manuscript or the First Printing, they DID become
> the incubator for
> the Spiritual Experience Appendix in the Second
> Printing [and
> subsequent printings/editions].
> john lee

Although styled as "Hanks [sic] letter [sic]", the twelve pages of
lined tablet appear to be handwritten notes from two, or possibly
three, different persons. The pages are undated and untitled. The
handwriting saying "Hanks ideas" is most likely Bill Wilson's
inscription, but does anyone have facts to authenticate that any of
the writing on those twelve pages is Hank Parkhurst's? It is
significant that the notation "Hanks ideas" come AFTER the purported
outline,not before; consequently, Hank's ideas would be the material
coming after the putative outline.  The first page is not
an "outline" of the Big Book, as claimed by some, but appears to be
an outline of a Business Plan to promote the Book. In any case, few
if any of those ideas made their way into the Big Book. It seems
quite a stretch to claim that the first page is an outline of what
became the Big Book. While "Hanks ideas" didn't make it into the
manuscript or the First Printing, they DID become the incubator for
the Spiritual Experience Appendix in the Second Printing [and
subsequent printings/editions].
john lee
pittsburgh-- In AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com, silkworthdotnet
<silkworthdotnet@...> wrote:
>
> For those interested, because of the way this was posted wasn'at as
I intended (because of tables, colors, & images of Hanks letter),
here is the link to Hanks Letter and to chapter 5 of Mitchells Book:
>
>   http://silkworth.net/gsowatch/1938/index.htm - Hanks letter
>
>   http://silkworth.net/chs/chs05.html - Chapter 5 of Mitchell's Book
>
> silkworthdotnet <silkworthdotnet@...> wrote:
>           According to Mitchell's Book,
> How It Worked - THE STORY OF CLARENCE H. SNYDER AND THE EARLY DAYS
OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS IN CLEVELAND, OHIO By Mitchell K. © 1991, 1997
> Chapter 5, is a paragraph states: "A fellowship of anonymous drunks
had in fact existed prior to May 11, 1939. But it was the Cleveland
meeting which first used the name Alcoholics Anonymous, that it took
from the book. Cleveland's May, 1939 meeting is the first documented
meeting which used the name Alcoholics Anonymous, separate and apart
from the Oxford Group."
>
> However, there seems to be a little more light to shed on the
subject. From a page on the AA GSO Watch website there is the
following stated:
>
> You may have read in ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF AGE, page 165
>
> The title "Alcoholics Anonymous" had appeared very early in the
discussion, probably in October, 1938. We do not know who first used
these words. That is questionable. As we discovered recently it
appeared more than half year earlier around March 1938. How do we
know that? We read ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF AGE, page 159.
> "At 17 William Street, Newark, New Jersey, Henry had an office
which was the headquarters for a rapidly failing business. He also
had a secretary named Ruth Hock, who was to become one of A.A.'s real
pioneers. The other assets consisted of a huge desk and some plush
furniture. Each morning I traveled all the way from Brooklyn to
Newark where, pacing up and down in Henry's office, I began to
dictate rough drafts of the chapters of the coming book. As we seemed
unable to come up with any genuine outline for the publication, I
worked from a hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter headings.
Week after week, Henry raced around among the stock subscribers,
prodding them for their installments."
>
> One of us questioned the phrase "a hastily drawn-up list of
possible chapter headings". What was that? Some overdue research
revealed the answer. In fact said a hastily drawn-up list of possible
chapter headings was a complete outline for our book Alcoholics
Anonymous, created and written by Hank Parkhurst around March 1938.
download document hank38.pdf 471kB
>
> Chapter 1 - Being dictated -
> Preface of the Book -
> History of this work -
> Questions & answers -
> Why the Book -
> What is needed -
> The Program -
> List of Chapters -
> The aim of the book -
> What is an alcoholic -
> The medical chapter -
> The Sales Promotion Possibilities -
> In the book should be suggestions regarding
> hospitalization
> Dr. silkworths [sic] letters. [Bill Wilson's handwriting] Hanks
ideas
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge 2
> Why the Book It has been estimated by the Rockefeller
> Foundation that there are over a
> million incurable, from medical or
> psychiatrical standpoints, alcoholics
> in the United States.
> These men realize their vital
> need and are desperately seeking
> the answer. The book should be so
> written that it will prove the
> answer to these people.
> The work has become so broad
> that full time assistance and
> direction is needed. This costs
> money (which has been offered
> by foundational funds) however the
> alcoholics believe it should
> come from within their own
> experience.
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge 3
> Questions & Answers - 1. The question is often asked - where does
the money
> come from for this work?
> 2. How do I know this will work with me?
> Why is this method better than any other religious
> method? (It is not - this is only a step toward a
> religious experience which should be carried forward
> in christian fellowship no matter what your church)
> 3. Will I fail if I cannot keep my conduct
> up to these highest standards?
> 4 - What happens when an alcoholic has a sexual
> relapse?
> 5. There is so much talk about a religious experience
> - what is it?
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge 4
> Sales Promotion Possibilities The Market -
> 1. Over million alcoholics (Rockefeller Foundation)
> 2. At least million non alcoholics
> that have definite alcoholic
> relatives
> 3. Every employer of 100 or
> more people
> 4. Those that take an
> academic interest. [a]
> 5. Two hundred & ten thousand ministers [b]
> 6. One hundred sixty nine thousand
> physicians.
> 7. The total would be well
> over three million prospects [c] [a] this entry was first written
as number 6,
> but the 6 was written over by a 4 and the
> entry was promoted with an arrow
> [b] First written as "Half million ministers"
> [c] The word "three" was written over "a"
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge 5
> Suggestion for Chapter 1 - A History of the work -
> Possibly this could be carried on
> the first two pages of the book.
> This history should establish
> proof of success of the work
> and carry hope to everyone
> that reads that much.
> The opening to the book
> should arouse the emotion
> of hope.
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge 6
> Mail order A form letter of acknowledgment
> must be worked out.
> This will acknowledge the receipt
> of the enquiry [sic] and will inform
> that the writer can secure the
> book by mailing two dollars [d]
> or through their local bookseller
> who can secure from
> Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc.
> Post Box xxxx The profits of the book are administered
> by a foundation for promotion of
> cure and understanding of alcoholism. [d] first written as "mailing
a buck for"
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge 7
> Title Page Alcoholics Anonymous Published by
> ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, INC
> A NON PROFIT organization
> for the promotion of
> cure and understanding
> of alcoholism. Profits accruing from sale
> of this book will be [e] administered
> by a foundation for promotion
> of cure and understanding
> of alcoholism. Members of
> this foundation......... Post Box...
> xxxxxxxxx xx [e] first written as "are" and changed
> to "will be"
>
> Click on image to enlarge 8
> Observations - One of the easiest and most talked of
> things among us is a religious experience.
> I believe that this is incomprehensible to
> most people. Simple & meaning words
> to us - but meaningless to most of
> the people that we are trying to get
> this over too. - In my mind religious
> experience - religion - etc - should
> not be brought in. We are actually
> irreligious - but we are trying to be
> helpful - we have learned to be
> quiet - to be more truthful - to be
> more honest - to try to be more
> unselfish - to make the other fellows
> troubles - our troubles - and by
> following four steps we most of us
> have a religious experience. The fellowship -
> the unselfishness - appeals to us.
> I wonder if we are off the track.
> A very good merchandising
> procedure is to find out why
> people do not buy our
> products - it is good reasoning
> to find out WHY - I am fearfully
> afraid that we are emphasizing
> religious experience when actually
> that is something that follows
> as a result of 1-2-3-4.
> In my mind the question is not particularly
> the strength of the experience as
> much as the improvement over
> what we were. I would ask a
> man to compare himself as follows
> after say a month -
> #1 - as compared to 2 months ago
> do you have more of a feeling
> that there is a power greater
> than you?
> #2 - Have you cleaned out more
> completely with a human being
> than ever before?
> #3 - Have you less bad things
> behind you than ever
> before
> #4 Have you been
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
> 9
> more honest with yourself & your
> fellow man - Have you been
> more thoughtful of people with
> whom you are associated - Has
> your life been cleaner both by
> thought & action - Have you
> looked at others less critically and
> yourself more critically this past
> 30 days. You will never be
> perfect but the question is
> have you been more perfect?
> Click on image to enlarge 10
> Alcoholism May be best be defined to the
> average person by pointing out
> its leading symptoms and indicating
> how these reactions differ from the
> affects of alcohol on normal persons.
> 1. Total inability to control drinking
> once drinking is started.
> 2. Antisocial behavior of these people
> when intoxicated
> A. Marked insanity
> 1. Little relation the - persons normal
> behavior or ordinary
> exuberant drinker or drunk
>
>
> Publicity
> Newspapers When book is nearly ready to
> leave the presses a short mat
> article should be sent to the
> 12,285 newspapers in the U.S.
> This article would briefly cover
> the work as it has gone to date.
> Case histories would be covered.
> - It possibly would be a brief
> case history of the work and
> announcement of the book.
> At least four news bulletins
> should be published at weekly
> intervals, ahead of the book.
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>
> Here is such article -- pushed by Hank
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>
> Jim from silkworth.net
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Regarding the auction of the manuscript the auction will be held on June
21st according to Sothebys not June 22nd.

Fiona


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have been informed by a reliable source that the `Original
Manuscript' of the Big Book which was auctioned off by Sotheby's in
June of 2004 (for $1,576,000!) will again be offered for sale at
auction on June 22nd.

Sotheby's has set the estimated value for this sale at $900,000 to
$1,200,000. (NOTE: it was set at $300,000 to $500,000 in 2004.)

Sotheby's physical description of the book in 2004 was as
follows: "Original annotated multilith copy, a working draft of
Alcoholics Anonymous, with a multitude of annotations by William
Griffith Wilson ("Bill W.") and others, 161 pages (3 are handwritten
in pencil by several hands), New York, 1938, with presentation leaf
by Lois Wilson: "I joyfully give this multilith copy of the AA book,
one of my most precious possessions, to you, dear Barry, as evidence
of my deep gratitude for all you have done for AA, for Al-Anon, &
particularly for me ... 1/1/78"; annotations in lead, green, and red
pencil, lightly browned. Each leaf encased in mylar and bound in a
blue cloth binder, morocco lettering-piece ("Printer's Copy M[anu]s
[cript])"; joints and corners rubbed."

This is the `master copy' of the `Multilith Edition' – the one into
which Hank Parkhurst, Ruth Hoch and Bill Wilson transcribed ALL of
the suggested changes to the Big Book text as they were submitted to
them in late 1938 and early 1939. (I believe that most of the
annotations are in Hank's – rather than Bill's – handwriting.)

Despite the title on the more recent binding, at some later point,
using this `master copy as a reference, a `printer's copy' was
prepared for Cornwall Press – but, to my knowledge, that `printer's
copy' has never been located.

The `master copy' being auctioned is of the highest historical
importance providing an essential record of how our Book was put
together. While it is possible to take any one of the rare surviving
multilith copy of the `Original Manuscript' and compare it to a 1st
edition, 1st printing copy to see what changes were made,
this `master copy' occasionally shows who made the suggestions and,
more important, clearly shows what suggestions were NOT taken by the
final editors of the Big Book. This provides invaluable insight into
the final editor's creative thought process and into their true
understanding of what did and did not constitute the true AA program
just as the book went to press.

As is usual with book auctions, this Original Manuscript will be
available for viewing (and handling!) a few days before the auction
in New York City. (In 2004, my sponsor and I traveled down there
to `put our hands on the book' and, I must say, it was a very moving
experience.)

Continuing this thread with the theme "Our Twelfth Step Responsibility-Area
We Going to Any Lengths?"---
This year's General Service Conference has an opportunity to approve or
disapprove the proposal to discontinue printing the AA Meeting Directories
(US and Canada). It has the idea that AAs can access the Internet, for
example, to find a meeting anywhere out of the US Eastern Directory. It's a
first, but a password-controlled list, an  unavailability of computers, and
a few other points make this proposal from the Maine Area Delegate a bit
rough to implement. Conference Report & Charter Committee may take the best
route and "take no action."
Conference-approved material, available at all groups (but without a contact
and printed list booklets?) would slow down our traveling recoveries and
12th Step efforts with an online Directory.
Rick, Illinois


   _____

From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:51 PM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved



.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=6460000/grpspId=1705237878/msgId
=4289/stime=1177568217/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm reminded of a situation in NY and Akron some many decades ago. Everyone
who was an AA member then had a direct opportunity to influence the drafts
of a project to write a book of experience. It was the only time in AA
history where that occurred.

The efforts of those members produced the Big Book during 1938 and 1939. It
might serve to illustrate why the book has such high stature in the
Fellowship.

That of course would not be practical today with nearly 2 million members.
However, there is a Conference structure in place where the inverted
triangle could be put into genuine practice, if perhaps someone would like
to give it a try, if only as an experiment.

There are no time-critical literature projects other than directories and
perhaps memorial booklets for International Conventions. Their might be
impatient authors but outside of directories there are no deadlines for
pamphlets, books or other literature unless someone manufactures one.

Using the example of a trusted servant writing an area service manual does
not seem relevant. First off the development of an area manual or policies
and procedures document should be a function of a special committee not a
single trusted servant. Also without access to the document it is difficult
to distinguish whether the delay was a matter of the quantity of its
reviewers or the quality of its content.

A few years ago I was involved in a committee project to write job
descriptions for all the trusted servants. It took over a year and that
seemed reasonable. During that same time period we also produced a set of
Area Archives Guidelines and recommended Archives Guidelines for groups.
When a committee brings a written project forward for assembly approval, if
there is unanimity among the committee members then assembly attendees
usually seem inclined to trust their trusted servants. If the committee
consists of one member then it will likely take an extraordinary length of
time or not follow through to completion.

As for the home-bound, loners, internationalists, nursing home or hospital
patients, Special Needs Committees perform a vital service to the ill and
disabled to either bring them to meetings or bring meetings to them (at
least in my state they do). GSO has sponsored a long-term correspondence
outreach to loners and internationalists. These members can certainly
benefit from internet or short-wave radio contact with other members and I'm
not criticizing that point.

The statement in the foreword to the 4th edition was:

"Fundamentally, though, the difference between an electronic meeting and the
home group around the corner is only one of format."

That statement is absurd. Enough other folks thought so as well to cause it
to be removed from the foreword. Further if one is going to use a segment of
the population to illustrate a point, it is probably a bit more consistent
with Tradition 1 to use the population segment in which something happens
the most as opposed to the least.

Finally, if I truly had a disdain for AA members using the internet to reach
out to other AA members I would not be a part of this forum.

Cheers
Arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pvttimt@...
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:44 PM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved

Arthur said,

"...there is no reason why an extra year could not be
added on to an AAWS or Grapevine publications project to permit groups,
districts and areas to have far more of a say and influence over literature
projects. The claim that select items of literature are withheld from
broader review to "protect copyrights" is bogus. Literature is one of the
primary means of "carrying the message" and groups, districts, areas and all
Delegates should have far more influence over what that message says."

Arthur

      Tim T., an alky.

      I'm reminded of a situation here in New Mexico some years ago.  A
well-regarded trusted servant led a project to rewrite our Area service
manual, which describes our Area's service structure, the district mapping,
etc.  He bent over backwards trying to keep all districts and groups
involved in an "informed" process, fully democratic in every way.

      The result of this was that, at every area assembly, the new GSRs, et.
al. who had not seen the current draft, had to have their way with it.  The
process bogged down and became mostly a "bringing everyone up to speed"
process at each assembly.  Progress on the actual document was
excruciatingly slow.

      After many, many assemblies had passed with no light at the end of the
tunnel, he appealed to the Area.  Once we all realized that nothing material
was changing, that the needed changes had long since been made, approval was
achieved and we had a working tool in our hands once again.

      One wonders if Arthur's claim that the groups, districts, areas should
have far more influence would not deteriorate in the same way.  Are we to
believe that the delegates that are assigned to a particular committee, say
Grapevine, do not adequately represent the fellowship?  Do they not have a
"right of decision?"  After their work, would review by the groups,
districts and areas introduce any material changes, or would changes merely
be cosmetic?

      To Arthur's comment on the absurdity of equating online meetings with
f2f home groups, I wonder if the homers, loners, nursing-home AA residents,
et.al., who must depend on the internet for their daily AA look down on
this, their only access, with the same disdain?

      Best regards.   Tim.



-----Original Message-----
From: ArtSheehan@...
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved


In my earlier posting I used the term "literature" very broadly and perhaps
should have used the term "select literature." Some replies were sent in to
"clear up the confusion" and I think they created more confusion than they
cleared up.

The original posting noted that groups and most Delegates do not get the
opportunity to adequately review literature items on the Conference agenda.
I stand by that assertion. It is not a matter of Conference structure it is
a matter of adopted procedure that can easily be changed given a willingness
to do so. There has been a number of Conference agenda items deferred for
the next following Conference to allow groups, districts and areas to review
the matter and make their views known. There is no reason why this couldn't
be done for literature (all literature).

New literature projects as well as select items such as "The AA Group"
pamphlet, 12&12, Big Book and videos are held in tight secrecy under the
rubric of "work in progress" and have a very limited distribution. It is
done under claims of copyright protection which I feel are unfounded. As an
example, there was no reason why the foreword to the fourth edition Big Book
could not have been distributed in advance for review. It would have spared
the Fellowship the embarrassment of it absurdly equating on-line meetings
with the home group.

Last Panel, our Area Delegate, who chaired the Grapevine Conference
Committee, wanted to obtain a preliminary copy of "The AA Group" pamphlet to
review the proposed changes to it (which were not identified at all in the
background material). She was denied access to it until right before the
Conference floor session.

When it comes to Conference procedure, after more than half a century there
is an element of evolved reality that supersedes written philosophy. Staff
members of AAWS and Grapevine participate in Conference after Conference for
the duration of their employment (which can be decades). They have too much
influence over literature and the Conference-approval process compared to
Delegates who typically serve for two Conferences and 50% of whom rotate out
each year.

Again, I reiterate, that there is no reason why an extra year could not be
added on to an AAWS or Grapevine publications project to permit groups,
districts and areas to have far more of a say and influence over literature
projects. The claim that select items of literature are withheld from
broader review to "protect copyrights" is bogus. Literature is one of the
primary means of "carrying the message" and groups, districts, areas and all
Delegates should have far more influence over what that message says.

End of rant (Rule #62).

Arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell K.
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:31 PM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved

To my knowledge, any work marked "Copyright" or (c) is
copyrighted - period. The revised copyright law allows
for the protection of the author or entity holding
copyright. Having an actual copyright certificate
holds more weight legally than the other method if
challenged in court. I would think that AA's crack
legal teams of intellectual property lawyers would
know that AAWS can register a work with the Copyright
Office as it nears completion and when it is completed
submit another one. If anyone "steals" the work sent
out for review, the original copyright is in force and
even if the language is changed I am sure that there
might be enough legal evidence to challenge. ANyway,
even after a copyright is secured including a
copyright certificate, anyone can write a similar
document changing the words etc. and get away with it.
What's the big paranoid deal? You can't copyright a
concept. Wider input might confuse the issue at times
but some of that confusion might lead to a greater
acceptnce by the Fellowship at large.

Before the copyright laws were revised one had to put
loan or review copy in the body of the text to have a
stronger claim of copyright. Today that isn't
necessary and even if not necessary why not put it on
literature sent out for review anyway? This
"top-secret" stuff doesn't belong in AA on ANY level.

Mitchell


--- Arthur S <ArtSheehan@...> wrote:

> Jim has mentioned a point that has not sat well with
> me at all over the
> years.
>
> Don't get me wrong - my issue is not with Jim by any
> means, but with his
> very factual statement of the notion of "copyright
> protection" being used by
> the Trustee's Literature Committee and GSO as an
> excuse to withhold review
> copies of literature from Delegates and Groups.
>
> Perhaps the AAHL members who are published authors
> can shed some light on
> the situation on whether or not there are valid
> copyright concerns involved.
>
> To me there seems to be no reason whatsoever to deny
> Delegates (or for that
> matter Groups) the opportunity to review a piece of
> literature well prior to
> its publication.
>
> Outside of Directories there is no time-critical
> aspect to any publication
> nor is there any reason why an extra year couldn't
> be added on to the
> publication plan for Fellowship review. Instead, GSO
> uses a notion of a
> "work in progress" to make the entire process
> top-secret and known only to a
> select few and then claims copies of the completed
> work cannot be circulated
> in order to protect the copyright.
>
> Last Panel our Area Delegate wanted to review
> planned changes to the "AA
> Group" pamphlet and received the response that it
> could not be done in order
> to protect the copyright. That notion just doesn't
> seem to hold water to me,
> particularly in an age of digital rights management.
>
>
> My understanding of the copyright process is that an
> author need only mark a
> work as "copyright - all rights reserved" in order
> to establish initial
> legal intellectual property rights prior to going
> through the full legal
> copyright process. Is this true?
>
> Cheers
> Arthur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of
> james.bliss@...
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved
>
> With respect to Arthur S's statement below:
>
> There is a very limited number of people who
> even have access to the literature with its
> changes prior to the vote (substantial changes
> or new literature).  The Delegates may have
> an opportunity to review the material
> immediately prior to the vote, but the actual
> changes, or new literature, is only distributed
> to the people who are on the committee for
> formal review and input, and they make
> written recommendations regarding the changes.
>
> A point of interest here is that the groups
> (and therefore individual members) have no
> access to the literature (new or significant
> changes) prior to it being approved and
> published.  Sort of goes against the concept
> of AA being run by the groups.
>
> Minor changes (punctuation or slight wording)
> are often published for review to the groups.
> It is just significant changes, rewrites and
> new literature which is not.  I have been
> informed this is due to a fear of copyright
> issues and the material being purloined by
> others.
>
> Jim
>
> > It is a rare, rare event when all Delegates
> > at a Conference get a chance to review a piece
> > of literature prior to voting on it. The
> > review is usually done by a committee of
> > several Delegates. The remainder of the
> > Delegates typically vote, sight unseen,
> > for/against the literature based on the
> > recommendation of the committee (that's how
> > the Foreword to the 4th edition statement
> > about on-line meetings and the punctuation
> > changes in "Dr Bob's Nightmare" and other
> > changes slipped past Conference review). While
> > all the Delegates vote on the literature, only
> > a fraction of them actually gets to read it
> > prior to voting.
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links







Yahoo! Groups Links



________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links

For those interested, because of the way this was posted wasn'at as I intended
(because of tables, colors, & images of Hanks letter), here is the link to Hanks
Letter and to chapter 5 of Mitchells Book:

   http://silkworth.net/gsowatch/1938/index.htm - Hanks letter

   http://silkworth.net/chs/chs05.html - Chapter 5 of Mitchell's Book

silkworthdotnet <silkworthdotnet@...> wrote:
           According to Mitchell's Book,
How It Worked - THE STORY OF CLARENCE H. SNYDER AND THE EARLY DAYS OF ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS IN CLEVELAND, OHIO By Mitchell K. © 1991, 1997
Chapter 5, is a paragraph states: "A fellowship of anonymous drunks had in fact
existed prior to May 11, 1939. But it was the Cleveland meeting which first used
the name Alcoholics Anonymous, that it took from the book. Cleveland's May, 1939
meeting is the first documented meeting which used the name Alcoholics
Anonymous, separate and apart from the Oxford Group."

However, there seems to be a little more light to shed on the subject. From a
page on the AA GSO Watch website there is the following stated:

You may have read in ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF AGE, page 165

The title "Alcoholics Anonymous" had appeared very early in the discussion,
probably in October, 1938. We do not know who first used these words. That is
questionable. As we discovered recently it appeared more than half year earlier
around March 1938. How do we know that? We read ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF
AGE, page 159.
"At 17 William Street, Newark, New Jersey, Henry had an office which was the
headquarters for a rapidly failing business. He also had a secretary named Ruth
Hock, who was to become one of A.A.'s real pioneers. The other assets consisted
of a huge desk and some plush furniture. Each morning I traveled all the way
from Brooklyn to Newark where, pacing up and down in Henry's office, I began to
dictate rough drafts of the chapters of the coming book. As we seemed unable to
come up with any genuine outline for the publication, I worked from a hastily
drawn-up list of possible chapter headings. Week after week, Henry raced around
among the stock subscribers, prodding them for their installments."

One of us questioned the phrase "a hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter
headings". What was that? Some overdue research revealed the answer. In fact
said a hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter headings was a complete outline
for our book Alcoholics Anonymous, created and written by Hank Parkhurst around
March 1938. download document hank38.pdf 471kB

Chapter 1 - Being dictated -
Preface of the Book -
History of this work -
Questions & answers -
Why the Book -
What is needed -
The Program -
List of Chapters -
The aim of the book -
What is an alcoholic -
The medical chapter -
The Sales Promotion Possibilities -
In the book should be suggestions regarding
hospitalization
Dr. silkworths [sic] letters. [Bill Wilson's handwriting] Hanks ideas


Click on image to enlarge 2
Why the Book It has been estimated by the Rockefeller
Foundation that there are over a
million incurable, from medical or
psychiatrical standpoints, alcoholics
in the United States.
These men realize their vital
need and are desperately seeking
the answer. The book should be so
written that it will prove the
answer to these people.
The work has become so broad
that full time assistance and
direction is needed. This costs
money (which has been offered
by foundational funds) however the
alcoholics believe it should
come from within their own
experience.



Click on image to enlarge 3
Questions & Answers - 1. The question is often asked - where does the money
come from for this work?
2. How do I know this will work with me?
Why is this method better than any other religious
method? (It is not - this is only a step toward a
religious experience which should be carried forward
in christian fellowship no matter what your church)
3. Will I fail if I cannot keep my conduct
up to these highest standards?
4 - What happens when an alcoholic has a sexual
relapse?
5. There is so much talk about a religious experience
- what is it?



Click on image to enlarge 4
Sales Promotion Possibilities The Market -
1. Over million alcoholics (Rockefeller Foundation)
2. At least million non alcoholics
that have definite alcoholic
relatives
3. Every employer of 100 or
more people
4. Those that take an
academic interest. [a]
5. Two hundred & ten thousand ministers [b]
6. One hundred sixty nine thousand
physicians.
7. The total would be well
over three million prospects [c] [a] this entry was first written as number 6,
but the 6 was written over by a 4 and the
entry was promoted with an arrow
[b] First written as "Half million ministers"
[c] The word "three" was written over "a"



Click on image to enlarge 5
Suggestion for Chapter 1 - A History of the work -
Possibly this could be carried on
the first two pages of the book.
This history should establish
proof of success of the work
and carry hope to everyone
that reads that much.
The opening to the book
should arouse the emotion
of hope.



Click on image to enlarge 6
Mail order A form letter of acknowledgment
must be worked out.
This will acknowledge the receipt
of the enquiry [sic] and will inform
that the writer can secure the
book by mailing two dollars [d]
or through their local bookseller
who can secure from
Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc.
Post Box xxxx The profits of the book are administered
by a foundation for promotion of
cure and understanding of alcoholism. [d] first written as "mailing a buck for"


Click on image to enlarge 7
Title Page Alcoholics Anonymous Published by
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, INC
A NON PROFIT organization
for the promotion of
cure and understanding
of alcoholism. Profits accruing from sale
of this book will be [e] administered
by a foundation for promotion
of cure and understanding
of alcoholism. Members of
this foundation......... Post Box...
xxxxxxxxx xx [e] first written as "are" and changed
to "will be"

Click on image to enlarge 8
Observations - One of the easiest and most talked of
things among us is a religious experience.
I believe that this is incomprehensible to
most people. Simple & meaning words
to us - but meaningless to most of
the people that we are trying to get
this over too. - In my mind religious
experience - religion - etc - should
not be brought in. We are actually
irreligious - but we are trying to be
helpful - we have learned to be
quiet - to be more truthful - to be
more honest - to try to be more
unselfish - to make the other fellows
troubles - our troubles - and by
following four steps we most of us
have a religious experience. The fellowship -
the unselfishness - appeals to us.
I wonder if we are off the track.
A very good merchandising
procedure is to find out why
people do not buy our
products - it is good reasoning
to find out WHY - I am fearfully
afraid that we are emphasizing
religious experience when actually
that is something that follows
as a result of 1-2-3-4.
In my mind the question is not particularly
the strength of the experience as
much as the improvement over
what we were. I would ask a
man to compare himself as follows
after say a month -
#1 - as compared to 2 months ago
do you have more of a feeling
that there is a power greater
than you?
#2 - Have you cleaned out more
completely with a human being
than ever before?
#3 - Have you less bad things
behind you than ever
before
#4 Have you been


Click on image to enlarge
9
more honest with yourself & your
fellow man - Have you been
more thoughtful of people with
whom you are associated - Has
your life been cleaner both by
thought & action - Have you
looked at others less critically and
yourself more critically this past
30 days. You will never be
perfect but the question is
have you been more perfect?
Click on image to enlarge 10
Alcoholism May be best be defined to the
average person by pointing out
its leading symptoms and indicating
how these reactions differ from the
affects of alcohol on normal persons.
1. Total inability to control drinking
once drinking is started.
2. Antisocial behavior of these people
when intoxicated
A. Marked insanity
1. Little relation the - persons normal
behavior or ordinary
exuberant drinker or drunk


Publicity
Newspapers When book is nearly ready to
leave the presses a short mat
article should be sent to the
12,285 newspapers in the U.S.
This article would briefly cover
the work as it has gone to date.
Case histories would be covered.
- It possibly would be a brief
case history of the work and
announcement of the book.
At least four news bulletins
should be published at weekly
intervals, ahead of the book.

Click on image to enlarge

Here is such article -- pushed by Hank

Click on image to enlarge

Jim from silkworth.net

---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank you. One of the several pages in a re-write for
a second edition will correct that statement. The name
Alcoholics ANonymous had been used as the title of the
proposed book, organization and as the fellowship in
general prior to April of 1939. I still believe that
the first meeting or group to call itself an
Alcoholics ANonymous group or meeting was the Golrick
Group/Cleveland Group.
There are a few other pieces I am going to clarify,
remove, expand upon and add in the re-write.

Mitchell


--- silkworthdotnet <silkworthdotnet@...> wrote:

> According to Mitchell's Book,
>   How It Worked - THE STORY OF CLARENCE H. SNYDER
> AND THE EARLY DAYS OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS IN
> CLEVELAND, OHIO   By Mitchell K. © 1991, 1997
>   Chapter 5, is a paragraph states: "A fellowship of
> anonymous drunks had in fact existed prior to May
> 11, 1939. But it was the Cleveland meeting which
> first used the name Alcoholics Anonymous, that it
> took from the book. Cleveland's May, 1939 meeting is
> the first documented meeting which used the name
> Alcoholics Anonymous, separate and apart from the
> Oxford Group."
>
>   However, there seems to be a little more light to
> shed on the subject. From a page on the AA GSO Watch
> website there is the following stated:
>
>   You may have read in ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF
> AGE, page 165
>
>         The title "Alcoholics Anonymous" had
> appeared very early in the discussion, probably in
> October, 1938. We do not know who first used these
> words.  That is questionable. As we discovered
> recently it appeared more than half year earlier
> around March 1938. How do we know that? We read
> ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF AGE, page 159.
>             "At 17 William Street, Newark, New
> Jersey, Henry had an office which was the
> headquarters for a rapidly failing business. He also
> had a secretary named Ruth Hock, who was to become
> one of A.A.'s real pioneers. The other assets
> consisted of a huge desk and some plush furniture.
> Each morning I traveled all the way from Brooklyn to
> Newark where, pacing up and down in Henry's office,
> I began to dictate rough drafts of the chapters of
> the coming book. As we seemed unable to come up with
> any genuine outline for the publication, I worked
> from a hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter
> headings. Week after week, Henry raced around among
> the stock subscribers, prodding them for their
> installments."
>
>   One of us questioned the phrase "a hastily
> drawn-up list of possible chapter headings". What
> was that? Some overdue research revealed the answer.
> In fact said a hastily drawn-up list of possible
> chapter headings was a complete outline for our book
> Alcoholics Anonymous, created and written by Hank
> Parkhurst around March 1938. download document
> hank38.pdf 471kB
>
>
>
>           Chapter 1 - Being dictated -
> Preface of the Book -
> History of this work -
> Questions & answers -
> Why the Book -
> What is needed -
> The Program -
> List of Chapters -
> The aim of the book -
> What is an alcoholic -
> The medical chapter -
> The Sales Promotion Possibilities -
> In the book should be suggestions regarding
> hospitalization
> Dr. silkworths [sic]  letters.    [Bill Wilson's
> handwriting]   Hanks ideas
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>                          2
> Why the Book      It has been estimated by the
> Rockefeller
> Foundation that there are over a
> million incurable, from medical or
> psychiatrical standpoints, alcoholics
> in the United States.
>   These men realize their vital
> need and are desperately seeking
> the answer.  The book should be so
> written that it will prove the
> answer to these people.
>   The work has become so broad
> that full time assistance and
> direction is needed.  This costs
> money (which has been offered
> by foundational funds) however the
> alcoholics believe it should
> come from within their own
> experience.
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>                         3
> Questions & Answers -    1. The question is often
> asked -  where does the money
>    come from for this work?
> 2. How do I know this will work with me?
>    Why is this method better than any other
> religious
>    method?  (It is not - this is only a step toward
> a
>    religious experience which should be carried
> forward
>    in christian fellowship no matter what your
> church)
> 3. Will I fail if I cannot keep my conduct
>    up to these highest standards?
> 4 - What happens when an alcoholic has a sexual
>    relapse?
> 5. There is so much talk about a religious
> experience
>    - what is it?
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>                         4
>  Sales Promotion Possibilities    The Market -
>   1. Over million alcoholics (Rockefeller
> Foundation)
>   2. At least million non alcoholics
>      that have definite alcoholic
>      relatives
>   3. Every employer of 100 or
>      more people
>   4. Those that take an
>      academic interest. [a]
>   5. Two hundred & ten thousand ministers [b]
>   6. One hundred sixty nine thousand
>      physicians.
>   7. The total would be well
>      over three million prospects [c]    [a] this
> entry was first written as number 6,
>     but the 6 was written over by a 4 and the
>     entry was promoted with an arrow
> [b] First written as "Half million ministers"
> [c] The word "three" was written over "a"
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>                         5
> Suggestion for Chapter 1 -       A History of the
> work -
> Possibly this could be carried on
> the first two pages of the book.
>    This history should establish
> proof of success of the work
> and carry hope to everyone
> that reads that much.
>    The opening to the book
> should arouse the emotion
> of hope.
>
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>                        6
>     Mail order       A form letter of acknowledgment
>
> must be worked out.
>    This will acknowledge the receipt
> of the enquiry [sic] and will inform
> that the writer can secure the
> book by mailing two dollars [d]
> or through their local bookseller
> who can secure from
>          Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc.
>          Post Box xxxx       The profits of the book
> are administered
> by a foundation for promotion of
> cure and understanding of alcoholism.    [d] first
> written as "mailing a buck for"
>
>
> Click on image to enlarge
>                          7
> Title Page    Alcoholics Anonymous       Published
> by
>    ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, INC
>       A NON PROFIT organization
>       for the promotion of
>       cure and understanding
>       of alcoholism.       Profits accruing from
> sale
>    of this book will be [e] administered
>    by a foundation for promotion
>    of cure and understanding
>    of alcoholism.  Members of
>    this foundation.........    Post Box...
> xxxxxxxxx  xx    [e] first written as "are" and
> changed
>     to "will be"
>
> Click on image to enlarge                      8
>      Observations -      One of the easiest and most
> talked
=== message truncated ===

In a message dated 4/24/07 5:01:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ArtSheehan@... writes:




In my earlier posting I used the term "literature" very broadly and  perhaps
should have used the term "select literature." Some replies were  sent in to
"clear up the confusion" and I think they created more confusion  than they
cleared up.

The original posting noted that groups and  most Delegates do not get the
opportunity to adequately review literature  items on the Conference agenda.
I stand by that assertion. It is not a  matter of Conference structure it is
a matter of adopted procedure that can  easily be changed given a willingness
to do so. There has been a number of  Conference agenda items deferred for
the next following Conference to allow  groups, districts and areas to review
the matter and make their views  known. There is no reason why this couldn't
be done for literature (all  literature).

New literature projects as well as select items such as  "The AA Group"
pamphlet, 12&12, Big Book and videos are held in tight  secrecy under the
rubric of "work in progress" and have a very limited  distribution. It is
done under claims of copyright protection which I feel  are unfounded. As an
example, there was no reason why the foreword to the  fourth edition Big Book
could not have been distributed in advance for  review. It would have spared
the Fellowship the embarrassment of it  absurdly equating on-line meetings
with the home group.

Last Panel,  our Area Delegate, who chaired the Grapevine Conference
Committee, wanted  to obtain a preliminary copy of "The AA Group" pamphlet to
review the  proposed changes to it (which were not identified at all in the
background  material). She was denied access to it until right before the
Conference  floor session.

When it comes to Conference procedure, after more than  half a century there
is an element of evolved reality that supersedes  written philosophy. Staff
members of AAWS and Grapevine participate in  Conference after Conference for
the duration of their employment (which can  be decades). They have too much
influence over literature and the  Conference-approval process compared to
Delegates who typically serve for  two Conferences and 50% of whom rotate out
each year.

Again, I  reiterate, that there is no reason why an extra year could not be
added on  to an AAWS or Grapevine publications project to permit groups,
districts  and areas to have far more of a say and influence over literature
projects.  The claim that select items of literature are withheld from
broader review  to "protect copyrights" is bogus. Literature is one of the
primary means of  "carrying the message" and groups, districts, areas and all
Delegates  should have far more influence over what that message says.

End of rant  (Rule #62).

Arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: _AAHistoryLovers@AAHistoryLovAAH_
(mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com)
[mailto:_AAHistoryLovers@AAHistoryLovAAH_
(mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com) ]  On Behalf Of Mitchell K.
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:31 PM
To: _AAHistoryLovers@AAHistoryLovAAH_
(mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com)
Subject:  RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved

To my knowledge, any work  marked "Copyright" or (c) is
copyrighted - period. The revised copyright  law allows
for the protection of the author or entity holding
copyright.  Having an actual copyright certificate
holds more weight legally than the  other method if
challenged in court. I would think that AA's crack
legal  teams of intellectual property lawyers would
know that AAWS can register a  work with the Copyright
Office as it nears completion and when it is  completed
submit another one. If anyone "steals" the work sent
out for  review, the original copyright is in force and
even if the language is  changed I am sure that there
might be enough legal evidence to challenge.  ANyway,
even after a copyright is secured including a
copyright  certificate, anyone can write a similar
document changing the words etc.  and get away with it.
What's the big paranoid deal? You can't copyright  a
concept. Wider input might confuse the issue at times
but some of that  confusion might lead to a greater
acceptnce by the Fellowship at  large.

Before the copyright laws were revised one had to put
loan or  review copy in the body of the text to have a
stronger claim of copyright.  Today that isn't
necessary and even if not necessary why not put it  on
literature sent out for review anyway? This
"top-secret" stuff  doesn't belong in AA on ANY level.

Mitchell

--- Arthur S <_ArtSheehan@..._ (mailto:ArtSheehan@...) >  wrote:

> Jim has mentioned a point that has not sat well  with
> me at all over the
> years.
>
> Don't get me  wrong - my issue is not with Jim by any
> means, but with his
>  very factual statement of the notion of "copyright
> protection" being  used by
> the Trustee's Literature Committee and GSO as an
>  excuse to withhold review
> copies of literature from Delegates and  Groups.
>
> Perhaps the AAHL members who are published  authors
> can shed some light on
> the situation on whether or not  there are valid
> copyright concerns involved.
>
> To me  there seems to be no reason whatsoever to deny
> Delegates (or for  that
> matter Groups) the opportunity to review a piece of
>  literature well prior to
> its publication.
>
> Outside of  Directories there is no time-critical
> aspect to any  publication
> nor is there any reason why an extra year couldn't
>  be added on to the
> publication plan for Fellowship review. Instead,  GSO
> uses a notion of a
> "work in progress" to make the entire  process
> top-secret and known only to a
> select few and then  claims copies of the completed
> work cannot be circulated
> in  order to protect the copyright.
>
> Last Panel our Area Delegate  wanted to review
> planned changes to the "AA
> Group" pamphlet  and received the response that it
> could not be done in order
>  to protect the copyright. That notion just doesn't
> seem to hold water  to me,
> particularly in an age of digital rights management.
>
>
> My understanding of the copyright process is that an
>  author need only mark a
> work as "copyright - all rights reserved" in  order
> to establish initial
> legal intellectual property rights  prior to going
> through the full legal
> copyright process. Is  this true?
>
> Cheers
> Arthur
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: _AAHistoryLovers@AAHistoryLovAAH_
(mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com)
>  [mailto:_AAHistoryLovers@AAHistoryLovAAH_
(mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com) ]  On Behalf
> Of
> _james.bliss@..._ (mailto:james.bliss@...)
>  Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: _AAHistoryLovers@AAHistoryLovAAH_
(mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com)
>  Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved
>
> With  respect to Arthur S's statement below:
>
> There is a very  limited number of people who
> even have access to the literature with  its
> changes prior to the vote (substantial changes
> or new  literature). The Delegates may have
> an opportunity to review the  material
> immediately prior to the vote, but the actual
>  changes, or new literature, is only distributed
> to the people who are  on the committee for
> formal review and input, and they make
>  written recommendations regarding the changes.
>
> A point of  interest here is that the groups
> (and therefore individual members)  have no
> access to the literature (new or significant
>  changes) prior to it being approved and
> published. Sort of goes  against the concept
> of AA being run by the groups.
>
>  Minor changes (punctuation or slight wording)
> are often published for  review to the groups.
> It is just significant changes, rewrites and
> new literature which is not. I have been
> informed this is  due to a fear of copyright
> issues and the material being purloined by
> others.
>
> Jim
>
> > It is a rare, rare  event when all Delegates
> > at a Conference get a chance to review  a piece
> > of literature prior to voting on it. The
> >  review is usually done by a committee of
> > several Delegates. The  remainder of the
> > Delegates typically vote, sight unseen,
> > for/against the literature based on the
> >  recommendation of the committee (that's how
> > the Foreword to the  4th edition statement
> > about on-line meetings and the punctuation
> > changes in "Dr Bob's Nightmare" and other
> > changes  slipped past Conference review). While
> > all the Delegates vote on  the literature, only
> > a fraction of them actually gets to read it
> > prior to voting.
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Yahoo! Groups Links





This is not my  experience..............my area has a spring & Fall Assembly
where all the  new proposed agenda items are listed for change and the groups
have work shops  who represent each of their groups.
They then discuss the agenda  items for our delegate to bring back to the
conference as our collective  vote.



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Arthur said,

"...there is no reason why an extra year could not be
added on to an AAWS or Grapevine publications project to permit groups,
districts and areas to have far more of a say and influence over literature
projects. The claim that select items of literature are withheld from
broader review to "protect copyrights" is bogus. Literature is one of the
primary means of "carrying the message" and groups, districts, areas and all
Delegates should have far more influence over what that message says."


      Tim T., an alky.

      I'm reminded of a situation here in New Mexico some years ago.  A
well-regarded trusted servant led a project to rewrite our Area service manual,
which describes our Area's service structure, the district mapping, etc.  He
bent over backwards trying to keep all districts and groups involved in an
"informed" process, fully democratic in every way.

      The result of this was that, at every area assembly, the new GSRs, et. al.
who had not seen the current draft, had to have their way with it.  The process
bogged down and became mostly a "bringing everyone up to speed" process at each
assembly.  Progress on the actual document was excruciatingly slow.

      After many, many assemblies had passed with no light at the end of the
tunnel, he appealed to the Area.  Once we all realized that nothing material was
changing, that the needed changes had long since been made, approval was
achieved and we had a working tool in our hands once again.

      One wonders if Arthur's claim that the groups, districts, areas should have
far more influence would not deteriorate in the same way.  Are we to believe
that the delegates that are assigned to a particular committee, say Grapevine,
do not adequately represent the fellowship?  Do they not have a "right of
decision?"  After their work, would review by the groups, districts and areas
introduce any material changes, or would changes merely be cosmetic?

      To Arthur's comment on the absurdity of equating online meetings with f2f
home groups, I wonder if the homers, loners, nursing-home AA residents, et.al.,
who must depend on the internet for their daily AA look down on this, their only
access, with the same disdain?

      Best regards.   Tim.



-----Original Message-----
From: ArtSheehan@...
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved


In my earlier posting I used the term "literature" very broadly and perhaps
should have used the term "select literature." Some replies were sent in to
"clear up the confusion" and I think they created more confusion than they
cleared up.

The original posting noted that groups and most Delegates do not get the
opportunity to adequately review literature items on the Conference agenda.
I stand by that assertion. It is not a matter of Conference structure it is
a matter of adopted procedure that can easily be changed given a willingness
to do so. There has been a number of Conference agenda items deferred for
the next following Conference to allow groups, districts and areas to review
the matter and make their views known. There is no reason why this couldn't
be done for literature (all literature).

New literature projects as well as select items such as "The AA Group"
pamphlet, 12&12, Big Book and videos are held in tight secrecy under the
rubric of "work in progress" and have a very limited distribution. It is
done under claims of copyright protection which I feel are unfounded. As an
example, there was no reason why the foreword to the fourth edition Big Book
could not have been distributed in advance for review. It would have spared
the Fellowship the embarrassment of it absurdly equating on-line meetings
with the home group.

Last Panel, our Area Delegate, who chaired the Grapevine Conference
Committee, wanted to obtain a preliminary copy of "The AA Group" pamphlet to
review the proposed changes to it (which were not identified at all in the
background material). She was denied access to it until right before the
Conference floor session.

When it comes to Conference procedure, after more than half a century there
is an element of evolved reality that supersedes written philosophy. Staff
members of AAWS and Grapevine participate in Conference after Conference for
the duration of their employment (which can be decades). They have too much
influence over literature and the Conference-approval process compared to
Delegates who typically serve for two Conferences and 50% of whom rotate out
each year.

Again, I reiterate, that there is no reason why an extra year could not be
added on to an AAWS or Grapevine publications project to permit groups,
districts and areas to have far more of a say and influence over literature
projects. The claim that select items of literature are withheld from
broader review to "protect copyrights" is bogus. Literature is one of the
primary means of "carrying the message" and groups, districts, areas and all
Delegates should have far more influence over what that message says.

End of rant (Rule #62).

Arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell K.
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:31 PM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved

To my knowledge, any work marked "Copyright" or (c) is
copyrighted - period. The revised copyright law allows
for the protection of the author or entity holding
copyright. Having an actual copyright certificate
holds more weight legally than the other method if
challenged in court. I would think that AA's crack
legal teams of intellectual property lawyers would
know that AAWS can register a work with the Copyright
Office as it nears completion and when it is completed
submit another one. If anyone "steals" the work sent
out for review, the original copyright is in force and
even if the language is changed I am sure that there
might be enough legal evidence to challenge. ANyway,
even after a copyright is secured including a
copyright certificate, anyone can write a similar
document changing the words etc. and get away with it.
What's the big paranoid deal? You can't copyright a
concept. Wider input might confuse the issue at times
but some of that confusion might lead to a greater
acceptnce by the Fellowship at large.

Before the copyright laws were revised one had to put
loan or review copy in the body of the text to have a
stronger claim of copyright. Today that isn't
necessary and even if not necessary why not put it on
literature sent out for review anyway? This
"top-secret" stuff doesn't belong in AA on ANY level.

Mitchell


--- Arthur S <ArtSheehan@...> wrote:

> Jim has mentioned a point that has not sat well with
> me at all over the
> years.
>
> Don't get me wrong - my issue is not with Jim by any
> means, but with his
> very factual statement of the notion of "copyright
> protection" being used by
> the Trustee's Literature Committee and GSO as an
> excuse to withhold review
> copies of literature from Delegates and Groups.
>
> Perhaps the AAHL members who are published authors
> can shed some light on
> the situation on whether or not there are valid
> copyright concerns involved.
>
> To me there seems to be no reason whatsoever to deny
> Delegates (or for that
> matter Groups) the opportunity to review a piece of
> literature well prior to
> its publication.
>
> Outside of Directories there is no time-critical
> aspect to any publication
> nor is there any reason why an extra year couldn't
> be added on to the
> publication plan for Fellowship review. Instead, GSO
> uses a notion of a
> "work in progress" to make the entire process
> top-secret and known only to a
> select few and then claims copies of the completed
> work cannot be circulated
> in order to protect the copyright.
>
> Last Panel our Area Delegate wanted to review
> planned changes to the "AA
> Group" pamphlet and received the response that it
> could not be done in order
> to protect the copyright. That notion just doesn't
> seem to hold water to me,
> particularly in an age of digital rights management.
>
>
> My understanding of the copyright process is that an
> author need only mark a
> work as "copyright - all rights reserved" in order
> to establish initial
> legal intellectual property rights prior to going
> through the full legal
> copyright process. Is this true?
>
> Cheers
> Arthur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of
> james.bliss@...
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved
>
> With respect to Arthur S's statement below:
>
> There is a very limited number of people who
> even have access to the literature with its
> changes prior to the vote (substantial changes
> or new literature).  The Delegates may have
> an opportunity to review the material
> immediately prior to the vote, but the actual
> changes, or new literature, is only distributed
> to the people who are on the committee for
> formal review and input, and they make
> written recommendations regarding the changes.
>
> A point of interest here is that the groups
> (and therefore individual members) have no
> access to the literature (new or significant
> changes) prior to it being approved and
> published.  Sort of goes against the concept
> of AA being run by the groups.
>
> Minor changes (punctuation or slight wording)
> are often published for review to the groups.
> It is just significant changes, rewrites and
> new literature which is not.  I have been
> informed this is due to a fear of copyright
> issues and the material being purloined by
> others.
>
> Jim
>
> > It is a rare, rare event when all Delegates
> > at a Conference get a chance to review a piece
> > of literature prior to voting on it. The
> > review is usually done by a committee of
> > several Delegates. The remainder of the
> > Delegates typically vote, sight unseen,
> > for/against the literature based on the
> > recommendation of the committee (that's how
> > the Foreword to the 4th edition statement
> > about on-line meetings and the punctuation
> > changes in "Dr Bob's Nightmare" and other
> > changes slipped past Conference review). While
> > all the Delegates vote on the literature, only
> > a fraction of them actually gets to read it
> > prior to voting.
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links







Yahoo! Groups Links



________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL
at AOL.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

According to Mitchell's Book,
   How It Worked - THE STORY OF CLARENCE H. SNYDER   AND THE EARLY DAYS OF
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS IN CLEVELAND, OHIO   By Mitchell K. © 1991, 1997
   Chapter 5, is a paragraph states: "A fellowship of anonymous drunks had in
fact existed prior to May 11, 1939. But it was the Cleveland meeting which first
used the name Alcoholics Anonymous, that it took from the book. Cleveland's May,
1939 meeting is the first documented meeting which used the name Alcoholics
Anonymous, separate and apart from the Oxford Group."

   However, there seems to be a little more light to shed on the subject. From a
page on the AA GSO Watch website there is the following stated:

   You may have read in ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS COMES OF AGE, page 165

         The title "Alcoholics Anonymous" had appeared very early in the
discussion, probably in October, 1938. We do not know who first used these
words.  That is questionable. As we discovered recently it appeared more than
half year earlier around March 1938. How do we know that? We read ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS COMES OF AGE, page 159.
             "At 17 William Street, Newark, New Jersey, Henry had an office which
was the headquarters for a rapidly failing business. He also had a secretary
named Ruth Hock, who was to become one of A.A.'s real pioneers. The other assets
consisted of a huge desk and some plush furniture.   Each morning I traveled all
the way from Brooklyn to Newark where, pacing up and down in Henry's office, I
began to dictate rough drafts of the chapters of the coming book. As we seemed
unable to come up with any genuine outline for the publication, I worked from a
hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter headings. Week after week, Henry raced
around among the stock subscribers, prodding them for their installments."

   One of us questioned the phrase "a hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter
headings". What was that? Some overdue research revealed the answer. In fact
said a hastily drawn-up list of possible chapter headings was a complete outline
for our book Alcoholics Anonymous, created and written by Hank Parkhurst around
March 1938. download document hank38.pdf 471kB



           Chapter 1 - Being dictated -
Preface of the Book -
History of this work -
Questions & answers -
Why the Book -
What is needed -
The Program -
List of Chapters -
The aim of the book -
What is an alcoholic -
The medical chapter -
The Sales Promotion Possibilities -
In the book should be suggestions regarding
hospitalization
Dr. silkworths [sic]  letters.    [Bill Wilson's handwriting]   Hanks ideas


Click on image to enlarge                                                     2
Why the Book      It has been estimated by the Rockefeller
Foundation that there are over a
million incurable, from medical or
psychiatrical standpoints, alcoholics
in the United States.
   These men realize their vital
need and are desperately seeking
the answer.  The book should be so
written that it will prove the
answer to these people.
   The work has become so broad
that full time assistance and
direction is needed.  This costs
money (which has been offered
by foundational funds) however the
alcoholics believe it should
come from within their own
experience.



Click on image to enlarge                                                    3
Questions & Answers -    1. The question is often asked -  where does the money
    come from for this work?
2. How do I know this will work with me?
    Why is this method better than any other religious
    method?  (It is not - this is only a step toward a
    religious experience which should be carried forward
    in christian fellowship no matter what your church)
3. Will I fail if I cannot keep my conduct
    up to these highest standards?
4 - What happens when an alcoholic has a sexual
    relapse?
5. There is so much talk about a religious experience
    - what is it?



Click on image to enlarge                                                    4
  Sales Promotion Possibilities    The Market -
   1. Over million alcoholics (Rockefeller Foundation)
   2. At least million non alcoholics
      that have definite alcoholic
      relatives
   3. Every employer of 100 or
      more people
   4. Those that take an
      academic interest. [a]
   5. Two hundred & ten thousand ministers [b]
   6. One hundred sixty nine thousand
      physicians.
   7. The total would be well
      over three million prospects [c]    [a] this entry was first written as
number 6,
     but the 6 was written over by a 4 and the
     entry was promoted with an arrow
[b] First written as "Half million ministers"
[c] The word "three" was written over "a"



Click on image to enlarge                                                    5
Suggestion for Chapter 1 -       A History of the work -
Possibly this could be carried on
the first two pages of the book.
    This history should establish
proof of success of the work
and carry hope to everyone
that reads that much.
    The opening to the book
should arouse the emotion
of hope.



Click on image to enlarge                                                   6
     Mail order       A form letter of acknowledgment
must be worked out.
    This will acknowledge the receipt
of the enquiry [sic] and will inform
that the writer can secure the
book by mailing two dollars [d]
or through their local bookseller
who can secure from
          Alcoholics Anonymous, Inc.
          Post Box xxxx       The profits of the book are administered
by a foundation for promotion of
cure and understanding of alcoholism.    [d] first written as "mailing a buck
for"


Click on image to enlarge                                                     7
Title Page    Alcoholics Anonymous       Published by
    ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, INC
       A NON PROFIT organization
       for the promotion of
       cure and understanding
       of alcoholism.       Profits accruing from sale
    of this book will be [e] administered
    by a foundation for promotion
    of cure and understanding
    of alcoholism.  Members of
    this foundation.........    Post Box...
xxxxxxxxx  xx    [e] first written as "are" and changed
     to "will be"

Click on image to enlarge                      8
      Observations -      One of the easiest and most talked of
things among us is a religious experience.
I believe that this is incomprehensible to
most people.  Simple & meaning words
to us - but meaningless to most of
the people that we are trying to get
this over too. - In my mind religious
experience - religion - etc - should
not be brought in.  We are actually
irreligious - but we are trying to be
helpful - we have learned to be
quiet - to be more truthful - to be
more honest - to try to be more
unselfish - to make the other fellows
troubles - our troubles - and by
following four steps we most of us
have a religious experience.  The fellowship -
the unselfishness - appeals to us.
   I wonder if we are off the track.
   A very good merchandising
procedure is to find out why
people do not buy our
products - it is good reasoning
     to find out WHY - I am fearfully
afraid that we are emphasizing
religious experience when actually
that is something that follows
as a result of 1-2-3-4.
In my mind the question is not particularly
the strength of the experience as
much as the improvement over
what we were.  I would ask a
man to compare himself as follows
after say a month -
   #1 - as compared to 2 months ago
       do you have more of a feeling
       that there is a power greater
       than you?
   #2 - Have you cleaned out more
       completely with a human being
       than ever before?
   #3 - Have you less bad things
       behind you than ever
       before
   #4  Have you been


Click on image to enlarge
                                                              9
       more honest with yourself & your
       fellow man - Have you been
       more thoughtful of people with
       whom you are associated - Has
       your life been cleaner both by
       thought & action - Have you
       looked at others less critically and
       yourself more critically this past
       30 days.  You will never be
       perfect but the question is
       have you been more perfect?
Click on image to enlarge                                                    10
                  Alcoholism       May be best be defined to the
average person by pointing out
its leading symptoms and indicating
how these reactions differ from the
affects of alcohol on normal persons.
    1. Total inability to control drinking
       once drinking is started.
    2. Antisocial behavior of these people
       when intoxicated
         A. Marked insanity
             1. Little relation the - persons normal
                behavior or ordinary
                exuberant drinker or drunk


     Publicity
             Newspapers    When book is nearly ready to
leave the presses a short mat
article should be sent to the
12,285 newspapers in the U.S.
    This article would briefly cover
the work as it has gone to date.
Case histories would be covered.
  - It possibly would be a brief
case history of the work and
announcement of the book.
    At least four news bulletins
should be published at weekly
intervals, ahead of the book.

Click on image to enlarge

     Here is such article -- pushed by Hank

Click on image to enlarge

Jim from silkworth.net




---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I see that many members are jumping on the  bandwagon in support of what was
done by early members in promoting AA in their  own backyard. I just returned
from Akron and can positively say that AA wouldn't  have been in Cleveland as
AA city #3 if Dr. Bob hadn't sent Clarence  S. there. Mitchell K can provide
more insight on that .I remember reading  that the name Alcoholics anonymous
was already in use but that Cleveland was the  first group to apply it to a
group name.
     Here in Philadelphia, Jimmy B. was the promoter of  the Double A. He came
here to sell polish for the two men who were going to put  Dupont out of
business with the Honor's polish Co. Bill W and Henry"Hank"  Parkhurst owned
that
company and Jimmy was their salesman. Ruth Hock was the  secretary. Edwin
Throckmorton Thatcher was in Philadelphia and not in touch with  the NY mother
group You guessed it , they sent Jimmy the non-believer to  Philadelphia to look
for Ebby , hawk some books and oh yeah to sell some  automobile polish. Does
anyone have a can of that polish?
     There were already sober men in the city in Feb of  1940 via the O.G. and
with the help of Dr. C Dudley Saul. They met in the  Doctors office on a
regular basis. Most notable of the sober men before Jimmy  came to Philadelphia
was John Park Lee.He said that Jimmy brought sponsorship  and emphasized the AA
message that alcoholics were sick people. Jimmy had Bought  $200.00 of the
stock,hawked the most big books, demanded "God as I understand  Him" , "The only
requirement for membership is the desire to stop  drinking"as well as his own
story "The vicious Cycle to the Big Book. Jimmy  got the medical community to
support AA as well as Judge Curtis Bok, owner of  the Saturday Evening Post.
The Philadelphia Mother group, not just Jimmy, played  a part in the
publication of the Jack Alexander Article which was the greatest  single boost
to AA.
Jimmy helped in the creation of AA in Harrisburg,  Wilmington, Baltimore and in
Washington D.C. with his childhood buddy John Henry  Fitzhugh Mayo. Jimmy saw
that NY had the first clubhouse so he got the Philly  boys to get the first
full service clubhouse ( a lunch counter). He had them  become the 1st group to
financially support New York. They started the 1st  regular visits to a
hospital(4/1940) by a group as well as the 1st regular  visits to a
prison.(9/1940)
They also started the 1st monthly  business meeting of a group(12/1940) and
one of the first Young peoples  group .(6/1946)
     Where have all the members of AA with this kind of  energy and
persistence gone? If something needed to be done, you did it. Would  AA and its
present
service structure be able to survive if men like Clarence S,  Larry J ,Fitz M,
Jimmy B were around now and doing what they did? It kind  of makes you wonder.
     I'd like to hear about other cities and what AA was  like there.
Yours in Service,
Shakey Mike Gwirtz
See You in Phoenix Sept 6-9- The 11th National Archives Workshop
            &
Area 29 Dist 6 Archives Workshop..Sat May 26, 12:30-5:30 P.M.
Christ Episcopal Church 220 Owensville Rd.
West River, MD.(where Jimmy B and Fitz M were raised and are now  buried)
Picnic, Speakers Meeting &Historical Presentations..A great  time........




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In my earlier posting I used the term "literature" very broadly and perhaps
should have used the term "select literature." Some replies were sent in to
"clear up the confusion" and I think they created more confusion than they
cleared up.

The original posting noted that groups and most Delegates do not get the
opportunity to adequately review literature items on the Conference agenda.
I stand by that assertion. It is not a matter of Conference structure it is
a matter of adopted procedure that can easily be changed given a willingness
to do so. There has been a number of Conference agenda items deferred for
the next following Conference to allow groups, districts and areas to review
the matter and make their views known. There is no reason why this couldn't
be done for literature (all literature).

New literature projects as well as select items such as "The AA Group"
pamphlet, 12&12, Big Book and videos are held in tight secrecy under the
rubric of "work in progress" and have a very limited distribution. It is
done under claims of copyright protection which I feel are unfounded. As an
example, there was no reason why the foreword to the fourth edition Big Book
could not have been distributed in advance for review. It would have spared
the Fellowship the embarrassment of it absurdly equating on-line meetings
with the home group.

Last Panel, our Area Delegate, who chaired the Grapevine Conference
Committee, wanted to obtain a preliminary copy of "The AA Group" pamphlet to
review the proposed changes to it (which were not identified at all in the
background material). She was denied access to it until right before the
Conference floor session.

When it comes to Conference procedure, after more than half a century there
is an element of evolved reality that supersedes written philosophy. Staff
members of AAWS and Grapevine participate in Conference after Conference for
the duration of their employment (which can be decades). They have too much
influence over literature and the Conference-approval process compared to
Delegates who typically serve for two Conferences and 50% of whom rotate out
each year.

Again, I reiterate, that there is no reason why an extra year could not be
added on to an AAWS or Grapevine publications project to permit groups,
districts and areas to have far more of a say and influence over literature
projects. The claim that select items of literature are withheld from
broader review to "protect copyrights" is bogus. Literature is one of the
primary means of "carrying the message" and groups, districts, areas and all
Delegates should have far more influence over what that message says.

End of rant (Rule #62).

Arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell K.
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 7:31 PM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved

To my knowledge, any work marked "Copyright" or (c) is
copyrighted - period. The revised copyright law allows
for the protection of the author or entity holding
copyright. Having an actual copyright certificate
holds more weight legally than the other method if
challenged in court. I would think that AA's crack
legal teams of intellectual property lawyers would
know that AAWS can register a work with the Copyright
Office as it nears completion and when it is completed
submit another one. If anyone "steals" the work sent
out for review, the original copyright is in force and
even if the language is changed I am sure that there
might be enough legal evidence to challenge. ANyway,
even after a copyright is secured including a
copyright certificate, anyone can write a similar
document changing the words etc. and get away with it.
What's the big paranoid deal? You can't copyright a
concept. Wider input might confuse the issue at times
but some of that confusion might lead to a greater
acceptnce by the Fellowship at large.

Before the copyright laws were revised one had to put
loan or review copy in the body of the text to have a
stronger claim of copyright. Today that isn't
necessary and even if not necessary why not put it on
literature sent out for review anyway? This
"top-secret" stuff doesn't belong in AA on ANY level.

Mitchell


--- Arthur S <ArtSheehan@...> wrote:

> Jim has mentioned a point that has not sat well with
> me at all over the
> years.
>
> Don't get me wrong - my issue is not with Jim by any
> means, but with his
> very factual statement of the notion of "copyright
> protection" being used by
> the Trustee's Literature Committee and GSO as an
> excuse to withhold review
> copies of literature from Delegates and Groups.
>
> Perhaps the AAHL members who are published authors
> can shed some light on
> the situation on whether or not there are valid
> copyright concerns involved.
>
> To me there seems to be no reason whatsoever to deny
> Delegates (or for that
> matter Groups) the opportunity to review a piece of
> literature well prior to
> its publication.
>
> Outside of Directories there is no time-critical
> aspect to any publication
> nor is there any reason why an extra year couldn't
> be added on to the
> publication plan for Fellowship review. Instead, GSO
> uses a notion of a
> "work in progress" to make the entire process
> top-secret and known only to a
> select few and then claims copies of the completed
> work cannot be circulated
> in order to protect the copyright.
>
> Last Panel our Area Delegate wanted to review
> planned changes to the "AA
> Group" pamphlet and received the response that it
> could not be done in order
> to protect the copyright. That notion just doesn't
> seem to hold water to me,
> particularly in an age of digital rights management.
>
>
> My understanding of the copyright process is that an
> author need only mark a
> work as "copyright - all rights reserved" in order
> to establish initial
> legal intellectual property rights prior to going
> through the full legal
> copyright process. Is this true?
>
> Cheers
> Arthur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of
> james.bliss@...
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved
>
> With respect to Arthur S's statement below:
>
> There is a very limited number of people who
> even have access to the literature with its
> changes prior to the vote (substantial changes
> or new literature).  The Delegates may have
> an opportunity to review the material
> immediately prior to the vote, but the actual
> changes, or new literature, is only distributed
> to the people who are on the committee for
> formal review and input, and they make
> written recommendations regarding the changes.
>
> A point of interest here is that the groups
> (and therefore individual members) have no
> access to the literature (new or significant
> changes) prior to it being approved and
> published.  Sort of goes against the concept
> of AA being run by the groups.
>
> Minor changes (punctuation or slight wording)
> are often published for review to the groups.
> It is just significant changes, rewrites and
> new literature which is not.  I have been
> informed this is due to a fear of copyright
> issues and the material being purloined by
> others.
>
> Jim
>
> > It is a rare, rare event when all Delegates
> > at a Conference get a chance to review a piece
> > of literature prior to voting on it. The
> > review is usually done by a committee of
> > several Delegates. The remainder of the
> > Delegates typically vote, sight unseen,
> > for/against the literature based on the
> > recommendation of the committee (that's how
> > the Foreword to the 4th edition statement
> > about on-line meetings and the punctuation
> > changes in "Dr Bob's Nightmare" and other
> > changes slipped past Conference review). While
> > all the Delegates vote on the literature, only
> > a fraction of them actually gets to read it
> > prior to voting.
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links

Good morning.  I specialize in AA history
audio & video.  I have over 200 recordings
of AA pioneers who came into AA in the 1930s
& 1940s plus hundreds of other AA history
recordings from the 1950s & 1960s.  Please
email me directly at

barefootbill@...
(barefootbill at optonline.net)

and I'll send you a listing of what I have.
Thanks for allowing me to be of service and
God bless.

Just Love,
Barefoot Bill

P.S. - My audio website should be up & running
in about a month at www.justloveaudio.com



   -----Original Message-----
   From: Cliff Diable
   Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007
   To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Historical recordings

   Having recently read ( and re-read) bio's and
   autobio's of the giants of AA, I'd like very
   much to actually hear some of the great speeches
   I've read, and heard about. Any one have a link
   or, perhaps info when I can listen to "My Heros"??

   Interested in Bill, Lois, Dr. Bob, Nell Wing,
   Ebby, Drs. Silkworth, Shoemaker and  Tiebeau
   as well as others.

   Thanks!!
   Cliff Diable
   Raleigh, NC

Hi to everybody,

I will be out of town for a week. I'll be
gone from today (Monday, April 23, 2007)
until the end of the week (Sunday evening late,
April 29, 2007).

We'll be pulling our camper and traveling
down to southern Indiana. Given where we'll be
going, I won't have any access to the internet
at any point along the way.

Fiona Dodd in County Mayo, Ireland, will be
keeping an eye on things, with the same skill
and keen eye that she always shows.

fionadodd@...  (fionadodd at eircom.net)

Everybody take care.

Glenn Chesnut, Moderator

To my knowledge, any work marked "Copyright" or (c) is
copyrighted - period. The revised copyright law allows
for the protection of the author or entity holding
copyright. Having an actual copyright certificate
holds more weight legally than the other method if
challenged in court. I would think that AA's crack
legal teams of intellectual property lawyers would
know that AAWS can register a work with the Copyright
Office as it nears completion and when it is completed
submit another one. If anyone "steals" the work sent
out for review, the original copyright is in force and
even if the language is changed I am sure that there
might be enough legal evidence to challenge. ANyway,
even after a copyright is secured including a
copyright certificate, anyone can write a similar
document changing the words etc. and get away with it.
What's the big paranoid deal? You can't copyright a
concept. Wider input might confuse the issue at times
but some of that confusion might lead to a greater
acceptnce by the Fellowship at large.

Before the copyright laws were revised one had to put
loan or review copy in the body of the text to have a
stronger claim of copyright. Today that isn't
necessary and even if not necessary why not put it on
literature sent out for review anyway? This
"top-secret" stuff doesn't belong in AA on ANY level.

Mitchell


--- Arthur S <ArtSheehan@...> wrote:

> Jim has mentioned a point that has not sat well with
> me at all over the
> years.
>
> Don't get me wrong - my issue is not with Jim by any
> means, but with his
> very factual statement of the notion of "copyright
> protection" being used by
> the Trustee's Literature Committee and GSO as an
> excuse to withhold review
> copies of literature from Delegates and Groups.
>
> Perhaps the AAHL members who are published authors
> can shed some light on
> the situation on whether or not there are valid
> copyright concerns involved.
>
> To me there seems to be no reason whatsoever to deny
> Delegates (or for that
> matter Groups) the opportunity to review a piece of
> literature well prior to
> its publication.
>
> Outside of Directories there is no time-critical
> aspect to any publication
> nor is there any reason why an extra year couldn't
> be added on to the
> publication plan for Fellowship review. Instead, GSO
> uses a notion of a
> "work in progress" to make the entire process
> top-secret and known only to a
> select few and then claims copies of the completed
> work cannot be circulated
> in order to protect the copyright.
>
> Last Panel our Area Delegate wanted to review
> planned changes to the "AA
> Group" pamphlet and received the response that it
> could not be done in order
> to protect the copyright. That notion just doesn't
> seem to hold water to me,
> particularly in an age of digital rights management.
>
>
> My understanding of the copyright process is that an
> author need only mark a
> work as "copyright - all rights reserved" in order
> to establish initial
> legal intellectual property rights prior to going
> through the full legal
> copyright process. Is this true?
>
> Cheers
> Arthur
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of
> james.bliss@...
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] RE: conference-approved
>
> With respect to Arthur S's statement below:
>
> There is a very limited number of people who
> even have access to the literature with its
> changes prior to the vote (substantial changes
> or new literature).  The Delegates may have
> an opportunity to review the material
> immediately prior to the vote, but the actual
> changes, or new literature, is only distributed
> to the people who are on the committee for
> formal review and input, and they make
> written recommendations regarding the changes.
>
> A point of interest here is that the groups
> (and therefore individual members) have no
> access to the literature (new or significant
> changes) prior to it being approved and
> published.  Sort of goes against the concept
> of AA being run by the groups.
>
> Minor changes (punctuation or slight wording)
> are often published for review to the groups.
> It is just significant changes, rewrites and
> new literature which is not.  I have been
> informed this is due to a fear of copyright
> issues and the material being purloined by
> others.
>
> Jim
>
> > It is a rare, rare event when all Delegates
> > at a Conference get a chance to review a piece
> > of literature prior to voting on it. The
> > review is usually done by a committee of
> > several Delegates. The remainder of the
> > Delegates typically vote, sight unseen,
> > for/against the literature based on the
> > recommendation of the committee (that's how
> > the Foreword to the 4th edition statement
> > about on-line meetings and the punctuation
> > changes in "Dr Bob's Nightmare" and other
> > changes slipped past Conference review). While
> > all the Delegates vote on the literature, only
> > a fraction of them actually gets to read it
> > prior to voting.
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, John Otis here. I have tapes called  "The
Founders Of AA" by Glenn K Audio Tapes. There
are six tapes very clear.

#1 Ebby T 9/14/58

#2 Bob S 1/01/48

#3 Bill W + Dr. Bob 1st convention Cleveland 7/28/50

#4 Bill D The Man On The Bed 1/1/50

#5 Harry T, Dr. 1/1/66

#6 Bill W. The Story Handed Down" date unknown.

I obtained them from:

http://www.glennkaudiotapes.com/

They have very clear sound. You will really
like them.

John Otis
>
> Having recently read ( and re-read) bio's and
> autobio's of the giants of AA, I'd like very
> much to actually hear some of the great speeches
> I've read, and heard about. Any one have a link
> or, perhaps info when I can listen to "My Heros"??
>
> Interested in Bill, Lois, Dr. Bob, Nell Wing,
> Ebby, Drs. Silkworth, Shoemaker and  Tiebeau
> as well as others.
>
> Thanks!!
> Cliff Diable
> Raleigh, NC
>

From: "Area64tnarchives.org"
<daggerrose@...>
(daggerrose at area64tnarchives.org)

   11th Annual National Archives Workshop
   Preserving Our Heritage To Pass It On
   September 6 thru September 9, 2007
   Sheraton Airport Hotel
   Phoenix, Arizona

Greetings,
It's sneaking up on us. Make your reservations
now. Go to:

   http://www.aanationalarchivesworkshop.com/
   http://www.aanationalarchivesworkshop.com/NAW07.pdf

It will only take a couple minutes. Tell Vicki
Area 64 Archives sent ya.

   Best Regards and See Ya in September,
   Daggerrose

- - - -

FROM THE FLYER:

11 th Annual National Archives Workshop
Alcoholics Anonymous
Preserving Our Heritage to Pass It On

With Al-Anon Participation

September 6 thru 9, 2007 -- Phoenix, Arizona

Sheraton Airport Hotel
1600 S. 52nd Street
1-800-325-3535

Contacts:

Vicki Jo B. (H) 602-995-7349 / (W) 602-272-1347
happyvjb@...
(happyvjb at yahoo.com)

Ron W. 623-934-4395
Ronw85301@...
(Ronw85301 at aol.com)

***Limited Amount Of Space Available
for Archive Displays -- Advise Ahead
Of Time If Bringing Displays***

This is a program from the past (taken from
the planning committee's records), but this
general format has been fairly typical of the
National Archives Workshops:

6th NATIONAL ARCHIVES WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 27-30, 2001
Clarksville, Indiana / Louisville, Kentucky

"Our Window on the Past, Guide to the Present,
and Light for the Future"

Holiday Inn Lakeview (Louisville North),
Clarksville, Indiana

**************************

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28
7:00 a.m. A.A. meeting
7:30-9 a.m. breakfast

- - - -

9:00-11:30 a.m. KATHY SMITH (Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, Tennessee),
"Introduction to Archival Procedures"

- - - -

11:30-1:00 p.m. lunch

- - - -

1:00-5:00 p.m. BOB WILLIAMS (Maumelle, Arkansas)
on advanced archival and preservation procedures

- - - -

5:00-6:30 p.m. dinner

6:30-10 p.m. Floyd Parker (Frankton, Indiana,
co-chair of the workshop planning committee):
general introduction.

Longtimers Panel, two longtimers from each
hosting Area, chaired by Frank Nyikos (Area
22 Archivist, Syracuse, Indiana, secretary/
treasurer of the workshop planning committee):
Areas 20, 22, 23, 26, and 56, plus Area 64
(Chuck E., over 50 years, and Billy S.,
almost 50 years, oldest living delegate)

- - - -

9:30 p.m. JUDIT SANTON, New York A.A.
Archivist:  specific kinds of correspondence
in the New York archives, plus perhaps
something on the importance of oral
histories.

- - - -

10:00 p.m. ice cream social

**************************

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29
7:00 a.m. A.A. meeting
7:45-8:45 a.m. breakfast

- - - -

9:00-10:15 a.m.

Policy, ethics, A.A. principles:
JUDIT SANTON (New York A.A. Archivist)
GAIL LaC. (Akron A.A. Archives)
Plus one other person (on the internet)

Funding an A.A. archives:
JIM E. (Area 19)

Publishing an Area history:
WANDA B. (Area 26 Archivist, Lexington, Kentucky)

- - - -

10:30-11:45 a.m.

Linkage and outreach:
JERRY P. (Sycamore IL), first Conference
Archives Chair

A.A. authors and history:
GLENN CHESNUT (Indiana University, South Bend),
"Indiana's Own A.A. Author: Ralph Pfau (Father
John Doe) and the Golden Books"
Father Ralph's life, Indiana places linked with
him in the immediate vicinity of Clarksville
where we are meeting, and his work in A.A.

Database and retrieval methods:
JAY M. (Akron Intergroup)

- - - -
11:45-1:30 p.m. lunch
- - - -

1:30-3:30 p.m. JIM DORRYCOTT (Area 64
Archivist), slide show with photographs
of the newly built Area 64 Tennessee A.A.
Archives

- - - -

3:45-5 p.m. Area Capsule Histories from
our part of the country: how A.A. began
and notable events.
Area 23: Kenny B.
Area 22: Glenn C., member of the workshop
planning committee
Area 64: Charley M.
Area 26: Wanda B., member of the workshop
planning committee
Area 20: Rick T., program chair of the
workshop planning committee
Area 56: John from Ohio

- - - -

5:00 p.m. business meeting, chaired by Frank
Nyikos (Area 22 Archivist, Syracuse, Indiana),
secretary/treasurer of the workshop planning
committee

- - - -
6:30-7:30 p.m. banquet
- - - -

8:15 p.m. FIRST KEYNOTE SPEAKER

BILL D., Memphis, Tennessee (over 46 years in
the program - - spoke at Minneapolis - - got
sober in New York in the early 1950's, went
to the meeting Bill W. went to there, knew
Dr. Silkworth - - he went from New York to
Texas, where he spent many years, then
retired to Memphis, where he lives now and
is active in Tennessee A.A.)

- - - -

9:15 p.m. SECOND KEYNOTE SPEAKER

BILL WHITE (Bloomington, Illinois), author
of "Slaying the Dragon," the leading expert
on the history of alcoholism treatment in
America.  A talk illustrated with slides
showing photographs of alcoholism treatment
centers from the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.

**************************

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 30

7:00 a.m. A.A. meeting

7:30-9:00 a.m. breakfast

9:00-11:45 a.m. Closing Session
Conference Archives Committee Report,
Trustees Archives Committee Report,
Ask-It-Basket, 2001 Preliminary Report
Planning Guide Presentation, Jack O.
(Joliet, Illinois, Conference Archives
Committee), Service Sharing

##########################

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES WORKSHOPS
(from a planning committee document)

The A.A. people who come to these workshops
are all people who are actively engaged in
archival work, most of them for many years.

They include:  members of Area A.A. archives
committees, District archivists, archivists at
intergroup offices, people from the New York
central office (like Judit Santon), Trustees
and Delegates who are interested in archives,
and historians working on the history of A.A.
who use archives as major sources of informa-
tion.  Some of the attendees are also brand
new at their archivist's job, so some of our
topic sessions will need to be tailored for
absolutely raw, new beginners - - that's part
of our job too, though only a part.

So we've always had topic sessions on preserving
and restoring and storing old manuscripts, and
the problems in preserving old tape recordings.

Also on how to use computers in various ways
to help organize an archival collection.

Also talks by people who run local Area archi-
val repositories in places like Little Rock,
Arkansas, and so on.

We usually have a trustee or two who is
interested in archives.

We always have local oldtimers who are willing
to answer our questions about early A.A. in
their part of the country, and their own
personal experiences.

We try to have good material on A.A. history
too. So our programs include talks by experts
on A.A. history, small group meetings with
noted authors of works on A.A. history
(where we can talk to people like Mary
Darrah about their work), and so on.

We've always had major speakers at these
workshops, sometimes as many as four or five
or more.  Ernie Kurtz, Mary Darrah, and
so on, spoke at the workshops in Akron.

The speakers are frequently A.A. members, but
we have had non-A.A. people speak too.  For
example Dr. Bob's son Smitty, Henrietta
Seiberling's son, and a doctor and a nurse
who are part of the current alcoholism
treatment program at St. Thomas Hospital
in Akron.  The National Archives Workshops
are not official A.A. events like A.A. state
conventions or miniconferences put on by local
intergroups, so the rules about non-alcoholic
speakers do not apply.

We frequently have some special event which is
tied to the history of A.A. in the place where
the workshop is held:  a visit to Dr. Bob's
house (and to his and Anne's grave) at the
Akron workshops, getting to attend the huge
Chicago Open Meeting (with thousands of A.A.'s
from all over greater Chicago) at the workshop
in that city in 1999, and so on.

As archivists, we are responsible for perserv-
ing the CONTEXT in which A.A. grew and emerged,
as well as what the early A.A.'s themselves
were doing.  Nobody can make good sense out
of much of what the early A.A.'s did without
knowing something about the Oxford Group,
the Washingtonians, the treatment centers
and hospitals which were trying (and failing)
to bring the "cure" to suffering alcoholics,
and so on - - as well as the love-hate rela-
tionship which developed between the A.A.
groups and the treatment centers and detox
facilities and half-way houses.

Our central focus, nevertheless, always has
to be on A.A. and its people - - the rest
is only peripheral.

These workshops are not official A.A. events,
in the sense of being put on by areas or
districts or intergroups.  They are organized
by ad hoc committees.

The planning committee for the 6th National
Archives Workshop, for example, was made up
of A.A. members from Indiana, Illinois,
Kentucky, and Tennessee who were deeply
committed to A.A. archives and history.
From Indiana Area 22 we had the chair of
the archives committee, the archivist, and
the editor of the archival bulletin (Floyd P.,
Frank N., and Glenn C.).  From Illinois
Area 20 we had their archivist (Rick T.).
From Tennessee Area 64 we had their archivist
(Jim Dorrycott, now deceased).  From Kentucky
Area 26 we had the chair of the archives
committee (Wanda B.).

Hello One and all, I hope this finds everyone
well and in good spirits.

Anyone have a PDF copy of the book written
by Charles Hanson?

The one Bob Pearson did was good for such a
hard project.  I sure would like to compare
them seeing as how I have read Bob P's attempt.

Thank You

Gary

*********************************

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO CONTACT GARY
DIRECTLY AT HIS EMAIL ADDRESS:

<feelgoodcp@...> (feelgoodcp at gmail.com)

*********************************

On 4/19/07, James Blair <jblair%40videotron.ca>
(jblair at videotron.ca)
mentioned Charles Hanson's unpublished AA
history as well as Bob Pearson's history:

> There was also a history book written by
> Charles Hanson and it was to be used as a
> 50th Anniversary publication but it was
> judged to be "too general."

Having recently read ( and re-read) bio's and
autobio's of the giants of AA, I'd like very
much to actually hear some of the great speeches
I've read, and heard about. Any one have a link
or, perhaps info when I can listen to "My Heros"??

Interested in Bill, Lois, Dr. Bob, Nell Wing,
Ebby, Drs. Silkworth, Shoemaker and  Tiebeau
as well as others.

Thanks!!
Cliff Diable
Raleigh, NC

At 00:06 4/18/2007 , Bent Christensen wrote
asking about the National Archives Workshops.

I hosted the hospitality suite last year at
the meeting here in Baton Rouge one afternoon
and I can say I learned a lot just listening
to the knowledgeable folk talk.

The exhibits were really nice, too.

It's a nice bunch and you are likely to learn
a lot whether you intend to or not.  <bg>

Tommy in Baton Rouge

"AA started in Texas (February 1940) as a result
of a Cleveland member (Larry J) taking a job
with the Houston Press and publishing a series
of editorials about AA. Those editorials also
became AA's first published pamphlet."

From message 4269
"Arthur S" <ArtSheehan@...>
(ArtSheehan at msn.com)

- - - -

Regarding the long line of AA to start as a
result of the Cleveland group, Larry J.'s
article written in Texas was read and responded
to by Sgt. Roy Y., who was then transferred
to the Tampa-St. Pete area and as a result ALL
of AA in this area of Florida( Clearwater,
Tampa, St. Pete) was actually born out of that
article, via Roy starting meetings with some
other locals.

The 301(Clearwater Group) traces its roots to
Roy and just celebrated its 62nd anniversary
March 21,2007.

Thanks  Ken W.  Clearwater Fla.

Bob Pearson's unpublished history of AA and
another one, Charles Hanson's unpublished
history of AA.

- - - -

From: James Blair <jblair@...>
(jblair at videotron.ca)

Roger wrote
> There were factual  errors or contentious
> points in the book and the project was
> abandoned.

A friend of mine was a trustee when this
history book project was shut down. I had a
long discussion with him about it and the
reason he gave me was that the manuscript
was incomplete and much more work needed to
be done on the local histories within each
state and province as well as the international
histories. The cost to complete it was judged
to be to great.

I have never found a factual error or con-
tentious point in the manuscript but of
course history often has more than one set
of facts.

There was also a history book written by
Charles Hanson and it was to be used as a
50th Anniversary publication but it was
judged to be "too general."

Jim

The workshops are aimed both at experienced
archivists and rank beginners. We always have
workshops on the basics of preservation, etc.
so if you are interested in learning more it
would make a lot of sense. Plus, you can
"pick the brains" of archivists from all over
the country and you will learn mucho!

Someone interested in our history but not the
nuts and bolts of archives work would get
less out of the workshop but you still could
learn much about our history. I guess it
depends on how far you would be traveling.


> [Original Message]
> From: Bent Christensen <bent_christensen5@...>
> To: <AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 4/19/2007 3:53:58 PM
> Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] National Archives Workshop
>
> Hi there
>
> I'm a little curious about the AA National
> Archives Workshop.
>
> Being a member that finds our history very
> interesting and vital for the future of our
> fellowship, who has absolutely nothing to do
> with research or preservation etc., and only
> limited knowledge about the details in our
> history; I wonder if attending would make any
> sense.
>
> If a member of the group will share a little
> about the format and content of previous
> Workshops and tell who, in their opinion,
> would benefit from attending, it will be
> highly appreciated.
>
>   Thanks
>   Bent
>
> Alt i én. Få Yahoo! Mail med adressekartotek, kalender og notesblok.
>
> - - - -
>
> See Message 4064:
>
> Complete List of the National Archives Workshops
>
> 1st 1996 Akron
>
> 2nd 1997 Akron
>
> 3rd 1998 Akron
>
> 4th 1999 Chicago, Illinois
>
> 5th 2000 Seattle, Washington
>
> 6th 2001 Clarksville, Indiana
> (across Ohio river from Louisville, Kentucky)
>
> 7th 2002 San Bernardino, California
>
> 8th 2003 Fort Lauderdale, Florida
>
> 9th 2004 Murfreesboro, in central Tennessee
> (about forty miles from Nashville)
>
> 10th 2006 Baton Rouge, Louisiana
> (originally set for New Orleans,
> but the hurricane struck in 2005)
>
> 11th 2007 Phoenix, Arizona

Cleveland's claim, I believe, was to be the
first group to openly identify itself as a
group of Alcoholics Anonymous and that is a
valid claim.

The Cleveland group formed shortly after the
Big Book was published and the name "Alco-
holics Anonymous" was already in existence.
However, anonymity practices in those early
days were far more stringent than today and
it was a rather bold move on Cleveland's part
relatively speaking. If you check out the
1941 Jack Alexander Saturday Evening Post
article, members back then even disguised
their first names from public disclosure.

Notwithstanding Bill W's early use of the
term, I don't get a sense that there was yet
unanimity in NY or Akron on adopting the term
for the name of the Fellowship. As mentioned
previously, Akron had not broken away yet from
affiliation with the Oxford Group (it did not
occur until October 1939). That affiliation
was definitely one of the matters driving
Cleveland to form its own group. However,
Cleveland seemed to already have had a
sufficient number of members commuting back
and forth to/from Akron for meetings to
sustain and warrant its own local AA group.

It was basically a matter of just doing it
and that's what Clarence S did. He was not
the first member from Cleveland but he did
start the first group in Cleveland at Abby G's
home. Sometimes the search for primacy serves
to detract too much from historical accomplish-
ments and Cleveland AA has many significant
historical accomplishments to its credit.

When the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorials by
Elrick B Davis were published about AA (October
1939) the newspaper also fielded calls in for
help and referred them to the group. Cleveland
membership sky-rocketed to the point that it
vastly exceeded the combined total membership
of Akron and NY for a long period of time. That
reputedly is one of the reasons many thought AA
started in Cleveland based on its relative size
compared to Akron and NY.

While he had both his proponents and detractors,
the Cleveland founder, Clarence S, was without
question highly motivated and active. He
accomplished much in a very short period of
time. I think (but am not sure) that Cleveland
was the first to have multiple groups in the
same city (prior to that a group was usually
named for the city in which it was located).

The first Intergroup Central Office was estab-
lished in Cleveland (1941) again to the credit
of Clarence S and Abby G and it is credited
with also introducing (via Abby G) the principle
of rotation to AA. Cleveland introduced the
first AA newsletter the "Central Bulletin"
(October 1942). It was distributed nationally
well prior to the publication of the Grapevine
(June 1944).

The success of Cleveland practices for newcomer
meetings and sponsorship also had a strong
influence in later propagating those practices
to many other parts of the country.

AA started in Texas (February 1940) as a result
of a Cleveland member (Larry J) taking a job
with the Houston Press and publishing a series
of editorials about AA. Those editorials also
became AA's first published pamphlet.

Cheers
Arthur

-----Original Message-----
From: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob S.
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:14 AM
To: AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Cleveland's claim: first use of the name
Alcoholics Anonymous

When was the name Alcoholics Anonymous first
used?  Bob S. reminds us of the Cleveland
claim.  But see Messages 4258 and 4259 first,
to understand part of the problem.

- - - -

(1) SPRING 1939:  the Foreword to Second Edition
says AFTER the publication of the Big Book,
which would mean not until Spring 1939.

- - - -

(2) SUMMER 1938:

Letter from Bill W. to Dr. Bob (circa April
to June 1938), says that "Nearly everyone
agrees that we should sign the volume,
Alcoholics Anonymous."  This meant, not the
title, NOT the official name of their group,
but how the authorship would be given on the
title page.

Lois W (in "Lois Remembers" p. 197) states
however that the term "Alcoholics Anonymous"
was first used in June 1938.

"Pass It On" (p 202) claims the first documented
use of the term "Alcoholics Anonymous" was
in a July 15, 1938 letter from Bill W to "Messrs
Richardson, Chipman and Scott of the Rockefeller
Foundation" inviting them to attend a Clinton
Street meeting at Bill's home and that the
members will waive the requirement that
qualified them for 'Alcoholics Anonymous.'"

"Pass It On" also claims that Dr Esther L
Richards (of Johns Hopkins) stated in a July 18,
1938 letter that Bill W, at that time, was
using the name "Alcoholics Anonymous" both
as the working title of the book and as the
name of the Fellowship.

Also in Harry Brick's story in the Big Book,
"A Different Slant," he says, "The doctor at
this hospital told me vaguely of the work of
men who called themselves Alcoholics Anonymous
and asked if I wanted one of them to call upon
me."  Since Harry probably got sober in June
1938, this also suggests that the members of
the AA group he contacted were calling them-
selves an "Alcoholics Anonymous" group, even
if only at a casual and unofficial level.

- - - -

(3) CLEVELAND -- SPRING 1939

Now comes the Cleveland claim, which
Bob S. reminds us of:

"Bob S." <rstonebraker212@...>
(rstonebraker212 at insightbb.com)

Clarence Snyder started Cleveland Ohio's first
AA meeting on May 11th, 1939 - about one month
after the BB was published - and referred to
it as an 'Alcoholics Anonymous' group.  He
stated in one of his audio recordings that
this was the first meeting to be referred
to as such.

- - - -

A comment or two from Glenn C. (South Bend,
Indiana):

One of the things that has to be remembered
here, is that Clarence was the leader in
getting the last ties broken between the
recovering alcoholics and the Oxford Group.
Bill W. had already broken the tie (in some
ways, it may have been more a case of the
Oxford Group pushing him and his little
group of alcoholics out whether they wanted
to cut the tie with the Oxford Group or not).

But Dr. Bob was still clinging tightly to the
Oxford Group connection in Akron, which meant
that, not just in Akron, but every place else
in the country, including Cleveland, people
regarded the little groups which were working
the twelve steps as part of the Oxford Group.
And that meant that, even in Cleveland where
Clarence was, Roman Catholic priests were
telling alcoholics that they could not join
the new twelve step group, because it was
part of the Protestant evangelical movement
called the Oxford Group.

As long as any major part of the twelve step
movement was still hanging onto the Oxford
Group connection, the movement as a whole was
still going to be regarded as a Protestant
evangelical cult.  It didn't do any good to
tell the Roman Catholic Church in Cleveland
that "we've broken from them in New York"
when it was perfectly obvious that the Akron
branch, which was much bigger and more tightly
organized than the New York group, was still
calling itself part of the Oxford Group.  That
would be like saying "we aren't really a
Communist front group because only two thirds
of our members are Communists" (or whatever).

Clarence was the one who finally got through
to Dr. Bob, and forced the final official break
between the twelve step people and the Oxford
Group.  And although the people who were getting
sober by following the method worked out by
Bill W. and Dr. Bob may have been referring
to themselves unofficially or casually as
"alcoholics anonymous," it wasn't the official
and formal name of the group yet.  When Clarence
started publicizing the meetings in Cleveland
as "meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous" (its own
separate group, having nothing to do with the
Oxford Group any longer, anywhere in the
country), it could be argued that this was
where a totally autonomous and separate
Alcoholics Anonymous movement finally began
operating under that official name.

So it strikes me that there was a point to
what Clarence said.  But it is also the case
that whatever date we give is largely a
matter of definition.  Official or unofficial?
Casual or formal?  First partial break or
final unequivocal split from the OG?  In
private correspondence, or in public announce-
ments in newspapers and mimeographed flyers
and other more public media?

Glenn C.



Yahoo! Groups Links