Norm... A fruit is always a fruit - no matter what you call it. Recall
ANIMAL FARM when an animal when given a special name was no longer an
equal animal? --- It is the same principle involved. Some snippy
animal might even opine that the matter at hand is "exempt" from
Tradition and principle --- imagine that!  I wonder what other foibles
may be exempt? Perhaps a martini stirred not shaken while sitting as
Trustee?

Speaking about principles ..... can you just picture a bunch of
special "AA"s sitting around a corporate board table with non-AAs all
wearing the title of "trustee" but some are more special than others?
All in an outfit that uses "AA" in its corporate name and spouting off
about Traditions, Spirituality,Principles and Rotation? Talk about a
hoo-hoo.... Its reminiscent of watching an episodes of the Sopranos.

In my service work, I have on a few occasions reviewed every meeting
schedule published by every central office/intergroup/area in the USA
and Canada. Immediately striking is that while they differ from each
other in many substantive ways, they all do the job. I thank HP that
in the absence of a guideline AA works.

There will always be cases of "abuse," "ego," whatever, within
non-AAWS Service Manual AA - but in the whole - it never lasts long,
things always right themselves --- why? Because there are no
guidelines. Central Offices/Intergroups predate the AAWS "Service
Structure" --- and will outlast the "Service Structure" no matter how
hard AAWS tries to wipe them out.

Why?

Because the CO/Intergroups do not pretend to be AA. Except in a very
few instances they do not use the AA name... and they provide needed
services. AAGSB/AAWS/AAGv use the AA neme and don't serve a need -
they aren't AA. The CO's/Intergroups were created by and for the
groups. The "Service Structure" from GSO to Trustee is  a creation of
AAGSB etal - an entity that started with the name "The Alcoholic
Foundation" OUTSIDE of AA --- created to serve the needs of the
Foundation --- NOT the Fellowship.

Those guys sitting around the Board Room? It may be like watching the
Sopranos ---- however, in this case we participate as victims and its
not entertainment.

There is a heavy sadness when I read accounts of "Trustees" who think
they are serving "AA." That board they are on is paid for by AAGSB
Inc. and they serve that corporate owner. AAGSB Inc. has consistently
demonstrated that it serves itself - exclusively - NOT The Fellowship
of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The carrot of potential elevation to the crown of GM buys the "AA"
trustees' vote for the majority. In the current plot being played out
at AAGSB Inc..... the script writers are reminding the current and
past "AA" board members that the carrot is out there. There is a
subplot of how much will the owners pay the current GM to step down?
Will it be 10 years pay for a man in his "prime?" Will the package
amount be reduced to a pay increase and the elevation of the crown
prince to the king position of the new AA World GM?

King? Well who did you think would be chosen to head up the entity
that AAWS wants to transfer all of its copyrights to? Oh.. and don't
forget to speculate who the board members will be (Elaine for sure as
chair).

I eagerly await priceless renditions of "Trustees" arguing
"principles" when one of them says - "Why are we using the "AA" name -
it violates the Traditions... and Principles."

While concerning ourselves with the internal twirlings and schemes of
the owners of AAInc. is a diversion from our primary purpose - it does
serve to flush out those present who think this stuff is in some way
"AA." It isn't - never was.

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <kohl@...> wrote:
>
> That's also what I actually see in the real world Sherry .
>
> When I was in the military and sent to where there was no AA, there
was no rotating me out, I was the only one that knew anything (at a
year sober and barely sober myself).  A couple years later I attended
a meeting once in South Dakota where the same old fella had run the
same meeting for 25 years.  It was quite remarkable.  Everyone came
with their bible, the new guy got the seat in the middle of a circle
of all the 'sober' folks who grilled the new fella like they were
prime rib at a bbq.  (how any got or stayed sober, I've not a clue).
>
> Dennis was up visiting me here a while back and we visited a local
meeting at a small city and there were two sober fellas at a meeting
of about ten folks and I imagine the ONE fella that had any time (2
years maybe) probably wasn't going to rotate for any foreseeable future.
>
> My post however was directed more towards the large metro areas.  I
believe I pointed out that there are term limits set out that are very
specific for the General Manager of AAWS.  I have the 1987 Final
Conference Report and it specifically says MINIMUM of 5, MAXIMUM of 7
years.  We have a GM with 8 years going on 9 now and as things look he
could have 11 years in his position before anyone could even mount a
credible challenge to even begin a preliminary search for a possible
replacement for that position and we have some folks in the General
Service Conference (granted, a minority) that have legitimately
brought up this matter of rotation in the spirit of Tradition 9.  The
Chair won't let the process work in any way that will offer the
minority even a fair hearing.  (This has happened countless times on
many minority opinion issues).
>
> So, I'm just doing what I've been doing for years now.  I'm
educating AA members, groups, and the public about violations of our
principles so that information and education will deter them (the AA
corporations) from continuing on their path _off_ the road that we
want to trudge to happy destiny.
>
> John G. points out "they" just follow examples and in part he's
right except he was comparing apples to oranges.
>
> I have a number of theories about AAWS that I've developed over the
years as a history buff of sorts and I recently came across a list
that is benign in and of itself but having my background it sort of
explains how John's apples, that used to run AAWS became the oranges
that run AAWS today.
>
> But I'm long winded in this post so that will have to be another
subject.
>
> Bless,
> Norm
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: hartsell
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:45 AM
>   Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation
>
>
>   There are various degrees of Rotation Practices out here in the
world of small groups---6-10 attendees the norm, often 2-4 are steady
and sober active members of the GROUP, the rest are more or less
frequent ATTENDERS who accept or assume no responsibility for the
groups operation beyond dropping the occasional dollar in the basket,
and making coffee occasionally if asked. BUT, my intent here is to
point out that many small groups do have that ONE person who has (Most
often) by circumstance not created by that person, assumed or been
placed in the position of responsibility for keeping the meeting
open----you might be tempted to say, LET IT CLOSE AND DIE, God will
provide, another group will start up. I have seen it happen this way,
and NOT this way---there are in fact several communities within 75
miles of me here where I can recall VIBRANT-ACTIVE Groups and there is
none there now, and places where one group died/closed, and within a
few years another started up.
>
>   Old sherry has been in the position being discussed, and knows how
difficult it can be to TURN OVER the seat of (perceived) power such as
Group Secretary/Treasurer-GSR (in small groups these duties are most
often combined), and because the group often WANTS to keep one in that
position for their own reasons,  it does require real effort to just
gather all materials up, and keys, and just turn them in to the next
business meeting---and I speak from recent personal experience.
>
>   sherry
>
>
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: GSOwatch@ Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:04 PM
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation
>
>
>
>       Whether a person is paid or not, the protection against
focusing power is based on the corruption that so often follows that
concentration of power. I am sure Greg Muth knows and understands
this. One of his sponsees moved here about 10 years ago and he spoke
of rotation like the Holy Grail, said he learned it from Greg.
>
>       Just the fact that he is fighting it tells me he has been
corrupted by the power. His authority at GSO is only challengeable by
the Board, and to a lesser extent by the Conference. I have been
hearing for years how he has had both firmly in hand, therefore
extending his power.
>
>       I truly wish that John G could be right, that these entities
were not AA. But I believe they are AA, and they are steadily moving
against the best interest of our fellowship. We are not about power,
we have God for that. We are about a mission to help alcoholics find a
better way to live, sober. Thank God for Tradition Four, we don't have
to support this corrupted part of AA, and they can't control us.
>
>
>
>
                       G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     From: N
>
>     To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:42 PM
>
>     Subject: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation
>
>
>
>     http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9
>
>     Many years ago I belonged to a very large group. In a way it was
like a
>     district all by itself. It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
>     building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different
secretary.
>     To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month
and each
>     group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of
delegate to
>     rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any
problems, like if
>     there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at
the Thursday
>     brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.
>
>     There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to
do with any
>     single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the
meetings. One
>     was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the
secretaries' meeting,
>     or Chair of the Business meeting. I served in both positions
once, but I'm
>     referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at
this point.
>
>     After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting
secretary, a little
>     gal, came to me with a problem. Her noon meeting was full of
hard nose
>     criminals sent by the justice system. They intimidated the hell
out of her
>     and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and
generally
>     terrorized her and disrupted the meeting. Her intention was to
have me....
>     the boss, fix it. (chuckle) If I wasn't going to fix it, she was
going to
>     quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any
case).
>
>     I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to
her. I
>     told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything
with these
>     brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared.
She sat at
>     the front table and lead the meeting. She had "authority".
>
>     I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car
but when a
>     cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the
authority
>     invested in the cop's position. I told her she had that same
kind of
>     authority but she just wasn't using it. To keep things short, I
gave her a
>     little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was
tickled pink and
>     loved having her meetings.
>
>     She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she
didn't want
>     to do that. She loved the authority.
>
>     Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6
months beyond
>     her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green
monster but I've
>     seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
>     authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle
of rotation.
>
>     In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines
about
>     rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself
in other
>     aspects. For example, I believe the same company has done the
audits for
>     AAWS since there was an AAWS. Shouldn't they use a different
audit company
>     every few years? What about at central offices? I've never known
this to be
>     a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so
crappy and
>     paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.
>
>     What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?
>
>     I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because
the idea of
>     rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of
rotation is to
>     reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority
that has
>     unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is
meant to have
>     authority.
>
>     The audit company.... I think changing that is just good
business sense, not
>     a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA
secondary
>     aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of
Tradition
>     9.
>
>     The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final
Report pg 49
>     says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum
of five
>     years and a maximum of seven years. Our current General Manager
was hired
>     with that understanding in 1999. There has been some
scuttle-butt about
>     this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is
something like my
>     little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of
authority may be
>     pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels
of our
>     service structure.
>
>     What do regular folks think? If you're hired for a maximum of 7
years and
>     you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a
controversy with
>     your employer when they want to look for a replacement? Mind the
fact that
>     the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But
would you be
>     changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?
>
>     Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to
employees of AA
>     if they are in positions of authority?
>
>     Bless,
>     Norm
>

----- Original Message -----

From: hartsell

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:45 AM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation

There are various degrees of Rotation Practices out here in the world of small groups---6-10 attendees the norm, often 2-4 are steady and sober active members of the GROUP, the rest are more or less frequent ATTENDERS who accept or assume no responsibility for the groups operation beyond dropping the occasional dollar in the basket, and making coffee occasionally if asked. BUT, my intent here is to point out that many small groups do have that ONE person who has (Most often) by circumstance not created by that person, assumed or been placed in the position of responsibility for keeping the meeting open----you might be tempted to say, LET IT CLOSE AND DIE, God will provide, another group will start up. I have seen it happen this way, and NOT this way---there are in fact several communities within 75 miles of me here where I can recall VIBRANT-ACTIVE Groups and there is none there now, and places where one group died/closed, and within a few years another started up.

Old sherry has been in the position being discussed, and knows how difficult it can be to TURN OVER the seat of (perceived) power such as Group Secretary/Treasurer-GSR (in small groups these duties are most often combined), and because the group often WANTS to keep one in that position for their own reasons,  it does require real effort to just gather all materials up, and keys, and just turn them in to the next business meeting---and I speak from recent personal experience.

sherry

 

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@ Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:04 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation

 

    Whether a person is paid or not, the protection against focusing power is based on the corruption that so often follows that concentration of power. I am sure Greg Muth knows and understands this. One of his sponsees moved here about 10 years ago and he spoke of rotation like the Holy Grail, said he learned it from Greg.

    Just the fact that he is fighting it tells me he has been corrupted by the power. His authority at GSO is only challengeable by the Board, and to a lesser extent by the Conference. I have been hearing for years how he has had both firmly in hand, therefore extending his power.

    I truly wish that John G could be right, that these entities were not AA. But I believe they are AA, and they are steadily moving against the best interest of our fellowship. We are not about power, we have God for that. We are about a mission to help alcoholics find a better way to live, sober. Thank God for Tradition Four, we don't have to support this corrupted part of AA, and they can't control us.

 

                                                                                        G

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: N

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:42 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation

 

http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9

Many years ago I belonged to a very large group. In a way it was like a
district all by itself. It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different secretary.
To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month and each
group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of delegate to
rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any problems, like if
there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at the Thursday
brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.

There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to do with any
single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the meetings. One
was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the secretaries' meeting,
or Chair of the Business meeting. I served in both positions once, but I'm
referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at this point.

After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting secretary, a little
gal, came to me with a problem. Her noon meeting was full of hard nose
criminals sent by the justice system. They intimidated the hell out of her
and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and generally
terrorized her and disrupted the meeting. Her intention was to have me....
the boss, fix it. (chuckle) If I wasn't going to fix it, she was going to
quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any case).

I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to her. I
told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything with these
brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared. She sat at
the front table and lead the meeting. She had "authority".

I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car but when a
cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the authority
invested in the cop's position. I told her she had that same kind of
authority but she just wasn't using it. To keep things short, I gave her a
little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was tickled pink and
loved having her meetings.

She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she didn't want
to do that. She loved the authority.

Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6 months beyond
her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green monster but I've
seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle of rotation.

In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines about
rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself in other
aspects. For example, I believe the same company has done the audits for
AAWS since there was an AAWS. Shouldn't they use a different audit company
every few years? What about at central offices? I've never known this to be
a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so crappy and
paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.

What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?

I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because the idea of
rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of rotation is to
reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority that has
unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is meant to have
authority.

The audit company.... I think changing that is just good business sense, not
a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA secondary
aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of Tradition
9.

The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final Report pg 49
says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum of five
years and a maximum of seven years. Our current General Manager was hired
with that understanding in 1999. There has been some scuttle-butt about
this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is something like my
little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of authority may be
pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels of our
service structure.

What do regular folks think? If you're hired for a maximum of 7 years and
you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a controversy with
your employer when they want to look for a replacement? Mind the fact that
the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But would you be
changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?

Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to employees of AA
if they are in positions of authority?

Bless,
Norm

 

Based on all I've heard on this subject, GSO, AAWS, et al may become
the disposible entity that John G refers to.  If they get their way,
all services will be discarded and they will become a "book selling"
operation with a board that is immune to any input from the
fellowship.  This is, sadly, what has happened to Alanon.

I still feel that this will hurt us all in the long run.  Hopefully
not permanently.  This is why I feel that it is important to stand up
against this.  It could be our last stand for sure if they get their
way.

B

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Becktell" <gk@...> wrote:
>
>     Whether a person is paid or not, the protection against focusing
power is based on the corruption that so often follows that
concentration of power. I am sure Greg Muth knows and understands
this. One of his sponsees moved here about 10 years ago and he spoke
of rotation like the Holy Grail, said he learned it from Greg.
>     Just the fact that he is fighting it tells me he has been
corrupted by the power. His authority at GSO is only challengeable by
the Board, and to a lesser extent by the Conference. I have been
hearing for years how he has had both firmly in hand, therefore
extending his power.
>     I truly wish that John G could be right, that these entities
were not AA. But I believe they are AA, and they are steadily moving
against the best interest of our fellowship. We are not about power,
we have God for that. We are about a mission to help alcoholics find a
better way to live, sober. Thank God for Tradition Four, we don't have
to support this corrupted part of AA, and they can't control us.
>
>
                     G
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Norm
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:42 PM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation
>
>
>   http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9
>
>   Many years ago I belonged to a very large group. In a way it was
like a
>   district all by itself. It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
>   building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different
secretary.
>   To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month
and each
>   group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of
delegate to
>   rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any problems,
like if
>   there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at the
Thursday
>   brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.
>
>   There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to
do with any
>   single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the
meetings. One
>   was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the
secretaries' meeting,
>   or Chair of the Business meeting. I served in both positions once,
but I'm
>   referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at this
point.
>
>   After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting secretary,
a little
>   gal, came to me with a problem. Her noon meeting was full of hard
nose
>   criminals sent by the justice system. They intimidated the hell
out of her
>   and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and generally
>   terrorized her and disrupted the meeting. Her intention was to
have me....
>   the boss, fix it. (chuckle) If I wasn't going to fix it, she was
going to
>   quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any case).
>
>   I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to
her. I
>   told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything
with these
>   brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared. She
sat at
>   the front table and lead the meeting. She had "authority".
>
>   I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car but
when a
>   cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the authority
>   invested in the cop's position. I told her she had that same kind of
>   authority but she just wasn't using it. To keep things short, I
gave her a
>   little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was tickled
pink and
>   loved having her meetings.
>
>   She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she
didn't want
>   to do that. She loved the authority.
>
>   Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6
months beyond
>   her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green monster
but I've
>   seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
>   authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle of
rotation.
>
>   In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines about
>   rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself
in other
>   aspects. For example, I believe the same company has done the
audits for
>   AAWS since there was an AAWS. Shouldn't they use a different audit
company
>   every few years? What about at central offices? I've never known
this to be
>   a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so
crappy and
>   paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.
>
>   What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?
>
>   I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because
the idea of
>   rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of
rotation is to
>   reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority
that has
>   unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is
meant to have
>   authority.
>
>   The audit company.... I think changing that is just good business
sense, not
>   a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA
secondary
>   aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of
Tradition
>   9.
>
>   The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final
Report pg 49
>   says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum
of five
>   years and a maximum of seven years. Our current General Manager
was hired
>   with that understanding in 1999. There has been some scuttle-butt
about
>   this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is something
like my
>   little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of
authority may be
>   pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels of our
>   service structure.
>
>   What do regular folks think? If you're hired for a maximum of 7
years and
>   you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a
controversy with
>   your employer when they want to look for a replacement? Mind the
fact that
>   the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But would
you be
>   changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?
>
>   Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to
employees of AA
>   if they are in positions of authority?
>
>   Bless,
>   Norm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   No virus found in this incoming message.
>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>   Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.1/822 - Release Date:
5/28/2007 11:40 AM
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Norm

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:42 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] The Principle of Rotation

http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9

Many years ago I belonged to a very large group. In a way it was like a
district all by itself. It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different secretary.
To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month and each
group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of delegate to
rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any problems, like if
there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at the Thursday
brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.

There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to do with any
single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the meetings. One
was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the secretaries' meeting,
or Chair of the Business meeting. I served in both positions once, but I'm
referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at this point.

After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting secretary, a little
gal, came to me with a problem. Her noon meeting was full of hard nose
criminals sent by the justice system. They intimidated the hell out of her
and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and generally
terrorized her and disrupted the meeting. Her intention was to have me....
the boss, fix it. (chuckle) If I wasn't going to fix it, she was going to
quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any case).

I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to her. I
told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything with these
brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared. She sat at
the front table and lead the meeting. She had "authority".

I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car but when a
cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the authority
invested in the cop's position. I told her she had that same kind of
authority but she just wasn't using it. To keep things short, I gave her a
little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was tickled pink and
loved having her meetings.

She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she didn't want
to do that. She loved the authority.

Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6 months beyond
her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green monster but I've
seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle of rotation.

In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines about
rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself in other
aspects. For example, I believe the same company has done the audits for
AAWS since there was an AAWS. Shouldn't they use a different audit company
every few years? What about at central offices? I've never known this to be
a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so crappy and
paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.

What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?

I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because the idea of
rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of rotation is to
reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority that has
unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is meant to have
authority.

The audit company.... I think changing that is just good business sense, not
a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA secondary
aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of Tradition
9.

The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final Report pg 49
says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum of five
years and a maximum of seven years. Our current General Manager was hired
with that understanding in 1999. There has been some scuttle-butt about
this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is something like my
little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of authority may be
pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels of our
service structure.

What do regular folks think? If you're hired for a maximum of 7 years and
you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a controversy with
your employer when they want to look for a replacement? Mind the fact that
the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But would you be
changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?

Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to employees of AA
if they are in positions of authority?

Bless,
Norm

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.1/822 - Release Date: 5/28/2007 11:40 AM

----- Original Message -----

From: Dennis

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 6:30 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Is it within Traditions?

Hi John;

 

Gathering facts and information is not necessarily support or acceptance of an institution. I am sure things might have been different in Germany while they were going to the Cabarets and believing that Hitler was doing some good for Germany if they knew he was running work camps and death camps and rounding up communist, anarchist, Union members, gays, Poles and Jews.

 

I agree with you about everything you say idealistically but the reality is many members don’t see AAWS or the GSB as not being AA, including the Courts, where they are busy suing people. The German court actually accepted that AAeV and AAWS is AA and represents AA while Matthew and the members of the BBSG don’t. To gather information is educational for without the support of the real members of Alcoholics Anonymous our view of AA is absolutely meaningless. We both agree pretty much on what AA is. Our only difference is how to make it a reality. Information is needed.

 

There are literally thousands upon thousands of people in AA that I disagree with on certain issues, practices, and beliefs. I can either begin communication with a focus on some commonality of our relationship within AA or I can alienate them so as no further communication is possible. I have done both but the later is what I aspire to.

 

Peace,

 

Dennis M.

----- Original Message -----

From: johng12fellow

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:28 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Is it within Traditions?

The "old idea" that organization of some kind is needed is the heart
of the problem. In Norm's BIG group - if the organization was ignored
the group would probably have disbursed into smaller groups that look
like 99% of all AA groups.

The first symptom of control - is keeping track of the money.

If you can't trust the treasurer - then elect one that you do trust -
there is no need for records of any kind.

Too simplistic? Read Norm's post again.

I know of no example that gives credence to "bigger is better." Quite
the reverse has been my obsevation.

No AA group was ever "born" big. "Big" is not Tradiional in AA.

Consideration of "Rotation" do not occur in small groups - if a member
feels that more totation is needed he/she simply rotates to a
different group.... or has a heart to heart with a group member
holding on.

First job in following Tradition 9: "Each A.A. group needs the least
possible organization," is ditching the record keeping. Who is it for?
Who does it serve? Is it within Tradition?

But, but, but...... NO buts about it. Either we mean it or we don't.

Busy setting a different example? Why? What is so important that the
future of our Fellowship is placed on the line?

This entire discussion group results from too much size, too much
organization. If the Riverside Church organization closed today -- and
all the organization dissapeared - few would ever notice.... and AA
would be a whole lot better off. Concerns about who is wearing the
crown in the palace pale next to concerns for the unity of our Fellowship.

What to do? Ignore the AAGSB Inc. activities - they are none of any
AA's business - except where they smear our name with the detritus of
their use. Let controllers with AAWS issued titles know how you feel -
urge them to quit their title and become a member among members.

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <coopera@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John G., and All,
>
> 
>
> "Righteous anger is a dubious luxury which we can not afford", MAY be a
> "truism" in early sobriety.  I say "may" due to the fact that there
are SOME
> angers which are entirely justifiable, and which must be resolved
before any
> (further) progress can be made.
>
> 
>
> If the citrus industry sued everyone who gave a "free" fruit basket to
> friends in the hospital, because the recipient hadn't also "paid"
for the
> fruit, and for the protection of the integrity of the citrus industry,
> there'd be a riot and counter-suits filed immediately!  Ridiculous and
> far-fetched, but I'm sure you see the correlation.
>
> 
>
> Ignoring this beast, and/or not supporting it will not solve the
problem.
> Positive action(s) must be taken.  I'm just a small part of the
whole, but
> WE can do SOMETHING.  I feel that what's needed is a rallying point.  An
> individual or group of individuals who'll not only stand up to the giant
> (AAWS, Inc., and it's affiliates), but who will also expose them, and
> re-secure the Fellowship FOR the Fellowship.  My experience in and
with the
> legal system is limited, but that seems to be where the problem
lies, and
> where action can be taken.
>
> 
>
> As Norm previously pointed out, this would NOT be a "public controversy"
> since these corporations are NOT Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
> 
>
> And yes.the 12 TraditionsRC are STILL the property of the "AA
Grapevine".all
> rights reserved!
>
> 
>
> G' Bless,
>
> 
>
> Al C.
>
> 
>
>   _____ 
>
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of johng12fellow
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 07:43
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it within Traditions?
>
> 
>
> Start with #1:
>
> "Our A.A. experience has taught us that:
>
> "1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great
> whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die.
> Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows
> close afterward."
>
> If this isn't true than the rest of the Traditions may be worthless.
> If we believe Tradition #1 than we risk our lives when taking any
> internal action in The Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous that fails
> to 100% perfectly match up. Almost perfect will not do... the risk is
> way too high.
>
> Many posts back "Franky" the non-AA visitor spoke about sanity and
> retionality ----- Alcoholism of our kind is not rational nor will it
> ever make sense. If alcoholism was rational - we could make rules and
> regs to deal with it. Best our society can do is patch us up, lock us
> up, or bury us.
>
> Of the alcoholics "of our kind" - most will die from alcohol related
> causes. When viewing various causes of death its is a good idea to
> remember that while 10% of the general population has problems related
> to alcohol - more than 10% of deaths involve a primary, secondary or
> tertiary involvement with alcohol. Causes such as accident can have
> alcohol invovlment in more than 50% of all accidental deaths. Certain
> diseases such as cirhossis. pituitary, and many cancers such as lung,
> liver, throat involve high rates of alcohol use. Suicide has alcohol
> in more than 50%. Don't forget to count the folks alcoholics kill.
>
> For every "drug" "addict" there are more than 4 alcoholics. In "drug"
> related deaths there is alcohol involved in more than 20% of them.
>
> AA has no cure for alcoholism and fewer than 5% stay sober after
> experiancing any sobriety within AA. The picture is grim indeed.
>
> Within this funereal solemnity - there is a fellowship of 1.2 million
> North Americans sharing their sobriety with each other and extending
> their hands to alcoholics sober - and not sober. The Fellowship of
> Alcoholics Anonymous is a spot of hope.
>
> There is a very large industry serving the soon to die - a
> non-peaceful death involving alcohol. From auto manufacturers to
> hospitals, government agencies, jails, prisons; schools training
> doctors,social workers, lawyers, police, admisnitrators, counselors;
> and alcoholic institutions--- active alcoholism is big darned business.
>
> This business is so large that there is an immense interest in not
> finding a cure.
>
> Most cynical in all of the circus feeding off Americas #1 misery is
> Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Board Inc. and its subsidiaries
> AAWS Inc., and AAGv Inc. We need go no further than the first two
> words of initials in their name to see the imminent danger to the
> fragile few within our Fellowship. They are using our name - something
> the Traditions state will kill us.
>
> AAGSB Inc. is principaly supported by the Alcoholism Industry. Its
> interests are not our interests.
>
> If we don't believe are Tradions mean exactly what they say than it is
> time to scrap the Traditions.
>
> What's it going to be --- pointless prattling about the internal
> politics of something intent on killing us? Or discarding the
> predator? Debates on AA-vs-NA? Play school questions on what the
> "jitters" are?
>
> The enemy of the best is easy to spot within our groups - they wear
> special titles created by and for AAWS Inc. Worse they are
> self-righteous in their belief that they are being of something they
> call "Service." If it uses our name than it is not within Tradions.
> Period.
>
> What can we do? Keep up the good work - one on one: one "Servicite" at
> a time.... and quit giving AAGSB Inc. any money/support in any way ---
> quit using their publications ---- and quit wasting our shortened
> lives with concerns about AA-NA and who should be head pumbah in the
> AAWS Riverside Church Crown Room.
>
> ALL attempts to reform the structure created/owned/financed by AA Inc.
> is participation in something intent on killing us. At the group level
> it starts with money for "official" "Approved" literature, money sent
> to Area/NY, and/or endorsing AAInc. by electing a "GSR."
>
> There is only one way to stop endorsing AAInc.--- there is no tapering
> off. We are having our case of the "jitters" as a Fellowship. And yes
> there will be a long hangover and a many "slips" back into the embrace
> of the killer wearing "Service" clothing.
>
> We are making progress.
>
> John G.
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:GSOwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:GSOwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    GSOwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

----- Original Message -----

From: johng12fellow

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:28 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Is it within Traditions?

The "old idea" that organization of some kind is needed is the heart
of the problem. In Norm's BIG group - if the organization was ignored
the group would probably have disbursed into smaller groups that look
like 99% of all AA groups.

The first symptom of control - is keeping track of the money.

If you can't trust the treasurer - then elect one that you do trust -
there is no need for records of any kind.

Too simplistic? Read Norm's post again.

I know of no example that gives credence to "bigger is better." Quite
the reverse has been my obsevation.

No AA group was ever "born" big. "Big" is not Tradiional in AA.

Consideration of "Rotation" do not occur in small groups - if a member
feels that more totation is needed he/she simply rotates to a
different group.... or has a heart to heart with a group member
holding on.

First job in following Tradition 9: "Each A.A. group needs the least
possible organization," is ditching the record keeping. Who is it for?
Who does it serve? Is it within Tradition?

But, but, but...... NO buts about it. Either we mean it or we don't.

Busy setting a different example? Why? What is so important that the
future of our Fellowship is placed on the line?

This entire discussion group results from too much size, too much
organization. If the Riverside Church organization closed today -- and
all the organization dissapeared - few would ever notice.... and AA
would be a whole lot better off. Concerns about who is wearing the
crown in the palace pale next to concerns for the unity of our Fellowship.

What to do? Ignore the AAGSB Inc. activities - they are none of any
AA's business - except where they smear our name with the detritus of
their use. Let controllers with AAWS issued titles know how you feel -
urge them to quit their title and become a member among members.

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <coopera@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John G., and All,
>
> 
>
> "Righteous anger is a dubious luxury which we can not afford", MAY be a
> "truism" in early sobriety.  I say "may" due to the fact that there
are SOME
> angers which are entirely justifiable, and which must be resolved
before any
> (further) progress can be made.
>
> 
>
> If the citrus industry sued everyone who gave a "free" fruit basket to
> friends in the hospital, because the recipient hadn't also "paid"
for the
> fruit, and for the protection of the integrity of the citrus industry,
> there'd be a riot and counter-suits filed immediately!  Ridiculous and
> far-fetched, but I'm sure you see the correlation.
>
> 
>
> Ignoring this beast, and/or not supporting it will not solve the
problem.
> Positive action(s) must be taken.  I'm just a small part of the
whole, but
> WE can do SOMETHING.  I feel that what's needed is a rallying point.  An
> individual or group of individuals who'll not only stand up to the giant
> (AAWS, Inc., and it's affiliates), but who will also expose them, and
> re-secure the Fellowship FOR the Fellowship.  My experience in and
with the
> legal system is limited, but that seems to be where the problem
lies, and
> where action can be taken.
>
> 
>
> As Norm previously pointed out, this would NOT be a "public controversy"
> since these corporations are NOT Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
> 
>
> And yes.the 12 TraditionsRC are STILL the property of the "AA
Grapevine".all
> rights reserved!
>
> 
>
> G' Bless,
>
> 
>
> Al C.
>
> 
>
>   _____ 
>
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of johng12fellow
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 07:43
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it within Traditions?
>
> 
>
> Start with #1:
>
> "Our A.A. experience has taught us that:
>
> "1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great
> whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die.
> Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows
> close afterward."
>
> If this isn't true than the rest of the Traditions may be worthless.
> If we believe Tradition #1 than we risk our lives when taking any
> internal action in The Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous that fails
> to 100% perfectly match up. Almost perfect will not do... the risk is
> way too high.
>
> Many posts back "Franky" the non-AA visitor spoke about sanity and
> retionality ----- Alcoholism of our kind is not rational nor will it
> ever make sense. If alcoholism was rational - we could make rules and
> regs to deal with it. Best our society can do is patch us up, lock us
> up, or bury us.
>
> Of the alcoholics "of our kind" - most will die from alcohol related
> causes. When viewing various causes of death its is a good idea to
> remember that while 10% of the general population has problems related
> to alcohol - more than 10% of deaths involve a primary, secondary or
> tertiary involvement with alcohol. Causes such as accident can have
> alcohol invovlment in more than 50% of all accidental deaths. Certain
> diseases such as cirhossis. pituitary, and many cancers such as lung,
> liver, throat involve high rates of alcohol use. Suicide has alcohol
> in more than 50%. Don't forget to count the folks alcoholics kill.
>
> For every "drug" "addict" there are more than 4 alcoholics. In "drug"
> related deaths there is alcohol involved in more than 20% of them.
>
> AA has no cure for alcoholism and fewer than 5% stay sober after
> experiancing any sobriety within AA. The picture is grim indeed.
>
> Within this funereal solemnity - there is a fellowship of 1.2 million
> North Americans sharing their sobriety with each other and extending
> their hands to alcoholics sober - and not sober. The Fellowship of
> Alcoholics Anonymous is a spot of hope.
>
> There is a very large industry serving the soon to die - a
> non-peaceful death involving alcohol. From auto manufacturers to
> hospitals, government agencies, jails, prisons; schools training
> doctors,social workers, lawyers, police, admisnitrators, counselors;
> and alcoholic institutions--- active alcoholism is big darned business.
>
> This business is so large that there is an immense interest in not
> finding a cure.
>
> Most cynical in all of the circus feeding off Americas #1 misery is
> Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Board Inc. and its subsidiaries
> AAWS Inc., and AAGv Inc. We need go no further than the first two
> words of initials in their name to see the imminent danger to the
> fragile few within our Fellowship. They are using our name - something
> the Traditions state will kill us.
>
> AAGSB Inc. is principaly supported by the Alcoholism Industry. Its
> interests are not our interests.
>
> If we don't believe are Tradions mean exactly what they say than it is
> time to scrap the Traditions.
>
> What's it going to be --- pointless prattling about the internal
> politics of something intent on killing us? Or discarding the
> predator? Debates on AA-vs-NA? Play school questions on what the
> "jitters" are?
>
> The enemy of the best is easy to spot within our groups - they wear
> special titles created by and for AAWS Inc. Worse they are
> self-righteous in their belief that they are being of something they
> call "Service." If it uses our name than it is not within Tradions.
> Period.
>
> What can we do? Keep up the good work - one on one: one "Servicite" at
> a time.... and quit giving AAGSB Inc. any money/support in any way ---
> quit using their publications ---- and quit wasting our shortened
> lives with concerns about AA-NA and who should be head pumbah in the
> AAWS Riverside Church Crown Room.
>
> ALL attempts to reform the structure created/owned/financed by AA Inc.
> is participation in something intent on killing us. At the group level
> it starts with money for "official" "Approved" literature, money sent
> to Area/NY, and/or endorsing AAInc. by electing a "GSR."
>
> There is only one way to stop endorsing AAInc.--- there is no tapering
> off. We are having our case of the "jitters" as a Fellowship. And yes
> there will be a long hangover and a many "slips" back into the embrace
> of the killer wearing "Service" clothing.
>
> We are making progress.
>
> John G.
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GSOwatch/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:GSOwatch-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:GSOwatch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    GSOwatch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi John:
     I thought of including a PS... "oh, and John"... but I know you must
beat the drum of common sense that what the company does is irrelevant
except that they are using the AA name and that all that they are doing is
in perfect harmony with all they are set up to do....
     But being from that parade and still having some hope there is a
spiritual essence in the whole mess that may still one day serve the AA
fellowship I can't help but ponder and beat a different drum at times.....
     Like this drum... you mentioned a few folks (Bill W, Michael Alexander,
etc.) but none were paid employees of AAWS in the sense of general
employment.
     I think of a local Central Office I helped start years ago and our
beloved Pauline who eventually became the (meagerly paid) manager and she
did become a 'seat of perilous power or authority' in local AA but she was
also benign in that her heart was in the right place and she abhorred the
idea of having authority or power.
     She didn't want the job and was always ready to do something else but
everyone in every group in the local area looked to her for advice for any
and every little problem that came up in groups, clubs, you name it.  And
her word was treated like "the law".
     I see this now in different forms in different areas in AA.  Some places
it is a good Area Chairperson with unusual authority.  In another case a
good Delegate may have unusual authority.  Some places it is a good Central
Office manager.  It is clear to me that the Area Chair and the Delegate are
going to rotate at a given time.  The consensus for 'employees' who are in
positions that have developed considerable authority, locally or more widely
do have guidelines but the issue or rotation for them seems to be clouded by
employment laws and a variety of other issues.  I think the spiritual values
in Tradition 9 and the importance of rotation preventing the accumulation of
perilous authority or power are being challenged with this issue in the case
of employment and I think some open debate about the various aspects of this
is worth wider discussion.

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----
From: "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@...>
To: <GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 5:39 PM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: The Principle of Rotation


> Norm...... AA's pay attention to example ------ not "guidlines."
> Particularly guidelines created by and for the purposes of AAWS. The
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous has NO guidelines.....
>
> Go back to the print edition of the "guidelines" and see who owns them
> - and realize that, just like all property --- they exist to serve
> their owner... and it is not us.
>
> How does this reader feel about rotating out of a 7 year job after 8
> years? What did Bill W. do? What did Bernard Smith do? What did
> Micheal Alexander do? The list can go on considerably --- I feel the
> example being followed was set and emulated for a long time ----  and
> besides that: Why are we concerned with the internal machinations of
> an outside entity?
>
> John G.
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <kohl@...> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9
>>
>> Many years ago I belonged to a very large group.  In a way it was
> like a
>> district all by itself.  It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
>> building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different
> secretary.
>> To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month and
> each
>> group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of
> delegate to
>> rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any problems,
> like if
>> there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at the
> Thursday
>> brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.
>>
>> There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to do
> with any
>> single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the
> meetings.  One
>> was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the secretaries'
> meeting,
>> or Chair of the Business meeting.  I served in both positions once,
> but I'm
>> referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at this point.
>>
>> After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting secretary, a
> little
>> gal, came to me with a problem.  Her noon meeting was full of hard nose
>> criminals sent by the justice system.  They intimidated the hell out
> of her
>> and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and generally
>> terrorized her and disrupted the meeting.  Her intention was to have
> me....
>> the boss, fix it.  (chuckle)  If I wasn't going to fix it, she was
> going to
>> quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any case).
>>
>> I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to
> her.  I
>> told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything
> with these
>> brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared.  She
> sat at
>> the front table and lead the meeting.  She had "authority".
>>
>> I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car but
> when a
>> cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the authority
>> invested in the cop's position.  I told her she had that same kind of
>> authority but she just wasn't using it.  To keep things short, I
> gave her a
>> little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was tickled
> pink and
>> loved having her meetings.
>>
>> She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she
> didn't want
>> to do that.  She loved the authority.
>>
>> Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6
> months beyond
>> her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green monster
> but I've
>> seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
>> authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle of
> rotation.
>>
>> In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines about
>> rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself in
> other
>> aspects.  For example, I believe the same company has done the
> audits for
>> AAWS since there was an AAWS.  Shouldn't they use a different audit
> company
>> every few years?  What about at central offices? I've never known
> this to be
>> a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so
> crappy and
>> paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.
>>
>> What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?
>>
>> I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because the
> idea of
>> rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of
> rotation is to
>> reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority that
> has
>> unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is meant
> to have
>> authority.
>>
>> The audit company.... I think changing that is just good business
> sense, not
>> a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA
> secondary
>> aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of
> Tradition
>> 9.
>>
>> The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final Report
> pg 49
>> says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum of
> five
>> years and a maximum of seven years.  Our current General Manager was
> hired
>> with that understanding in 1999.  There has been some scuttle-butt
> about
>> this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is something
> like my
>> little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of authority
> may be
>> pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels of our
>> service structure.
>>
>> What do regular folks think?  If you're hired for a maximum of 7
> years and
>> you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a controversy
> with
>> your employer when they want to look for a replacement?  Mind the
> fact that
>> the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But would
> you be
>> changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?
>>
>> Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to
> employees of AA
>> if they are in positions of authority?
>>
>> Bless,
>> Norm
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Norm...... AA's pay attention to example ------ not "guidlines."
Particularly guidelines created by and for the purposes of AAWS. The
Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous has NO guidelines.....

Go back to the print edition of the "guidelines" and see who owns them
- and realize that, just like all property --- they exist to serve
their owner... and it is not us.

How does this reader feel about rotating out of a 7 year job after 8
years? What did Bill W. do? What did Bernard Smith do? What did
Micheal Alexander do? The list can go on considerably --- I feel the
example being followed was set and emulated for a long time ----  and
besides that: Why are we concerned with the internal machinations of
an outside entity?

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Norm" <kohl@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9
>
> Many years ago I belonged to a very large group.  In a way it was
like a
> district all by itself.  It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
> building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different
secretary.
> To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month and
each
> group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of
delegate to
> rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any problems,
like if
> there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at the
Thursday
> brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.
>
> There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to do
with any
> single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the
meetings.  One
> was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the secretaries'
meeting,
> or Chair of the Business meeting.  I served in both positions once,
but I'm
> referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at this point.
>
> After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting secretary, a
little
> gal, came to me with a problem.  Her noon meeting was full of hard nose
> criminals sent by the justice system.  They intimidated the hell out
of her
> and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and generally
> terrorized her and disrupted the meeting.  Her intention was to have
me....
> the boss, fix it.  (chuckle)  If I wasn't going to fix it, she was
going to
> quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any case).
>
> I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to
her.  I
> told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything
with these
> brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared.  She
sat at
> the front table and lead the meeting.  She had "authority".
>
> I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car but
when a
> cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the authority
> invested in the cop's position.  I told her she had that same kind of
> authority but she just wasn't using it.  To keep things short, I
gave her a
> little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was tickled
pink and
> loved having her meetings.
>
> She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she
didn't want
> to do that.  She loved the authority.
>
> Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6
months beyond
> her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green monster
but I've
> seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
> authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle of
rotation.
>
> In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines about
> rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself in
other
> aspects.  For example, I believe the same company has done the
audits for
> AAWS since there was an AAWS.  Shouldn't they use a different audit
company
> every few years?  What about at central offices? I've never known
this to be
> a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so
crappy and
> paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.
>
> What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?
>
> I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because the
idea of
> rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of
rotation is to
> reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority that
has
> unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is meant
to have
> authority.
>
> The audit company.... I think changing that is just good business
sense, not
> a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA
secondary
> aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of
Tradition
> 9.
>
> The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final Report
pg 49
> says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum of
five
> years and a maximum of seven years.  Our current General Manager was
hired
> with that understanding in 1999.  There has been some scuttle-butt
about
> this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is something
like my
> little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of authority
may be
> pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels of our
> service structure.
>
> What do regular folks think?  If you're hired for a maximum of 7
years and
> you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a controversy
with
> your employer when they want to look for a replacement?  Mind the
fact that
> the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But would
you be
> changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?
>
> Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to
employees of AA
> if they are in positions of authority?
>
> Bless,
> Norm
>

The "old idea" that organization of some kind is needed is the heart
of the problem. In Norm's BIG group - if the organization was ignored
the group would probably have disbursed into smaller groups that look
like 99% of all AA groups.

The first symptom of control - is keeping track of the money.

If you can't trust the treasurer - then elect one that you do trust -
there is no need for records of any kind.

Too simplistic? Read Norm's post again.

I know of no example that gives credence to "bigger is better." Quite
the reverse has been my obsevation.

No AA group was ever "born" big. "Big" is not Tradiional in AA.

Consideration of "Rotation" do not occur in small groups - if a member
feels that more totation is needed he/she simply rotates to a
different group.... or has a heart to heart with a group member
holding on.

First job in following Tradition 9: "Each A.A. group needs the least
possible organization," is ditching the record keeping. Who is it for?
Who does it serve? Is it within Tradition?

But, but, but...... NO buts about it. Either we mean it or we don't.

Busy setting a different example? Why? What is so important that the
future of our Fellowship is placed on the line?

This entire discussion group results from too much size, too much
organization. If the Riverside Church organization closed today -- and
all the organization dissapeared - few would ever notice.... and AA
would be a whole lot better off. Concerns about who is wearing the
crown in the palace pale next to concerns for the unity of our Fellowship.

What to do? Ignore the AAGSB Inc. activities - they are none of any
AA's business - except where they smear our name with the detritus of
their use. Let controllers with AAWS issued titles know how you feel -
urge them to quit their title and become a member among members.

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <coopera@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John G., and All,
>
>
>
> "Righteous anger is a dubious luxury which we can not afford", MAY be a
> "truism" in early sobriety.  I say "may" due to the fact that there
are SOME
> angers which are entirely justifiable, and which must be resolved
before any
> (further) progress can be made.
>
>
>
> If the citrus industry sued everyone who gave a "free" fruit basket to
> friends in the hospital, because the recipient hadn't also "paid"
for the
> fruit, and for the protection of the integrity of the citrus industry,
> there'd be a riot and counter-suits filed immediately!  Ridiculous and
> far-fetched, but I'm sure you see the correlation.
>
>
>
> Ignoring this beast, and/or not supporting it will not solve the
problem.
> Positive action(s) must be taken.  I'm just a small part of the
whole, but
> WE can do SOMETHING.  I feel that what's needed is a rallying point.  An
> individual or group of individuals who'll not only stand up to the giant
> (AAWS, Inc., and it's affiliates), but who will also expose them, and
> re-secure the Fellowship FOR the Fellowship.  My experience in and
with the
> legal system is limited, but that seems to be where the problem
lies, and
> where action can be taken.
>
>
>
> As Norm previously pointed out, this would NOT be a "public controversy"
> since these corporations are NOT Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
>
>
> And yes.the 12 TraditionsRC are STILL the property of the "AA
Grapevine".all
> rights reserved!
>
>
>
> G' Bless,
>
>
>
> Al C.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of johng12fellow
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 07:43
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it within Traditions?
>
>
>
> Start with #1:
>
> "Our A.A. experience has taught us that:
>
> "1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great
> whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die.
> Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows
> close afterward."
>
> If this isn't true than the rest of the Traditions may be worthless.
> If we believe Tradition #1 than we risk our lives when taking any
> internal action in The Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous that fails
> to 100% perfectly match up. Almost perfect will not do... the risk is
> way too high.
>
> Many posts back "Franky" the non-AA visitor spoke about sanity and
> retionality ----- Alcoholism of our kind is not rational nor will it
> ever make sense. If alcoholism was rational - we could make rules and
> regs to deal with it. Best our society can do is patch us up, lock us
> up, or bury us.
>
> Of the alcoholics "of our kind" - most will die from alcohol related
> causes. When viewing various causes of death its is a good idea to
> remember that while 10% of the general population has problems related
> to alcohol - more than 10% of deaths involve a primary, secondary or
> tertiary involvement with alcohol. Causes such as accident can have
> alcohol invovlment in more than 50% of all accidental deaths. Certain
> diseases such as cirhossis. pituitary, and many cancers such as lung,
> liver, throat involve high rates of alcohol use. Suicide has alcohol
> in more than 50%. Don't forget to count the folks alcoholics kill.
>
> For every "drug" "addict" there are more than 4 alcoholics. In "drug"
> related deaths there is alcohol involved in more than 20% of them.
>
> AA has no cure for alcoholism and fewer than 5% stay sober after
> experiancing any sobriety within AA. The picture is grim indeed.
>
> Within this funereal solemnity - there is a fellowship of 1.2 million
> North Americans sharing their sobriety with each other and extending
> their hands to alcoholics sober - and not sober. The Fellowship of
> Alcoholics Anonymous is a spot of hope.
>
> There is a very large industry serving the soon to die - a
> non-peaceful death involving alcohol. From auto manufacturers to
> hospitals, government agencies, jails, prisons; schools training
> doctors,social workers, lawyers, police, admisnitrators, counselors;
> and alcoholic institutions--- active alcoholism is big darned business.
>
> This business is so large that there is an immense interest in not
> finding a cure.
>
> Most cynical in all of the circus feeding off Americas #1 misery is
> Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Board Inc. and its subsidiaries
> AAWS Inc., and AAGv Inc. We need go no further than the first two
> words of initials in their name to see the imminent danger to the
> fragile few within our Fellowship. They are using our name - something
> the Traditions state will kill us.
>
> AAGSB Inc. is principaly supported by the Alcoholism Industry. Its
> interests are not our interests.
>
> If we don't believe are Tradions mean exactly what they say than it is
> time to scrap the Traditions.
>
> What's it going to be --- pointless prattling about the internal
> politics of something intent on killing us? Or discarding the
> predator? Debates on AA-vs-NA? Play school questions on what the
> "jitters" are?
>
> The enemy of the best is easy to spot within our groups - they wear
> special titles created by and for AAWS Inc. Worse they are
> self-righteous in their belief that they are being of something they
> call "Service." If it uses our name than it is not within Tradions.
> Period.
>
> What can we do? Keep up the good work - one on one: one "Servicite" at
> a time.... and quit giving AAGSB Inc. any money/support in any way ---
> quit using their publications ---- and quit wasting our shortened
> lives with concerns about AA-NA and who should be head pumbah in the
> AAWS Riverside Church Crown Room.
>
> ALL attempts to reform the structure created/owned/financed by AA Inc.
> is participation in something intent on killing us. At the group level
> it starts with money for "official" "Approved" literature, money sent
> to Area/NY, and/or endorsing AAInc. by electing a "GSR."
>
> There is only one way to stop endorsing AAInc.--- there is no tapering
> off. We are having our case of the "jitters" as a Fellowship. And yes
> there will be a long hangover and a many "slips" back into the embrace
> of the killer wearing "Service" clothing.
>
> We are making progress.
>
> John G.
>

http://www.just41day.net/aa/traditions.html#9

Many years ago I belonged to a very large group.  In a way it was like a
district all by itself.  It group had 16 meetings a week in the same
building but had only one treasurer. Each group had a different secretary.
To keep 'business' straight we had one business meeting a month and each
group 'secretary' attended the business meeting as a sort of delegate to
rubber stamp the paying of the bills and to hash out any problems, like if
there were enough paper cups, or if there should be cookies at the Thursday
brunch meeting and other such life changing decisions.

There were two servants in this set up who really had nothing to do with any
single one of the meetings but who were servants of all the meetings.  One
was the treasurer, the other was the 'secretary of the secretaries' meeting,
or Chair of the Business meeting.  I served in both positions once, but I'm
referring to the time I served as the General Chairperson at this point.

After a monthly business meeting one month this meeting secretary, a little
gal, came to me with a problem.  Her noon meeting was full of hard nose
criminals sent by the justice system.  They intimidated the hell out of her
and ordered her to sign their cards so they could leave and generally
terrorized her and disrupted the meeting.  Her intention was to have me....
the boss, fix it.  (chuckle)  If I wasn't going to fix it, she was going to
quit, and I could find someone else (which wasn't my job in any case).

I gave my little "what is authority" and "what is power" talk to her.  I
told her that she certainly didn't have the power to do anything with these
brutes but even at 4'9" she had something all of them feared.  She sat at
the front table and lead the meeting.  She had "authority".

I pointed out that no cop in the world could stop a moving car but when a
cop raised a hand cars stopped because they recognized the authority
invested in the cop's position.  I told her she had that same kind of
authority but she just wasn't using it.  To keep things short, I gave her a
little pep talk in how to use authority and later she was tickled pink and
loved having her meetings.

She loved the meeting so much when it came time to rotate... she didn't want
to do that.  She loved the authority.

Being patient and tolerant folks we let her continue another 6 months beyond
her rotation time and she grew out of the authority green monster but I've
seen it more and more in various positions in AA where the taste of
authority pushes quite strongly against our spiritual principle of rotation.

In AA group related activity there are pretty clear guidelines about
rotation but I've often wondered about rotation within AA itself in other
aspects.  For example, I believe the same company has done the audits for
AAWS since there was an AAWS.  Shouldn't they use a different audit company
every few years?  What about at central offices? I've never known this to be
a real problem because Central Office employees are treated so crappy and
paid so little they rotate like McDonald's employees.

What about the employees who help keep the group information at GSO?

I don't know about that one so much and I think that is because the idea of
rotation is directly linked to "authority" and the purpose of rotation is to
reduce the likelihood of any one person developing an authority that has
unusual influence on a wider scope of AA than the position is meant to have
authority.

The audit company.... I think changing that is just good business sense, not
a spirit of rotation thing, but I think managing employees of AA secondary
aids like service offices ought to be included in that spirit of Tradition
9.

The 1987 Trustee's Nominating Committee 37th Annual GSC Final Report pg 49
says that the General Manager should serve (suggested) a minimum of five
years and a maximum of seven years.  Our current General Manager was hired
with that understanding in 1999.  There has been some scuttle-butt about
this here and there lately and I'm wondering if this is something like my
little friend that I mentioned earlier and if the love of authority may be
pressing against our spiritual principles at the lowest levels of our
service structure.

What do regular folks think?  If you're hired for a maximum of 7 years and
you still want the job 8 years later are you creating a controversy with
your employer when they want to look for a replacement?  Mind the fact that
the employer isn't complaining about job performance.... But would you be
changing the rules you agreed to by resisting the change?

Does the spiritual rotation principle (Tradition 9) apply to employees of AA
if they are in positions of authority?

Bless,
Norm

Start with #1:

"Our A.A. experience has taught us that:

"1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great
whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die.
Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows
close afterward."

If this isn't true than the rest of the Traditions may be worthless.
If we believe Tradition #1 than we risk our lives when taking any
internal action in The Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous that fails
to 100% perfectly match up. Almost perfect will not do... the risk is
way too high.

Many posts back "Franky" the non-AA visitor spoke about sanity and
retionality ----- Alcoholism of our kind is not rational nor will it
ever make sense. If alcoholism was rational - we could make rules and
regs to deal with it. Best our society can do is patch us up, lock us
up, or bury us.

Of the alcoholics "of our kind" - most will die from alcohol related
causes. When viewing various causes of death its is a good idea to
remember that while 10% of the general population has problems related
to alcohol - more than 10% of deaths involve a primary, secondary or
tertiary involvement with alcohol. Causes such as accident can have
alcohol invovlment in more than 50% of all accidental deaths. Certain
diseases such as cirhossis. pituitary, and many cancers such as lung,
liver, throat involve high rates of alcohol use. Suicide has alcohol
in more than 50%. Don't forget to count the folks alcoholics kill.

For every "drug" "addict" there are more than 4 alcoholics. In "drug"
related deaths there is alcohol involved in more than 20% of them.

AA has no cure for alcoholism and fewer than 5% stay sober after
experiancing any sobriety within AA. The picture is grim indeed.

Within this funereal solemnity - there is a fellowship of 1.2 million
  North Americans sharing their sobriety with each other and extending
their hands to alcoholics sober - and not sober. The Fellowship of
Alcoholics Anonymous is a spot of hope.

There is a very large industry serving the soon to die - a
non-peaceful death involving alcohol. From auto manufacturers to
hospitals, government agencies, jails, prisons; schools training
doctors,social workers, lawyers, police, admisnitrators, counselors;
and alcoholic institutions--- active alcoholism is big darned business.

This business is so large that there is an immense interest in not
finding a cure.

Most cynical in all of the circus feeding off Americas #1 misery is
Alcoholics Anonymous General Service Board Inc. and its subsidiaries
AAWS Inc., and AAGv Inc. We need go no further than the first two
words of initials in their name to see the imminent danger to the
fragile few within our Fellowship. They are using our name - something
the Traditions state will kill us.

AAGSB Inc. is principaly supported by the Alcoholism Industry. Its
interests are not our interests.

If we don't believe are Tradions mean exactly what they say than it is
time to scrap the Traditions.

What's it going to be --- pointless prattling about the internal
politics of something intent on killing us? Or discarding the
predator? Debates on AA-vs-NA? Play school questions on what the
"jitters" are?

The enemy of the best is easy to spot within our groups - they wear
special titles created by and for AAWS Inc. Worse they are
self-righteous in their belief that they are being of something they
call "Service." If it uses our name than it is not within Tradions.
Period.

What can we do? Keep up the good work - one on one: one "Servicite" at
a time.... and quit giving AAGSB Inc. any money/support in any way ---
quit using their publications ---- and quit wasting our shortened
lives with concerns about AA-NA and who should be head pumbah in the
AAWS Riverside Church Crown Room.

ALL attempts to reform the structure created/owned/financed by AA Inc.
is participation in something intent on killing us. At the group level
it starts with money for "official" "Approved" literature, money sent
to Area/NY, and/or endorsing AAInc. by electing a "GSR."

There is only one way to stop endorsing AAInc.--- there is no tapering
off. We are having our case of the "jitters" as a Fellowship. And yes
there will be a long hangover and a many "slips" back into the embrace
of the killer wearing "Service" clothing.

We are making progress.

John G.

Hi there

A guess from another "Paul S." aka soberfinn.:
Perhaps everybody, including GS0, has suddenly
been restored to sanity.! LOL

In that case it´s only over there.
Here the insanity blooms with the springtime.
Nobody mentioned - nobody forgotten.

All the best

Paul S. aka soberfinn
constant interested lurker


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Paul S." <spaulski@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe everyone has gone to the gso watch anonymous meeting. If they
show up again here it means they have had a slip...
>
> dave smith <soberstar22@...>
wrote:
> I think AAWS has sent a virus......
>
>   Wouldnt put it past them....
>
>   Dave S
>
> dave smith <soberstar22@...> wrote:
>         As it is sometimes said
>
>   If you have nothing nice to say---say nothing at all .....
>
>   Who sang "silenc is golden?"
>
>
>
> Nick Gill <nickgill@...> wrote:
>         SHHHH!
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Linda
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM
>   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?
>
>
>   Happy Memorial Day Al,
>
>   It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.
>
>   AA Hugs,
>   Linda
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Al
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?
>
>
>     Hi GSOwatchers,
>
>   Don't know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings
for about 3 days now?
>
>   G' Bless,
>
>    Al C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it
out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
surfing.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>

no need for paranoia...probale one of those quiet before the storm
moments


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@...> wrote:
>
> I think AAWS has sent a virus......
>
>   Wouldnt put it past them....
>
>   Dave S
>
> dave smith <soberstar22@...> wrote:
>             As it is sometimes said
>
>   If you have nothing nice to say---say nothing at all .....
>
>   Who sang "silenc is golden?"
>
>
>
> Nick Gill <nickgill@...> wrote:
>         SHHHH!
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Linda
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM
>   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?
>
>
>   Happy Memorial Day Al,
>
>   It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.
>
>   AA Hugs,
>   Linda
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Al
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?
>
>
>     Hi GSOwatchers,
>
>   Don't know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings
for about 3 days now?
>
>   G' Bless,
>
>   Al C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>   Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it
out.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're
surfing.
>

the 4 Seasons...


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@...> wrote:
>
> As it is sometimes said
>
>   If you have nothing nice to say---say nothing at all .....
>
>   Who sang "silenc is golden?"
>
>
>
> Nick Gill <nickgill@...> wrote:
>             SHHHH!
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Linda
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM
>   Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?
>
>
>   Happy Memorial Day Al,
>
>   It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.
>
>   AA Hugs,
>   Linda
>     ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Al
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?
>
>
>     Hi GSOwatchers,
>
>   Don't know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings
for about 3 days now?
>
>   G' Bless,
>
>   Al C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it
out.
>

I think AAWS has sent a virus......

 

Wouldnt put it past them....

 

Dave S

dave smith <soberstar22@yahoo.com> wrote:

As it is sometimes said

 

If you have nothing nice to say---say nothing at all .....

 

Who sang "silenc is golden?"

 

Nick Gill <nickgill@bigpond.com> wrote:

SHHHH!

----- Original Message -----

From: Linda

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Happy Memorial Day Al,

 

It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.

 

AA Hugs,

Linda

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Hi GSOwatchers,

Don’t know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings for about 3 days now?

G’ Bless,

Al C.

---

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

---

Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.

As it is sometimes said

 

If you have nothing nice to say---say nothing at all .....

 

Who sang "silenc is golden?"

 

Nick Gill <nickgill@bigpond.com> wrote:

SHHHH!

----- Original Message -----

From: Linda

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Happy Memorial Day Al,

 

It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.

 

AA Hugs,

Linda

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Hi GSOwatchers,

Don’t know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings for about 3 days now?

G’ Bless,

Al C.

---

Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

SHHHH!

----- Original Message -----

From: Linda

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Happy Memorial Day Al,

 

It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.

 

AA Hugs,

Linda

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Hi GSOwatchers,

Don’t know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings for about 3 days now?

G’ Bless,

Al C.

----- Original Message -----

From: Linda

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:40 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Happy Memorial Day Al,

 

It's not just you, it's QUIET in here.

 

AA Hugs,

Linda

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Hi GSOwatchers,

 

Don’t know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings for about 3 days now?

 

G’ Bless,

 

Al C.

----- Original Message -----

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:06 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Is it quiet or is it just ME?

Hi GSOwatchers,

 

Don’t know if it IS just me, or has there REALLY been no postings for about 3 days now?

 

G’ Bless,

 

Al C.

++++++ See reply below +++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: MORE on RE: [GSOwatch] Big Book


I wonder what the status on the Big Book is today in Canada. With
international law a copyright can't be renewed if it has expired in the
country of origin. The Canadian copyright if valid is most likely just for
the changes to the public domain book as it is here and everywhere.

I don't think we ever got a clear answer on what happened in Canada, but
then again we never get a clear answer on anything. Evidently there was a
problem with the French language book in Canada but I am going on memory and
limited information. I heard that AAWS took them over under suspicious
circumstances that I have not been able to clarify.

The group is S.M.A.A. Inc. of which they spent $12,542 on something.

On the 2003 tax form, (I couldn't go back further in the archives without
paying to be a goldstar member) It shows a Canadian non-profit organization
affiliated with AAWS.

++++++++++REPLY++++++++++
http://aamo.info/aawsinfo02.html#financial
Earlier Tax Forms copied from Goldstar.

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----

From: Norm

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:36 PM

Subject: Re: MORE on RE: [GSOwatch] Big Book

And the plot gets thicker....

 

Although AAWS had a different publisher in Canada and there was a big fiasco about that some time back, this may be the result of that mess.... I don't know, just speculating.

 

Bless,

Norm

----- Original Message -----

From: mae

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:05 PM

Subject: Re: MORE on RE: [GSOwatch] Big Book

Hi,

As far as I can see, I can purchase "Alcoholics Anonymous: Big Book, Special Edition [UNABRIDGED] (Audio CD) by Aa Services (Author), Alcoholics Anonymous - Big Book - Original Edition [MP3 AUDIO] (MP3 CD)
by AA Services (Editor), Mike Woodley (Narrator), Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How Many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered from Alcoholism (Hardcover)
by AA Services (Author)" and other books produced by AA Services.  I even went to this link, http://www.amazon.ca/Alcoholics-Story-Thousands-Recovered-Alcoholism/dp/1893007162/ref=sr_1_3/701-4299792-9877917?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179954241&sr=8-3 to see if the book is available from amazon.ca

mae

Norm <kohl@...> wrote:

I'm guessing that AAWS changed policies about 18-24 months ago about
responding to relevant questions that would put them in very hot water.

Their policy used to be to deny it. Like with the litigations: We asked how
much was being spent on litigations. Their response was always they
couldn't talk about the litigations. Misleading and not true. We were
asking about finances, not the details of any given litigations. We started
following up with even more troublesome logic so they finally, around 18
months ago, just decided to shut up which should have been their policy to
begin with 22 years ago.

Saying nothing doesn't prove their guilt or innocent, but being caught in
lie after lie was causing more problems than they could cope with, or so my
theory goes.

Their new policy seems to be silence. Why aren't they suing Amazon (the
bookseller) and Barne's and Noble (B&N copyright holder) for selling Big
Books?

That sound you aren't hearing is a result of years of experience of dealing
with minority opinion folks. Frankly though, there's no copyright in the
USA and if John Bragg General Manager in 1988 is correct in his 23rd World
Service Report, AAWS only has a copyright in Canada.

Here's the question. Can Canadians (and others outside of USA) buy from
this link:
http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholics-Book-Special-Aa-Services/dp/9562912000?
Because they can't buy from this domain: http://anonpress.org/bb/assent.asp

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----

.

---

Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

----- Original Message -----

From: mae

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:05 PM

Subject: Re: MORE on RE: [GSOwatch] Big Book

Hi,

As far as I can see, I can purchase "Alcoholics Anonymous: Big Book, Special Edition [UNABRIDGED] (Audio CD) by Aa Services (Author), Alcoholics Anonymous - Big Book - Original Edition [MP3 AUDIO] (MP3 CD)
by AA Services (Editor), Mike Woodley (Narrator), Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How Many Thousands of Men and Women Have Recovered from Alcoholism (Hardcover)
by AA Services (Author)" and other books produced by AA Services.  I even went to this link, http://www.amazon.ca/Alcoholics-Story-Thousands-Recovered-Alcoholism/dp/1893007162/ref=sr_1_3/701-4299792-9877917?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179954241&sr=8-3 to see if the book is available from amazon.ca

mae

Norm <kohl@...> wrote:

I'm guessing that AAWS changed policies about 18-24 months ago about
responding to relevant questions that would put them in very hot water.

Their policy used to be to deny it. Like with the litigations: We asked how
much was being spent on litigations. Their response was always they
couldn't talk about the litigations. Misleading and not true. We were
asking about finances, not the details of any given litigations. We started
following up with even more troublesome logic so they finally, around 18
months ago, just decided to shut up which should have been their policy to
begin with 22 years ago.

Saying nothing doesn't prove their guilt or innocent, but being caught in
lie after lie was causing more problems than they could cope with, or so my
theory goes.

Their new policy seems to be silence. Why aren't they suing Amazon (the
bookseller) and Barne's and Noble (B&N copyright holder) for selling Big
Books?

That sound you aren't hearing is a result of years of experience of dealing
with minority opinion folks. Frankly though, there's no copyright in the
USA and if John Bragg General Manager in 1988 is correct in his 23rd World
Service Report, AAWS only has a copyright in Canada.

Here's the question. Can Canadians (and others outside of USA) buy from
this link:
http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholics-Book-Special-Aa-Services/dp/9562912000?
Because they can't buy from this domain: http://anonpress.org/bb/assent.asp

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----

.

---

Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

I'm guessing that AAWS changed policies about 18-24 months ago about
responding to relevant questions that would put them in very hot water.

Their policy used to be to deny it. Like with the litigations: We asked how
much was being spent on litigations. Their response was always they
couldn't talk about the litigations. Misleading and not true. We were
asking about finances, not the details of any given litigations. We started
following up with even more troublesome logic so they finally, around 18
months ago, just decided to shut up which should have been their policy to
begin with 22 years ago.

Saying nothing doesn't prove their guilt or innocent, but being caught in
lie after lie was causing more problems than they could cope with, or so my
theory goes.

Their new policy seems to be silence. Why aren't they suing Amazon (the
bookseller) and Barne's and Noble (B&N copyright holder) for selling Big
Books?

That sound you aren't hearing is a result of years of experience of dealing
with minority opinion folks. Frankly though, there's no copyright in the
USA and if John Bragg General Manager in 1988 is correct in his 23rd World
Service Report, AAWS only has a copyright in Canada.

Here's the question. Can Canadians (and others outside of USA) buy from
this link:
http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholics-Book-Special-Aa-Services/dp/9562912000?
Because they can't buy from this domain: http://anonpress.org/bb/assent.asp

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----

.