GSOwatch : Messages : 4726-4755 of 7156

If you have yahoo or anything like it you might want to check the bulk mail directly on their site especially if you use outlook express. I have found some of my own post there even.

Dennis M.

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

From: Paul S.

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:25 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

Hi Ray,

I have been getting posts again and wonder if you are now?

Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Paul,

I've had the same thought today -- I haven't checked in for a week and only had around 20 posts -- far less than in weeks past -- and, interestingly, some of the posts are in reply to posts that I never received...

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul S. <spaulski@yahoo.com>
To: grp <gsowatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 6:43:50 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

I havent recieved any posts from this group for quite awhile now and am getting worried. Was it something that I said or failed to say or has everyone taken a vacation. Just curious, Paul.

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

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

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

#4754

From: "Bruce A. Johanson" <bajohanson@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:23 pm
Subject: RE: New Committee!!

pagan50

Offline

You could be very correct. Historically accountability of “The Foundation”, etc started with Clarence Snyder.

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Timothy DeRan
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:19 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] New Committee!!

"As for how the structure works, it's confusing. Technically there should be
no "shareholders" in any of the three corporations, since they're New York
not-for-profits and are supposed to be run to serve the public interest and
not private shareholders. Notwithstanding that, GSBAA claims that it owns
"all of the capital stock" in AAWS and AAGV. Inconsistently, but probably
technically correct, GSBAA, which is a "membership" not-for-profit, claims
that the 21 trustees are the members and the beneficial owners of the
corporation. What they fail to discuss in any of their statements regarding
their ownership and operation is that the true stakeholder in
not-for-profits is the public, and that's why the attorney general's office
is charged with oversight of not-for-profits -- to assure that they are run
in the public interest."

My point in my original queistion was a quite simple one and given the above
one should be able to contact the NY attorney general's office, file a
complaint and action should be taken. However that has not and probably
will not happen in the near future. Most of what these people are doing
follows a direction and system set up by Bill a long time ago. All this
current configuration of corporate leadership is following what was set in
their own way according to what they think needs to happen.

A new committee as was originally posted is what they need to keep salaries
and wages in line.

None of this legal speculation is going to accomplish anything. If it were
the case something would have been done a long time ago. We are not the
first to discuss what is going on and we will not be the last.

I think Al has hit on a good idea in writing a letter and circulating it
around to at least start a conversation that might lead in the corporate
entity of AA to move to another name and leave the fellowship to its own.
But, it is only a letter and request that can be ignored. But, as opposed
to all the legal wrangling discussed lately on this board, it might be more
profitable.

tmd

__________ NOD32 2429 (20070730) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (24)

#4753

From: dave smith <soberstar22@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:22 am
Subject: Re: Open Letter

soberstar22

Offline

AL and ALL

Write the letter and add my name.

Post the letter on this site and I will copy it and take it myself to GSO,York,UK.

And maybe just rustle a few feathers around here..

Best Wishes

Dave S

Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...> wrote:

Hi Al,

Why don't we set up a special email address for those of us who are willing to be publicly linked with the letter? That way those who want to keep a low profile won't be personally involved or implicated in the repurcussion (if any).

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Al <coopera@t-net.ne.jp>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:14:28 PM
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Greg and Al l,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was recently told that this (that GSBAA is the head organization) is the case instead of AAWS, Inc., being at the �top� of the so-called pyramid. Someone (you?) recently sent me a list with the delegate�s email addresses, and this too is an excellent idea.

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

A thought has also arisen, regarding how GSBAA can respond. I�m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I�m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s..com [mailto: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com ] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 04:16
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al ,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net. ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated..

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York , New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Al coholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W.., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.

#4752

From: "Timothy DeRan" <timderan@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:18 am
Subject: Re: New Committee!!

watcher4444

Offline

"As for how the structure works, it's confusing. Technically there should be
no "shareholders" in any of the three corporations, since they're New York
not-for-profits and are supposed to be run to serve the public interest and
not private shareholders. Notwithstanding that, GSBAA claims that it owns
"all of the capital stock" in AAWS and AAGV. Inconsistently, but probably
technically correct, GSBAA, which is a "membership" not-for-profit, claims
that the 21 trustees are the members and the beneficial owners of the
corporation. What they fail to discuss in any of their statements regarding
their ownership and operation is that the true stakeholder in
not-for-profits is the public, and that's why the attorney general's office
is charged with oversight of not-for-profits -- to assure that they are run
in the public interest."

My point in my original queistion was a quite simple one and given the above
one should be able to contact the NY attorney general's office, file a
complaint and action should be taken.  However that has not and probably
will not happen in the near future.  Most of what these people are doing
follows a direction and system set up by Bill a long time ago.  All this
current configuration of corporate leadership is following what was set in
their own way according to what they think needs to happen.

A new committee as was originally posted is what they need to keep salaries
and wages in line.

None of this legal speculation is going to accomplish anything.  If it were
the case something would have been done a long time ago.  We are not the
first to discuss what is going on and we will not be the last.

I think Al has hit on a good idea in writing a letter and circulating it
around to at least start a conversation that might lead in the corporate
entity of AA to move to another name and leave the fellowship to its own.
But, it is only a letter and request that can be ignored.  But, as opposed
to all the legal wrangling discussed lately on this board, it might be more
profitable.


tmd

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (24)

#4751

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:15 am
Subject: Re: where is everyone

ddnmw2007

Offline

Not many -- usually I get copied on posts that I send to the group pretty quickly, but not tonight --

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul S. <spaulski@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:25:59 PM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

Hi Ray,

I have been getting posts again and wonder if you are now?

Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@yahoo. com> wrote:

Hi Paul,

I've had the same thought today -- I haven't checked in for a week and only had around 20 posts -- far less than in weeks past -- and, interestingly, some of the posts are in reply to posts that I never received...

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul S. <spaulski@yahoo. com>
To: grp <gsowatch@yahoogroup s.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 6:43:50 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

I havent recieved any posts from this group for quite awhile now and am getting worried. Was it something that I said or failed to say or has everyone taken a vacation. Just curious, Paul.

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

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

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more.

#4750

From: "Bruce A. Johanson" <bajohanson@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:51 am
Subject: RE: Open Letter

pagan50

Offline

In short, I concur. Leave this group out of it.

BAJ

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hartsell
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 7:45 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Dennis wrote in part: “I don’t think using the GSOWatch name is a good idea for several reasons—“” A letter from a group of misfits and rebels would be much easier than letters from members from all over to discredit and place in the realm of the radical fringe”

I agree with this approach Dennis, et al, and am willing to personally send a letter, such as Al proposes, once it has been agreed upon here.

I see that Ray has offered to help construct such a letter and I’d hope we take him up on his offer, then send it as constructed or with our own thoughts added..

Sherry

rom: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 5:44 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

I don’t think using the GSOWatch name is a good idea for several reasons. For all purposes this is an AA group which is public that places it pretty equal with an open meeting. We should not take any action as a group without a taking a group conscience. This could be problematic as we have members that don’t come to all the meetings so to speak but their names are public on the list. Then we will have to discuss the minority opinion and so on.

Also we are divided on whether or not AAWS or the GSB are really part of Alcoholics Anonymous. For those that believe they are separate corporate entities then it would be expressing an opinion on an outside controversial issue, so therefore as a group we shouldn’t do that. But privately sent as individual members is alright for we all have our own notions about that.

Thirdly it makes it easier for red-batting (the older members should remember that from the McCarthy era). A letter from a group of misfits and rebels would be much easier than letters from members from all over to discredit and place in the realm of the radical fringe.

Peace,

Dennis M.

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

From: Kenny

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:57 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Howdy,



I’m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I’m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

Sure. I don't doubt the letter will be received before it's sent?

   Please feel free to add my name



     Kenny M., Area 49

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

From: Al

Date: 7/29/2007 5:27:51 PM

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Greg and All,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was recently told that this (that GSBAA is the head organization) is the case instead of AAWS, Inc., being at the “top” of the so-called pyramid. Someone (you?) recently sent me a list with the delegate’s email addresses, and this too is an excellent idea.

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

A thought has also arisen, regarding how GSBAA can respond. I’m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I’m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

G’ Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 04:16
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first “rough draft”, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks “the corporation” to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

“Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York   10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and   implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are “copyrighted” by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the “sole author” of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of “protecting the integrity” of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka “The Big Book” [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously “owned” 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be “copyrighted” by the translators as “new works”, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous”

G’ Bless,

Al C.

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Recent Activity

1

New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

Health and wellness in the workplace

Center for health and wellness

Health and wellness center

Health and wellness

Business health wellness

FruitaB� Parents

Healthy Eating Zone

A parenting resource

on Yahoo! Groups.

Yahoo! TV

Want the scoop?

Check out today's

news and gossip.

Find Enlightenment

Yoga groups and

resources on

Yahoo! Groups.

#4749

From: "Paul S." <spaulski@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:25 am
Subject: Re: where is everyone

spaulski

Offline

Hi Ray,

I have been getting posts again and wonder if you are now?

Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...> wrote:

Hi Paul,

I've had the same thought today -- I haven't checked in for a week and only had around 20 posts -- far less than in weeks past -- and, interestingly, some of the posts are in reply to posts that I never received...

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul S. <spaulski@yahoo.com>
To: grp <gsowatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 6:43:50 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

I havent recieved any posts from this group for quite awhile now and am getting worried. Was it something that I said or failed to say or has everyone taken a vacation. Just curious, Paul.

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

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

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

#4748

From: "hartsell" <hartsell@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:44 am
Subject: RE: Open Letter

sherry_c_h

Offline

I agree with this approach Dennis, et al, and am willing to personally send a letter, such as Al proposes, once it has been agreed upon here.

I see that Ray has offered to help construct such a letter and I’d hope we take him up on his offer, then send it as constructed or with our own thoughts added..

Sherry

Peace,

Dennis M.

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

From: Kenny

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:57 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Howdy,



I’m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I’m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

Sure. I don't doubt the letter will be received before it's sent?

   Please feel free to add my name



     Kenny M., Area 49

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

From: Al

Date: 7/29/2007 5:27:51 PM

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Greg and All,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was recently told that this (that GSBAA is the head organization) is the case instead of AAWS, Inc., being at the “top” of the so-called pyramid. Someone (you?) recently sent me a list with the delegate’s email addresses, and this too is an excellent idea.

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

A thought has also arisen, regarding how GSBAA can respond. I’m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I’m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

G’ Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 04:16
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first “rough draft”, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks “the corporation” to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

“Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York   10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and   implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are “copyrighted” by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the “sole author” of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of “protecting the integrity” of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka “The Big Book” [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously “owned” 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be “copyrighted” by the translators as “new works”, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous”

G’ Bless,

Al C.

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Recent Activity

1

New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

Health and wellness in the workplace

Center for health and wellness

Health and wellness center

Health and wellness

Business health wellness

FruitaB� Parents

Healthy Eating Zone

A parenting resource

on Yahoo! Groups.

Yahoo! TV

Want the scoop?

Check out today's

news and gossip.

Find Enlightenment

Yoga groups and

resources on

Yahoo! Groups.

#4747

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:25 am
Subject: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

Hi Dennis,

I wouldn't include anything that's irrelevant or that could be factually challenged. In particular, including a sobriety date is an automatic red flag (who determined it? what does "sobriety" mean? what does it have to do with the topic of the service corporations vs. the fellowship?). I can already see the behind-the-scenes work in creating a diversion by the service corporations by challenging that assertion and thereby challenging the "credibility" of the authors of the letter...

Also, I would quote Bill's language in the long form of the concepts that talks about the purpose of the service corporations and the fact that they should always be subordinate to and responsible to the fellowship...

Best,

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:27:33 PM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

In the Early days the board didn�t use the AA name; it was the Alcoholic Foundation. They had quite a contrast to the empire building we have today as they voted to decentralize as the fellowship of AA grew wanting the groups to pick up the service work.

I like the letter and I think it better to �keep it simple� and not add too much to it. The main point should be as is that we are opposed to them using our name as Tradition Six states. They are a secondary aid to AA as a corporation is a non-person and cannot be a member of a fellowship of men and women.

I think if all of us and our AA friends just copy and paste and send it off with our first name/last initial, home group (city optional) and our sobriety date then that would be beneficial. We do the spiritual footwork and stay out of the results and that works for me.

There are two things that are important the way I see it and that is the motivation for the letter which only each of us can determine for ourselves, and letting God take care of the results.

I think that instead of discussing for months what it should actually say each of us can have the choice of sending it as is or change it by adding or subtracting something. I myself would not change anything as it hits the point.

Peace,

Dennis M.

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

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:30 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

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

#4746

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:18 am
Subject: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

Hi Al,

Why don't we set up a special email address for those of us who are willing to be publicly linked with the letter? That way those who want to keep a low profile won't be personally involved or implicated in the repurcussion (if any).

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Al <coopera@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:14:28 PM
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Greg and Al l,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was recently told that this (that GSBAA is the head organization) is the case instead of AAWS, Inc., being at the �top� of the so-called pyramid. Someone (you?) recently sent me a list with the delegate�s email addresses, and this too is an excellent idea.

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

A thought has also arisen, regarding how GSBAA can respond. I�m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I�m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s..com [mailto: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com ] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 04:16
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al ,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net. ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated..

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York , New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Al coholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W.., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

#4745

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:16 am
Subject: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

Hi Greg,

As to your last comment, the attorneys who drafted the by-laws were very crafty -- they quoted the steps, traditions and concepts as if they were binding, but then, in "small print", inserted the proviso that they are only "recommendations" only and not binding upon GSBAA. Just one more way that the powers that be have attempted to mislead the fellowship --

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Greg <Greg@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 12:16:18 PM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net. ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

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

#4744

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:10 am
Subject: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

Yes, history is replete with examples of one single courageous voice making a huge difference in the course of events. When the time is ripe, that voice will be heard.

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Al <coopera@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:29:27 AM
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Bruce!

Dang it, I just got back from vacation with my oldest daughter and her family, in Oconto , Wisconsin . According to a Google� search, I was only about 125 miles away from you! LOL, I got the direction of your comment, and that kinda fired my comment. ONE �rock� makes only an infintisimal difference but it DOES make a difference. Now�if a few more folks like yourself, start �throwing rocks�, we might yet change the shoreline.

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com ] On Behalf Of Bruce A. Johanson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 21:29
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

My comment was to Mecca and surely not your effort Al . To me it is like throwing a rock in the ocean and expecting the shoreline to recede from the change in volume. Add my name if you desire and from Stevens Point , Wi .

BAJ

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto: GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Al
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:08 AM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al l,

Maybe (probably) it�s �delusions of reality� on my part, but I�m hoping to send this to several periodicals both nationally, and in the New York , New York immediate vicinity. Since I want this to be factual and therefore �non-slanderous�, I sincerely ask that any errors on my part be pointed out.

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com ] On Behalf Of Bruce A. Johanson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 13:47
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Do you think they really care?

BAJ

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto: GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Gary Becktell
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:29 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Unchain the dogs, let 'em loose. Those folks at AAWS are gonna get a big surprise. I'll bet not one of them ever thought they were misusing the AA name.

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

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York , New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Al coholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization..

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 6:08 AM

__________ NOD32 2426 (20070727) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset. com

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

#4743

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

http://www.amazon. com/Alcoholics- Special-Includin g-Personal- Stories/dp/ 9562913570

Hi Kenny,

Interestingly, one of the three "authors" of the 2006 special edition is... "anonymous". How does anyone get a copyright over a work created by an "anonymous" author???

All of the folks who are involved in the publication and marketing of these works should have been a lot more cautious in how they're published and marketed -- they're providing the seeds of the challenge to the copyrights that they so ardently protect.

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Kenny <nobutts@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 6:31:25 AM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter

Evening Al,

I like it so far however I'm no writer and wouldn't make for good reaction.

However you said;

I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be "copyrighted" by the translators as "new works

In here

http://www.amazon. com/Alcoholics- Special-Includin g-Personal- Stories/dp/ 9562912655

This book says that it is copyrighted by B&N publishing 2006, first page inside cover. It has ten of the original stories and a recommendation for, among other non related things Automatic Wealth The Secrets of the Millionaire Mind in the back.

I sent them (B&N) a letter asking how they printed a book with two trade marks on the cover. They still haven't responded. Tom J didn't / wouldn't answer the question of copyright infringement/ affiliation for this volume either?

But stop the press, there's a new Big Book "Special Edition" for 2007 out by Barns and Nobel. Looks like B&N have beaten the gso at their own game.

Well, I know who wrote the first review. But gosh darn-it, makes me wonder what stories they've used?????

............ ........Kenny

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

From: sam

Date: 7/27/2007 9:29:18 PM

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter

why not sign your name...

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "Al" <coopera@... > wrote:
>
> Hi GSOWatchers,
>
>
>
> I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This
is just
> my first "rough draft", and any changes or additions would be
appreciated.
>
>
>
> Very basically, it asks "the corporation" to quit using the name of
> Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
>
>
> The letter thus far:
>
>
>
> "Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated
>
> Post Office Box 459
>
> Grand Central Station
>
> New York, New York 10163
>
>
>
> Dear AAWS, Inc.
>
>
>
> We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the
necessary
> steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics
Anonymous from
> your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.
>
>
>
> Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous)
logic is
> as follows:
>
>
>
> Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never
> considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.
>
>
>
> By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply
expressly and
> implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole,
which, in
> our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are
> "copyrighted" by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
>
>
> Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal
names of
> members of AA to the public.
>
>
>
> The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1st and 2nd editions) is now legally
in the
> public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it
should have
> been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the
> legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the
claim of
> Bill W., to be the "sole author" of the book.
>
>
>
> Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the
latter half of
> this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a
new
> copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question
your
> right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your
claim of
> "protecting the integrity" of the message is, however, called into
question
> by these actions.
>
>
>
> Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics
Anonymous
> to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of
the book
> Alcoholics Anonymous (aka "The Big Book" [BB}), have been met by
legal
> challenges by your organization.. Other of our members has
attempted to give
> a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only
to be
> thwarted through legal means by your organization.
>
>
>
> The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the
public
> domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any
translations of
> that text and your previously "owned" 1st and 2nd edition are open
to
> translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations
could, in
> themselves, be "copyrighted" by the translators as "new works", but
thus
> far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these
books to
> those who want them.
>
>
>
> By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business
enterprise,
> and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not
all)
> problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous.
>
>
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Anonymous"
>
>
>
>
>
> G' Bless,
>
>
>
> Al C.
>

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

#4742

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:56 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

I agree that the letter needs to be irrefutably accurate and phrased in a way that it can't be excerpted in an attempt to give it a different meaning than it has. We should be very thoughtful in the language that's used, in the facts that we recite, and in the requests that we make. Aside from the media, we should copy the NY attorney general's office.

I also agree with those who are cautious about the potential personal repercussions which may result from disrupting the status quo of those who profit from the use of the AA name and trademarks. I sort of expect that it will happen, and, consistent with the concept detailing how to handle challenges from outside (use the assistance of "our friends in high places" in order to subdue and destroy threats) I personally expect that any repercussion will come from a source that is not linkable to the service corporations without really digging in to the ultimate source of the action.

You guys have been really courageous to date, and the action is fixing to get more interesting =)

Best,

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Al <coopera@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:07:55 PM
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al l,

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s..com [mailto: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com ] On Behalf Of Bruce A. Johanson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 13:47
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Do you think they really care?

BAJ

Unchain the dogs, let 'em loose. Those folks at AAWS are gonna get a big surprise. I'll bet not one of them ever thought they were misusing the AA name.

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

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York , New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Al coholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 6:08 AM

__________ NOD32 2426 (20070727) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset. com

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

#4741

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:45 pm
Subject: Re: where is everyone

ddnmw2007

Offline

lol -- at least they didn't decline over the past week as did the majority of the shares on the NY stock exchange! Now may be a good time to cash in on those shares...

----- Original Message ----
From: Dennis <gratefuldennis@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:33:31 PM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

>They are probaly out looking for that one shareholder in one of the various
AAWS/GSO corporations I asked about the other day.<

Hard to find in a non-profit corporation. I can see the Wall Street report today; �AAWS shares held steady today at zero.�

Peace,

Dennis M.

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

From: Timothy DeRan

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:17 AM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

They are probaly out looking for that one shareholder in one of the various
AAWS/GSO corporations I asked about the other day.

tmd

>From: "Bruce A. Johanson" <bajohanson@charter. net>
>Reply-To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>To: <GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com>
>Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] where is everyone
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:05:34 -0500
>
>It was something you said! (rofl)
>
>
>
>BAJ
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf
>Of Paul S.
>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:44 AM
>To: grp
>Subject: [GSOwatch] where is everyone
>
>
>
>I havent recieved any posts from this group for quite awhile now and am
>getting worried. Was it something that I said or failed to say or has
>everyone taken a vacation. Just curious, Paul..
>
>
>
> _____
>
>Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
>Check out fitting gifts
><http://us.rd. yahoo.com/ evt=48249/ *http:/search. yahoo.com/ search?fr= oni_on_m
>ail&p=graduation+ gifts&cs= bz> for grads at Yahoo! Search.
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 2425 (20070727) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset. com
>

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.

#4740

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

Count me in.

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Al <coopera@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 7:50:22 PM
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter

Hi Sam and Everybody,

Two reasons. First obviously is that I�m a member of the FELLOWSHIP of Al coholics ANONYMOUS, which should be self-explanatory. Secondly, I�m not into painting bull�s eyes all over myself, and daring the big dogs to take pot-shots. I�ll invite anyone who wishes to sign (endorse) the letter with the traditional anonymous signature (First name and last initial only, usually).

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com ] On Behalf Of sam
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:26
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter

why not sign your name...

Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.

#4739

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:43 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

ddnmw2007

Offline

Hi Al,

Given the responses that I've read to requests from other members of the fellowship for information you'll probably just get the run-around rather than a straightforward answer to the letter (or they'll just ignore it altogether).

After what I've learned here, I think the only effective way to deal with the issue is through a third party with real authority over the service corporations (the NY attorney general's office). If you want, I'd be happy to work with you to craft a letter to send to them asking them to step in and help "divorce" the service corporations from the fellowship and to return to the fellowship what is rightfully theirs.

Best,

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Al <coopera@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:30:24 PM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Al coholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

� Al coholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Al coholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Al coholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Al coholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Al coholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Al coholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Al coholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Al coholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Al coholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

#4738

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:38 pm
Subject: Re: where is everyone

ddnmw2007

Offline

Hi Paul,

I've had the same thought today -- I haven't checked in for a week and only had around 20 posts -- far less than in weeks past -- and, interestingly, some of the posts are in reply to posts that I never received...

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Paul S. <spaulski@...>
To: grp <gsowatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 6:43:50 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] where is everyone

I havent recieved any posts from this group for quite awhile now and am getting worried. Was it something that I said or failed to say or has everyone taken a vacation. Just curious, Paul.

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.

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

#4737

From: "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:43 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

gratefuldenn...

Offline

I don�t think using the GSOWatch name is a good idea for several reasons. For all purposes this is an AA group which is public that places it pretty equal with an open meeting. We should not take any action as a group without a taking a group conscience. This could be problematic as we have members that don�t come to all the meetings so to speak but their names are public on the list. Then we will have to discuss the minority opinion and so on.

Also we are divided on whether or not AAWS or the GSB are really part of Alcoholics Anonymous. For those that believe they are separate corporate entities then it would be expressing an opinion on an outside controversial issue, so therefore as a group we shouldn�t do that. But privately sent as individual members is alright for we all have our own notions about that.

Peace,

Dennis M.

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

From: Kenny

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 2:57 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Howdy,



I�m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I�m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

Sure. I don't doubt the letter will be received before it's sent?

   Please feel free to add my name



     Kenny M., Area 49

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

From: Al

Date: 7/29/2007 5:27:51 PM

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Greg and All,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was recently told that this (that GSBAA is the head organization) is the case instead of AAWS, Inc., being at the �top� of the so-called pyramid. Someone (you?) recently sent me a list with the delegate�s email addresses, and this too is an excellent idea.

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

A thought has also arisen, regarding how GSBAA can respond. I�m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I�m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 04:16
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

�Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York   10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and   implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Recent Activity

1

New Members
Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

Health and wellness in the workplace
Center for health and wellness
Health and wellness center
Health and wellness
Business health wellness

FruitaB� Parents

Healthy Eating Zone

A parenting resource

on Yahoo! Groups.

Yahoo! TV

Want the scoop?

Check out today's

news and gossip.

Find Enlightenment

Yoga groups and

resources on

Yahoo! Groups.

#4736

From: Raymond Simmons <ddnmw2007@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: New Committee!!

ddnmw2007

Offline

Hi Tim,

Sorry this is so late in coming -- a close friend was diagnosed with cancer last week and I've been going with her to the doctors, etc. It's been a tough week for her -- at first they thought it was only one tumor that could be removed surgically and now they're saying that it has spread and they need to do more tests to find out what to do.. Her husband died a couple of years ago, and her family's on the East coast, so I've been doing my best to help her get through this -- very tough for her to deal with...

As for how the structure works, it's confusing. Technically there should be no "shareholders" in any of the three corporations, since they're New York not-for-profits and are supposed to be run to serve the public interest and not private shareholders. Notwithstanding that, GSBAA claims that it owns "all of the capital stock" in AAWS and AAGV. Inconsistently, but probably technically correct, GSBAA, which is a "membership" not-for-profit, claims that the 21 trustees are the members and the beneficial owners of the corporation. What they fail to discuss in any of their statements regarding their ownership and operation is that the true stakeholder in not-for-profits is the public, and that's why the attorney general's office is charged with oversight of not-for-profits -- to assure that they are run in the public interest.

Ray

----- Original Message ----
From: Timothy DeRan <timderan@...>
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 11:45:39 AM
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] New Committee!!

"Likewise, I have no indication that he's doing other than an exemplary job
in his role as President of AAWS and GM of GSBAA -- in their expanded,
profit-making roles."

Having been reading these threads lately, I am struck by one question: Who
owns stock in the various non-profit corporations that make up aaws/gso?

A simple answer will suffice, names that is.

tmd

Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (24)

#4735

From: Kenny <nobutts@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:57 pm
Subject: RE: Open Letter

shelby4ken

Offline

Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Howdy,

I�m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I�m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

Sure. I don't doubt the letter will be received before it's sent?

Please feel free to add my name

Kenny M., Area 49

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

From: Al

Date: 7/29/2007 5:27:51 PM

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Greg and All,

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

G� Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 04:16
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

�Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

#4734

From: "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

gratefuldenn...

Offline

There are two things that are important the way I see it and that is the motivation for the letter which only each of us can determine for ourselves, and letting God take care of the results.

Peace,

Dennis M.

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

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:30 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

�Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

#4733

From: "Al" <coopera@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:14 pm
Subject: RE: Open Letter

gsowatch

Offline

Hi Greg and All,

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was recently told that this (that GSBAA is the head organization) is the case instead of AAWS, Inc., being at the “top” of the so-called pyramid. Someone (you?) recently sent me a list with the delegate’s email addresses, and this too is an excellent idea.

Also my thanks to Norm who has done some editorializing (as well as originally setting me straight on GSBAA) on the original draft and made the meaning much clearer.

A thought has also arisen, regarding how GSBAA can respond. I’m thinking of using the GSOwatch email address, but I’m reluctant to do so without the general consensus of our group. Please, also let me know your thoughts on this.

G’ Bless,

Al C.

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first “rough draft”, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks “the corporation” to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

“Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are “copyrighted” by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the “sole author” of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of “protecting the integrity” of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka “The Big Book” [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously “owned” 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be “copyrighted” by the translators as “new works”, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous”

G’ Bless,

Al C.

#4732

From: Greg <Greg@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:16 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

thecarrierboys

Online Now

Hi Al,
Sending the letter cannot hurt AA. Please add my name, Greg C. Area 11.

Some thoughts:
Should the letter be sent instead to the GSB of AA,(the trustees) who actually "own" the two corporations AAWS and the Grapevine?

Can a copy be sent to all of the delegates of the GSC?

Can you remind the Trustees that they might be breaking the law, thereby putting the entire fellowship of AA at risk in a public controversy , by allowing themselves and AAWS to disregard Concept 12 Warranty 5, which is part of their own legal operating by-laws?

Greg

Al <coopera@...> wrote:

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first �rough draft�, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks �the corporation� to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

�Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are �copyrighted� by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the �sole author� of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of �protecting the integrity� of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka �The Big Book� [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously �owned� 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be �copyrighted� by the translators as �new works�, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous�

G� Bless,

Al C.

#4731

From: dave smith <soberstar22@...>
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:45 am
Subject: Re: Re: Open Letter

soberstar22

Offline

Hi,

Just back from Eire and the wonderful place it is...

I like the letter,and if its only a letter -at least its a start...

And you have got to make a start somewhere,because just sitting around quoting history and telling each other what "bad-boys" AAWS are, aint going to do a thing -

Send the letter Al--and I will pay for the stamp from the proceeds of the monies I have not donated to "Inter-Group" --monies I have kept to support our little real AA group...

Best Wishes....

Dave S

sam <samwasblasted@...> wrote:

i dpont think they are losing any sleep over it

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce A. Johanson" <bajohanson@...>
wrote:
>
> Do you think they really care?
>
>
>
> BAJ
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Gary Becktell
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:29 PM
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter
>
>
>
> Unchain the dogs, let 'em loose. Those folks at AAWS are gonna
get a big
> surprise. I'll bet not one of them ever thought they were misusing
the AA
> name.
>
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Al <mailto:coopera@...>
>
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup <mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com> s.com
>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:30 PM
>
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter
>
>
>
> Hi GSOWatchers,
>
> I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This
is just
> my first "rough draft", and any changes or additions would be
appreciated.
>
> Very basically, it asks "the corporation" to quit using the name of
> Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
> The letter thus far:
>
> "Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated
>
> Post Office Box 459
>
> Grand Central Station
>
> New York, New York 10163
>
> Dear AAWS, Inc.
>
> We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the
necessary
> steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics
Anonymous from
> your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.
>
> Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous)
logic is
> as follows:
>
> Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never
> considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.
>
> By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply
expressly and
> implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole,
which, in
> our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are
> "copyrighted" by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
> Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal
names of
> members of AA to the public.
>
> The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1st and 2nd editions) is now legally
in the
> public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it
should have
> been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the
> legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the
claim of
> Bill W., to be the "sole author" of the book.
>
> Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the
latter half of
> this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a
new
> copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question
your
> right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your
claim of
> "protecting the integrity" of the message is, however, called into
question
> by these actions.
>
> Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics
Anonymous
> to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of
the book
> Alcoholics Anonymous (aka "The Big Book" [BB}), have been met by
legal
> challenges by your organization. Other of our members has
attempted to give
> a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only
to be
> thwarted through legal means by your organization.
>
> The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the
public
> domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any
translations of
> that text and your previously "owned" 1st and 2nd edition are open
to
> translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations
could, in
> themselves, be "copyrighted" by the translators as "new works", but
thus
> far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these
books to
> those who want them.
>
> By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business
enterprise,
> and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not
all)
> problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous.
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
> Anonymous"
>
> G' Bless,
>
> Al C.
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date:
7/27/2007
> 6:08 AM
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2426 (20070727) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

#4730

From: "sam" <samwasblasted@...>
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:06 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

samwasblasted

Offline

i dpont think they are losing any sleep over it


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce A. Johanson" <bajohanson@...>
wrote:
>
> Do you think they really care?
>
>
>
> BAJ
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Gary Becktell
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:29 PM
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter
>
>
>
>     Unchain the dogs, let 'em loose. Those folks at AAWS are gonna
get a big
> surprise. I'll bet not one of them ever thought they were misusing
the AA
> name.
>
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Al <mailto:coopera@...>
>
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup <mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com> s.com
>
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:30 PM
>
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter
>
>
>
> Hi GSOWatchers,
>
> I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc.  This
is just
> my first "rough draft", and any changes or additions would be
appreciated.
>
> Very basically, it asks "the corporation" to quit using the name of
> Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
> The letter thus far:
>
> "Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated
>
> Post Office Box 459
>
> Grand Central Station
>
> New York, New York   10163
>
> Dear AAWS, Inc.
>
> We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the
necessary
> steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics
Anonymous from
> your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.
>
> Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous)
logic is
> as follows:
>
> Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never
> considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.
>
> By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply
expressly and
> implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole,
which, in
> our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are
> "copyrighted" by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
> Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal
names of
> members of AA to the public.
>
> The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1st and 2nd editions) is now legally
in the
> public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it
should have
> been from the beginning.  There are indeed, many questions about the
> legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the
claim of
> Bill W., to be the "sole author" of the book.
>
> Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the
latter half of
> this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a
new
> copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Regardless, we do not question
your
> right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions.  Your
claim of
> "protecting the integrity" of the message is, however, called into
question
> by these actions.
>
> Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics
Anonymous
> to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of
the book
> Alcoholics Anonymous (aka "The Big Book" [BB}), have been met by
legal
> challenges by your organization.  Other of our members has
attempted to give
> a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only
to be
> thwarted through legal means by your organization.
>
> The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the
public
> domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any
translations of
> that text and your previously "owned" 1st and 2nd edition are open
to
> translation by anyone.  I might point out that these translations
could, in
> themselves, be "copyrighted" by the translators as "new works", but
thus
> far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these
books to
> those who want them.
>
> By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business
enterprise,
> and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not
all)
> problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous.
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
> Anonymous"
>
> G' Bless,
>
> Al C.
>
>
>
>
>   _____
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date:
7/27/2007
> 6:08 AM
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 2426 (20070727) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>

#4729

From: "sam" <samwasblasted@...>
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:09 pm
Subject: Re: Open Letter

samwasblasted

Offline

you can add my name to this if you want to...

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <coopera@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sam and Everybody,
>
>
>
> Two reasons.  First obviously is that I'm a member of the
FELLOWSHIP of
> Alcoholics ANONYMOUS, which should be self-explanatory.  Secondly,
I'm not
> into painting bull's eyes all over myself, and daring the big dogs
to take
> pot-shots.  I'll invite anyone who wishes to sign (endorse) the
letter with
> the traditional anonymous signature (First name and last initial
only,
> usually).
>
>
>
> G' Bless,
>
>
>
> Al C.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of sam
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 10:26
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter
>
>
>
> why not sign your name...
>

#4728

From: Antara <antaraaaa@...>
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:11 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Open Letter

antaraaaa

Offline

Paul wrote: I wrote my opinion was that world service no longer was AA and that that they used AA member's monies to sue AA members that made copies of of the bigbook in Mexico and Germany. I said it would be better to find a free copy of the bigbook on the internet and to contribute the money to the local AA meeting that doesnt support world services.

Excellent Paul!

This sums it up for me too. What once seemed so incredibly complex (when i first arrived on this site) to translate into a "living example" has now become this simple. Like Ray, I too am grateful to JOhn G for his persistance with the more dense (read ME) amongst us, lol. Sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly....lol: just glad I am at last kinda "gettin it".

I have also been asking questions of those I know who still give them money/(purchase their Lit) under the belief that AAWS is AA. I love and even personally admire many who unfortuneatly are still doing this, but I have begun to initiate a dialogue with those good people and I pray in time we will achieve some kind of genuine unity on these matters. There is an awful lot of distasteful and frankly upsetting information here and I do realize that many are so busy with their lives/12 step work etc, that perhaps they have not yet seen the tie between what is happening at this level and our groups/fellowship. I believe with all my heart these current states are not unrelated.

And As Sherry so eloquently put it a few posts back, I do believe the onus is on me (us) to communicate this information as simply and powerfully as we can. Lovingly too if God sees fit to try n instill a bit more of that as the days roll on, lol.

God Bless yaz,

M.

Ps: Good luck with the letter Al, maybe it's never been asked outright?? "STOP USING OUR NAME"--Why the hell not send it I say, lol. Feels good to do something, might even cause a wake-up along the way to one er two?

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.

#4727

From: "Al" <coopera@...>
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:39 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Open Letter

gsowatch

Offline

http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholics-Special-Including-Personal-Stories/dp/9562912655

Hi Kenny and All,

Good Grief Charlie Brown!� It NOW seems that there are THREE (3) authors of the book “Alcoholics Anonymous” “The Big Book” Special Edition (soft cover)!� Will the corporation take action against it’s children for copyright infringement?� Have the children rebelled?� Will John marry Marsha?� Stay tuned for the NEXT exciting episode of “As Bill And Bob Turn (in their graves)”.

My best guess is that this is probably a reprint of either the 1^st or 2^nd edition which are in the public domain, which still doesn’t answer YOUR questions.� Keep us posted about any further developments.

G’ Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kenny
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 22:31
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter

Evening Al,

I like it so far however I'm no writer and wouldn't make for good reaction.

However you said;

I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be "copyrighted" by the translators as "new works

In here

But stop the press, there's a new Big Book "Special Edition" for 2007 out by Barns and Nobel. Looks like B&N have beaten the gso at their own game.

http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholics-Special-Including-Personal-Stories/dp/9562913570

Well, I know who wrote the first review. But gosh darn-it, makes me wonder what stories they've used?????

....................Kenny

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

From: sam

Date: 7/27/2007 9:29:18 PM

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Open Letter

why not sign your name...

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Al" <coopera@...> wrote:
>
> Hi GSOWatchers,
>
>
>
> I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This
is just
> my first "rough draft", and any changes or additions would be
appreciated.
>
>
>
> Very basically, it asks "the corporation" to quit using the name of
> Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
>
>
> The letter thus far:
>
>
>
> "Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated
>
> Post Office Box 459
>
> Grand Central Station
>
> New York, New York 10163
>
>
>
> Dear AAWS, Inc.
>
>
>
> We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the
necessary
> steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics
Anonymous from
> your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.
>
>
>
> Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous)
logic is
> as follows:
>
>
>
> Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never
> considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.
>
>
>
> By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply
expressly and
> implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole,
which, in
> our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are
> "copyrighted" by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
>
>
>
> Many actions taken by your organization have pl aced the name of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal
names of
> members of AA to the public.
>
>
>
> The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1st and 2nd editions) is now legally
in the
> public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it
should have
> been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the
> legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the
claim of
> Bill W., to be the "sole author" of the book.
>
>
>
> Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the
latter half of
> this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a
new
> copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of
the
> Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question
your
> right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your
claim of
> "protecting the integrity" of the message is, however, called into
question
> by these actions.
>
>
>
> Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics
Anonymous
> to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of
the book
> Alcoholics Anonymous (aka "The Big Book" [BB}), have been met by
legal
> challenges by your organization. Other of our members has
attempted to give
> a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only
to be
> thwarted through legal means by your organization.
>
>
>
> The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the
public
> domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any
translations of
> that text and your previously "owned" 1st and 2nd edition are open
to
> translation by anyone. I might po int out that these translations
could, in
> themselves, be "copyrighted" by the translators as "new works", but
thus
> far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these
books to
> those who want them.
>
>
>
> By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business
enterprise,
> and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not
all)
> problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of
Alcoholics
> Anonymous.
>
>
>
> Most Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Anonymous"
>
>
>
>
>
> G' Bless,
>
>
>
> Al C.
>

#4726

From: "Al" <coopera@...>
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:29 pm
Subject: RE: Open Letter

gsowatch

Offline

Hi Bruce!

Dang it, I just got back from vacation with my oldest daughter and her family, in Oconto, Wisconsin. According to a Google© search, I was only about 125 miles away from you! LOL, I got the direction of your comment, and that kinda fired my comment. ONE “rock” makes only an infintisimal difference but it DOES make a difference. Now…if a few more folks like yourself, start “throwing rocks”, we might yet change the shoreline.

G’ Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce A. Johanson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 21:29
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

My comment was to Mecca and surely not your effort Al. To me it is like throwing a rock in the ocean and expecting the shoreline to recede from the change in volume. Add my name if you desire and from Stevens Point, Wi.

BAJ

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Al
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:08 AM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi All,

Maybe (probably) it’s “delusions of reality” on my part, but I’m hoping to send this to several periodicals both nationally, and in the New York, New York immediate vicinity. Since I want this to be factual and therefore “non-slanderous”, I sincerely ask that any errors on my part be pointed out.

G’ Bless,

Al C.

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruce A. Johanson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 13:47
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Do you think they really care?

BAJ

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Becktell
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 8:29 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Unchain the dogs, let 'em loose. Those folks at AAWS are gonna get a big surprise. I'll bet not one of them ever thought they were misusing the AA name.

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

From: Al

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Open Letter

Hi GSOWatchers,

I propose to submit the following (open letter) to AAWS, Inc. This is just my first “rough draft”, and any changes or additions would be appreciated.

Very basically, it asks “the corporation” to quit using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous.

The letter thus far:

“Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated

Post Office Box 459

Grand Central Station

New York, New York 10163

Dear AAWS, Inc.

We, singly and collectively, as members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous respectfully request that your organization take the necessary steps to remove your self-designated imprimatur of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business name, and that of all your subsidiaries.

Part of our (the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous) logic is as follows:

Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A., AA) was, and is, in our opinions, never considered to be a business, either for profit or non-profit.

By using Alcoholics Anonymous in your business name, you imply expressly and implicitly that you are representing our Fellowship as a whole, which, in our opinion violates numerous written statements (many of which are “copyrighted” by AAWS, Inc.), as well as the spirit and intent of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Many actions taken by your organization have placed the name of Alcoholics Anonymous into public controversies, and have attempted to reveal names of members of AA to the public.

The book Alcoholics Anonymous (1^st and 2^nd editions) is now legally in the public domain, as many members of the Fellowship feel that it should have been from the beginning. There are indeed, many questions about the legality of the claimed copyright from the beginning, including the claim of Bill W., to be the “sole author” of the book.

Your subterfuge of printing this work with new stories in the latter half of this book, and making changes to the basic text in order to claim a new copyright, has not gone unnoticed by a great many of the members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. Regardless, we do not question your right, as a profit making enterprise, to take these actions. Your claim of “protecting the integrity” of the message is, however, called into question by these actions.

Many attempts by various members of the Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous to spread the message by reprinting the public domain portion of the book Alcoholics Anonymous (aka “The Big Book” [BB}), have been met by legal challenges by your organization. Other of our members has attempted to give a more understandable and true interpretation of the Big Book, only to be thwarted through legal means by your organization.

The basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous is unquestionably in the public domain, even if it were ever legally copyrighted and any translations of that text and your previously “owned” 1^st and 2^nd edition are open to translation by anyone. I might point out that these translations could, in themselves, be “copyrighted” by the translators as “new works”, but thus far, the translators have chosen to freely give copies of these books to those who want them.

By removing the name of Alcoholics Anonymous from your business enterprise, and its subsidiaries, you would eliminate the majority of (if not all) problems which you have created for the true Fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Most Sincerely,

Anonymous”

G’ Bless,

Al C.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/922 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 6:08 AM

__________ NOD32 2426 (20070727) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com