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

From: Greg

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 3:55 PM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Restatement of "Certification of Incorporation of AAWS Inc."

Thanks Norm and Sherry,
 
 The name change from "Works publishing Inc" to "Alcoholics Anonymous Publishing Inc" took place in 1953.

The new general service conference structure  had recently adopted the traditions for the fellowship by then.

Does anyone know of any discussion or letters or anything pertaining to violating tradition 6 with the name change of 1953?

Or was the conference the beginning of the end?

Just trying to figure out who were the first to be asleep at the wheel. Probably goes back to Bill claiming sole authorship of big book via copyright.

How do we undo what is done? (the $30,000,000 question)

Greg

Greg



Norm <kohl@...> wrote:

Here's the full document: http://gsowatch.aamo.info/1962/62dec10.pdf
There may be relevant information here:
http://www.my.aamo.info/tiki-index.php?page=OUR+MAIN+MENU

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg" <Greg@soberalcoholic.com>
To: <GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Restatement of "Certification of Incorporation of AAWS
Inc."

> Hi All,
> I was checking out the 2006 tax return of AAWS on guidestar and
> noticed that they also filed a "Restatement of Certification of
> Incorporation" with the attorney generals office. Dated april 29th 2006.
> Seems harmless enough.
> I'm not a tax attorney or corporation counsel by any means, but from
> what i read, the restatement has a lot to do with required non-profit
> language which is inserted into different parts of the restatement ,
> along with addresses for attorney general for complaints.
> I don't know why AAWS needed to do this , maybe it was required by
> the state, who knows.
>
> What caught my eye was this paragraph, then me asking "why bother
> deleting it as no longer relevant":
>
> " Third, sub-paragraph A, everything following the phrase
> "..preparing publications and communications...," insofar as it is an
> historical reference to the assumption of the assets of Alcoholics
> Anonymous World Services Inc., a predecessor stock corporation, by
> Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc, and the fact that the General
> Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous owned the stock of the said
> predecessor corporation, is deleted as no longer relevant,.."
>
> Hmmm. So AAWS felt the need to delete something from the original
> (1962) Articles of Incorporation. Why bother?
>
> So I checked out the 1962 original Articles of Incorporation for AAWS,
> (http://www.silkworth.net/gsowatch/1962/62dec10a.gif) and it says in
> effect that the new corporation AAWS will be taking over the assets of
> AAWS, which is the predecessor corporation.
>
> So, in 1962 Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc was incorporated
> and it seems to read that they took over the assets from itself, which
> was also the name of the predecessor corporation?. It must have been
> an overlooked typo, they must have meant Alcoholics Anonymous
> Publishing Inc, which became the new name of Works publishing Inc in
> 1953, right?
>
> Again, why bother deleting it in 2006? Not relevant? hmmm....
>
> I have no idea what all this means, except that i seem to have too
> much "free" time on my hands. I don't really though!!! Really.
>
> any comments?
>
> Where's Ray Simmons?
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Here's the full document: http://gsowatch.aamo.info/1962/62dec10.pdf
There may be relevant information here:
http://www.my.aamo.info/tiki-index.php?page=OUR+MAIN+MENU

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg" <Greg@soberalcoholic.com>
To: <GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Restatement of "Certification of Incorporation of AAWS
Inc."

> Hi All,
> I was checking out the 2006 tax return of AAWS on guidestar and
> noticed that they also filed a "Restatement of Certification of
> Incorporation" with the attorney generals office. Dated april 29th 2006.
> Seems harmless enough.
> I'm not a tax attorney or corporation counsel by any means, but from
> what i read, the restatement has a lot to do with required non-profit
> language which is inserted into different parts of the restatement ,
> along with addresses for attorney general for complaints.
> I don't know why AAWS needed to do this , maybe it was required by
> the state, who knows.
>
> What caught my eye was this paragraph, then me asking "why bother
> deleting it as no longer relevant":
>
> " Third, sub-paragraph A, everything following the phrase
> "..preparing publications and communications...," insofar as it is an
> historical reference to the assumption of the assets of Alcoholics
> Anonymous World Services Inc., a predecessor stock corporation, by
> Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc, and the fact that the General
> Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous owned the stock of the said
> predecessor corporation, is deleted as no longer relevant,.."
>
> Hmmm. So AAWS felt the need to delete something from the original
> (1962) Articles of Incorporation. Why bother?
>
> So I checked out the 1962 original Articles of Incorporation for AAWS,
> (http://www.silkworth.net/gsowatch/1962/62dec10a.gif) and it says in
> effect that the new corporation AAWS will be taking over the assets of
> AAWS, which is the predecessor corporation.
>
> So, in 1962 Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc was incorporated
> and it seems to read that they took over the assets from itself, which
> was also the name of the predecessor corporation?. It must have been
> an overlooked typo, they must have meant Alcoholics Anonymous
> Publishing Inc, which became the new name of Works publishing Inc in
> 1953, right?
>
> Again, why bother deleting it in 2006? Not relevant? hmmm....
>
> I have no idea what all this means, except that i seem to have too
> much "free" time on my hands. I don't really though!!! Really.
>
> any comments?
>
> Where's Ray Simmons?
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Here's the full document: http://gsowatch.aamo.info/1962/62dec10.pdf
There may be relevant information here:
http://www.my.aamo.info/tiki-index.php?page=OUR+MAIN+MENU

Bless,
Norm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg" <Greg@...>
To: <GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Restatement of "Certification of Incorporation of AAWS
Inc."


> Hi All,
> I was checking out the 2006 tax return of AAWS on guidestar and
> noticed that they also filed a "Restatement of Certification of
> Incorporation" with the attorney generals office. Dated april 29th 2006.
> Seems harmless enough.
> I'm not a tax attorney or corporation counsel by any means, but from
> what i read, the restatement has a lot to do with required non-profit
> language which is inserted into different parts of the restatement ,
> along with addresses for attorney general for complaints.
> I don't know why AAWS needed to do this , maybe it was required by
> the state, who knows.
>
> What caught my eye was this paragraph, then me asking "why bother
> deleting it as no longer relevant":
>
>   " Third, sub-paragraph A, everything following the phrase
> "..preparing publications and communications...," insofar as it is an
> historical reference to the assumption of the assets of Alcoholics
> Anonymous World Services Inc., a predecessor stock corporation, by
> Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc, and the fact that the General
> Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous owned the stock of the said
> predecessor corporation, is deleted as no longer relevant,.."
>
> Hmmm. So AAWS felt the need to delete something from the original
> (1962) Articles of Incorporation. Why bother?
>
> So I checked out the 1962 original Articles of Incorporation for AAWS,
> (http://www.silkworth.net/gsowatch/1962/62dec10a.gif) and it says in
> effect that the new corporation AAWS will be taking over the assets of
> AAWS, which is the predecessor corporation.
>
> So, in 1962 Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc was incorporated
> and it seems to read that they took over the assets from itself, which
> was also the name of the predecessor corporation?. It must have been
> an overlooked typo, they must have meant Alcoholics Anonymous
> Publishing Inc, which became the new name of Works publishing Inc in
> 1953, right?
>
> Again, why bother deleting it in 2006? Not relevant? hmmm....
>
> I have no idea what all this means, except that i seem to have too
> much "free" time on my hands. I don't really though!!! Really.
>
> any comments?
>
> Where's Ray Simmons?
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi All,
  I was checking out the 2006 tax return of AAWS on guidestar and
noticed that they also filed a "Restatement of Certification of
Incorporation" with the attorney generals office. Dated april 29th 2006.
  Seems harmless enough.
  I'm not a tax attorney or corporation counsel by any means, but from
what i read, the restatement has a lot to do with required non-profit
language which is inserted into different parts of the restatement ,
along with addresses for attorney general for complaints.
  I don't know why AAWS needed to do this , maybe it was required by
the state, who knows.

What caught my eye was this paragraph, then me asking "why bother
deleting it as no longer relevant":

    " Third, sub-paragraph A, everything following the phrase
"..preparing publications and communications...," insofar as it is an
historical reference to the assumption of the assets of Alcoholics
Anonymous World Services Inc., a predecessor stock corporation, by
Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc, and the fact that the General
Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous owned the stock of the said
predecessor corporation, is deleted as no longer relevant,.."

Hmmm. So AAWS felt the need to delete something from the original
(1962) Articles of Incorporation. Why bother?

So I checked out the 1962 original Articles of Incorporation for AAWS,
(http://www.silkworth.net/gsowatch/1962/62dec10a.gif) and it says in
effect that the new corporation AAWS will be taking over the assets of
AAWS, which is the predecessor corporation.

So, in 1962 Alcoholics Anonymous World Services Inc was incorporated
and it seems to read that they took over the assets from itself, which
was also the name of the predecessor corporation?. It must have been
an overlooked typo, they must have meant Alcoholics Anonymous
Publishing Inc, which became the new name of Works publishing Inc in
1953, right?

Again, why bother deleting it in 2006? Not relevant? hmmm....

I have no idea what all this means, except that i seem to have too
much "free" time on my hands. I don't really though!!! Really.

any comments?

Where's Ray Simmons?

Greg

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

From: Enrique Montes

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:43 AM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] The topic is important to those who will spend their lives in AA

Hi Dennis,

 

Thanks for your email.

 

I believe that there are many groups that are not the Directory of Seccion Mexico, but are subjective to take them in as a part of the structure because we do not know in fact if they work on the basis of the AA principles or they know Seccion Mexico.

 

As you know in Mexico are many groupings that use the name of AA but do not work on the basis of the principles that were bequeathed by the cofounders.

 

In fact the groups that only practice 4^o and 5^o  steps and make spiritual retirements are those that if they have those margins of growth. We know that the program is based on 12 Steps, to 12 Traditions and 12 Concepts for the World-wide Service. If you talk about that "group's" I agree completely in which you indicate of the growth margins.

 

A problem in constant growing is the drug addiction; most of people who came to AA have like their principal problem drugs.

 

I believe that the optimistic calculations are good and animate to the community to continue working and serving to carry the message. The reality is that in Mexico in both structures (Central Mexicana and Seccion Mexico) growth are not observed in great or superlative scale. Fact: Real number of audience to last Seccion Mexico National Convention 22,000 including no AA members, AA prospects, family, friends, professionals, students, AlAnon Program, etc.

 

In Central Mexicana has a structure of delegates of all the states of Mexico, the difference with Mexico Section is required to pay the equivalent of 27 dollars for attend a National Convention, in Mexico Section the events are paid by all the community and entrance is free.

 

Best regards.

 

--
Enrique J. Montes C.

........ El Conocimiento que no se comparte eventualmente se pierde

 

On 1/18/08, Dennis <gratefuldennis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Hi Enrique;

 

Thanks for the clarification on the number of groups. My friend in Seccion Mexico also agreed with those figures. I was wondering if the number of estimated groups that we got down there included some groups or meetings that associate with Seccion Mexico but are not registered with the Groups Service Office. Here there are more groups and meetings that are not registered than groups that are. Some places here like our local meeting hall is registered as one group through the business meeting of the meeting hall but there are about 18 meetings there that are self supporting with their own Secretary and format and different members in many cases. They are all considered to be separate autonomous groups and the meeting hall is called the Unified Groups.

 

One thing that does seem strange to me is in 1995 when Jake H., who was a Trustee at our New York Headquarters, went to the Regional Forum in Talazacala, Mexico he wrote this statement to our Trustees in New York: "These hardy souls - some 2,500 groups and about 30,000 members carry the message…"

 

Now if there were approximately 30,000 members back in 1995 and in 2005 it was estimated that about 30,000 members attended the National Convention of Seccion Mexico with an estimated 100 more groups than in 1995 it would seem that nearly every member throughout Mexico attended, which is very unlikely. Although those numbers include some family members as well it is still a large turnout of AA members.

 

From my friend in Seccion Mexico:   

 

"In Sección México National Directory are 2600-2800 groups subscribed, but some new groups are subscribed every month. Some groups disappear and Delegates are often sending to Groups Service Office new names and backgrounds of new groups or old groups that decided to join us, groups from other service structure: Exact number is difficult to say by the reasons I explain."

 

Anyway thanks for your clarification of the registered groups.

 

I have another question for you. Does Central Mexicana have a service structure throughout Mexico with Delegates from all the States in Mexico and a Conference like Seccion Mexico has? I was told when attending the 1997 National Convention unofficially by some members that Central Mexico was more like an Area rather that a National Service Structure. It was also described to me as a business rather than a service structure by some others.

 

Thanks for your response it is good to have you here.

 

Peace,

 

Dennis M.
 

 

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

From: Enrique Montes

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:15 AM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] The topic is important to those who will spend their lives in AA

 

Hi folks:

 

About Dennis post:

 

................

The good news is AA like Seccion Mexico who adheres to our spiritual principles has grown from 1,500 groups to over 4,000 groups since they were 
formed 22 years ago. If we grew at the same rate we would have over 4 million members at least but obviously we don't. Instead of getting their 
insight on their success we sued them for basically selling AA literature at cost paid with their 7th Tradition.

................

 

I like to make a precision, The AA Seccion Mexico fellowship has aprox 2600 groups on this moment.  Every month we receive 30 – 50 new groups notifications.

Best regards.

 

Enrique M.

 

 

 

 

On 1/9/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@yahoo.com > wrote:

The count of AA members published in the BB with each printing is
reliable ONLY for the USA and Canada - the only places AAGSB Inc. the
owner of publisher of AAWS Inc. is limited to by its articles of
incorporation.

That number has been stagnent at 1.2 million since 1988.

The 2 million + statistic is windy and has no historical basis for
comparison.

Zero growth in the past 19 years is a pretty good indication of slow
death. Of course, folks might have stopped drinking, or the population
of the USA and Canada might be declining..... naaaah. Perhaps the
illegal immigrants don't drink? I wonder if they inhale.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike;
>
> You wrote:
> >is the 3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or
is it a
> published number you have seen somewhere? <
>
> Sorry if it wasn't clear-that number is the new alcoholics each year
based
> on 5% of the population which is a conservative number as in our
culture it
> has been stated that about 10% of the population are alcoholic. The
point is
> our recovery growth rates are not even close to the first 16 years
of AA
> although we have well over twice as many drunks to carry the message
to. We
> are not even keeping up with the population growth.
>
> A good example is the town in which I got sober that had a
population of a
> little less than a hundred thousand. Although the town has doubled
in size
> and tripled in the number of drinking establishments we have only
half the
> meetings we had when I got sober and less people at those meetings.
>
> The good news is AA like Seccion Mexico who adheres to our spiritual
> principles has grown from 1,500 groups to over 4,000 groups since
they were
> formed 22 years ago. If we grew at the same rate we would have over 4
> million members at least but obviously we don't. Instead of getting
their
> insight on their success we sued them for basically selling AA
literature at
> cost paid with their 7th Tradition.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:39 PM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Off Topic but imnsho really important
>
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful post, Dennis. Just one question - is the
> 3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or is it a
> published number you have seen somewhere? Thanks, Mike
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nick;
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this but it made my brain hurt. I can tell a
> lot of work
> > and analysis went into this report in an effort to continue our
> mass denial
> > and tightly hold on to our old ideas.
> >
> > The decline in AA's success doesn't need rocket science and can be
> figured
> > in about 20 minutes with a piece of paper and a pencil and basic
> high school
> > math. It is a very simple process to figure growth averages. If
> there are 10
> > people in an organization and each of them brings in ten more over
> a course
> > of a year they would then have 100 members. They would then have a
> ratio of
> > 1 to 10 and have grown by 1000% over the previous year. They same
> results
> > would apply if only 5 members brought in 20 new people and 5 had
> brought in
> > none in that year.
> >
> > To arrive at a yearly growth rate all one has to do is take the
> numbers of
> > members and divide by the number of years involved. So where do we
> get the
> > numbers for an estimated average? Well how about the estimates in
> the Big
> > Book for the various editions. Take the numbers and divide by the
> time
> > between editions and walla there appears an average growth rate.
> >
> > The factors for decline and I have no doubt by the numbers that
> there is a
> > major decline--can be discussed and analyzed over and over again
> but the
> > main reasons I see are already written down. It seems that the
> early members
> > knew that our success was based on spiritual principles and that
> certain
> > things can interfere with that success so they wrote them down and
> called
> > them the Traditions. In the early days they were referred to as
> the 12
> > points to secure AA's future so I guess they were on to something.
> Things
> > like; "Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual
> entity having
> > but one primary purpose -that of carrying its message to the
> alcoholic who
> > still suffers," or "Problems of money, property, and authority may
> easily
> > divert us from our primary spiritual aim," and so forth.
> >
> > Here is the math I referred to above:
> > ----------------
> > Well now that the Forth Edition is out I can once again practice
> my high
> > school math to see how well we are really doing. Here it is folks:
> >
> > In 1939 we had 100 sober members.
> >
> > In 1955 - 150,000
> >
> > In 1976 - 1,000,000
> >
> > and 2001 - 2,000,000
> >
> > From 1939 - 1955 was 16 Years and we grew at a ratio of 1 to 1,500
> or our
> > growth rate was 1 to 93.7 per year or a percentage of 9,370% a
> year.
> >
> > From 1955 to 1976 a period of 21 years that dropped dramatically
> to 1 to
> > 66.6 or 1 to 3.1 per year for a percentage of 310% per yr.
> >
> > From 1976 to 2001 a period of 25 years it fell like the 1929 stock
> market to
> > a ratio of only 1 to 2 or 1 to .08 per year and our growth rate
> dwindled to
> > 8% a year.
> >
> > If you take into consideration that the world population has
> doubled since
> > 1960 to 1999 so the number of potential members has also doubled
> it don't
> > look so good for our future. It has been estimated that around 10%
> of the
> > population are alcoholics. If we lower that to 5% we still get 300
> million
> > alcoholics in the world and actually 14,289,700 just in the USA.
> Every year
> > we get 3.5 million new drunks to work with in the world.
> >
> > Now if you also take into consideration that the early members
> didn't have
> > half their members referred from treatment centers, and they also
> had the
> > social stigma about alcoholism, and didn't have drunks on
> television, and
> > didn't have the massive corporate literature distribution like
> from
> > Hazelden, and masses of therapist, psychologist, and judges
> sending folks to
> > AA then our growth rate actually sucks. To look at it in a more
> dismal way,
> > every drunk that was sober in AA in 1976 only carried the message
> to one
> > other drunk in twenty-five years. "Don't see anything the matter
> here, Ma.
> > Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowin'?"
> > ------------------
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis M.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nick Gill
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:06 AM
> > Subject: [GSOwatch] Off Topic but imnsho really important
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear GSOWatch members,
> >
> > I beg your indulgence for introducing an article I came across
> today,
> > which has given me much food for thought.
> >
> > It has excited me to read this intelligent and rigourous
> analysis of AA's
> > "success" rates over the years.
> >
> > http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf
> >
> > I am particularly interested in the discussion of "pre-
> screening" which
> > seems to have been almost universally employed in the early years
> of AA. Do
> > we want a return to those days?
> >
> > In the light of the many attacks on AA, and the things for which
> we
> > sometimes seem to "blame" GSO and its undoubted flaunting of the
> Traditions,
> > I think it is important to realise that it is NOT the case that AA
> is going
> > through a period of failure; and this intelligent discussion of
> the facts
> > around our membership is very welcome.
> >
> > Yours in fellowship, love and service,
> >
> > Nick
> >
>

--
Enrique J. Montes C.

........ El Conocimiento que no se comparte eventualmente se pierde

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

From: Enrique Montes

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:15 AM

Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] The topic is important to those who will spend their lives in AA

Hi folks:

 

About Dennis post:

 

................

The good news is AA like Seccion Mexico who adheres to our spiritual principles has grown from 1,500 groups to over 4,000 groups since they were 
formed 22 years ago. If we grew at the same rate we would have over 4 million members at least but obviously we don't. Instead of getting their 
insight on their success we sued them for basically selling AA literature at cost paid with their 7th Tradition.

................

 

I like to make a precision, The AA Seccion Mexico fellowship has aprox 2600 groups on this moment.  Every month we receive 30 – 50 new groups notifications.

Best regards.

 

Enrique M.

 

 

 

 

On 1/9/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@yahoo.com> wrote:

The count of AA members published in the BB with each printing is
reliable ONLY for the USA and Canada - the only places AAGSB Inc. the
owner of publisher of AAWS Inc. is limited to by its articles of
incorporation.

That number has been stagnent at 1.2 million since 1988.

The 2 million + statistic is windy and has no historical basis for
comparison.

Zero growth in the past 19 years is a pretty good indication of slow
death. Of course, folks might have stopped drinking, or the population
of the USA and Canada might be declining..... naaaah. Perhaps the
illegal immigrants don't drink? I wonder if they inhale.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike;
>
> You wrote:
> >is the 3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or
is it a
> published number you have seen somewhere? <
>
> Sorry if it wasn't clear-that number is the new alcoholics each year
based
> on 5% of the population which is a conservative number as in our
culture it
> has been stated that about 10% of the population are alcoholic. The
point is
> our recovery growth rates are not even close to the first 16 years
of AA
> although we have well over twice as many drunks to carry the message
to. We
> are not even keeping up with the population growth.
>
> A good example is the town in which I got sober that had a
population of a
> little less than a hundred thousand. Although the town has doubled
in size
> and tripled in the number of drinking establishments we have only
half the
> meetings we had when I got sober and less people at those meetings.
>
> The good news is AA like Seccion Mexico who adheres to our spiritual
> principles has grown from 1,500 groups to over 4,000 groups since
they were
> formed 22 years ago. If we grew at the same rate we would have over 4
> million members at least but obviously we don't. Instead of getting
their
> insight on their success we sued them for basically selling AA
literature at
> cost paid with their 7th Tradition.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:39 PM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Off Topic but imnsho really important
>
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful post, Dennis. Just one question - is the
> 3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or is it a
> published number you have seen somewhere? Thanks, Mike
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nick;
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this but it made my brain hurt. I can tell a
> lot of work
> > and analysis went into this report in an effort to continue our
> mass denial
> > and tightly hold on to our old ideas.
> >
> > The decline in AA's success doesn't need rocket science and can be
> figured
> > in about 20 minutes with a piece of paper and a pencil and basic
> high school
> > math. It is a very simple process to figure growth averages. If
> there are 10
> > people in an organization and each of them brings in ten more over
> a course
> > of a year they would then have 100 members. They would then have a
> ratio of
> > 1 to 10 and have grown by 1000% over the previous year. They same
> results
> > would apply if only 5 members brought in 20 new people and 5 had
> brought in
> > none in that year.
> >
> > To arrive at a yearly growth rate all one has to do is take the
> numbers of
> > members and divide by the number of years involved. So where do we
> get the
> > numbers for an estimated average? Well how about the estimates in
> the Big
> > Book for the various editions. Take the numbers and divide by the
> time
> > between editions and walla there appears an average growth rate.
> >
> > The factors for decline and I have no doubt by the numbers that
> there is a
> > major decline--can be discussed and analyzed over and over again
> but the
> > main reasons I see are already written down. It seems that the
> early members
> > knew that our success was based on spiritual principles and that
> certain
> > things can interfere with that success so they wrote them down and
> called
> > them the Traditions. In the early days they were referred to as
> the 12
> > points to secure AA's future so I guess they were on to something.
> Things
> > like; "Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual
> entity having
> > but one primary purpose -that of carrying its message to the
> alcoholic who
> > still suffers," or "Problems of money, property, and authority may
> easily
> > divert us from our primary spiritual aim," and so forth.
> >
> > Here is the math I referred to above:
> > ----------------
> > Well now that the Forth Edition is out I can once again practice
> my high
> > school math to see how well we are really doing. Here it is folks:
> >
> > In 1939 we had 100 sober members.
> >
> > In 1955 - 150,000
> >
> > In 1976 - 1,000,000
> >
> > and 2001 - 2,000,000
> >
> > From 1939 - 1955 was 16 Years and we grew at a ratio of 1 to 1,500
> or our
> > growth rate was 1 to 93.7 per year or a percentage of 9,370% a
> year.
> >
> > From 1955 to 1976 a period of 21 years that dropped dramatically
> to 1 to
> > 66.6 or 1 to 3.1 per year for a percentage of 310% per yr.
> >
> > From 1976 to 2001 a period of 25 years it fell like the 1929 stock
> market to
> > a ratio of only 1 to 2 or 1 to .08 per year and our growth rate
> dwindled to
> > 8% a year.
> >
> > If you take into consideration that the world population has
> doubled since
> > 1960 to 1999 so the number of potential members has also doubled
> it don't
> > look so good for our future. It has been estimated that around 10%
> of the
> > population are alcoholics. If we lower that to 5% we still get 300
> million
> > alcoholics in the world and actually 14,289,700 just in the USA.
> Every year
> > we get 3.5 million new drunks to work with in the world.
> >
> > Now if you also take into consideration that the early members
> didn't have
> > half their members referred from treatment centers, and they also
> had the
> > social stigma about alcoholism, and didn't have drunks on
> television, and
> > didn't have the massive corporate literature distribution like
> from
> > Hazelden, and masses of therapist, psychologist, and judges
> sending folks to
> > AA then our growth rate actually sucks. To look at it in a more
> dismal way,
> > every drunk that was sober in AA in 1976 only carried the message
> to one
> > other drunk in twenty-five years. "Don't see anything the matter
> here, Ma.
> > Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowin'?"
> > ------------------
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis M.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nick Gill
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:06 AM
> > Subject: [GSOwatch] Off Topic but imnsho really important
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear GSOWatch members,
> >
> > I beg your indulgence for introducing an article I came across
> today,
> > which has given me much food for thought.
> >
> > It has excited me to read this intelligent and rigourous
> analysis of AA's
> > "success" rates over the years.
> >
> > http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf
> >
> > I am particularly interested in the discussion of "pre-
> screening" which
> > seems to have been almost universally employed in the early years
> of AA. Do
> > we want a return to those days?
> >
> > In the light of the many attacks on AA, and the things for which
> we
> > sometimes seem to "blame" GSO and its undoubted flaunting of the
> Traditions,
> > I think it is important to realise that it is NOT the case that AA
> is going
> > through a period of failure; and this intelligent discussion of
> the facts
> > around our membership is very welcome.
> >
> > Yours in fellowship, love and service,
> >
> > Nick
> >
>

--
Enrique J. Montes C.

........ El Conocimiento que no se comparte eventualmente se pierde

Hey, Gary, I'm glad my analogy hit home, and thanks for carrying it
out to its logical conclusions. The accuracies in the telling of it
are border-line scary. Mike

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Becktell" <gk@...> wrote:
>
>     Wonderful!
>     Now add that since those that join under false pretenses don't
need the Mensa program, they steadily change it to suit their own
needs, thus leaving the real smarties without what they need to
survive. And the judges, media and employers encourage these changes
because they are smarter than the smarties and also have their own
agendas. Then the therapists start faking smartness so they can
attend and gain 'special' status as especially smart 'smarties'
(highly trained and educated) and they change it all further. Pretty
soon the real Mensans, who are really smart enough to see that Mensa
no longer applies to them, leave, and most of the club is now made
up of those that don't belong there in the first place.
>
>
                  G
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mike
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:41 AM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Loss of Exclusivity and Focus
>
>
>   Imagine if Mensa, the high IQ society, decided to allow anyone
to
>   join as a means of increasing membership and revenues, while
>   pretending that allowing the unqualified to join would somehow
help
>   them achieve higher IQ's. Better still, have Mensa PR people
tell
>   judges, the media, employers, whomever that by ordering people
to
>   attend Mensa, Mensa will teach them how to score higher on IQ
tests
>   and lead better lives. A lot like what is happening with AA, no?
Mike
>
>   --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@>
>   wrote:
>   >
>   > Hi Bill;
>   >
>   > You wrote;
>   > >My home group has been asked to leave 4 facilities where we
>   were "carrying
>   > >the AA message" in just 5 short years. Why? Because we
refused to
>   > >compromise the AA message.<
>   >
>   > This has been happening for some time now. In 1982-83 our
local H
>   & I
>   > Intergroup lost many of the Treatment Facilities because of
the
>   same reason;
>   > they wanted us to compromise our message. What they didn't
like
>   the most was
>   > when their patients would ask us if we had to go through what
they
>   > experienced in the institution or what Treatment Facility we
went
>   through.
>   > Many of us would say; "no I just went to Alcoholics
Anonymous."
>   After
>   > hearing our stories and the fact that we had recovered in the
>   recovery
>   > program of AA many of them realized they just got screwed out
of
>   30,000
>   > dollars or so.
>   >
>   > Peace,
>   >
>   > Dennis M.
>   >
>   >
>

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

From: Mike

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:41 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Loss of Exclusivity and Focus

Imagine if Mensa, the high IQ society, decided to allow anyone to
join as a means of increasing membership and revenues, while
pretending that allowing the unqualified to join would somehow help
them achieve higher IQ's. Better still, have Mensa PR people tell
judges, the media, employers, whomever that by ordering people to
attend Mensa, Mensa will teach them how to score higher on IQ tests
and lead better lives. A lot like what is happening with AA, no? Mike

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Bill;
>
> You wrote;
> >My home group has been asked to leave 4 facilities where we
were "carrying
> >the AA message" in just 5 short years. Why? Because we refused to
> >compromise the AA message.<
>
> This has been happening for some time now. In 1982-83 our local H
& I
> Intergroup lost many of the Treatment Facilities because of the
same reason;
> they wanted us to compromise our message. What they didn't like
the most was
> when their patients would ask us if we had to go through what they
> experienced in the institution or what Treatment Facility we went
through.
> Many of us would say; "no I just went to Alcoholics Anonymous."
After
> hearing our stories and the fact that we had recovered in the
recovery
> program of AA many of them realized they just got screwed out of
30,000
> dollars or so.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: bbfreeaa
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:22 AM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Membership Numbers - No Growth
>
>
> This one is still a hot topic with lots of variables and
> interpretations to be considered. Another one to throw in the
mix is
> "competition" for the drunk's welfare.
>
> The real power of God and our 12 Steps seems to appear when we
are
> desperate and OUT OF OPTIONS. As long as I had another plan, AA
would
> not be attractive. When I surrendered absolutely, it was because
I
> had no "Plan B".
>
> Having said that and with many years of service experience
involving
> taking meetings to various facilities, it has become more and
more
> apparent that there are so many options to the drunk today, even
to
> the point of competition. My home group has been asked to leave 4
> facilities where we were "carrying the AA message" in just 5
short
> years. Why? Because we refused to compromise the AA message.
There
> were complaints that we only talked about AA and failed to allow
the
> inmates/patients to discuss their feelings, ala therapy sessions.
>
> As the Treatment industry has receded in recent years, it has
become
> worse. There is less money and fewer jobs. Their intricate
> strategies to make folks sober have really become bizarre. And
God
> help them if their patient finds out they can go to AA for free
rather
> than pay them the big bucks.
>
> There is therapy, religious (their own versions of the 12 Steps
to
> keep you out of AA and in the church), Dr Phil (what an idiot)
and
> many other avenues for the drunk. Those of us active in 12 Step
work
> hear it all the time. The drunk of today has too many options, so
> they think.
>
> I'm not discounting other causes and effects, I'm just adding
another one.
>
> B
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1216 - Release Date: 1/9/2008 10:16 AM

Speaking of Mensans, are you still out there somewhere Raymond? You
lit this board up like a pinball machine, then became very quiet.
Mike

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <tuswecaoyate@...> wrote:
>
> Imagine if Mensa, the high IQ society, decided to allow anyone to
> join as a means of increasing membership and revenues, while
> pretending that allowing the unqualified to join would somehow
help
> them achieve higher IQ's. Better still, have Mensa PR people tell
> judges, the media, employers, whomever that by ordering people to
> attend Mensa, Mensa will teach them how to score higher on IQ
tests
> and lead better lives. A lot like what is happening with AA, no?
Mike
>
>      --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill;
> >
> > You wrote;
> > >My home group has been asked to leave 4 facilities where we
> were "carrying
> > >the AA message" in just 5 short years. Why? Because we refused
to
> > >compromise the AA message.<
> >
> > This has been happening for some time now. In 1982-83 our local
H
> & I
> > Intergroup lost many of the Treatment Facilities because of the
> same reason;
> > they wanted us to compromise our message. What they didn't like
> the most was
> > when their patients would ask us if we had to go through what
they
> > experienced in the institution or what Treatment Facility we
went
> through.
> > Many of us would say; "no I just went to Alcoholics Anonymous."
> After
> > hearing our stories and the fact that we had recovered in the
> recovery
> > program of AA many of them realized they just got screwed out of
> 30,000
> > dollars or so.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis M.
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: bbfreeaa
> >   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:22 AM
> >   Subject: [GSOwatch] Membership Numbers - No Growth
> >
> >
> >   This one is still a hot topic with lots of variables and
> >   interpretations to be considered. Another one to throw in the
> mix is
> >   "competition" for the drunk's welfare.
> >
> >   The real power of God and our 12 Steps seems to appear when we
> are
> >   desperate and OUT OF OPTIONS. As long as I had another plan,
AA
> would
> >   not be attractive. When I surrendered absolutely, it was
because
> I
> >   had no "Plan B".
> >
> >   Having said that and with many years of service experience
> involving
> >   taking meetings to various facilities, it has become more and
> more
> >   apparent that there are so many options to the drunk today,
even
> to
> >   the point of competition. My home group has been asked to
leave 4
> >   facilities where we were "carrying the AA message" in just 5
> short
> >   years. Why? Because we refused to compromise the AA message.
> There
> >   were complaints that we only talked about AA and failed to
allow
> the
> >   inmates/patients to discuss their feelings, ala therapy
sessions.
> >
> >   As the Treatment industry has receded in recent years, it has
> become
> >   worse. There is less money and fewer jobs. Their intricate
> >   strategies to make folks sober have really become bizarre. And
> God
> >   help them if their patient finds out they can go to AA for
free
> rather
> >   than pay them the big bucks.
> >
> >   There is therapy, religious (their own versions of the 12
Steps
> to
> >   keep you out of AA and in the church), Dr Phil (what an idiot)
> and
> >   many other avenues for the drunk. Those of us active in 12
Step
> work
> >   hear it all the time. The drunk of today has too many options,
so
> >   they think.
> >
> >   I'm not discounting other causes and effects, I'm just adding
> another one.
> >
> >   B
> >
>

Imagine if Mensa, the high IQ society, decided to allow anyone to
join as a means of increasing membership and revenues, while
pretending that allowing the unqualified to join would somehow help
them achieve higher IQ's. Better still, have Mensa PR people tell
judges, the media, employers, whomever that by ordering people to
attend Mensa, Mensa will teach them how to score higher on IQ tests
and lead better lives. A lot like what is happening with AA, no? Mike

      --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Bill;
>
> You wrote;
> >My home group has been asked to leave 4 facilities where we
were "carrying
> >the AA message" in just 5 short years. Why? Because we refused to
> >compromise the AA message.<
>
> This has been happening for some time now. In 1982-83 our local H
& I
> Intergroup lost many of the Treatment Facilities because of the
same reason;
> they wanted us to compromise our message. What they didn't like
the most was
> when their patients would ask us if we had to go through what they
> experienced in the institution or what Treatment Facility we went
through.
> Many of us would say; "no I just went to Alcoholics Anonymous."
After
> hearing our stories and the fact that we had recovered in the
recovery
> program of AA many of them realized they just got screwed out of
30,000
> dollars or so.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: bbfreeaa
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:22 AM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Membership Numbers - No Growth
>
>
>   This one is still a hot topic with lots of variables and
>   interpretations to be considered. Another one to throw in the
mix is
>   "competition" for the drunk's welfare.
>
>   The real power of God and our 12 Steps seems to appear when we
are
>   desperate and OUT OF OPTIONS. As long as I had another plan, AA
would
>   not be attractive. When I surrendered absolutely, it was because
I
>   had no "Plan B".
>
>   Having said that and with many years of service experience
involving
>   taking meetings to various facilities, it has become more and
more
>   apparent that there are so many options to the drunk today, even
to
>   the point of competition. My home group has been asked to leave 4
>   facilities where we were "carrying the AA message" in just 5
short
>   years. Why? Because we refused to compromise the AA message.
There
>   were complaints that we only talked about AA and failed to allow
the
>   inmates/patients to discuss their feelings, ala therapy sessions.
>
>   As the Treatment industry has receded in recent years, it has
become
>   worse. There is less money and fewer jobs. Their intricate
>   strategies to make folks sober have really become bizarre. And
God
>   help them if their patient finds out they can go to AA for free
rather
>   than pay them the big bucks.
>
>   There is therapy, religious (their own versions of the 12 Steps
to
>   keep you out of AA and in the church), Dr Phil (what an idiot)
and
>   many other avenues for the drunk. Those of us active in 12 Step
work
>   hear it all the time. The drunk of today has too many options, so
>   they think.
>
>   I'm not discounting other causes and effects, I'm just adding
another one.
>
>   B
>

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

From: bbfreeaa

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:22 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Membership Numbers - No Growth

This one is still a hot topic with lots of variables and
interpretations to be considered. Another one to throw in the mix is
"competition" for the drunk's welfare.

The real power of God and our 12 Steps seems to appear when we are
desperate and OUT OF OPTIONS. As long as I had another plan, AA would
not be attractive. When I surrendered absolutely, it was because I
had no "Plan B".

Having said that and with many years of service experience involving
taking meetings to various facilities, it has become more and more
apparent that there are so many options to the drunk today, even to
the point of competition. My home group has been asked to leave 4
facilities where we were "carrying the AA message" in just 5 short
years. Why? Because we refused to compromise the AA message. There
were complaints that we only talked about AA and failed to allow the
inmates/patients to discuss their feelings, ala therapy sessions.

As the Treatment industry has receded in recent years, it has become
worse. There is less money and fewer jobs. Their intricate
strategies to make folks sober have really become bizarre. And God
help them if their patient finds out they can go to AA for free rather
than pay them the big bucks.

There is therapy, religious (their own versions of the 12 Steps to
keep you out of AA and in the church), Dr Phil (what an idiot) and
many other avenues for the drunk. Those of us active in 12 Step work
hear it all the time. The drunk of today has too many options, so
they think.

I'm not discounting other causes and effects, I'm just adding another one.

B

Bill... when the finger is pointed--- well you know rhe rest of that
phrase.

The Traditions were invented as a means of preserving AA as its author
  saw it. Most AA groups endorse them by posting them at meetings, many
groups read them aloud. I my view, most AAs think the Traditions are a
good idea. Many here proclaim their "love" of the Traditions.

The demise of AA from my view, as one of those in AA for 1/2 of its
existence, rests squarely on the corporation that owns those
Traditions.... AND those that support that entity.

When the corporate use of the "AA" name ceases - then I think the soul
sickness that pervades our so called "service" structure will begin to
heal.

Our example is all that we have. The example set by the 5% of our
fellowship in AAWS Service positions is so foul that it drives people
away. Bill W predicted this, I have witnessed it, and I can clearly
see the effects of the 5% of AA's who have titled status within the
AAWS Service Structure.

Every now and then one of those with a vote and a title is in a
position to do something about that part of our death that they serve.
It is not too late. The Delegates answer to those who elect them...
not the purse that pays them.  The only rewards available to AAWS
Service Structurites are titles.... OR.... true service to their
Fellows. What good is the title of General Manager if it means
participating in the destruction of our Fellowship? What good is
"service" if the only reward is a titled position with "expense" money
and free admission to promo fee events calling themselves AA? Even the
supreme "honor" - General Manager - seems kind of less than-- when all
it does is preside over its slow suicide.

The number of alcoholics is not declining. The "success" rate of
"competing" entities has not improved. No.... all that has happened is
that the AA being pandered from the corporate palace is not the AA of
60 years ago.... it has become a market place to be milked and used by
the corporations using its name. It is a
day-treatment/probation/substitute-prison for criminals and those
delusionals who insist that they are working to insure their sobriety.
The corporations are a place where wannabbee experts in alcoholism for
pay seek coveted Class A Trustee seats to buff up the curriculum vitae.

The exerted actions of a single elected Delegate can go a long way to
turning this travesty around - the corporations must stop using the AA
name.

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "bbfreeaa" <bbfreeaa@...> wrote:
>
> This one is still a hot topic with lots of variables and
> interpretations to be considered.  Another one to throw in the mix is
> "competition" for the drunk's welfare.
>
> The real power of God and our 12 Steps seems to appear when we are
> desperate and OUT OF OPTIONS.  As long as I had another plan, AA would
> not be attractive.  When I surrendered absolutely, it was because I
> had no "Plan B".
>
> Having said that and with many years of service experience involving
> taking meetings to various facilities, it has become more and more
> apparent that there are so many options to the drunk today, even to
> the point of competition.  My home group has been asked to leave 4
> facilities where we were "carrying the AA message" in just 5 short
> years.  Why?  Because we refused to compromise the AA message.  There
> were complaints that we only talked about AA and failed to allow the
> inmates/patients to discuss their feelings, ala therapy sessions.
>
> As the Treatment industry has receded in recent years, it has become
> worse.  There is less money and fewer jobs.  Their intricate
> strategies to make folks sober have really become bizarre.  And God
> help them if their patient finds out they can go to AA for free rather
> than pay them the big bucks.
>
> There is therapy, religious (their own versions of the 12 Steps to
> keep you out of AA and in the church), Dr Phil (what an idiot) and
> many other avenues for the drunk.  Those of us active in 12 Step work
> hear it all the time.  The drunk of today has too many options, so
> they think.
>
> I'm not discounting other causes and effects, I'm just adding
another one.
>
> B
>

This one is still a hot topic with lots of variables and
interpretations to be considered.  Another one to throw in the mix is
"competition" for the drunk's welfare.

The real power of God and our 12 Steps seems to appear when we are
desperate and OUT OF OPTIONS.  As long as I had another plan, AA would
not be attractive.  When I surrendered absolutely, it was because I
had no "Plan B".

Having said that and with many years of service experience involving
taking meetings to various facilities, it has become more and more
apparent that there are so many options to the drunk today, even to
the point of competition.  My home group has been asked to leave 4
facilities where we were "carrying the AA message" in just 5 short
years.  Why?  Because we refused to compromise the AA message.  There
were complaints that we only talked about AA and failed to allow the
inmates/patients to discuss their feelings, ala therapy sessions.

As the Treatment industry has receded in recent years, it has become
worse.  There is less money and fewer jobs.  Their intricate
strategies to make folks sober have really become bizarre.  And God
help them if their patient finds out they can go to AA for free rather
than pay them the big bucks.

There is therapy, religious (their own versions of the 12 Steps to
keep you out of AA and in the church), Dr Phil (what an idiot) and
many other avenues for the drunk.  Those of us active in 12 Step work
hear it all the time.  The drunk of today has too many options, so
they think.

I'm not discounting other causes and effects, I'm just adding another one.

B

Hello,

Thank you for your answers.

Teemu
Jyvaskyla, Finland

The count of AA members published in the BB with each printing is
reliable ONLY for the USA and Canada - the only places AAGSB Inc. the
owner of publisher of AAWS Inc. is limited to by its articles of
incorporation.

That number has been stagnent at 1.2 million since 1988.

The 2 million + statistic is windy and has no historical basis for
comparison.

Zero growth in the past 19 years is a pretty good indication of slow
death. Of course, folks might have stopped drinking, or the population
of the USA and Canada might be declining..... naaaah. Perhaps the
illegal immigrants don't drink? I wonder if they inhale.



--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike;
>
> You wrote:
> >is the 3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or
is it a
> published number you have seen somewhere? <
>
> Sorry if it wasn't clear-that number is the new alcoholics each year
based
> on 5% of the population which is a conservative number as in our
culture it
> has been stated that about 10% of the population are alcoholic. The
point is
> our recovery growth rates are not even close to the first 16 years
of AA
> although we have well over twice as many drunks to carry the message
to. We
> are not even keeping up with the population growth.
>
> A good example is the town in which I got sober that had a
population of a
> little less than a hundred thousand. Although the town has doubled
in size
> and tripled in the number of drinking establishments we have only
half the
> meetings we had when I got sober and less people at those meetings.
>
> The good news is AA like Seccion Mexico who adheres to our spiritual
> principles has grown from 1,500 groups to over 4,000 groups since
they were
> formed 22 years ago. If we grew at the same rate we would have over 4
> million members at least but obviously we don't. Instead of getting
their
> insight on their success we sued them for basically selling AA
literature at
> cost paid with their 7th Tradition.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mike
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:39 PM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Off Topic but imnsho really important
>
>
>   Thanks for the thoughtful post, Dennis. Just one question - is the
>   3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or is it a
>   published number you have seen somewhere? Thanks, Mike
>
>   --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Hi Nick;
>   >
>   > Thanks for sharing this but it made my brain hurt. I can tell a
>   lot of work
>   > and analysis went into this report in an effort to continue our
>   mass denial
>   > and tightly hold on to our old ideas.
>   >
>   > The decline in AA's success doesn't need rocket science and can be
>   figured
>   > in about 20 minutes with a piece of paper and a pencil and basic
>   high school
>   > math. It is a very simple process to figure growth averages. If
>   there are 10
>   > people in an organization and each of them brings in ten more over
>   a course
>   > of a year they would then have 100 members. They would then have a
>   ratio of
>   > 1 to 10 and have grown by 1000% over the previous year. They same
>   results
>   > would apply if only 5 members brought in 20 new people and 5 had
>   brought in
>   > none in that year.
>   >
>   > To arrive at a yearly growth rate all one has to do is take the
>   numbers of
>   > members and divide by the number of years involved. So where do we
>   get the
>   > numbers for an estimated average? Well how about the estimates in
>   the Big
>   > Book for the various editions. Take the numbers and divide by the
>   time
>   > between editions and walla there appears an average growth rate.
>   >
>   > The factors for decline and I have no doubt by the numbers that
>   there is a
>   > major decline--can be discussed and analyzed over and over again
>   but the
>   > main reasons I see are already written down. It seems that the
>   early members
>   > knew that our success was based on spiritual principles and that
>   certain
>   > things can interfere with that success so they wrote them down and
>   called
>   > them the Traditions. In the early days they were referred to as
>   the 12
>   > points to secure AA's future so I guess they were on to something.
>   Things
>   > like; "Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual
>   entity having
>   > but one primary purpose -that of carrying its message to the
>   alcoholic who
>   > still suffers," or "Problems of money, property, and authority may
>   easily
>   > divert us from our primary spiritual aim," and so forth.
>   >
>   > Here is the math I referred to above:
>   > ----------------
>   > Well now that the Forth Edition is out I can once again practice
>   my high
>   > school math to see how well we are really doing. Here it is folks:
>   >
>   > In 1939 we had 100 sober members.
>   >
>   > In 1955 - 150,000
>   >
>   > In 1976 - 1,000,000
>   >
>   > and 2001 - 2,000,000
>   >
>   > From 1939 - 1955 was 16 Years and we grew at a ratio of 1 to 1,500
>   or our
>   > growth rate was 1 to 93.7 per year or a percentage of 9,370% a
>   year.
>   >
>   > From 1955 to 1976 a period of 21 years that dropped dramatically
>   to 1 to
>   > 66.6 or 1 to 3.1 per year for a percentage of 310% per yr.
>   >
>   > From 1976 to 2001 a period of 25 years it fell like the 1929 stock
>   market to
>   > a ratio of only 1 to 2 or 1 to .08 per year and our growth rate
>   dwindled to
>   > 8% a year.
>   >
>   > If you take into consideration that the world population has
>   doubled since
>   > 1960 to 1999 so the number of potential members has also doubled
>   it don't
>   > look so good for our future. It has been estimated that around 10%
>   of the
>   > population are alcoholics. If we lower that to 5% we still get 300
>   million
>   > alcoholics in the world and actually 14,289,700 just in the USA.
>   Every year
>   > we get 3.5 million new drunks to work with in the world.
>   >
>   > Now if you also take into consideration that the early members
>   didn't have
>   > half their members referred from treatment centers, and they also
>   had the
>   > social stigma about alcoholism, and didn't have drunks on
>   television, and
>   > didn't have the massive corporate literature distribution like
>   from
>   > Hazelden, and masses of therapist, psychologist, and judges
>   sending folks to
>   > AA then our growth rate actually sucks. To look at it in a more
>   dismal way,
>   > every drunk that was sober in AA in 1976 only carried the message
>   to one
>   > other drunk in twenty-five years. "Don't see anything the matter
>   here, Ma.
>   > Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowin'?"
>   > ------------------
>   >
>   > Peace,
>   >
>   > Dennis M.
>   >
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Nick Gill
>   > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:06 AM
>   > Subject: [GSOwatch] Off Topic but imnsho really important
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Dear GSOWatch members,
>   >
>   > I beg your indulgence for introducing an article I came across
>   today,
>   > which has given me much food for thought.
>   >
>   > It has excited me to read this intelligent and rigourous
>   analysis of AA's
>   > "success" rates over the years.
>   >
>   > http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf
>   >
>   > I am particularly interested in the discussion of "pre-
>   screening" which
>   > seems to have been almost universally employed in the early years
>   of AA. Do
>   > we want a return to those days?
>   >
>   > In the light of the many attacks on AA, and the things for which
>   we
>   > sometimes seem to "blame" GSO and its undoubted flaunting of the
>   Traditions,
>   > I think it is important to realise that it is NOT the case that AA
>   is going
>   > through a period of failure; and this intelligent discussion of
>   the facts
>   > around our membership is very welcome.
>   >
>   > Yours in fellowship, love and service,
>   >
>   > Nick
>   >
>

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

From: johng12fellow

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:41 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Help - 9th step - translation problem

Placing money in a church collection basket as amend for stealing from
the poor box = indirect.

Meeting with the pastor, confessing the crime and replacing the money
with the same interest rate you would have paid (credit card,
loanshark, bank loan) had you borrowed the money from any other
source. Pay the interest = direct.

Doing "good" deeds in a community for vandalism in the past = indirect.

Confessing to the local mayor, landlord, neighbor --- and paying their
cost of full restoration + interest (compounded) = direct.

Acknowledging to your Higher Power that you failed to trust that power
- so you sought relief elsewhere = smile enjoy the reconciliation in
that direct amend.

Even when a mumbled admission may seem to suffice - full compensation
for the harm done is the MINIMUM - even if the offended person says no
- ask the person who you can donate the money to ----- do not shirk...
the only person who can dictate the terms of the amend is the injured
party - not your group, not your sponsor and certainly not yourself.

We all face the rest of our lives, at each moment, full in the face...
if we wish to be free, happy, serene, useful ----- direct, in full,
with interest, is the best course to take.

What about those instances where the offended party is dead - seek out
the heirs.

What if the offended party is out of business - many years - went
bankrupt? Ok indirect may be considered.

What if the spouse doesn't know? Stay far, far away and thank fate
that you got to live as their relationship died.

What if it's your spouse, you are still married, and no one
knows?......... good question. Direct sounds like harm to the spouse,
and it probably is. Enjoy the relationship and work at improving it.

Working with others, community service, charity.... are things that we
do --------------- they are never part of an amend. Amends go beyond
good citizenry.

How about to parents? and children? ----- a frank direct talk is in
order --- our ideas about their expectation are frequently the only
things that were harmed. Listen, question, probe, get the chance to
mature.

J

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Teemu <teemu@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am thinking what is the right translation of the 9th step (Finnish).
>
> "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
> so would injure them or others."
>
> Do "direct amends" mean "immediate amends" or "straight amends" or
> something else?
>
> Have a great sober day.
>
> Teemu
> Jyvaskyla, Finland
>

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

From: Mike

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:39 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Off Topic but imnsho really important

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Dennis. Just one question - is the
3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or is it a
published number you have seen somewhere? Thanks, Mike

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick;
>
> Thanks for sharing this but it made my brain hurt. I can tell a
lot of work
> and analysis went into this report in an effort to continue our
mass denial
> and tightly hold on to our old ideas.
>
> The decline in AA's success doesn't need rocket science and can be
figured
> in about 20 minutes with a piece of paper and a pencil and basic
high school
> math. It is a very simple process to figure growth averages. If
there are 10
> people in an organization and each of them brings in ten more over
a course
> of a year they would then have 100 members. They would then have a
ratio of
> 1 to 10 and have grown by 1000% over the previous year. They same
results
> would apply if only 5 members brought in 20 new people and 5 had
brought in
> none in that year.
>
> To arrive at a yearly growth rate all one has to do is take the
numbers of
> members and divide by the number of years involved. So where do we
get the
> numbers for an estimated average? Well how about the estimates in
the Big
> Book for the various editions. Take the numbers and divide by the
time
> between editions and walla there appears an average growth rate.
>
> The factors for decline and I have no doubt by the numbers that
there is a
> major decline--can be discussed and analyzed over and over again
but the
> main reasons I see are already written down. It seems that the
early members
> knew that our success was based on spiritual principles and that
certain
> things can interfere with that success so they wrote them down and
called
> them the Traditions. In the early days they were referred to as
the 12
> points to secure AA's future so I guess they were on to something.
Things
> like; "Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual
entity having
> but one primary purpose -that of carrying its message to the
alcoholic who
> still suffers," or "Problems of money, property, and authority may
easily
> divert us from our primary spiritual aim," and so forth.
>
> Here is the math I referred to above:
> ----------------
> Well now that the Forth Edition is out I can once again practice
my high
> school math to see how well we are really doing. Here it is folks:
>
> In 1939 we had 100 sober members.
>
> In 1955 - 150,000
>
> In 1976 - 1,000,000
>
> and 2001 - 2,000,000
>
> From 1939 - 1955 was 16 Years and we grew at a ratio of 1 to 1,500
or our
> growth rate was 1 to 93.7 per year or a percentage of 9,370% a
year.
>
> From 1955 to 1976 a period of 21 years that dropped dramatically
to 1 to
> 66.6 or 1 to 3.1 per year for a percentage of 310% per yr.
>
> From 1976 to 2001 a period of 25 years it fell like the 1929 stock
market to
> a ratio of only 1 to 2 or 1 to .08 per year and our growth rate
dwindled to
> 8% a year.
>
> If you take into consideration that the world population has
doubled since
> 1960 to 1999 so the number of potential members has also doubled
it don't
> look so good for our future. It has been estimated that around 10%
of the
> population are alcoholics. If we lower that to 5% we still get 300
million
> alcoholics in the world and actually 14,289,700 just in the USA.
Every year
> we get 3.5 million new drunks to work with in the world.
>
> Now if you also take into consideration that the early members
didn't have
> half their members referred from treatment centers, and they also
had the
> social stigma about alcoholism, and didn't have drunks on
television, and
> didn't have the massive corporate literature distribution like
from
> Hazelden, and masses of therapist, psychologist, and judges
sending folks to
> AA then our growth rate actually sucks. To look at it in a more
dismal way,
> every drunk that was sober in AA in 1976 only carried the message
to one
> other drunk in twenty-five years. "Don't see anything the matter
here, Ma.
> Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowin'?"
> ------------------
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nick Gill
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:06 AM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Off Topic but imnsho really important
>
>
>
> Dear GSOWatch members,
>
> I beg your indulgence for introducing an article I came across
today,
> which has given me much food for thought.
>
> It has excited me to read this intelligent and rigourous
analysis of AA's
> "success" rates over the years.
>
> http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf
>
> I am particularly interested in the discussion of "pre-
screening" which
> seems to have been almost universally employed in the early years
of AA. Do
> we want a return to those days?
>
> In the light of the many attacks on AA, and the things for which
we
> sometimes seem to "blame" GSO and its undoubted flaunting of the
Traditions,
> I think it is important to realise that it is NOT the case that AA
is going
> through a period of failure; and this intelligent discussion of
the facts
> around our membership is very welcome.
>
> Yours in fellowship, love and service,
>
> Nick
>

Placing money in a church collection basket as amend for stealing from
the poor box = indirect.

Meeting with the pastor, confessing the crime and replacing the money
with the same interest rate you would have paid (credit card,
loanshark, bank loan) had you borrowed the money from any other
source. Pay the interest = direct.

Doing "good" deeds in a community for vandalism in the past = indirect.

Confessing to the local mayor, landlord, neighbor --- and paying their
cost of full restoration + interest (compounded) = direct.

Acknowledging to your Higher Power that you failed to trust that power
- so you sought relief elsewhere = smile enjoy the reconciliation in
that direct amend.

Even when a mumbled admission may seem to suffice - full compensation
for the harm done is the MINIMUM - even if the offended person says no
- ask the person who you can donate the money to ----- do not shirk...
the only person who can dictate the terms of the amend is the injured
party - not your group, not your sponsor and certainly not yourself.

We all face the rest of our lives, at each moment, full in the face...
if we wish to be free, happy, serene, useful ----- direct, in full,
with interest, is the best course to take.

What about those instances where the offended party is dead - seek out
the heirs.

What if the offended party is out of business - many years - went
bankrupt? Ok indirect may be considered.

What if the spouse doesn't know? Stay far, far away and thank fate
that you got to live as their relationship died.

What if it's your spouse, you are still married, and no one
knows?......... good question. Direct sounds like harm to the spouse,
and it probably is. Enjoy the relationship and work at improving it.

Working with others, community service, charity.... are things that we
do --------------- they are never part of an amend. Amends go beyond
good citizenry.

How about to parents? and children? ----- a frank direct talk is in
order --- our ideas about their expectation are frequently the only
things that were harmed. Listen, question, probe, get the chance to
mature.


J


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, Teemu <teemu@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am thinking what is the right translation of the 9th step (Finnish).
>
> "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
> so would injure them or others."
>
> Do "direct amends" mean "immediate amends" or "straight amends" or
> something else?
>
> Have a great sober day.
>
> Teemu
> Jyvaskyla, Finland
>

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Dennis. Just one question - is the
3.5 million new arrivals/year arrived at by extrapolation or is it a
published number you have seen somewhere? Thanks, Mike

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick;
>
> Thanks for sharing this but it made my brain hurt. I can tell a
lot of work
> and analysis went into this report in an effort to continue our
mass denial
> and tightly hold on to our old ideas.
>
> The decline in AA's success doesn't need rocket science and can be
figured
> in about 20 minutes with a piece of paper and a pencil and basic
high school
> math. It is a very simple process to figure growth averages. If
there are 10
> people in an organization and each of them brings in ten more over
a course
> of a year they would then have 100 members. They would then have a
ratio of
> 1 to 10 and have grown by 1000% over the previous year. They same
results
> would apply if only 5 members brought in 20 new people and 5 had
brought in
> none in that year.
>
> To arrive at a yearly growth rate all one has to do is take the
numbers of
> members and divide by the number of years involved. So where do we
get the
> numbers for an estimated average? Well how about the estimates in
the Big
> Book for the various editions. Take the numbers and divide by the
time
> between editions and walla there appears an average growth rate.
>
> The factors for decline and I have no doubt by the numbers that
there is a
> major decline--can be discussed and analyzed over and over again
but the
> main reasons I see are already written down. It seems that the
early members
> knew that our success was based on spiritual principles and that
certain
> things can interfere with that success so they wrote them down and
called
> them the Traditions. In the early days they were referred to as
the 12
> points to secure AA's future so I guess they were on to something.
Things
> like; "Each Alcoholics Anonymous group ought to be a spiritual
entity having
> but one primary purpose -that of carrying its message to the
alcoholic who
> still suffers," or "Problems of money, property, and authority may
easily
> divert us from our primary spiritual aim," and so forth.
>
> Here is the math I referred to above:
> ----------------
> Well now that the Forth Edition is out I can once again practice
my high
> school math to see how well we are really doing. Here it is folks:
>
> In 1939 we had 100 sober members.
>
> In 1955 - 150,000
>
> In 1976 - 1,000,000
>
> and 2001 - 2,000,000
>
> From 1939 - 1955 was 16 Years and we grew at a ratio of 1 to 1,500
or our
> growth rate was 1 to 93.7 per year or a percentage of 9,370% a
year.
>
> From 1955 to 1976 a period of 21 years that dropped dramatically
to 1 to
> 66.6 or 1 to 3.1 per year for a percentage of 310% per yr.
>
> From 1976 to 2001 a period of 25 years it fell like the 1929 stock
market to
> a ratio of only 1 to 2 or 1 to .08 per year and our growth rate
dwindled to
> 8% a year.
>
> If you take into consideration that the world population has
doubled since
> 1960 to 1999 so the number of potential members has also doubled
it don't
> look so good for our future. It has been estimated that around 10%
of the
> population are alcoholics. If we lower that to 5% we still get 300
million
> alcoholics in the world and actually 14,289,700 just in the USA.
Every year
> we get 3.5 million new drunks to work with in the world.
>
> Now if you also take into consideration that the early members
didn't have
> half their members referred from treatment centers, and they also
had the
> social stigma about alcoholism, and didn't have drunks on
television, and
> didn't have the massive corporate literature distribution like
from
> Hazelden, and masses of therapist, psychologist, and judges
sending folks to
> AA then our growth rate actually sucks. To look at it in a more
dismal way,
> every drunk that was sober in AA in 1976 only carried the message
to one
> other drunk in twenty-five years. "Don't see anything the matter
here, Ma.
> Ain't it grand the wind stopped blowin'?"
> ------------------
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Nick Gill
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:06 AM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Off Topic but imnsho really important
>
>
>
>   Dear GSOWatch members,
>
>   I beg your indulgence for introducing an article I came across
today,
> which has given me much food for thought.
>
>   It has excited me to read this intelligent and rigourous
analysis of AA's
> "success" rates over the years.
>
>   http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf
>
>   I am particularly interested in the discussion of "pre-
screening" which
> seems to have been almost universally employed in the early years
of AA. Do
> we want a return to those days?
>
>   In the light of the many attacks on AA, and the things for which
we
> sometimes seem to "blame" GSO and its undoubted flaunting of the
Traditions,
> I think it is important to realise that it is NOT the case that AA
is going
> through a period of failure; and this intelligent discussion of
the facts
> around our membership is very welcome.
>
>   Yours in fellowship, love and service,
>
>   Nick
>

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

From: Nick Gill

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:06 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Off Topic but imnsho really important

Dear GSOWatch members,

 

I beg your indulgence for introducing an article I came across today, which has given me much food for thought.

 

It has excited me to read this intelligent and rigourous analysis of AA's "success" rates over the years.

 

http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf

 

I am particularly interested in the discussion of "pre-screening" which seems to have been almost universally employed in the early years of AA. Do we want a return to those days?

 

In the light of the many attacks on AA, and the things for which we sometimes seem to "blame" GSO and its undoubted flaunting of the Traditions, I think it is important to realise that it is NOT the case that AA is going through a period of failure; and this intelligent discussion of the facts around our membership is very welcome.

 

Yours in fellowship, love and service,

 

Nick 

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

From: Al C.

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:26 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Help - 9th step - translation problem

Hi Teemu and Ian,

I think Ian is correct in his interpretation.  That being said, there ARE cases (“whenever possible”), that direct amends can’t be made.  In my case, I’m retired and living in Japan.  When the time for this step came, the very best I could do was locate the “such people” when possible, and either phone or mail them.  As one of my AA friends likes to say about this step…”the part that says ‘except when to do so would injure them or others’, does NOT include YOU as one of the ‘others’!”

G’ Bless,

Al C

---

From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ianperry
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 04:29
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Help - 9th step - translation problem

hello,
I believe that direct , in this case means,personaly with the other,
face to face
not through some other means as a letter or message through another person
I also believe that the time frame is set by God.
Have a good one
with a smile a hug and a prayer
Ian
Mackay, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: Teemu
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:46 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Help - 9th step - translation problem

Hello,

I am thinking what is the right translation of the 9th step (Finnish).

"Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
so would injure them or others."

Do "direct amends" mean "immediate amends" or "straight amends" or
something else?

Have a great sober day.

Teemu
Jyvaskyla, Finland

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 7/01/2008
9:14 AM

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 01/07/08 09:14

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 01/07/08 09:14

Important note.  It says "wherever possible" not "whenever".  The
directions are very clear in the Big Book on timing, how to proceed, I
am not an "other" as Al stated, and examples of harm to others, etc.


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Al C." <coopera@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Teemu and Ian,
>
>
>
> I think Ian is correct in his interpretation.  That being said,
there ARE
> cases ("whenever possible"), that direct amends can't be made.  In
my case,
> I'm retired and living in Japan.  When the time for this step came,
the very
> best I could do was locate the "such people" when possible, and
either phone
> or mail them.  As one of my AA friends likes to say about this step…"the
> part that says `except when to do so would injure them or others',
does NOT
> include YOU as one of the `others'!"
>
>
>
> G' Bless,
>
>
>
> Al C
>
>
>
>    _____
>
> From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of ianperry
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 04:29
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Help - 9th step - translation problem
>
>
>
> hello,
> I believe that direct , in this case means,personaly with the other,
> face to face
> not through some other means as a letter or message through another
person
> I also believe that the time frame is set by God.
> Have a good one
> with a smile a hug and a prayer
> Ian
> Mackay, Australia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Teemu
> To: HYPERLINK "mailto:GSOwatch%40yahoogroups.com"GSOwatch@...
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:46 AM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Help - 9th step - translation problem
>
> Hello,
>
> I am thinking what is the right translation of the 9th step (Finnish).
>
> "Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
> so would injure them or others."
>
> Do "direct amends" mean "immediate amends" or "straight amends" or
> something else?
>
> Have a great sober day.
>
> Teemu
> Jyvaskyla, Finland
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date:
7/01/2008
> 9:14 AM
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date:
01/07/08
> 09:14
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date:
01/07/08
> 09:14
>

hello,
I believe that direct , in this case means,personaly with the other,
face to face
not through some other means as a letter or message through another person
  I also believe that the time frame is set by God.
Have a good one
with a smile a hug and a prayer
Ian
Mackay, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: Teemu
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:46 AM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Help - 9th step - translation problem


Hello,

I am thinking what is the right translation of the 9th step (Finnish).

"Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
so would injure them or others."

Do "direct amends" mean "immediate amends" or "straight amends" or
something else?

Have a great sober day.

Teemu
Jyvaskyla, Finland






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 7/01/2008
9:14 AM

Hello,

I am thinking what is the right translation of the 9th step (Finnish).

"Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
so would injure them or others."

Do "direct amends" mean "immediate amends" or "straight amends" or
something else?

Have a great sober day.

Teemu
Jyvaskyla, Finland