So... The BB (Wilson dba Works Publishing Co.), the 12x12 (Harper and
Rowe, NYC), and As Bill Sees It (Harper, NYC), were NOT conference
approved. Both were first edition first printing by and for profit,
and did not sell well.... Then they were printed by a corporation that
now uses the AA name, given the imprimatur of something calling itself
AA and later were additionally granted some kind of Corporate
Committee "AA" Conference Approved Seal of Approval.

The practice of publish, print, and then approve, continued with the
2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions of the BB.

I wonder how many pamphlets for professionals originated in AA groups
rather than in an obscure committee of professionals working for a
corporation who think they are AA. I'd guess that answer as --- none.

JG


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "bbfreeaa" <bbfreeaa@...> wrote:
>
> The history of the Traditions is an interesting study indeed.  As
> Dennis mentioned, we had some of them in place by the time the Big
> Book was being published although they were not known as the 12
> Traditions.  There were several proposed names for the Traditions
such
> as "12 points to insure our survival", "12 points to insure our
> future" and a few others.
>
> Bill W used the Grapevine in 1948 to present (sell?) the Tradition
> essays to the fellowship, one month at a time.  Anyone can read this
> history in the book "Language of the Heart".
>
> There is a lot of misinformation as to what Bill presented in
> Cleveland in 1959 as our Traditions.  Once again, you can read the
> transcript in "Lang of the Heart" in the article "We Came of Age".
> Most would be shocked to see how they were delivered to the
> fellowship.  There was not a 1-12 listing, it was a very long
> paragraph and many folks today like the original form of most of
them.
>  And an interesting note is that there is not reference in any form
or
> fashion to what was to later become our Tradition 10.
>
> Another example is what we call Trad 3 today is written "that any
> 'alcoholic' may become an AA member if he says so-we exclude no
one;".
>  I don't like the short version of Tradition 3 that we have
today...it
> leaves the door open to all sorts of nonsense, although the long
> version slams the door shut again, keeping AA membership for
> "Alcoholics" only and not just folks who have a desire to stop
drinking.
>
> What most folks don't realize is that the Traditions were adopted in
> Cleveland in this form (I hope all of you have access to a Lang of
the
> Heart pg 121)and not the listed 1-12 window shade we see today.
Bill
> W did a rewrite of these "AA approved" Traditions when he wrote the
12
> & 12, interestingly enough without any formal OK to do so.  As
Dennis
> mentioned, there was a great deal added to Trad 9 with the writing
of
> the 12 & 12 because of the addition of the General Service
Conference.
>
> B
>
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John;
> >
> > The way I understand the Traditions is they did come from the
groups
> and
> > belong to the groups, as did the Big Book. The Traditions were
> around before
> > the Grapevine and most of them before the Big Book. You can read
> many of
> > them in the forward to the 1st Edition. The Resolution from the
> Alcoholic
> > Foundation in 1948 refers to the Traditions before Bill wrote them
> down. He
> > even states in one of his talks that he simply wrote them down. In
> the 12&12
> > Bill talks about group experiences that brought about certain
> Traditions
> > that took place years before he wrote the 12&12 and before they
were
> adopted
> > by the new service structure and copyrighted by the Grapevine.
> Basically a
> > corporation robbed us of our Traditions. And one man and later a
> corporation
> > robbed us of our Big Book.
> >
> > I am sure Bill added stuff to Tradition Four and a lot of stuff to
> Tradition
> > Nine because the AA General Service Board didn't exist before the
> groups
> > created the Traditions. Like you stated a non-AA entity that took
> our stuff
> > now claims ownership. There are corporations that in some
countries
> claim to
> > own the water that falls from the sky because in runs into their
river.
> > People are now forced to pay for something that comes from nature
for
> > millions of years. The Traditions are spiritual principles and I
do not
> > accept the fact that corporations own them.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Dennis M.
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: johng12fellow
> >   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:58 PM
> >   Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?...... Why a Group Votes to Adopt
The
> > Traditions
> >
> >
> >   GSO York. and Intergroup are NOT AA. They are separate entities
that
> >   serve those AA groups that financially support them. No service
entity
> >   of any name is "AA." Most service entities reflect their
financial
> >   supporters. If the support for the entity comes from AA groups
that do
> >   not adopt AND follow the Traditions - then neither will the
service
> >   entity.... it will lack direction and discipline.
> >
> >   If your group did not vote to adopt the AA Traditions in the
Long and
> >   Shortened Form -- then, in the absence of any anchor, it too
will
> >   drift with whatever. If it does adopt the Traditions, but
ignores them
> >   when inconvenient, - it too will be adrift.
> >
> >   The Traditions are the intellectual property of AA Grapevine
Inc. (NOT
> >   AA)... so why adopt an outside entity's property? Expedience.
The Big
> >   Book is not AA.... we adopt that too, along with the Steps. Why?
We
> >   need some common area of identification. There are no viable
> >   alternatives at the moment.
> >
> >   I recall that in the late 60's and the 70's most groups in NY,
Ct. and
> >   Ohio used the "24 Hour Book," and "The Little Red BOOK." Pre-
1940 AA
> >   used the Christian Bible, and Oxford Group publications, no one
in AA
> >   had ever used the Big Book or the Steps.. The Traditions did not
exist
> >   for the first 15 years of AA's existence.
> >
> >   Each group has to accept its autonomy and the responsibilities
that
> >   entails. If a group fails to regularly vote to consider and
adopt the
> >   things it uses - it will slowly degrade itself into flotsam. The
> >   easiest example of this is the ubiquitous written meeting
"formats."
> >   Those ever expanding collections of nonsensical religious
activities
> >   designed to drive away most everyone who doesn't agree with the
> >   self-appointed gurus who foisted them on their unsuspecting
group.
> >
> >   We are AA. Not a corporation, and if we were aware would not
permit
> >   ourselves to be governed by GSO, GSBofAA Inc., AAWS Inc., AA
Grapevine
> >   Inc. or any corporate creation - GSC, Area, District, nor by any
> >   Intergroup. We, the members have individual responsibility to
ask our
> >   group conscience to adopt that which it chooses to use --- and
to do
> >   so at least once every year. If we do not agree with what any
> >   "service" entity is doing we must cease to endorse or support
it.
> >
> >   Thre is no mystery as to why various "service" entities do not
follow
> >   Traditions - the groups have voted overwhelmingly that they are
> >   irrelevant by default, example and support. Huh?
> >
> >   Its as simple as: using or displaying a Grapevine -- an "AA
Meeting in
> >   Print For a Fee;" using our AA group as a store that sells
anything
> >   for any reason at any level of profit or nonprofit;
participating in,
> >   announcing, displaying a flyer for any event using the AA name
and
> >   charging a fee for any reason whatsoever. The abuse starts and
will
> >   end with the activity of individual AA members - us.
> >
> >   We cannot demand that GSO York behave the way we think it
should, any
> >   more than we can demand that AAWS, Inc. behave "correctly."
These
> >   entities are not AA and they answer only to those who
financially
> >   support them.
> >
> >   "6. Problems of money..... Their management should be the sole
> >   responsibility of those people who financially support them.....
> >
> >   If any part of any Tradition is disregarded, disrespected,
abused,
> >   whatever ------ STOP calling it AA, STOP using it, STOP
Endorsing and
> >   Supporting it. No "service" activity can charge a fee in our
name. No
> >   service entity can use the AA name for any activity. ONLY an AA
group
> >   can use the AA name.
> >
> >   John G.
> >
> >   BTW I think GSO York is supported by book revenues.
> >
> >   --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Phillips" <rphill80@>
wrote:
> >   >
> >   > Hi Dave
> >   >
> >   > I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
> >   > fellowship. I do not mean to demean your efforts to help. All
I am
> >   > saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that
the
> >   > Traditions be upheld, they will not be so. Unfortunately it
seems an
> >   > exercise in futility.
> >   >
> >   > Best wishes
> >   >
> >   > Rob
> >   >
> >   > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@>
wrote:
> >   > >
> >   > > Why Bother....
> >   > >
> >   > > Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother
> trying to
> >   > help ?
> >   > >
> >   > > Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will
know
> >   > why I want to bother ..
> >   > >
> >   > > Best Wishes
> >   > >
> >   > > Dave S
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > > --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@> wrote:
> >   > >
> >   > > From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@>
> >   > > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> >   > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> >   > > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > > Hi all,
> >   > > Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
> >   > > It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
> >   > anybody elses.
> >   > > Ian
> >   > > ----- Original Message -----
> >   > > From: Rob Phillips
> >   > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> >   > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
> >   > > Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> >   > >
> >   > > Hi all,
> >   > >
> >   > > Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to
York?
> >   > >
> >   > > A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall
and a
> >   > > certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out
all the
> >   > > stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill
me .
> >   > He
> >   > > has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region,
UK.
> >   > This
> >   > > coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting
> from the
> >   > > local listing.
> >   > >
> >   > > I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have
this
> >   > problem
> >   > > resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-
called
> >   > > leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
> >   > >
> >   > > Rob
> >   > >
> >   >
> >
>

The history of the Traditions is an interesting study indeed.  As
Dennis mentioned, we had some of them in place by the time the Big
Book was being published although they were not known as the 12
Traditions.  There were several proposed names for the Traditions such
as "12 points to insure our survival", "12 points to insure our
future" and a few others.

Bill W used the Grapevine in 1948 to present (sell?) the Tradition
essays to the fellowship, one month at a time.  Anyone can read this
history in the book "Language of the Heart".

There is a lot of misinformation as to what Bill presented in
Cleveland in 1959 as our Traditions.  Once again, you can read the
transcript in "Lang of the Heart" in the article "We Came of Age".
Most would be shocked to see how they were delivered to the
fellowship.  There was not a 1-12 listing, it was a very long
paragraph and many folks today like the original form of most of them.
  And an interesting note is that there is not reference in any form or
fashion to what was to later become our Tradition 10.

Another example is what we call Trad 3 today is written "that any
'alcoholic' may become an AA member if he says so-we exclude no one;".
  I don't like the short version of Tradition 3 that we have today...it
leaves the door open to all sorts of nonsense, although the long
version slams the door shut again, keeping AA membership for
"Alcoholics" only and not just folks who have a desire to stop drinking.

What most folks don't realize is that the Traditions were adopted in
Cleveland in this form (I hope all of you have access to a Lang of the
Heart pg 121)and not the listed 1-12 window shade we see today.  Bill
W did a rewrite of these "AA approved" Traditions when he wrote the 12
& 12, interestingly enough without any formal OK to do so.  As Dennis
mentioned, there was a great deal added to Trad 9 with the writing of
the 12 & 12 because of the addition of the General Service Conference.

B


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <gratefuldennis@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John;
>
> The way I understand the Traditions is they did come from the groups
and
> belong to the groups, as did the Big Book. The Traditions were
around before
> the Grapevine and most of them before the Big Book. You can read
many of
> them in the forward to the 1st Edition. The Resolution from the
Alcoholic
> Foundation in 1948 refers to the Traditions before Bill wrote them
down. He
> even states in one of his talks that he simply wrote them down. In
the 12&12
> Bill talks about group experiences that brought about certain
Traditions
> that took place years before he wrote the 12&12 and before they were
adopted
> by the new service structure and copyrighted by the Grapevine.
Basically a
> corporation robbed us of our Traditions. And one man and later a
corporation
> robbed us of our Big Book.
>
> I am sure Bill added stuff to Tradition Four and a lot of stuff to
Tradition
> Nine because the AA General Service Board didn't exist before the
groups
> created the Traditions. Like you stated a non-AA entity that took
our stuff
> now claims ownership. There are corporations that in some countries
claim to
> own the water that falls from the sky because in runs into their river.
> People are now forced to pay for something that comes from nature for
> millions of years. The Traditions are spiritual principles and I do not
> accept the fact that corporations own them.
>
> Peace,
>
> Dennis M.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: johng12fellow
>   To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:58 PM
>   Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?...... Why a Group Votes to Adopt The
> Traditions
>
>
>   GSO York. and Intergroup are NOT AA. They are separate entities that
>   serve those AA groups that financially support them. No service entity
>   of any name is "AA." Most service entities reflect their financial
>   supporters. If the support for the entity comes from AA groups that do
>   not adopt AND follow the Traditions - then neither will the service
>   entity.... it will lack direction and discipline.
>
>   If your group did not vote to adopt the AA Traditions in the Long and
>   Shortened Form -- then, in the absence of any anchor, it too will
>   drift with whatever. If it does adopt the Traditions, but ignores them
>   when inconvenient, - it too will be adrift.
>
>   The Traditions are the intellectual property of AA Grapevine Inc. (NOT
>   AA)... so why adopt an outside entity's property? Expedience. The Big
>   Book is not AA.... we adopt that too, along with the Steps. Why? We
>   need some common area of identification. There are no viable
>   alternatives at the moment.
>
>   I recall that in the late 60's and the 70's most groups in NY, Ct. and
>   Ohio used the "24 Hour Book," and "The Little Red BOOK." Pre-1940 AA
>   used the Christian Bible, and Oxford Group publications, no one in AA
>   had ever used the Big Book or the Steps.. The Traditions did not exist
>   for the first 15 years of AA's existence.
>
>   Each group has to accept its autonomy and the responsibilities that
>   entails. If a group fails to regularly vote to consider and adopt the
>   things it uses - it will slowly degrade itself into flotsam. The
>   easiest example of this is the ubiquitous written meeting "formats."
>   Those ever expanding collections of nonsensical religious activities
>   designed to drive away most everyone who doesn't agree with the
>   self-appointed gurus who foisted them on their unsuspecting group.
>
>   We are AA. Not a corporation, and if we were aware would not permit
>   ourselves to be governed by GSO, GSBofAA Inc., AAWS Inc., AA Grapevine
>   Inc. or any corporate creation - GSC, Area, District, nor by any
>   Intergroup. We, the members have individual responsibility to ask our
>   group conscience to adopt that which it chooses to use --- and to do
>   so at least once every year. If we do not agree with what any
>   "service" entity is doing we must cease to endorse or support it.
>
>   Thre is no mystery as to why various "service" entities do not follow
>   Traditions - the groups have voted overwhelmingly that they are
>   irrelevant by default, example and support. Huh?
>
>   Its as simple as: using or displaying a Grapevine -- an "AA Meeting in
>   Print For a Fee;" using our AA group as a store that sells anything
>   for any reason at any level of profit or nonprofit; participating in,
>   announcing, displaying a flyer for any event using the AA name and
>   charging a fee for any reason whatsoever. The abuse starts and will
>   end with the activity of individual AA members - us.
>
>   We cannot demand that GSO York behave the way we think it should, any
>   more than we can demand that AAWS, Inc. behave "correctly." These
>   entities are not AA and they answer only to those who financially
>   support them.
>
>   "6. Problems of money..... Their management should be the sole
>   responsibility of those people who financially support them.....
>
>   If any part of any Tradition is disregarded, disrespected, abused,
>   whatever ------ STOP calling it AA, STOP using it, STOP Endorsing and
>   Supporting it. No "service" activity can charge a fee in our name. No
>   service entity can use the AA name for any activity. ONLY an AA group
>   can use the AA name.
>
>   John G.
>
>   BTW I think GSO York is supported by book revenues.
>
>   --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Phillips" <rphill80@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Hi Dave
>   >
>   > I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
>   > fellowship. I do not mean to demean your efforts to help. All I am
>   > saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that the
>   > Traditions be upheld, they will not be so. Unfortunately it seems an
>   > exercise in futility.
>   >
>   > Best wishes
>   >
>   > Rob
>   >
>   > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Why Bother....
>   > >
>   > > Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother
trying to
>   > help ?
>   > >
>   > > Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will know
>   > why I want to bother ..
>   > >
>   > > Best Wishes
>   > >
>   > > Dave S
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@>
>   > > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
>   > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
>   > > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > Hi all,
>   > > Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
>   > > It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
>   > anybody elses.
>   > > Ian
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: Rob Phillips
>   > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
>   > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
>   > > Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
>   > >
>   > > Hi all,
>   > >
>   > > Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?
>   > >
>   > > A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
>   > > certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
>   > > stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .
>   > He
>   > > has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.
>   > This
>   > > coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting
from the
>   > > local listing.
>   > >
>   > > I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this
>   > problem
>   > > resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
>   > > leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
>   > >
>   > > Rob
>   > >
>   >
>

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

From: johng12fellow

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:58 PM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?...... Why a Group Votes to Adopt The Traditions

GSO York. and Intergroup are NOT AA. They are separate entities that
serve those AA groups that financially support them. No service entity
of any name is "AA." Most service entities reflect their financial
supporters. If the support for the entity comes from AA groups that do
not adopt AND follow the Traditions - then neither will the service
entity.... it will lack direction and discipline.

If your group did not vote to adopt the AA Traditions in the Long and
Shortened Form -- then, in the absence of any anchor, it too will
drift with whatever. If it does adopt the Traditions, but ignores them
when inconvenient, - it too will be adrift.

The Traditions are the intellectual property of AA Grapevine Inc. (NOT
AA)... so why adopt an outside entity's property? Expedience. The Big
Book is not AA.... we adopt that too, along with the Steps. Why? We
need some common area of identification. There are no viable
alternatives at the moment.

I recall that in the late 60's and the 70's most groups in NY, Ct. and
Ohio used the "24 Hour Book," and "The Little Red BOOK." Pre-1940 AA
used the Christian Bible, and Oxford Group publications, no one in AA
had ever used the Big Book or the Steps.. The Traditions did not exist
for the first 15 years of AA's existence.

Each group has to accept its autonomy and the responsibilities that
entails. If a group fails to regularly vote to consider and adopt the
things it uses - it will slowly degrade itself into flotsam. The
easiest example of this is the ubiquitous written meeting "formats."
Those ever expanding collections of nonsensical religious activities
designed to drive away most everyone who doesn't agree with the
self-appointed gurus who foisted them on their unsuspecting group.

We are AA. Not a corporation, and if we were aware would not permit
ourselves to be governed by GSO, GSBofAA Inc., AAWS Inc., AA Grapevine
Inc. or any corporate creation - GSC, Area, District, nor by any
Intergroup. We, the members have individual responsibility to ask our
group conscience to adopt that which it chooses to use --- and to do
so at least once every year. If we do not agree with what any
"service" entity is doing we must cease to endorse or support it.

Thre is no mystery as to why various "service" entities do not follow
Traditions - the groups have voted overwhelmingly that they are
irrelevant by default, example and support. Huh?

Its as simple as: using or displaying a Grapevine -- an "AA Meeting in
Print For a Fee;" using our AA group as a store that sells anything
for any reason at any level of profit or nonprofit; participating in,
announcing, displaying a flyer for any event using the AA name and
charging a fee for any reason whatsoever. The abuse starts and will
end with the activity of individual AA members - us.

We cannot demand that GSO York behave the way we think it should, any
more than we can demand that AAWS, Inc. behave "correctly." These
entities are not AA and they answer only to those who financially
support them.

"6. Problems of money..... Their management should be the sole
responsibility of those people who financially support them.....

If any part of any Tradition is disregarded, disrespected, abused,
whatever ------ STOP calling it AA, STOP using it, STOP Endorsing and
Supporting it. No "service" activity can charge a fee in our name. No
service entity can use the AA name for any activity. ONLY an AA group
can use the AA name.

John G.

BTW I think GSO York is supported by book revenues.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Phillips" <rphill80@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave
>
> I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
> fellowship. I do not mean to demean your efforts to help. All I am
> saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that the
> Traditions be upheld, they will not be so. Unfortunately it seems an
> exercise in futility.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Rob
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@> wrote:
> >
> > Why Bother....
> >
> > Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother trying to
> help ?
> >
> > Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will know
> why I want to bother ..
> >
> > Best Wishes
> >
> > Dave S
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
> > It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
> anybody elses.
> > Ian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rob Phillips
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
> > Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?
> >
> > A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
> > certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
> > stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .
> He
> > has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.
> This
> > coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
> > local listing.
> >
> > I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this
> problem
> > resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
> > leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
> >
> > Rob
> >
>

The condensed version: if the AA name is restricted from anything
other than an AA group - most of todays AA problems would not be
occurring.

6.) Problems .... An A.A. group, as such, should never go into
business.------- Secondary aids to A.A.,.... ought not to use the A.A.
name.------- Their management should be the sole responsibility of
those people who financially support them..... While an A.A. group
...... ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement, actual or
implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one.

Imagine what AA could be like if we actually practiced the 6th
Tradition. AA AA group can endorse and support its Intergroup - but it
cannot bind itself to that Intergroup.... while it can turn to an
Intergroup committee for advice, BUT NEVER ask for direction. How any
AA group ever affiliated itself with AAWS Inc. created District, Area,
GSC is a profound mystery ---- some AAs can be fooled for a long time.

John G.

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@...>
wrote:
>
> GSO York. and Intergroup are NOT AA. They are separate entities that
> serve those AA groups that financially support them. No service entity
> of any name is "AA." Most service entities reflect their financial
> supporters. If the support for the entity comes from AA groups that do
> not adopt AND follow the Traditions - then neither will the service
> entity.... it will lack direction and discipline.
>
> If your group did not vote to adopt the AA Traditions in the Long and
> Shortened Form -- then, in the absence of any anchor, it too will
> drift with whatever. If it does adopt the Traditions, but ignores them
> when inconvenient, - it too will be adrift.
>
> The Traditions are the intellectual property of AA Grapevine Inc. (NOT
> AA)... so why adopt an outside entity's property? Expedience. The Big
> Book is not AA.... we adopt that too, along with the Steps. Why? We
> need some common area of identification. There are no viable
> alternatives at the moment.
>
> I recall that in the late 60's and the 70's most groups in NY, Ct. and
> Ohio used the "24 Hour Book," and "The Little Red BOOK." Pre-1940 AA
> used the Christian Bible, and Oxford Group publications, no one in AA
> had ever used the Big Book or the Steps.. The Traditions did not exist
> for the first 15 years of AA's existence.
>
> Each group has to accept its autonomy and the responsibilities that
> entails. If a group fails to regularly vote to consider and adopt the
> things it uses - it will slowly degrade itself into flotsam. The
> easiest example of this is the ubiquitous written meeting "formats."
> Those ever expanding collections of nonsensical religious activities
> designed to drive away most everyone who doesn't agree with the
> self-appointed gurus who foisted them on their unsuspecting group.
>
> We are AA. Not a corporation, and if we were aware would not permit
> ourselves to be governed by GSO, GSBofAA Inc., AAWS Inc., AA Grapevine
> Inc. or any corporate creation - GSC, Area, District, nor by any
> Intergroup. We, the members have individual responsibility to ask our
> group conscience to adopt that which it chooses to use --- and to do
> so at least once every year. If we do not agree with what any
> "service" entity is doing we must cease to endorse or support it.
>
> Thre is no mystery as to why various "service" entities do not follow
> Traditions - the groups have voted overwhelmingly that they are
> irrelevant by default, example and support. Huh?
>
> Its as simple as: using or displaying a Grapevine -- an "AA Meeting in
> Print For a Fee;" using our AA group as a store that sells anything
> for any reason at any level of profit or nonprofit; participating in,
> announcing, displaying a flyer for any event using the AA name and
> charging a fee for any reason whatsoever. The abuse starts and will
> end with the activity of individual AA members - us.
>
> We cannot demand that GSO York behave the way we think it should, any
> more than we can demand that AAWS, Inc. behave "correctly." These
> entities are not AA and they answer only to those who financially
> support them.
>
> "6. Problems of money..... Their management should be the sole
> responsibility of those people who financially support them.....
>
> If any part of any Tradition is disregarded, disrespected, abused,
> whatever ------ STOP calling it AA, STOP using it, STOP Endorsing and
> Supporting it. No "service" activity can charge a fee in our name. No
> service entity can use the AA name for any activity. ONLY an AA group
> can use the AA name.
>
> John G.
>
> BTW I think GSO York is supported by book revenues.
>
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Phillips" <rphill80@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dave
> >
> > I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
> > fellowship.  I do not mean to demean your efforts to help.  All I am
> > saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that the
> > Traditions be upheld, they will not be so.  Unfortunately it seems an
> > exercise in futility.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why Bother....
> > >
> > > Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother trying to
> > help ?
> > >
> > > Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will know
> > why I want to bother ..
> > >
> > > Best Wishes
> > >
> > > Dave S
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@>
> > > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > > Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
> > > It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
> > anybody elses.
> > > Ian
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Rob Phillips
> > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
> > > Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?
> > >
> > > A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
> > > certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
> > > stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .
> > He
> > > has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.
> > This
> > > coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
> > > local listing.
> > >
> > > I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this
> > problem
> > > resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
> > > leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> >
>

GSO York. and Intergroup are NOT AA. They are separate entities that
serve those AA groups that financially support them. No service entity
of any name is "AA." Most service entities reflect their financial
supporters. If the support for the entity comes from AA groups that do
not adopt AND follow the Traditions - then neither will the service
entity.... it will lack direction and discipline.

If your group did not vote to adopt the AA Traditions in the Long and
Shortened Form -- then, in the absence of any anchor, it too will
drift with whatever. If it does adopt the Traditions, but ignores them
when inconvenient, - it too will be adrift.

The Traditions are the intellectual property of AA Grapevine Inc. (NOT
AA)... so why adopt an outside entity's property? Expedience. The Big
Book is not AA.... we adopt that too, along with the Steps. Why? We
need some common area of identification. There are no viable
alternatives at the moment.

I recall that in the late 60's and the 70's most groups in NY, Ct. and
Ohio used the "24 Hour Book," and "The Little Red BOOK." Pre-1940 AA
used the Christian Bible, and Oxford Group publications, no one in AA
had ever used the Big Book or the Steps.. The Traditions did not exist
for the first 15 years of AA's existence.

Each group has to accept its autonomy and the responsibilities that
entails. If a group fails to regularly vote to consider and adopt the
things it uses - it will slowly degrade itself into flotsam. The
easiest example of this is the ubiquitous written meeting "formats."
Those ever expanding collections of nonsensical religious activities
designed to drive away most everyone who doesn't agree with the
self-appointed gurus who foisted them on their unsuspecting group.

We are AA. Not a corporation, and if we were aware would not permit
ourselves to be governed by GSO, GSBofAA Inc., AAWS Inc., AA Grapevine
Inc. or any corporate creation - GSC, Area, District, nor by any
Intergroup. We, the members have individual responsibility to ask our
group conscience to adopt that which it chooses to use --- and to do
so at least once every year. If we do not agree with what any
"service" entity is doing we must cease to endorse or support it.

Thre is no mystery as to why various "service" entities do not follow
Traditions - the groups have voted overwhelmingly that they are
irrelevant by default, example and support. Huh?

Its as simple as: using or displaying a Grapevine -- an "AA Meeting in
Print For a Fee;" using our AA group as a store that sells anything
for any reason at any level of profit or nonprofit; participating in,
announcing, displaying a flyer for any event using the AA name and
charging a fee for any reason whatsoever. The abuse starts and will
end with the activity of individual AA members - us.

We cannot demand that GSO York behave the way we think it should, any
more than we can demand that AAWS, Inc. behave "correctly." These
entities are not AA and they answer only to those who financially
support them.

"6. Problems of money..... Their management should be the sole
responsibility of those people who financially support them.....

If any part of any Tradition is disregarded, disrespected, abused,
whatever ------ STOP calling it AA, STOP using it, STOP Endorsing and
Supporting it. No "service" activity can charge a fee in our name. No
service entity can use the AA name for any activity. ONLY an AA group
can use the AA name.

John G.

BTW I think GSO York is supported by book revenues.


--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Phillips" <rphill80@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave
>
> I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
> fellowship.  I do not mean to demean your efforts to help.  All I am
> saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that the
> Traditions be upheld, they will not be so.  Unfortunately it seems an
> exercise in futility.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Rob
>
> --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@> wrote:
> >
> > Why Bother....
> >
> > Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother trying to
> help ?
> >
> > Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will know
> why I want to bother ..
> >
> > Best Wishes
> >
> > Dave S
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@>
> > Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> > Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
> > It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
> anybody elses.
> > Ian
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rob Phillips
> > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
> > Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?
> >
> > A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
> > certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
> > stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .
> He
> > has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.
> This
> > coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
> > local listing.
> >
> > I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this
> problem
> > resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
> > leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
> >
> > Rob
> >
>

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

From: Rob Phillips

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:07 AM

Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: Why bother?

Hi Dave

I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
fellowship. I do not mean to demean your efforts to help. All I am
saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that the
Traditions be upheld, they will not be so. Unfortunately it seems an
exercise in futility.

Best wishes

Rob

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@...> wrote:
>
> Why Bother....
>  
> Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother trying to
help ?
>  
> Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will know
why I want to bother ..
>  
> Best Wishes
>  
> Dave S
>  
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@...>
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
> Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
> It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
anybody elses.
> Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Phillips
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?
>
> A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
> certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
> stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .
He
> has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.
This
> coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
> local listing.
>
> I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this
problem
> resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
> leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
>
> Rob
>

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1674 - Release Date: 9/16/2008 8:15 AM

Hi Dave

I love AA and need, want and do work the steps and attend the
fellowship.  I do not mean to demean your efforts to help.  All I am
saying is that even if we go to Intergroup or GSO asking that the
Traditions be upheld, they will not be so.  Unfortunately it seems an
exercise in futility.

Best wishes

Rob

--- In GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com, dave smith <soberstar22@...> wrote:
>
> Why Bother....
> �
> Ok why bother -in fact why bother attending AA why bother trying to
help ?
> �
> Well at least I will look the offendes in the eye and I will know
why I want to bother ..
> �
> Best Wishes
> �
> Dave S
> �
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Ian Perry <rpe73322@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ian Perry <rpe73322@...>
> Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
> Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
> It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or
anybody elses.
> Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Phillips
> To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
> Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?
>
> A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
> certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
> stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .
He
> has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.
This
> coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
> local listing.
>
> I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this
problem
> resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
> leaders display no regard for our Traditions?
>
> Rob
>

Hi all,
Sounds like a bad experience for Rob in the past.
It is your concience that you have to live with, not mine or anybody elses.
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Phillips
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:28 PM
Subject: [GSOwatch] Why bother?


Hi all,

Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?

A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me . He
has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK. This
coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
local listing.

I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this problem
resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
leaders display no regard for our Traditions?

Rob

Hi all,

Without wishing to seem negative, Dave, why bother going to York?

A year ago, a few of us started a Big Book Study in Cornwall and a
certain member, my ex-sponsor, told me he would 'pull out all the
stops' to have us shut down, and actually threatened to kill me .  He
has recently been made a Trustee for the South-West Region, UK.  This
coming Sunday, our Intergroup intend to remove our meeting from the
local listing.

I would love to be able to work with Intergroup and have this problem
resolved, but what good is it to go to GSO York when our so-called
leaders display no regard for our Traditions?

Rob

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

From: Maryann Willis

To: gsowatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 7:00 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] Re: My Question 1

Hey Dave, you will fit right in with the rest of us who are pretty unpopular in certain circles.
 
Maryann

---

To: GSOWatch@yahoogroups.com
From: soberstar22@yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:10:30 -0700
Subject: [GSOwatch] Re: My Question 1

Hi Everyone,   Thanks so far..   Here is a reply from friend Julio ...   I cant do a great deal about NY --but I can do quite a lot in York UK and at Inter-Group..   Unpopular will be my middle name --but thats life..   Best Wishes   Dave S --- On Mon, 9/15/08, Dave Smith <dave@cranny.karoo.co.uk> wrote: From: Dave Smith <dave@cranny.karoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: My Question 1 To: soberstar22@yahoo.com Date: Monday, September 15, 2008, 11:01 PM   ----- Original Message ----- From: International To: Dave Smith Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 8:09 PM Subject: RE: My Question 1 Dear Dave,   Thanks for taking the time to write.  I appreciate your expressions of concern.   As I stated before, the A.A.W.S. Board does not collect any fees or charges money for the licensing of A.A. W.S. copyright materials.  The Boardʼs intent is to prese rv e the integrity of the A.A. message in its literature as written by A.A. founders and/or approved by the U.S./Canada Conference. I would encourage you to bring your concerns and views to your local A.A. se rv ice structure where they could benefit from a wider group conscience.  You may also want to communicate with the General Se rv ice Office of Great Britain to benefit from the experience and support of the A.A Fellowship in your country.    I take the opportunity to send you our very best wishes. In fellowship, Julio G.S.O. New York     From: Dave Smith [mailto:dave@cranny.karoo.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:27 AM To: International Cc: GSO GB Subject: My Question 1 Hi Julio,   My biggest question and that perhaps of many others is why is "AAGSB,inc using the mane of Alcoholics Anonymous in thier business operations . This goes against our basic foundation   AAGSB is not Alcoholics Anonymous and has not been granted the use of those words by the membership at large.   Same with other corporate enterties such as AAWS (Alcoholics Anonymous World Se rv ice) again not Alcoholics Anonymous They collectivly do NOT represent us nor govern us in any manner---which is  my way of seeing things   Best Wishes   Dave S   Nr York UK

---

Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie. Learn Now

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

From: dave smith

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 1:19 AM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ?

Hi All   Are there no further questions other than Als reply to take to GSO York ?   Its ok accusing AAWS- AAGSB on this site but you aint going to get anywhere.   I have a saying--Put up or Shut up ...   So are there any further questions for me to take to GSO Toft Green York ?   Best Wishes   Dave S       --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote: From: Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:52 AM Hi Dave and All,   MY "biggest" question, and perhaps that of many others on this group, is "Why is AAGSB, Inc., using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous in their business operations?"  This goes against our basic foundation.  Simple question, but I expect that you'll get either a complicated answer explaining nothing, or a "non-answer" that applies to another question entirely.  I COULD be wrong, and I'd hope I am...but not THAT much "hope".  AAGSB, Incorporated is NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous" and has not been "granted the use" of those words by the membership at large.  Same with other corporate entities such as "AAWS (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services"... again...NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous".. .they collectively do NOT "represent" us nor "govern" us in any manner.  Just my way of seeing things.   Thanks...and   G' Bless,   Al C.   From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of dave smith Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 17:40PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK Hello All,   International@ aa.org is the e-mail address of Julio with whom Iam now chatting if you like.   Being as I live near York UK then I have addressed the issues of Profit ect ect money ect ect with Anne ,General Secretary, GSO York UK  e-mail lemongsoyork@ btconnect   And, umbrella up, Iam, sent to NY GSO and Julio...   If you have any questions or wish to e-mail these "members" directly please feel free..   Somehow I get the feeling that they are hiding something but what i havnt got a clue !!!   Best Wishes   Dave S --- On Mon, 9/8/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> wrote: From: johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> Subject: [GSOwatch] Janitors, cooks frying hamburgers, writer-author. ... all the same To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 10:13 PM Inadvertently I identified Tradition 8 as Tradition 7 -- sorry. The content remains the same. Literature cannot carry the AA message - this can only be done face-to-face. The work of writing a book about AA has been placed in the same category as janitor, and "cooks who fry hamburgers." The essay also relates that: "When an A.A.talks for money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step for a fee." I can't imagine a circumstance where I would accept "expense" money to attend an AA meeting that I otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED. An AA speaks at a meeting for his/her own benefit --- not to entertain a crowd, and not with expectations. And..... yes... this used to be so obvious that very few AA's did this. Today at banquets and workshops across our land this principle is trashed in the formerly hallowed halls converted to ad hoc book stores and promo platforms. Is this harming AA? Just look at the membership numbers - flat since 1988. Are fewer folks getting sober? I don't think so. No one wants to attend meetings with stuff for sale, and no one wants to join an outfit with a professional class - even if they are called "speakers" or "servants." AAs have bs meters. AA has become a bookstore chain with a privileged class who take money to attend meetings they otherwise would not have attended. The decline of The Sons of Temperance, The Salvation Army, Catholic Total Abstinence Association, and other outfits of medaled, ribboned, titled class differentiation wasn't trumpeted by their members drinking ---- it was the source of the rapid rise of AA as the fellowship of choice. AA was the new club in town - no titles, no lectures, no professionals, no book studies. AA drew sober alcoholics seeking fellowship of their own kind.... folks already sober and disenchanted with their then 50-90+ year old organizations, organizations larger than AA is today. The introduction of specialness as formerly practiced in the organizations mentioned above, some as subtle as a bronze sobriety chip, is having a predictable consequence. The use of AA groups as booksellers is fuel to that consequence. Twenty years of no growth - is slow death. A death predicted in Tradition 1: Our A.A. experience has taught us that: 1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward. It is not too late. AA can regain the simplicity of its founding. It needs no publishing company, no titles of specialness, and no fee events paying the expenses of people who otherwise would not be there. The problems within AA are man made, and can be fixed --- by us. This is not a situation that cannot be changed. We can pray for courage - and perhaps gain wisdom in using that courage. John G. --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@ ...> wrote: > > Its a bit wordy when you are justifying royalties --- in the 12x12 essay on Tradition 8 we find the logic where a book does not carry the message ---- a book cannot do 12 Step work - only an AA can do that, and he can't do it for pay. > > John G. > > From 12x12 Tradition 8........ > > Alcoholics simply will not listen to a paid > twelfth-stepper. Almost from the beginning, we have been positive > that face-to-face work with the alcoholic who suffers could be based > only on the desire to help and be helped. When an A.A.talks for > money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a > very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and > everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so > obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step > for a fee. > Despite this certainty, it is nevertheless true that few subjects > have been the cause of more contention within our Fellowship than > professionalism. Caretakers who swept floors, cooks who fried > hamburgers, secretaries in offices, authors writing books--all these > we have seen hotly assailed because they were, as their critics > angrily remarked, "making money out of A.A." Ignoring the fact that > these labors were not Twelfth Step jobs at all, the > critics attacked as A.A. professionals these workers of ours who were > often doing thankless tasks that no one else could or would do. Even > greater furors were provoked when A.A. members began to run rest homes > and farms for alcoholics, when some hired out to corporations as > personnel men in charge of the alcoholic wards, when others entered > the field of alcohol education. In all these instances, and more, it > was claimed that A.A. knowledge and experience were being sold for > money, hence these people, too, were professionals. > At last, however, a plain line of cleavage could be seen between > professionalism and nonprofessionalism. When we had agreed that the > Twelfth Step couldn't be sold for money, we had been wise. But when > we had declared that our Fellowship couldn't hire service workers nor > could any A.A. member carry our knowledge into other fields, we were > taking the counsel of fear, fear which today has been largely > dispelled in the light of experience. > Take the case of the club janitor and cook. If a club is going to > function, it has to be habitable and hospitable. We tried volunteers, > who were quickly disenchanted with sweeping floors and brewing coffee > seven days a week. They just didn't show up. Even more important, an > empty club couldn't answer its telephone, but it was an open > invitation to a drunk on a binge who possessed a spare key. So > somebody had to look after the place full time. If we hired an > alcoholic, he'd receive only what we'd have to pay a nonalcoholic for > the same job. The job was not to do Twelfth Step work; it was to > make Twelfth Step work possible. It was a service proposition, pure > and simple. > Neither could A.A. itself function without full-time workers. At > the Foundation* and intergroup offices, we couldn't employ > nonalcoholics as secretaries; we had to have people who knew the A.A. > pitch. But the minute we hired them, the ultraconservative and > fearful ones shrilled, "Professionalism! " At one period, the status of > these faithful servants was almost unbearable. They weren't asked to > speak at A.A. meetings because they were `making money > out of A.A." At times, they were actually shunned by fellow members. > Even the charitably disposed described them as "a necessary evil." > Committees took full advantage of this attitude to depress their > salaries. They could regain some measure of virtue, it was thought, > if they worked for A.A. real cheap. These notions persisted for > years. Then we saw that if a hard working secretary answered the > phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, > arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and > was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the > job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could > surely not be called a professional A.A. She was not > professionalizing the Twelfth Step; she was just making it possible. > She was helping to give the man coming in the door the > break he ought to have. Volunteer committeemen and assistants could > be of great help, but they could not be expected to carry this load > day in and day out. > > > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "Kohl" <kohl@> wrote: > > > > Could you point to exact essay you're quoting? Perhaps the page number? > > > > I'm interested in this idea that Bill wrote that only an AA member > can carry > > the message... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bless, > > Norm > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: johng12fellow > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: [GSOwatch] How Did "AA" become the world's largest bookstore chain? > > .."The principle author makes it exquisitely clear, in his 12x12 essays,that the purpose of the books is to be a tool used by an AA member in carrying the message. He points out that ONLY an AA member can carry the message (not a book). It was this distinction that permitted the author to be paid royalties... .. for preparing a tool - not for carrying the message."

-----Original Message-----
From: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dave smith
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 4:32 PM
To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GSOwatch] wow real passion yes I feel it

Hi Everyone ,   First I do apologise if you feel I was, lets say, "having a go" --not at all..   Time has come to knock on the door of GSO here in York UK and speak face to face with Gen Sec Anne ..   Dont care if Iam looked down on, kicked ,thumped or even spat on ---disliked? well let me say this..   If you know what you are doing makes you unpopular,if it is difficult and misunderstood,you must carry on doing what you are doing IF YOU believe it is right..   My gun is somewhat loaded now and I will be driving the 28 miles from my home to GSO York   What have I got to loose ?  nothing  ...what can we gain ? the truth maybe   Best Wishes   Dave S     --- On Sun, 9/14/08, Maryann Willis <delta_dawn63@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Maryann Willis <delta_dawn63@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ? To: gsowatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, September 14, 2008, 8:59 PM Also ask them why they used group donations to sue AA members when the 5th Warrenty expressly warns against it.   Maryann To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com From: rpe73322@bigpond. net.au Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:44:00 +1000 Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ? Here`s a dumb question. Why does our new and revised litrature not reflect on  the message in the Big Book,seeing that is our basic text book. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: dave smith To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ? Hi All   Are there no further questions other than Als reply to take to GSO York ?   Its ok accusing AAWS- AAGSB on this site but you aint going to get anywhere.   I have a saying--Put up or Shut up ...   So are there any further questions for me to take to GSO Toft Green York ?   Best Wishes   Dave S       --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Al C. <coopera@t-net. ne.jp> wrote: From: Al C. <coopera@t-net. ne.jp> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:52 AM Hi Dave and All,   MY "biggest" question, and perhaps that of many others on this group, is "Why is AAGSB, Inc., using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous in their business operations?"  This goes against our basic foundation.  Simple question, but I expect that you'll get either a complicated answer explaining nothing, or a "non-answer" that applies to another question entirely.  I COULD be wrong, and I'd hope I am...but not THAT much "hope".  AAGSB, Incorporated is NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous" and has not been "granted the use" of those words by the membership at large.  Same with other corporate entities such as "AAWS (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services"... again...NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous".. .they collectively do NOT "represent" us nor "govern" us in any manner.  Just my way of seeing things.   Thanks...and   G' Bless,   Al C.   From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of dave smith Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 17:40PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK Hello All,   International@ aa.org is the e-mail address of Julio with whom Iam now chatting if you like.   Being as I live near York UK then I have addressed the issues of Profit ect ect money ect ect with Anne ,General Secretary, GSO York UK  e-mail lemongsoyork@ btconnect   And, umbrella up, Iam, sent to NY GSO and Julio...   If you have any questions or wish to e-mail these "members" directly please feel free..   Somehow I get the feeling that they are hiding something but what i havnt got a clue !!!   Best Wishes   Dave S --- On Mon, 9/8/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> wrote: From: johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> Subject: [GSOwatch] Janitors, cooks frying hamburgers, writer-author. ... all the same To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 10:13 PM Inadvertently I identified Tradition 8 as Tradition 7 -- sorry. The content remains the same. Literature cannot carry the AA message - this can only be done face-to-face. The work of writing a book about AA has been placed in the same category as janitor, and "cooks who fry hamburgers." The essay also relates that: "When an A.A.talks for money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step for a fee." I can't imagine a circumstance where I would accept "expense" money to attend an AA meeting that I otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED. An AA speaks at a meeting for his/her own benefit --- not to entertain a crowd, and not with expectations. And..... yes... this used to be so obvious that very few AA's did this. Today at banquets and workshops across our land this principle is trashed in the formerly hallowed halls converted to ad hoc book stores and promo platforms. Is this harming AA? Just look at the membership numbers - flat since 1988. Are fewer folks getting sober? I don't think so. No one wants to attend meetings with stuff for sale, and no one wants to join an outfit with a professional class - even if they are called "speakers" or "servants." AAs have bs meters. AA has become a bookstore chain with a privileged class who take money to attend meetings they otherwise would not have attended. The decline of The Sons of Temperance, The Salvation Army, Catholic Total Abstinence Association, and other outfits of medaled, ribboned, titled class differentiation wasn't trumpeted by their members drinking ---- it was the source of the rapid rise of AA as the fellowship of choice. AA was the new club in town - no titles, no lectures, no professionals, no book studies. AA drew sober alcoholics seeking fellowship of their own kind.... folks already sober and disenchanted with their then 50-90+ year old organizations, organizations larger than AA is today. The introduction of specialness as formerly practiced in the organizations mentioned above, some as subtle as a bronze sobriety chip, is having a predictable consequence. The use of AA groups as booksellers is fuel to that consequence. Twenty years of no growth - is slow death. A death predicted in Tradition 1: Our A.A. experience has taught us that: 1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward. It is not too late. AA can regain the simplicity of its founding. It needs no publishing company, no titles of specialness, and no fee events paying the expenses of people who otherwise would not be there. The problems within AA are man made, and can be fixed --- by us. This is not a situation that cannot be changed. We can pray for courage - and perhaps gain wisdom in using that courage. John G. --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@ ...> wrote: > > Its a bit wordy when you are justifying royalties --- in the 12x12 essay on Tradition 8 we find the logic where a book does not carry the message ---- a book cannot do 12 Step work - only an AA can do that, and he can't do it for pay. > > John G. > > From 12x12 Tradition 8........ > > Alcoholics simply will not listen to a paid > twelfth-stepper. Almost from the beginning, we have been positive > that face-to-face work with the alcoholic who suffers could be based > only on the desire to help and be helped. When an A.A.talks for > money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a > very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and > everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so > obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step > for a fee. > Despite this certainty, it is nevertheless true that few subjects > have been the cause of more contention within our Fellowship than > professionalism. Caretakers who swept floors, cooks who fried > hamburgers, secretaries in offices, authors writing books--all these > we have seen hotly assailed because they were, as their critics > angrily remarked, "making money out of A.A." Ignoring the fact that > these labors were not Twelfth Step jobs at all, the > critics attacked as A.A. professionals these workers of ours who were > often doing thankless tasks that no one else could or would do. Even > greater furors were provoked when A.A. members began to run rest homes > and farms for alcoholics, when some hired out to corporations as > personnel men in charge of the alcoholic wards, when others entered > the field of alcohol education. In all these instances, and more, it > was claimed that A.A. knowledge and experience were being sold for > money, hence these people, too, were professionals. > At last, however, a plain line of cleavage could be seen between > professionalism and nonprofessionalism. When we had agreed that the > Twelfth Step couldn't be sold for money, we had been wise. But when > we had declared that our Fellowship couldn't hire service workers nor > could any A.A. member carry our knowledge into other fields, we were > taking the counsel of fear, fear which today has been largely > dispelled in the light of experience. > Take the case of the club janitor and cook. If a club is going to > function, it has to be habitable and hospitable. We tried volunteers, > who were quickly disenchanted with sweeping floors and brewing coffee > seven days a week. They just didn't show up. Even more important, an > empty club couldn't answer its telephone, but it was an open > invitation to a drunk on a binge who possessed a spare key. So > somebody had to look after the place full time. If we hired an > alcoholic, he'd receive only what we'd have to pay a nonalcoholic for > the same job. The job was not to do Twelfth Step work; it was to > make Twelfth Step work possible. It was a service proposition, pure > and simple. > Neither could A.A. itself function without full-time workers. At > the Foundation* and intergroup offices, we couldn't employ > nonalcoholics as secretaries; we had to have people who knew the A.A. > pitch. But the minute we hired them, the ultraconservative and > fearful ones shrilled, "Professionalism! " At one period, the status of > these faithful servants was almost unbearable. They weren't asked to > speak at A.A. meetings because they were `making money > out of A.A." At times, they were actually shunned by fellow members. > Even the charitably disposed described them as "a necessary evil." > Committees took full advantage of this attitude to depress their > salaries. They could regain some measure of virtue, it was thought, > if they worked for A.A. real cheap. These notions persisted for > years. Then we saw that if a hard working secretary answered the > phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, > arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and > was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the > job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could > surely not be called a professional A.A. She was not > professionalizing the Twelfth Step; she was just making it possible. > She was helping to give the man coming in the door the > break he ought to have. Volunteer committeemen and assistants could > be of great help, but they could not be expected to carry this load > day in and day out. > > > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "Kohl" <kohl@> wrote: > > > > Could you point to exact essay you're quoting? Perhaps the page number? > > > > I'm interested in this idea that Bill wrote that only an AA member > can carry > > the message... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bless, > > Norm > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: johng12fellow > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: [GSOwatch] How Did "AA" become the world's largest bookstore chain? > > .."The principle author makes it exquisitely clear, in his 12x12 essays,that the purpose of the books is to be a tool used by an AA member in carrying the message. He points out that ONLY an AA member can carry the message (not a book). It was this distinction that permitted the author to be paid royalties... .. for preparing a tool - not for carrying the message." No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1670 - Release Date: 9/13/2008 12:50 PM Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1670 - Release Date: 9/13/2008 12:50 PM

Also ask them why they used group donations to sue AA members when the 5th Warrenty expressly warns against it.
 
Maryann

---

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com
From: rpe73322@bigpond.net.au
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:44:00 +1000
Subject: Re: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ?

Here`s a dumb question.

Why does our new and revised litrature not reflect on  the message in the Big Book,seeing that is our basic text book.

Ian

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

From: dave smith

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:19 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ?

Hi All   Are there no further questions other than Als reply to take to GSO York ?   Its ok accusing AAWS- AAGSB on this site but you aint going to get anywhere.   I have a saying--Put up or Shut up ...   So are there any further questions for me to take to GSO Toft Green York ?   Best Wishes   Dave S       --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote: From: Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:52 AM Hi Dave and All,   MY "biggest" question, and perhaps that of many others on this group, is "Why is AAGSB, Inc., using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous in their business operations?"  This goes against our basic foundation.  Simple question, but I expect that you'll get either a complicated answer explaining nothing, or a "non-answer" that applies to another question entirely.  I COULD be wrong, and I'd hope I am...but not THAT much "hope".  AAGSB, Incorporated is NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous" and has not been "granted the use" of those words by the membership at large.  Same with other corporate entities such as "AAWS (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services"... again...NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous".. .they collectively do NOT "represent" us nor "govern" us in any manner.  Just my way of seeing things.   Thanks...and   G' Bless,   Al C.   From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of dave smith Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 17:40PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK Hello All,   International@ aa.org is the e-mail address of Julio with whom Iam now chatting if you like.   Being as I live near York UK then I have addressed the issues of Profit ect ect money ect ect with Anne ,General Secretary, GSO York UK  e-mail lemongsoyork@ btconnect   And, umbrella up, Iam, sent to NY GSO and Julio...   If you have any questions or wish to e-mail these "members" directly please feel free..   Somehow I get the feeling that they are hiding something but what i havnt got a clue !!!   Best Wishes   Dave S --- On Mon, 9/8/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> wrote: From: johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> Subject: [GSOwatch] Janitors, cooks frying hamburgers, writer-author. ... all the same To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 10:13 PM Inadvertently I identified Tradition 8 as Tradition 7 -- sorry. The content remains the same. Literature cannot carry the AA message - this can only be done face-to-face. The work of writing a book about AA has been placed in the same category as janitor, and "cooks who fry hamburgers." The essay also relates that: "When an A.A.talks for money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step for a fee." I can't imagine a circumstance where I would accept "expense" money to attend an AA meeting that I otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED. An AA speaks at a meeting for his/her own benefit --- not to entertain a crowd, and not with expectations. And..... yes... this used to be so obvious that very few AA's did this. Today at banquets and workshops across our land this principle is trashed in the formerly hallowed halls converted to ad hoc book stores and promo platforms. Is this harming AA? Just look at the membership numbers - flat since 1988. Are fewer folks getting sober? I don't think so. No one wants to attend meetings with stuff for sale, and no one wants to join an outfit with a professional class - even if they are called "speakers" or "servants." AAs have bs meters. AA has become a bookstore chain with a privileged class who take money to attend meetings they otherwise would not have attended. The decline of The Sons of Temperance, The Salvation Army, Catholic Total Abstinence Association, and other outfits of medaled, ribboned, titled class differentiation wasn't trumpeted by their members drinking ---- it was the source of the rapid rise of AA as the fellowship of choice. AA was the new club in town - no titles, no lectures, no professionals, no book studies. AA drew sober alcoholics seeking fellowship of their own kind.... folks already sober and disenchanted with their then 50-90+ year old organizations, organizations larger than AA is today. The introduction of specialness as formerly practiced in the organizations mentioned above, some as subtle as a bronze sobriety chip, is having a predictable consequence. The use of AA groups as booksellers is fuel to that consequence. Twenty years of no growth - is slow death. A death predicted in Tradition 1: Our A.A. experience has taught us that: 1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward. It is not too late. AA can regain the simplicity of its founding. It needs no publishing company, no titles of specialness, and no fee events paying the expenses of people who otherwise would not be there. The problems within AA are man made, and can be fixed --- by us. This is not a situation that cannot be changed. We can pray for courage - and perhaps gain wisdom in using that courage. John G. --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@ ...> wrote: > > Its a bit wordy when you are justifying royalties --- in the 12x12 essay on Tradition 8 we find the logic where a book does not carry the message ---- a book cannot do 12 Step work - only an AA can do that, and he can't do it for pay. > > John G. > > From 12x12 Tradition 8........ > > Alcoholics simply will not listen to a paid > twelfth-stepper. Almost from the beginning, we have been positive > that face-to-face work with the alcoholic who suffers could be based > only on the desire to help and be helped. When an A.A.talks for > money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a > very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and > everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so > obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step > for a fee. > Despite this certainty, it is nevertheless true that few subjects > have been the cause of more contention within our Fellowship than > professionalism. Caretakers who swept floors, cooks who fried > hamburgers, secretaries in offices, authors writing books--all these > we have seen hotly assailed because they were, as their critics > angrily remarked, "making money out of A.A." Ignoring the fact that > these labors were not Twelfth Step jobs at all, the > critics attacked as A.A. professionals these workers of ours who were > often doing thankless tasks that no one else could or would do. Even > greater furors were provoked when A.A. members began to run rest homes > and farms for alcoholics, when some hired out to corporations as > personnel men in charge of the alcoholic wards, when others entered > the field of alcohol education. In all these instances, and more, it > was claimed that A.A. knowledge and experience were being sold for > money, hence these people, too, were professionals. > At last, however, a plain line of cleavage could be seen between > professionalism and nonprofessionalism. When we had agreed that the > Twelfth Step couldn't be sold for money, we had been wise. But when > we had declared that our Fellowship couldn't hire service workers nor > could any A.A. member carry our knowledge into other fields, we were > taking the counsel of fear, fear which today has been largely > dispelled in the light of experience. > Take the case of the club janitor and cook. If a club is going to > function, it has to be habitable and hospitable. We tried volunteers, > who were quickly disenchanted with sweeping floors and brewing coffee > seven days a week. They just didn't show up. Even more important, an > empty club couldn't answer its telephone, but it was an open > invitation to a drunk on a binge who possessed a spare key. So > somebody had to look after the place full time. If we hired an > alcoholic, he'd receive only what we'd have to pay a nonalcoholic for > the same job. The job was not to do Twelfth Step work; it was to > make Twelfth Step work possible. It was a service proposition, pure > and simple. > Neither could A.A. itself function without full-time workers. At > the Foundation* and intergroup offices, we couldn't employ > nonalcoholics as secretaries; we had to have people who knew the A.A. > pitch. But the minute we hired them, the ultraconservative and > fearful ones shrilled, "Professionalism! " At one period, the status of > these faithful servants was almost unbearable. They weren't asked to > speak at A.A. meetings because they were `making money > out of A.A." At times, they were actually shunned by fellow members. > Even the charitably disposed described them as "a necessary evil." > Committees took full advantage of this attitude to depress their > salaries. They could regain some measure of virtue, it was thought, > if they worked for A.A. real cheap. These notions persisted for > years. Then we saw that if a hard working secretary answered the > phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, > arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and > was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the > job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could > surely not be called a professional A.A. She was not > professionalizing the Twelfth Step; she was just making it possible. > She was helping to give the man coming in the door the > break he ought to have. Volunteer committeemen and assistants could > be of great help, but they could not be expected to carry this load > day in and day out. > > > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "Kohl" <kohl@> wrote: > > > > Could you point to exact essay you're quoting? Perhaps the page number? > > > > I'm interested in this idea that Bill wrote that only an AA member > can carry > > the message... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bless, > > Norm > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: johng12fellow > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: [GSOwatch] How Did "AA" become the world's largest bookstore chain? > > .."The principle author makes it exquisitely clear, in his 12x12 essays,that the purpose of the books is to be a tool used by an AA member in carrying the message. He points out that ONLY an AA member can carry the message (not a book). It was this distinction that permitted the author to be paid royalties... .. for preparing a tool - not for carrying the message."

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1670 - Release Date: 9/13/2008 12:50 PM

---

Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now

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

From: dave smith

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:19 PM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ?

Hi All   Are there no further questions other than Als reply to take to GSO York ?   Its ok accusing AAWS- AAGSB on this site but you aint going to get anywhere.   I have a saying--Put up or Shut up ...   So are there any further questions for me to take to GSO Toft Green York ?   Best Wishes   Dave S       --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote: From: Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:52 AM Hi Dave and All,   MY "biggest" question, and perhaps that of many others on this group, is "Why is AAGSB, Inc., using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous in their business operations?"  This goes against our basic foundation.  Simple question, but I expect that you'll get either a complicated answer explaining nothing, or a "non-answer" that applies to another question entirely.  I COULD be wrong, and I'd hope I am...but not THAT much "hope".  AAGSB, Incorporated is NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous" and has not been "granted the use" of those words by the membership at large.  Same with other corporate entities such as "AAWS (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services"... again...NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous".. .they collectively do NOT "represent" us nor "govern" us in any manner.  Just my way of seeing things.   Thanks...and   G' Bless,   Al C.   From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of dave smith Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 17:40PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK Hello All,   International@ aa.org is the e-mail address of Julio with whom Iam now chatting if you like.   Being as I live near York UK then I have addressed the issues of Profit ect ect money ect ect with Anne ,General Secretary, GSO York UK  e-mail lemongsoyork@ btconnect   And, umbrella up, Iam, sent to NY GSO and Julio...   If you have any questions or wish to e-mail these "members" directly please feel free..   Somehow I get the feeling that they are hiding something but what i havnt got a clue !!!   Best Wishes   Dave S --- On Mon, 9/8/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> wrote: From: johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> Subject: [GSOwatch] Janitors, cooks frying hamburgers, writer-author. ... all the same To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 10:13 PM Inadvertently I identified Tradition 8 as Tradition 7 -- sorry. The content remains the same. Literature cannot carry the AA message - this can only be done face-to-face. The work of writing a book about AA has been placed in the same category as janitor, and "cooks who fry hamburgers." The essay also relates that: "When an A.A.talks for money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step for a fee." I can't imagine a circumstance where I would accept "expense" money to attend an AA meeting that I otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED. An AA speaks at a meeting for his/her own benefit --- not to entertain a crowd, and not with expectations. And..... yes... this used to be so obvious that very few AA's did this. Today at banquets and workshops across our land this principle is trashed in the formerly hallowed halls converted to ad hoc book stores and promo platforms. Is this harming AA? Just look at the membership numbers - flat since 1988. Are fewer folks getting sober? I don't think so. No one wants to attend meetings with stuff for sale, and no one wants to join an outfit with a professional class - even if they are called "speakers" or "servants." AAs have bs meters. AA has become a bookstore chain with a privileged class who take money to attend meetings they otherwise would not have attended. The decline of The Sons of Temperance, The Salvation Army, Catholic Total Abstinence Association, and other outfits of medaled, ribboned, titled class differentiation wasn't trumpeted by their members drinking ---- it was the source of the rapid rise of AA as the fellowship of choice. AA was the new club in town - no titles, no lectures, no professionals, no book studies. AA drew sober alcoholics seeking fellowship of their own kind.... folks already sober and disenchanted with their then 50-90+ year old organizations, organizations larger than AA is today. The introduction of specialness as formerly practiced in the organizations mentioned above, some as subtle as a bronze sobriety chip, is having a predictable consequence. The use of AA groups as booksellers is fuel to that consequence. Twenty years of no growth - is slow death. A death predicted in Tradition 1: Our A.A. experience has taught us that: 1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward. It is not too late. AA can regain the simplicity of its founding. It needs no publishing company, no titles of specialness, and no fee events paying the expenses of people who otherwise would not be there. The problems within AA are man made, and can be fixed --- by us. This is not a situation that cannot be changed. We can pray for courage - and perhaps gain wisdom in using that courage. John G. --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@ ...> wrote: > > Its a bit wordy when you are justifying royalties --- in the 12x12 essay on Tradition 8 we find the logic where a book does not carry the message ---- a book cannot do 12 Step work - only an AA can do that, and he can't do it for pay. > > John G. > > From 12x12 Tradition 8........ > > Alcoholics simply will not listen to a paid > twelfth-stepper. Almost from the beginning, we have been positive > that face-to-face work with the alcoholic who suffers could be based > only on the desire to help and be helped. When an A.A.talks for > money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a > very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and > everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so > obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step > for a fee. > Despite this certainty, it is nevertheless true that few subjects > have been the cause of more contention within our Fellowship than > professionalism. Caretakers who swept floors, cooks who fried > hamburgers, secretaries in offices, authors writing books--all these > we have seen hotly assailed because they were, as their critics > angrily remarked, "making money out of A.A." Ignoring the fact that > these labors were not Twelfth Step jobs at all, the > critics attacked as A.A. professionals these workers of ours who were > often doing thankless tasks that no one else could or would do. Even > greater furors were provoked when A.A. members began to run rest homes > and farms for alcoholics, when some hired out to corporations as > personnel men in charge of the alcoholic wards, when others entered > the field of alcohol education. In all these instances, and more, it > was claimed that A.A. knowledge and experience were being sold for > money, hence these people, too, were professionals. > At last, however, a plain line of cleavage could be seen between > professionalism and nonprofessionalism. When we had agreed that the > Twelfth Step couldn't be sold for money, we had been wise. But when > we had declared that our Fellowship couldn't hire service workers nor > could any A.A. member carry our knowledge into other fields, we were > taking the counsel of fear, fear which today has been largely > dispelled in the light of experience. > Take the case of the club janitor and cook. If a club is going to > function, it has to be habitable and hospitable. We tried volunteers, > who were quickly disenchanted with sweeping floors and brewing coffee > seven days a week. They just didn't show up. Even more important, an > empty club couldn't answer its telephone, but it was an open > invitation to a drunk on a binge who possessed a spare key. So > somebody had to look after the place full time. If we hired an > alcoholic, he'd receive only what we'd have to pay a nonalcoholic for > the same job. The job was not to do Twelfth Step work; it was to > make Twelfth Step work possible. It was a service proposition, pure > and simple. > Neither could A.A. itself function without full-time workers. At > the Foundation* and intergroup offices, we couldn't employ > nonalcoholics as secretaries; we had to have people who knew the A.A. > pitch. But the minute we hired them, the ultraconservative and > fearful ones shrilled, "Professionalism! " At one period, the status of > these faithful servants was almost unbearable. They weren't asked to > speak at A.A. meetings because they were `making money > out of A.A." At times, they were actually shunned by fellow members. > Even the charitably disposed described them as "a necessary evil." > Committees took full advantage of this attitude to depress their > salaries. They could regain some measure of virtue, it was thought, > if they worked for A.A. real cheap. These notions persisted for > years. Then we saw that if a hard working secretary answered the > phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, > arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and > was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the > job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could > surely not be called a professional A.A. She was not > professionalizing the Twelfth Step; she was just making it possible. > She was helping to give the man coming in the door the > break he ought to have. Volunteer committeemen and assistants could > be of great help, but they could not be expected to carry this load > day in and day out. > > > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "Kohl" <kohl@> wrote: > > > > Could you point to exact essay you're quoting? Perhaps the page number? > > > > I'm interested in this idea that Bill wrote that only an AA member > can carry > > the message... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bless, > > Norm > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: johng12fellow > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: [GSOwatch] How Did "AA" become the world's largest bookstore chain? > > .."The principle author makes it exquisitely clear, in his 12x12 essays,that the purpose of the books is to be a tool used by an AA member in carrying the message. He points out that ONLY an AA member can carry the message (not a book). It was this distinction that permitted the author to be paid royalties... .. for preparing a tool - not for carrying the message."

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1670 - Release Date: 9/13/2008 12:50 PM

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

From: dave smith

To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:19 AM

Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] No Further Questions ?

Hi All   Are there no further questions other than Als reply to take to GSO York ?   Its ok accusing AAWS- AAGSB on this site but you aint going to get anywhere.   I have a saying--Put up or Shut up ...   So are there any further questions for me to take to GSO Toft Green York ?   Best Wishes   Dave S       --- On Fri, 9/12/08, Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> wrote: From: Al C. <coopera@t-net.ne.jp> Subject: RE: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK To: GSOwatch@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:52 AM Hi Dave and All,   MY "biggest" question, and perhaps that of many others on this group, is "Why is AAGSB, Inc., using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous in their business operations?"  This goes against our basic foundation.  Simple question, but I expect that you'll get either a complicated answer explaining nothing, or a "non-answer" that applies to another question entirely.  I COULD be wrong, and I'd hope I am...but not THAT much "hope".  AAGSB, Incorporated is NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous" and has not been "granted the use" of those words by the membership at large.  Same with other corporate entities such as "AAWS (Alcoholics Anonymous World Services"... again...NOT "Alcoholics Anonymous".. .they collectively do NOT "represent" us nor "govern" us in any manner.  Just my way of seeing things.   Thanks...and   G' Bless,   Al C.   From: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:GSOwatch@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of dave smith Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 17:40PM To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Subject: [GSOwatch] GSO York---GSO NEW YORK Hello All,   International@ aa.org is the e-mail address of Julio with whom Iam now chatting if you like.   Being as I live near York UK then I have addressed the issues of Profit ect ect money ect ect with Anne ,General Secretary, GSO York UK  e-mail lemongsoyork@ btconnect   And, umbrella up, Iam, sent to NY GSO and Julio...   If you have any questions or wish to e-mail these "members" directly please feel free..   Somehow I get the feeling that they are hiding something but what i havnt got a clue !!!   Best Wishes   Dave S --- On Mon, 9/8/08, johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> wrote: From: johng12fellow <johng12fellow@ yahoo.com> Subject: [GSOwatch] Janitors, cooks frying hamburgers, writer-author. ... all the same To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com Date: Monday, September 8, 2008, 10:13 PM Inadvertently I identified Tradition 8 as Tradition 7 -- sorry. The content remains the same. Literature cannot carry the AA message - this can only be done face-to-face. The work of writing a book about AA has been placed in the same category as janitor, and "cooks who fry hamburgers." The essay also relates that: "When an A.A.talks for money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step for a fee." I can't imagine a circumstance where I would accept "expense" money to attend an AA meeting that I otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE ATTENDED. An AA speaks at a meeting for his/her own benefit --- not to entertain a crowd, and not with expectations. And..... yes... this used to be so obvious that very few AA's did this. Today at banquets and workshops across our land this principle is trashed in the formerly hallowed halls converted to ad hoc book stores and promo platforms. Is this harming AA? Just look at the membership numbers - flat since 1988. Are fewer folks getting sober? I don't think so. No one wants to attend meetings with stuff for sale, and no one wants to join an outfit with a professional class - even if they are called "speakers" or "servants." AAs have bs meters. AA has become a bookstore chain with a privileged class who take money to attend meetings they otherwise would not have attended. The decline of The Sons of Temperance, The Salvation Army, Catholic Total Abstinence Association, and other outfits of medaled, ribboned, titled class differentiation wasn't trumpeted by their members drinking ---- it was the source of the rapid rise of AA as the fellowship of choice. AA was the new club in town - no titles, no lectures, no professionals, no book studies. AA drew sober alcoholics seeking fellowship of their own kind.... folks already sober and disenchanted with their then 50-90+ year old organizations, organizations larger than AA is today. The introduction of specialness as formerly practiced in the organizations mentioned above, some as subtle as a bronze sobriety chip, is having a predictable consequence. The use of AA groups as booksellers is fuel to that consequence. Twenty years of no growth - is slow death. A death predicted in Tradition 1: Our A.A. experience has taught us that: 1. Each member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole. A.A. must continue to live or most of use will surely die. Hence our common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close afterward. It is not too late. AA can regain the simplicity of its founding. It needs no publishing company, no titles of specialness, and no fee events paying the expenses of people who otherwise would not be there. The problems within AA are man made, and can be fixed --- by us. This is not a situation that cannot be changed. We can pray for courage - and perhaps gain wisdom in using that courage. John G. --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "johng12fellow" <johng12fellow@ ...> wrote: > > Its a bit wordy when you are justifying royalties --- in the 12x12 essay on Tradition 8 we find the logic where a book does not carry the message ---- a book cannot do 12 Step work - only an AA can do that, and he can't do it for pay. > > John G. > > From 12x12 Tradition 8........ > > Alcoholics simply will not listen to a paid > twelfth-stepper. Almost from the beginning, we have been positive > that face-to-face work with the alcoholic who suffers could be based > only on the desire to help and be helped. When an A.A.talks for > money, whether at a meeting or to a single newcomer, it can have a > very bad effect on him, too. The money motive compromises him and > everything he says and does for his prospect. This has always been so > obvious that only a very few A.A.'s have ever worked the Twelfth Step > for a fee. > Despite this certainty, it is nevertheless true that few subjects > have been the cause of more contention within our Fellowship than > professionalism. Caretakers who swept floors, cooks who fried > hamburgers, secretaries in offices, authors writing books--all these > we have seen hotly assailed because they were, as their critics > angrily remarked, "making money out of A.A." Ignoring the fact that > these labors were not Twelfth Step jobs at all, the > critics attacked as A.A. professionals these workers of ours who were > often doing thankless tasks that no one else could or would do. Even > greater furors were provoked when A.A. members began to run rest homes > and farms for alcoholics, when some hired out to corporations as > personnel men in charge of the alcoholic wards, when others entered > the field of alcohol education. In all these instances, and more, it > was claimed that A.A. knowledge and experience were being sold for > money, hence these people, too, were professionals. > At last, however, a plain line of cleavage could be seen between > professionalism and nonprofessionalism. When we had agreed that the > Twelfth Step couldn't be sold for money, we had been wise. But when > we had declared that our Fellowship couldn't hire service workers nor > could any A.A. member carry our knowledge into other fields, we were > taking the counsel of fear, fear which today has been largely > dispelled in the light of experience. > Take the case of the club janitor and cook. If a club is going to > function, it has to be habitable and hospitable. We tried volunteers, > who were quickly disenchanted with sweeping floors and brewing coffee > seven days a week. They just didn't show up. Even more important, an > empty club couldn't answer its telephone, but it was an open > invitation to a drunk on a binge who possessed a spare key. So > somebody had to look after the place full time. If we hired an > alcoholic, he'd receive only what we'd have to pay a nonalcoholic for > the same job. The job was not to do Twelfth Step work; it was to > make Twelfth Step work possible. It was a service proposition, pure > and simple. > Neither could A.A. itself function without full-time workers. At > the Foundation* and intergroup offices, we couldn't employ > nonalcoholics as secretaries; we had to have people who knew the A.A. > pitch. But the minute we hired them, the ultraconservative and > fearful ones shrilled, "Professionalism! " At one period, the status of > these faithful servants was almost unbearable. They weren't asked to > speak at A.A. meetings because they were `making money > out of A.A." At times, they were actually shunned by fellow members. > Even the charitably disposed described them as "a necessary evil." > Committees took full advantage of this attitude to depress their > salaries. They could regain some measure of virtue, it was thought, > if they worked for A.A. real cheap. These notions persisted for > years. Then we saw that if a hard working secretary answered the > phone dozens of times a day, listened to twenty wailing wives, > arranged hospitalization and got sponsorship for ten newcomers, and > was gently diplomatic with the irate drunk who complained about the > job she was doing and how she was overpaid, then such a person could > surely not be called a professional A.A. She was not > professionalizing the Twelfth Step; she was just making it possible. > She was helping to give the man coming in the door the > break he ought to have. Volunteer committeemen and assistants could > be of great help, but they could not be expected to carry this load > day in and day out. > > > --- In GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com, "Kohl" <kohl@> wrote: > > > > Could you point to exact essay you're quoting? Perhaps the page number? > > > > I'm interested in this idea that Bill wrote that only an AA member > can carry > > the message... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bless, > > Norm > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: johng12fellow > > To: GSOwatch@yahoogroup s.com > > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:07 PM Subject: [GSOwatch] How Did "AA" become the world's largest bookstore chain? > > .."The principle author makes it exquisitely clear, in his 12x12 essays,that the purpose of the books is to be a tool used by an AA member in carrying the message. He points out that ONLY an AA member can carry the message (not a book). It was this distinction that permitted the author to be paid royalties... .. for preparing a tool - not for carrying the message."

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1671 - Release Date: 9/14/2008 7:16 AM