Aa history Lovers 2009 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page
Yüklə 11,49 Mb.
|
|
various accounting jobs), one photo of Thomas J. Watson, Sr. and five THINK signs. Can you spot them? - - - - On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:03 PM, John Barton > THINK, THINK, THINK > > This slogan is not found in the BB but was > adopted by AA members from a sign that came > with early IBM calculating machines. The sign > said: >
> > THINK of what you are doing > > THINK of what you have done > > - - - - > > J. Lobdell > > We have been discussing the early AA slogans, > especially "But for the Grace of God." > > But another of the early slogans was also > mentioned: > > This one -- "Think think think" -- was perhaps > not biblical. It seems to have been an IBM slogan > put up on a Cleveland AA bulletin board or the > equivalent ca 1944 much to the chagrin of > Clarence S., who observed (approximately) > "Alcoholics don't think -- they emote." > > (Mitch K. can probably provide chapter and > verse on this.) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 5875. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: First AA meeting in Philadelphia From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/14/2009 9:44:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII For Philadelphia both Johnny L's letter to Ruth Hock and Jimmy B's reminiscences are available on line (silkworth and barefoot, I think). - - - - > From: jax760@yahoo.com > Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 > Re: Timeline of the First 25 A.A. Groups > > In order to keep the first 25 list accurate > with source references please cite your source > for dates of groups. > > i.e. Philadelphia & Chicago. > > Thanks
> > - - - - > > From J. LOBDELL > > (jlobdell54 at hotmail.com) > > > 14. Pennsylvania: Philadelphia (February 13, > 1940) WRONG -- FEB 28 -- Jim moved to Phila Feb 13 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 5876. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Group start date: how it is defined
From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/15/2009 3:26:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII True for you, Arthur -- but the creation of the service structure and thus of Group Representatives (GRs, now General Service Representatives, GSRs) leads to a quick test of what's a group and what's a meeting. If it has a GSR or according to the District it's in should have a GSR (or if it's an institutional group that doesn't have anyone available to be a GSR because the GSR can't be a
facility employee or an inmate), it's a group. Otherwise it's a meeting. The text in the Third Tradition echoes "whenever two or three are gathered together" from the Evening Service of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer and thus implies a continuing existence for the Group as a spiritual entity, as opposed to a single meeting. But of course we have meetings that go year after year, but aren't groups, either because they have no officers (including a GSR) or because the group holding the meeting has more than one meeting. Thus the Fellowship Group in District 65, Area 59, has twenty-eight meetings a week [Lebanon PA], as does the Easy Does It Group in District 64, Area 59 [Lancaster PA]. On the other hand, there is a Tuesday night meeting in District 65, Area 59, that, despite having met every Tuesday for a decade, has no group structure (and no home group members either, though there is one AA who has been there for, I think, more than 500 of the meetings). It's a meeting -- not a group. - - - - From: jenny andrews (jennylaurie1 at hotmail.com) "... any two or three alcoholics gathered together" goes back long before the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, and clearly echoes Matthew 18:20 in the New Testament: "19. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Laurie A. - - - - > From: ArtSheehan@msn.com > Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 > Subject: Group start date: how it is defined > > A group start date is based on when the second sober alcoholic shows up to join with the first sober alcoholic. When they had the first meeting does not
determine the beginning of a group. That's the basis for defining the beginning of AA when Dr Bob, the second alcoholic, joined with Bill W to form the AA Fellowship (qualified by the date that Dr Bob had his last drink). It is also the basis for defining the beginning of Akron Group #1 as July 4, 1935 when Bill D left the hospital to join with Dr Bob to form Akron Group #1. > > From other postings, I think care should be exercised in people today labeling groups as so-called "meetings" as opposed to "groups." Early AA made no such hair-splitting distinction. The long form of Tradition Three was first published in the April 1946 Grapevine in the article "Twelve Suggested Points for AA Tradition" and stated "... Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. Group." > > Cheers > Arthur IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 5877. . . . . . . . . . . . The Irishman in the chapter on Tradition Five in the 12 and 12 From: kodom2545 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/21/2009 9:37:00 AM
on Tradition Five in the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pp. 151-154?
Silkworth indicated as someone who might be a possible candidate for the A.A. program.
Firestone From: jax760 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/21/2009 11:14:00 AM
Newton and Russell Firestone (online) and can't for the life of me remember where I spotted it. Does anyone recall seeing this? God Bless John B. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 5879. . . . . . . . . . . . First AA meeting in Los Angeles From: Charles Grotts . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/14/2009 3:18:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII In Los Angeles our AA meeting directory says that the first meeting in L.A. took place on December 19, 1939 but that meeting died out. The first meeting that lasted was started on either the last Friday in March or the 1st Friday in April, 1940, according to Mort Joseph, who organized it. In a talk given in 1975, he said he never could remember which Friday it was. That was at the Cecil Hotel in downtown Los Angeles, which still exists. It was called "The Old Mother Group." After moving to several locations, it eventually died out too.
think think From: corafinch . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/19/2009 6:10:00 PM
and John Lee in Pittsburgh Arthur Sheehan wrote in an earlier message: > I don't see any cause and effect association > between the IBM and AA slogans - it's seems > like speculation. Is there a non-anecdotal > source for corroboration that it "... was > adopted by AA members from a sign that came > with early IBM calculating machines ..." > > T J Watson Sr coined the slogan "Think" in 1911 > long before the forerunner companies evolved > into the name "International Business Machines" > in 1924. The slogan consisted simply of the > single word "Think." I tried the old indiscriminate-search technique on this problem. Repetition of the word "think" for emphasis appears early, e.g. a Ben Jonson play from the 1600s, where a character tells another to "think think think think", but of course that is not in any sense a slogan. In 1909, in a book on American authors, this sentence appears: "To produce vital
and useful criticism it is necessary to think think think and then when tired of
thinking, to think more." I've seen that exact sentence quoted in at least one
other book (with the author's name--W.C. Brownell). The phrase "think think think" or "think think and think" seems to have developed a life on its own over the next few decades. It showed up in several letters to the editor in the 1950s-60s. One 1950s article about IBM made it clear that each sign was just one word, but
described the effect of multiple signs as, "Think . . . Think . . . Think," in the sense that the occupant of room with several such signs would experience it as repetitive. So it would be entirely understandable if the previous literary/expository repetitions of the word combined with the IBM use of one-word signs to create a slogan. Cora
(jlobdell54 at hotmail.com) Arthur Sheehan wrote: > I don't see any cause and effect association > between the IBM and AA slogans - it's seems > like speculation. Is there a non-anecdotal > source for corroboration that it "... was > adopted by AA members from a sign that came > with early IBM calculating machines ..." It depends on whether one considers Clarence Snyder's recollections (as recorded
by Mitchell K.) as purely anecdotal or as an historical source. Myself, as an historian, with a Ph.D. in (Applied) History, and having produced a number of books based on transcriptions of dictated memoirs, and having some years ago done at paper for the Oral History Association on the value of such transcriptions, I'd call Clarence's story of the IBM connection pretty good evidence -- certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. So -- if not
history, at least an historical source. Of course, we know that even Bill W's
accounts of the early history of AA -- even Dr. Bob's DLD -- are subject to question (and Jimmy B. recorded that Dr Bob, perhaps not counting the beer Bill gave him, counted his sobriety from June 15 not June 10 -- hearsay but not anecdotal). - - - - From: Troubled Individual (addicttedone at yahoo.com) I got sober in a clubhouse here in Atlanta, many years ago I'm quite thankful
for, and they had to sign "THINK THINK THINK" posted on one of their walls. Right across the room was a sign saying "DON'T THINK, DONT DRINK, and GO TO MEETINGS." I used to sit and stare at those two signs wondering how these "fools" could site here day after day, week after week and not realize this oxymoron. Don't worry, I got better and I'm not sure if the signs still remain
in the building like that or not. Let's hope so. - - - - From: "johnlawlee" (johnlawlee at yahoo.com) "Think the drink through" is heard regularly at AA meetings, but it's absent from the AA literature. It's another popular cliche scattered by treatment centers. There's a large group of people who can think the drink through--these people are called "non-alcoholics". A serviceable lay definition of "alcoholic" would be "someone who cannot reliably think the drink through." The Big Book assures us, at page 24, that a real alcoholic cannot bring into consciousness with sufficient force the humiliation of a week ago. Page 43 indicates that, at certain times, the real alcoholic has no effective defense against the first drink. He has placed himself beyond human power, so that memory, knowledge, fear
and fellowship will not protect him from the first drink. If drunks were able to
reliably think the drink through, they'd never need the Steps or spiritual experience, only a desire to stop drinking. John Lee Pittsburgh IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 5881. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: First AA group in Missouri From: Jeff Tedford . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/20/2009 6:25:00 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII St. Louis, Missouri on October 30, 1940 Per our Eastern Missouri District 51 Archivist, Renee, "From Golden Moments of Reflection: 1st AA meeting in Missouri at Gibson Hotel on Enright October 30, 1940." - - - - From G.C. the moderator: there is more about this in Bob Pearson's unpublished history of AA, which describes Father Ed Dowling's trip to New York City to see Bill Wilson, and then says: "After Father Ed returned to St.Louis, he was contacted by F., who said his son-in-law had a drinking problem. Of course, it was F. himself who had the drinking problem and was seeking help. With Father Ed’s aid and encouragement, F. rounded up four other prospects and held the first A.A. meeting in St. Louis
(and in the state of Missouri) on October 30, 1940, at the Gibson Hotel, 5883
Enright Avenue." IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ++++Message 5882. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Group start date: how it is defined
From: Arthur S . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/19/2009 5:32:00 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII From Arthur S., GRault, and Larry Tooley - - - - "Arthur S" (ArtSheehan at msn.com) Hi Jared I'm an active member in the General Service Structure and disagree with the assertion that "... the creation of the service structure and thus of Group Representatives (GRs, now General Service Representatives, GSRs) leads to a quick test of what's a group and what's a meeting ..." It is left to each individual to determine whether he/she is an AA member. It is left to each two or three members to determine if they are an AA group and how they conduct their internal affairs. That's the way I read Tradition Three (long form) and Concept XII Warranty Six (pgs 74-75 - "Twelve Concepts for World Service") which are not ambiguous on the matter. As desirable as it may be (and I'd love to see every group have a GSR) there is no qualification of whether a group is a group based on it having a GSR or not or any other type of trusted group servant. In my area, 27% of our 424 groups do not have a GSR (for whatever reason). They are still AA groups and recognized as such. The only defined restriction for a group in AA's principles (Traditions and Concepts) is "no other purpose or affiliation" such as joining with Alanon to have "family meetings" or with NA to have "alcohol and drug meetings" etc., etc. In AA Comes of Age (pg 105) Bill W wrote: "... in its original 'long form,' Tradition Four (sic s.b. Three) declares: 'Any two or three gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that as a group they have no other affiliation.'. This means that these two or three alcoholics could try for sobriety in any way they liked. They could disagree with any or all of A.A.'s principles and still call themselves an A.A. group ..."
attempting to define what an AA Group is which included defining terms such as "groups" "meetings" and "gatherings." In 1980/1981 the "Six-point definition of an AA group" was inserted in many literature items and in 1990 the Conference changed the definition of a group to consist of the long form of the Third and Fifth Traditions. This was changed again in 1991 (with a change to the Service Manual) that stated: "... The Long Form of Tradition Three and a section of Warranty Six, Concept 12, aptly describe what an A.A. group is: Tradition Three: 'Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.'
liberties which the A.A. Traditions accord to the individual member and to his group: no penalties to be inflicted for nonconformity to A.A. principles; no fees or dues to be levied - voluntary contributions only; no member to be expelled from A.A. - membership always to be the choice of the individual; each A.A. group to conduct its internal affairs as it wishes - it being merely requested to abstain from acts that might injure A.A. as a whole; and finally that any group of alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group provided that, as a group, they have no other purpose or affiliation." The above remains the definition of an AA group in all AA literature that defines what a group is (last acted on by the 2000 Conference). "The AA Group" pamphlet, I believe, sows more confusion than clarity stating (pgs 10-11): "Is There a Difference Between a Meeting and a Group?" It goes on to state "Most A.A. members meet in A.A. groups as defined by the long form of our Third Tradition (see page 42). However, some A.A. members hold A.A. meetings that differ from the common understanding of a group. These members simply gather at a set time and place for a meeting, perhaps for convenience or other special situations. The main difference between meetings and groups is that A.A. groups generally continue to exist outside the prescribed meeting hours, ready to provide Twelfth Step help when needed. A.A. groups are encouraged to register with G.S.O., as well as with their local offices: area, district, intergroup or central office. A.A. meetings can be listed in local meeting lists." The above in some qualified cases makes sense but in many cases it does not and it is inconsistent with the principle that a group has the autonomy "... to conduct its internal affairs as it wishes ..." A group can have one meeting a week - that might be all they can afford to rent a meeting room (and it is all GSO asks for as one of the qualifications to be listed in the national directory as an AA group). The group may not have a GSR but they can have a "primary contact" who is a group member (that too is all GSO asks for to be listed in the national directory as an AA group). The group might not have a Central Office, Treatment Facilities or Corrections Rep but they can have individual members who take the initiative to sign up to be a contact for 12th Step calls to the local Central Office or join with other AA members to take meetings into medical and penal institutions. They may not have a Grapevine Rep but all the members may subscribe to it.
Arthur
Representative.
(GRault at yahoo.com) I just don't see any source authority for Jared Lobdell's statement in his first paragraph: > a quick test of what's a group and what's a > meeting [is that] if it has a GSR or according > to the District it's in should have a GSR (or > if it's an institutional group that doesn't > have anyone available to be a GSR because the > GSR can't be a facility employee or an inmate), > it's a group. Otherwise it's a meeting.
statement in light of the Third Tradition. Is there any? Surely any group can choose not to have a GSR and still be an A.A. group. - - - - From: "Larry Tooley" (wa9guu at charter.net) I agree in theory buy not in fact. Usually a person who "runs" a group is the GSR, Treasurer...ad infinites. It is a poor way to do it since a business meeting should be called to elect officers. What I don't like about this is the GSB usually gets no contributions. A group that has many meetings is still the group. If somebody wants to smoke, they can go to the group's business meeting and bring it up that their meeting wants to smoke. Then the group can vote on it.
Conference From: samuelmfrost . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/19/2009 2:05:00 AM
- referred to as "The Blue Book" I am currently trying to find where I can locate the material taken from this work. Bill Wilson, in several "Ask Bill" sites, answers questions about religion, the clergy, etc. The footnotes are usually, N.C.C.A., 1960, the "Blue Book" vol. 12, 1960. Any help would be great. Sam F. - - - - From GC the moderator: The organization is now called the National Catholic Council on Alcoholism and Related Drug Problems. It was founded by Father Ralph Pfau from Indianapolis, who was the first Yüklə 11,49 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|