Womens/Mens Groups
guya...@my-deja.com
rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would like
to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed all
gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
-Guy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mike
>
> I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
> published meeting book..
> They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
> groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
> listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions.
> What I would like
> to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
> convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed all
> gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
>
> -Guy
OUR "COMMON BOND" IS ALCOHOL. (period)
We are people who normally would not mix. - p17
The feeling of having shared in a common peril is one element in the
powerful cement which binds us. - p17
Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their
experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their
common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. -- preamble
KEEP IT IN!... Mens and Womens group listings
.............violation of the Traditions
A.A. TRADITION 1
Our common welfare.........
A.A. TRADITION 4
Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups
or A.A. as a whole.
A.A. TRADITION 5
Each group has but one primary purpose-to carry its message to the
alcoholic who still suffers.
what violation??
THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
AGAIN, OUR "COMMON BOND" IS ALCOHOL. (period)
we need to have a listing for "BAD HOUSE PAINTERS" also...!!
it's the jitter joints 'mumbo-jumbo" seeping into the fellowship.....
Mike
7-1-84
_____ http://welcome.to/AAkron
_____ recovering...@juno.com
_____ Today's Date: July 15, 1999
Love to gossip or criticize?
Is it True?
Is it Kind?
Is it Necessary?
Derek M.
<guya...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from
the
> published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special
interest"
> groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
> listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would
like
> to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
> convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed
all
> gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
>
> -Guy
>
>
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Well, these types of meetings exist all over the country as well as all over
the planet. Have been for years. They should pool their resources and
print their own meeting lists. They could also simply omit the special
needs descriptions from the list itself and be sure to post them on the door
so that people can see them when they enter the meeting.
--
Derek M.
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
Derek M.
Mike <Mi...@SPAMFREE.com> wrote in message news:378D78...@SPAMFREE.com...
> guya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have
successfully
> > rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings
from the
> > published meeting book..
>
> > They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
> > groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
> > listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions.
>
> > What I would like
> > to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to
this
> > convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also
removed all
> > gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
> >
> > -Guy
>
>
>
> We are people who normally would not mix. - p17
>
> The feeling of having shared in a common peril is one element in the
> powerful cement which binds us. - p17
>
> Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their
> experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their
> common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. -- preamble
>
>
>
> .............violation of the Traditions
false.
>
> A.A. TRADITION 1
> Our common welfare.........
unity is not conformity
>
> A.A. TRADITION 4
> Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups
> or A.A. as a whole.
>
> A.A. TRADITION 5
> Each group has but one primary purpose-to carry its message to the
> alcoholic who still suffers.
>
each group is also encourage to carry the message in the best way they can
to their local community.
> what violation??
>
> THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
>
> AGAIN, OUR "COMMON BOND" IS ALCOHOL. (period)
that common bond does not overcome the newcomer homosexual's fear of gay
bashing nor does it overcome the homophobe's desire to gay bash. In some
places in the USA and other countries it simply is still not safe to be out
amongst straights.
>
> we need to have a listing for "BAD HOUSE PAINTERS" also...!!
in Holywood there are meetings that you can only attend if you are invited
to. Why? Because they consist primarily of celebrities. Should we stop
these meetings?
>
> it's the jitter joints 'mumbo-jumbo" seeping into the fellowship.....
>
ignorance serves no one.
>
>
--
Derek M.
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
> Mike
> 7-1-84
>
thanks for showing what little you know.
Derek M.
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999071506...@mail.replay.com...
> In article <7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, guya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have
successfully
> > rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings
from the
> > published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special
interest"
> > groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
> > listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would
like
> > to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to
this
> > convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also
removed all
> > gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
>
> there are too many "kinds" of alcoholic to definitively classify them all.
> Nor much point in doing so.
>
> So, just all alcoholics is the practical basis. And, if looking for what's
> in common among alcoholics, rather than what's different, then why hold
any
> certain special differences as necessary for their own special
> identity/meetings/etc.?
>
> People that want to come together on some other basis can do so. But
that's
> not what "AA" has ever really been about. Doesn't argue against any of
that
> elsewhere, either.
>
Different does not mean bad or non-AA.
Kimba
snip
>
>THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
Have I told you how very offensive I find your remarks?
I didn't think I had.
Kimba
He that doesn't love himself will find plenty who feel the same way.
---GaryE, The Philosopher King
fke
> >
> > KEEP IT IN!... Mens and Womens group listings
> >
> > .............violation of the Traditions
>
> false.
the only requirement, derek...
>
> >
> > A.A. TRADITION 1
> > Our common welfare.........
>
> unity is not conformity
focusing on our differences isnt unity.
> >
> > A.A. TRADITION 4
> > Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups
> > or A.A. as a whole.
> >
> > A.A. TRADITION 5
> > Each group has but one primary purpose-to carry its message to the
> > alcoholic who still suffers.
> >
>
> each group is also encourage to carry the message in the best way they can
> to their local community.
true....
i guess meetings at which all are welcome are not sufficient.
>
> > what violation??
> >
> > THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
> >
> > AGAIN, OUR "COMMON BOND" IS ALCOHOL. (period)
>
> that common bond does not overcome the newcomer homosexual's fear of gay
> bashing nor does it overcome the homophobe's desire to gay bash. In some
> places in the USA and other countries it simply is still not safe to be out
> amongst straights.
how do they know a person is gay?
>
> >
> > we need to have a listing for "BAD HOUSE PAINTERS" also...!!
>
> in Holywood there are meetings that you can only attend if you are invited
> to. Why? Because they consist primarily of celebrities. Should we stop
> these meetings?
theyre not fellowship meetings, theyre outside issue meetings.
money, property, and PRESTIGE...
celebreties anon....
we all have a part in placing others on pedastals..
the adulated and adulator share the responsibility...
>
> >
> > it's the jitter joints 'mumbo-jumbo" seeping into the fellowship.....
> >
>
> ignorance serves no one.
and we seem to want to have our differences serve ourselves.
Sergeant Bilko
guya...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
the
>published meeting book..
Congratulations to all the responsible members in your *large metropolitan
area*.
Sarge
Sergeant Bilko
Derek M. wrote in message <7mjtr2$mk3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Well, these types of meetings (special interest) exist all over the country
.........
> They could also simply omit the special
>needs descriptions from the list itself
We differentiate between *special interest* and *special needs*.
*Special needs* is used to refer to disabilities such as hearing impaired,
wheel cahir bound, sight impaired, etc. Most AA communities are working
hard to try to accomodate the needs of these members.
*Special interests* is used to refer to members who believe their needs are
unique in that their gender or affiliation requires separate meetings.
Sarge
Julie
successfully
>rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
> groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
>listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would like
>to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
>convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed all
>gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender
Group".)
>
Geez, Guy...this is a good example of why we need to be involved in
macro-service work, to keep crap like that from happening. I get the icky
feeling that a "book-burning" has just occurred where you live. I wonder what
they thought removing them would really accomplish...somehow I think I'd refuse
to go to the "comglommerate" groups just b/c I'm an alkie and someone told me I
couldn't go to a gay or women's meeting. Just on principle I'd make damned sure
these meetings could still exist if people want them. I tend not go to sun-set
meetings often, but who the f*** are these idiots to tell me these meetings
can't be a part of the recovering AA community??
Thanks for telling us about this...
Julie
"No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions." --Charles
Steinmetz
Julie
>>
>>THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
>
>I didn't think I had.
>
>Kimba
>
>He that doesn't love himself will find plenty who feel the same way.
> ---GaryE, The Philosopher King
Why Kimba, I'm shocked at your response. <tsk tsk> Don't you believe the poor
boy deserves to know that we not only recruit new homosexuals, but we also
perform monthly male virgin sacrifices at our meetings?
Julie
>> ...it really *is* difficult to get an accurate picture of
>> what AA represents, when "word of mouth" is what we must rely on.
>
>That's what the Big Book and other publications are for. So that we don't
>have to rely on only word of mouth.
Bit simplistic there, dontcha think? Seems most people who just walk in the
door can hardly focus their eyes, much less read the BB.
>> It really is
>> a "simple" program but some of the codswallop that wormed its way into
>meetings
>> sure can toss a turd in the punchbowl.
>
>Don't see that it does much good to put down the other alkies that go to AA
>meetings.
And you construe this as my "putting them down"? Seems I was disagreeing with
what is said (specifically the items Jeff C. identified), not personally
attacking the other members. To thine own inventory, be true.
>I always figured, if I want to see anyone there doing any certain thing (or
>not) then I can assign myself to it.
And that's all well and good once you've been around long enough to discern
that. The newcomer has more to wade through than we do.
Julie
>unique in that their gender or affiliation requires separate meetings.
>
>Sarge
I see that as "desires separate meetings", not "requires" (i.e., all it takes
is a resentment and a coffee pot). And none of these meetings that I've ever
encountered has ever "excluded" anyone (note *that I've encountered* --- no
doubt someone has a horrid tale of exclusion out there, God knows I have a few
of my own). I recall a "women's meeting" where a man came b/c that was the only
one in walking distance and he was only visiting the area. It was absolutely no
problem and he was given a very warm welcome.
Hell, for this "special interest" thread, let's just toss "non-smoking"
meetings out, too, make 'em all cesspool, smoke-filled emphysema dens.
Afterall, majority rules, does it not?????? (Sorry folks, but this control
queen crap does drive me up the proverbial wall.)
Julie
> I tend not go to sun-set
>meetings often, but who the f*** are these idiots to tell me these meetings
>can't be a part of the recovering AA community??
>
>Thanks for telling us about this...
>
>Julie
Sorry, gang, should read "sub-set", not "sun-set" meetings. Oh, but I guess now
we'll have a Conference Approved Meeting Time for that matter..."All meetings
must be held at 8:30 pm, just like our Founders did, or IT'S NOT AA."
JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
message??!!!!
<fume> <steam>
JoeRaisin
attraction rather than promotion......
JoeRaisin
Julie wrote in message <19990715084014...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>>snip
>>>
>>>THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
>>Have I told you how very offensive I find your remarks?
>>
>>I didn't think I had.
>>
>>Kimba
>>
>>He that doesn't love himself will find plenty who feel the same way.
>> ---GaryE, The Philosopher King
>
>Why Kimba, I'm shocked at your response. <tsk tsk> Don't you believe the
poor
>boy deserves to know that we not only recruit new homosexuals, but we also
>perform monthly male virgin sacrifices at our meetings?
>
Bette C.
>I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have
successfully
>rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
>published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
> groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
>listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would like
>to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
>convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed all
>gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender
Group".)
>
>-Guy
>
Some years back I was involved with a NA regional literature committee....and
since our Regional Service Office folded due to mismanagement of funds, we were
asked to re-establish a regional meeting list that had gone down the tubes with
the RSO.
Needless to say, the subject of what to do with "special interest" meetings
drew much heated discussion even from our very small subcommittee. We finally
settled on listing the groups in the directory...However, we included a
disclaimer under the legend that said, "Any addict is welcome at any meeting,
regardless of how it is listed." Our logic was that while a meeting might be
made up largely of people who have a "common" interest, no addict seeking
recovery should be turned away from any NA meeting.
Groups that objected to the disclaimer had the option of not being listed in
the directory. None took that option. How do the individual groups deal with
any effects of this disclaimer? I have only ever heard of one group
complaining, and it seems this had more to do with personality conflicts
surrounding this group.....I think, for the most part, no one would *want* to
turn away *anyone* who needed a meeting, regardless of whether they fit the
discription of the "special" or "common" interest or not.....
Bette C., OSG
bette needs a meeting like matthew needs a sponsor
-M-
Ted L.
>we also perform monthly male virgin sacrifices at our
>meetings?
Uhm, Julie, where do you find a virgin male alcoholic?
(I do appreciate the men-only, women-only listings, however.
It means I can avoid the men-only groups. You've never
heard what a group degenerates into when no women happen
to show up!)
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Grace
<fwr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> guya...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> >rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from
> the
> >published meeting book..
>
> Congratulations to all the responsible members in your *large metropolitan
> area*.
>
> Sarge
And my condolences to you for having a bunch of bleeding deacons running
the asylum. I go to a women's meeting regularly and believe that its
important that they exist. I often meet new women who don't feel
comfortable at mixed meetings - for very legitimate reasons, including not
wanting to be distracted by men, fear of getting hit on, etc. SO now the
AA stormtroopers claim that peoples' comfort zones aren't valid? Sheesh.
So what's next?
"The only way out is through."
-Robert Frost
JoeRaisin
watching the floor lights blinking as you descend....... Breath.......
Julie wrote in message <19990715092556...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
><first cup of coffee accident>
>> I tend not go to sun-set
>>meetings often, but who the f*** are these idiots to tell me these
meetings
>>can't be a part of the recovering AA community??
>>
>>Thanks for telling us about this...
>>
>>Julie
>
>Sorry, gang, should read "sub-set", not "sun-set" meetings. Oh, but I guess
now
>we'll have a Conference Approved Meeting Time for that matter..."All
meetings
>must be held at 8:30 pm, just like our Founders did, or IT'S NOT AA."
>
>JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
>message??!!!!
>
><fume> <steam>
>
Lech K. Lesiak
> I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
> published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
I know of none in North America. The closest thing I have seen to it was
some years ago when some outraged AA'ers tried to get my home group
delisted because they held hooker raffles. It's still listed, although
the hooker raffles were cancelled.
When I lived in France 15 years ago
there were no special interest groups. It was thus partly because there
were only a couple of hundred small groups in the whole country. But the
French, including the women I asked, also thought the whole idea of
different meetings for men and women was kinda weird. In the UK at the
time, I never found a women's meeting either. Asked people in London, and
they told me that someone would try to start one up every couple of years.
It never lasted more than a few months as people drifted back to refular
meetings. Any of the Brits know if this situation has changed?
Cheers.
Lech
Jim
Lech K. Lesiak wrote in message
. The closest thing I have seen to it was
>some years ago when some outraged AA'ers tried to get my home group
>delisted because they held hooker raffles. It's still listed, although
>the hooker raffles were cancelled
Hooker raffles are still held here in many of the French groups. The
deal is that you keep your pants on for two years and then a raffle is held
and the two year celebrant is taken out to get his gears oiled by a
professional sex-trade worker (NB- we are not permitted to use the word
"hooker" in Quebec).
We english speaking Protestants are too tight assed to do anything like
this.
Jimb
Julie
>
>>we also perform monthly male virgin sacrifices at our
>>meetings?
>
>Uhm, Julie, where do you find a virgin male alcoholic?
Um...Ted...Joe...think about the many ways a man could be "a virgin"...dang,
see what happens when I try to be subtle in a troll?? Guess I'll have to be
more explicit in warning about gay meetings who recruit male virgins for
sacrificial offerings. You boys have been warned now...
Julie (only 5 more people to recruit before I get my toaster oven!)
"The place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and
hands." --Robert M. Pirsig
Julie
>watching the floor lights blinking as you descend....... Breath.......
Whew...thanks, Joe...ahhh...I feel much better now. Maybe it was that 2nd cuppa
java?
Julie
Jim
>rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from
the
>published meeting book..
From a historical perspective, this may help. The first "special
interest" group was a seamens group in N.Y. This started in 1944. They
reasoned that the life of a seaman made them "different." They had their own
club house and even wrote their own literature with their interpretation of
the program cofified into 6 Steps for Seamen. There was no resistance from
the fellowship as people understood that they had the right to be wrong.
The only type of groups that the Gen. Ser. Conf. has issued advisory
actions on are Couples Groups (A.A.'s and spouses) and Alcohol and Pill
Groups (dual addiction).
Special Interest groups serve a purpose if they are used as a stepping
stone to mainstream A.A. if not the tend to blow themselves out.
Jimb
Julie
>There was no resistance from
>the fellowship as people understood that they had the right to be wrong.
Interesting tid-bit there, Jim, thanks. And if they're sober, who's to say
they're "wrong"? Maybe they're just not "AA"...
Can recovery be recovery and not AA? I say absolutely yes. Should "other"
recovery groups list any and all recovery meetings, AA, and non-AA? It would be
a good thing. Seems to me the overarching goal here is to help people get and
stay sober. Should I ever get enough motivation to start a recovery group, I
personally would list every and any possible recovery-oriented group out there
in any pamphlet I had anything to do with, which is, incidentally, what I do
when I encounter anyone with an alcohol problem. Isn't that the purpose of
"carrying the message"? Does it have to be a "Strictly Codified and
Conference-Approved AA-Only Message"?
Jim
Julie wrote in message
>Can recovery be recovery and not AA? I say absolutely yes. Should "other"
>recovery groups list any and all recovery meetings, AA, and non-AA? It
would be
>a good thing. Seems to me the overarching goal here is to help people get
and
>stay sober.
Sounds rational, but is it practical.? There are eleven distinct
theories of alcoholism. Around each of these has been constructed a "method
of recovery."
If I look at it as spokes in a wheel. Then A.A. is a spoke or a way to
recovery. The question then becomes, can one be on two or three or four
paths at the same time? Is there not a "confusion of language?"
In 1993 professionals met in New Mexico to discuss how to srtudy A.A.
They could not talk to each other because of different usages of the same
word and none of them understood A.A.
Dr. Ernest Kurtz wrote a paper on this. Very interesting.
Jimb
Martha Brummett
>I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
>rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
>published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
> groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
>listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions.
While I concur with the interpretation of the Traditions, it does not
seem a move calculated to be in the best interest of the new drunk.
My experience, and what I must believe works, is: get the new drunk to
a "gay" meeting, get her a sponsor, start her working the Steps, get
her to a "regular" meeting, get her to service work and learning about
the Traditions, to become a bleeding deacon on a.r.aa!
Martha B.
Denver CO
10/3/83
Lech K. Lesiak
> Hell, for this "special interest" thread, let's just toss "non-smoking"
> meetings out, too, make 'em all cesspool, smoke-filled emphysema dens.
> Afterall, majority rules, does it not?????? (Sorry folks, but this control
> queen crap does drive me up the proverbial wall.)
In my part of the world there are no more 'special interest' non-smoking
meetings. There were three or four, but most went out of business after
landlords banned smoking in their buildings. There are a lot of meetings
in Calgary where you can't smoke, but that certainly is not because people
want it that way. In Vancouver, so far as I know, all meetings have to be
non-smoking because of a municipla bylaw that prohibits smoking in public
areas. Even the Alano Clubs are non-smoking, although I have seen the
rule ignored in at least one of them.
Cheers,
Lech
Julie
>theories of alcoholism. Around each of these has been constructed a "method
>of recovery."
> If I look at it as spokes in a wheel. Then A.A. is a spoke or a way to
>recovery. The question then becomes, can one be on two or three or four
>paths at the same time? Is there not a "confusion of language?"
> In 1993 professionals met in New Mexico to discuss how to srtudy A.A.
>They could not talk to each other because of different usages of the same
>word and none of them understood A.A.
> Dr. Ernest Kurtz wrote a paper on this. Very interesting.
>Jimb
I guess I adhere to the one size doesn't fit all theory. It's up to the
idividual to find what works for them. People will flame me and say, "but they
might *die* while they find that out." Yep. People who go to AA die, too.
My point was that the fact that there are other paths doesn't make them wrong,
and someone might just find a non-AA path that works for them and not use any
of AA. If a person finds taking an eclectic approach to recovery to be too
"confusing", they can pick one that seems to fit most closely what they need.
For me personally, I'm not sold lock, stock and barrel on any one narrow
path...just that one big path of "I don't (and can't) drink." How I got and
stay there continues to change and grow as I do. I suppose people's mileage
varies...
I'd be interested in the Kurtz article (and his books). Most professions
develop a system of liguistic "legalese" and I'm certainly not surprised to
find it in the different schools of addiction. I know you do some of this
research for a living (?) and I'd be interested in some emails or postings from
you about the schools of thought.
Lech K. Lesiak
> Hooker raffles are still held here in many of the French groups. The
> deal is that you keep your pants on for two years and then a raffle is held
> and the two year celebrant is taken out to get his gears oiled by a
> professional sex-trade worker (NB- we are not permitted to use the word
> "hooker" in Quebec).
Interesting. First time I have ever heard of the practice, and I have
been to lots of meetings in Montreal in both English and French. The lads
didn't do that even in Paris - several were quite intrigued when I
mentioned it.
Cheers,
Lech
Jim
Lech K. Lesiak wrote in message
>been to lots of meetings in Montreal in both English and French. The lads
>didn't do that even in Paris - several were quite intrigued when I
>mentioned it.
>
>Cheers,
>Lech
I guess boys will be boys.
Jimb
Sergeant Bilko
Jim wrote in message ...
>
> The only type of groups that the Gen. Ser. Conf. has issued advisory
>actions on are Couples Groups (A.A.'s and spouses) and Alcohol and Pill
>Groups (dual addiction).
I think you can add Double Trouble groups (psych & alc) to that list - not
sure what year but it seems like about 10 years ago.
Sarge
Kimba
>>snip
>>>
>>>THANKS FOR THE WARNING! .............gay listings
>>Have I told you how very offensive I find your remarks?
>>
>>I didn't think I had.
>>
>>Kimba
>>
>>He that doesn't love himself will find plenty who feel the same way.
>> ---GaryE, The Philosopher King
>
>Why Kimba, I'm shocked at your response. <tsk tsk> Don't you believe the poor
>boy deserves to know that we not only recruit new homosexuals, but we also
>perform monthly male virgin sacrifices at our meetings?
>
I can't respond to this without descending to a place I don't want to
go.
Love,
Kimba
>JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
>message??!!!!
May I?
Thank you.
Love,
Kimba
JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
message??!!!! ---Julie, TSS
Simon/Bridged
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 guya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> > rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
> > published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
(snip)
> Any of the Brits know if this situation has changed?
>
> Cheers.
> Lech
I've just looked in my March 1999 book of "Meetings in the London Area"
(UK). There are *no* special interest meetings listed - only 'open' or
'closed' ones (together with the 'no smoking' ones!)
While I'm posting, I've been to four meetings now. Two smoking and two
non smoking. The non smoking ones both had about 50% less attendance
than the smoking ones. Three of the meetings were held in rooms no more
than 15 minutes walk apart.
I haven't been around long enough to know any more, but reading this
thread made me think.
With serenity,
Simon
Julie
>
>JoeRaisin
Well, Joe, I was going to make a crack <oops> about Ed's date yesterday, but
decided that would really be pushing it...<oops>...sorry Ed...
Julie, who's real glad she doesn't have to study for the pap/bum test again til
next year...
"Chicken Soup: An ancient miracle drug containing equal parts of aureomycin,
cocaine, interferon, and TLC. The only ailment chicken soup can't cure is
neurotic dependence on one's mother." -- Arthur Naiman, "Every Goy's Guide to
Yiddish"
Jim
Sergeant Bilko wrote in message <7mlgsa$eff$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>I think you can add Double Trouble groups (psych & alc) to that list - not
>sure what year but it seems like about 10 years ago.
>
>Sarge
Have you seen Areas listing Groups for alcoholics who take psychiatric
medications?
As a point of interest, we had a couple of people who had had relatives
with aids, so they wanted a listed meeting for people infected or affected
by HIV.
The Area gave in and the Group started. One of my sponsees has been HIV
for 12 years so he went. Told me it damm near drove him crazy. The relatives
wanted to talk about their loss and dying, the people with HIV wanted to
talk about living. Conflicting interests?
Results. Meeting closed.
JImb
Sergeant Bilko
with Area listings, Intergroup What & Where's, District meeting lists, etc.
Sarge
Jim wrote in message ...
>
Jeff C
After reading much of this thread, I notice that the terms "group" and
"meeting" are used as though they meant the same thing.
Uh, oh. New thread?
In blue polka dotted gay straight black white male female tall short young
and old Fellowship of the Spirit,
Jeff C.
guya...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
>rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from
the
>published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special
interest"
> groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
>listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would
like
>to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
>convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed
all
>gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
>
>-Guy
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Buddy H.
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> > I once walked into my home group oblivious that a women's meeting was
> > underway. Got as far as the coffee pot when I realized the pointed silence
> > that had suddenly begun. I turned and looked at the tables -- all women.
> > Staring and/or glaring at me. Finally, the chairlady spoke up and told me
> > the obvious: "This is a women's meeting. Men aren't allowed." The tone was
> > challenging and icy.
>
> you didn't know your homegroup was a women's meeting?
>
> --
> Derek M
Some AA groups have dozens of meetings in a week, at various times
of day, held in the same one or two meeting rooms. People often
just show up, knowing there will be some kind of meeting at a
certain time. So, it's quite believable that a newish person
might inadvertently walk into stag meeting for the opposite sex,
even in his home group. (Not more than once, I suspect.)
:)
--
Regards,
Buddy
Buddy H.
>
> "Sergeant Bilko" wrote:
> > Congratulations to all the responsible members in your *large metropolitan
> > area*.
> And my condolences to you for having a bunch of bleeding deacons running
> the asylum. I go to a women's meeting regularly and believe that its
> important that they exist. I often meet new women who don't feel
> comfortable at mixed meetings - for very legitimate reasons, including not
> wanting to be distracted by men, fear of getting hit on, etc. SO now the
> AA stormtroopers claim that peoples' comfort zones aren't valid? Sheesh.
> So what's next?
Stag meetings are very old in AA. Personally, I think that stag
meetings should be the norm, with only 10-20% mixed meetings,
where population density permits. Most of what I see at mixed
meetings is what I would call posturing and game playing, and the
sharing usually sounds rehearsed and bogus. This, in addition to
your observation about new people feeling safe, which applies to
men, too. Many alcoholics of both sexes enter AA with serious
emotional trauma associated with the cross-sex parent, yet
unconfronted, which often has already been recapitulated in
marriages or relationships in their adulthood. There's also the
"hanky-panky" factor (to use scientific terminology) which adds
complications to the third-party relationship of the spouse of the
new person who attends mixed meetings.
--
Regards,
Buddy
Martha Brummett
> Sounds rational, but is it practical.? There are eleven distinct
>theories of alcoholism. Around each of these has been constructed a "method
>of recovery."
What are they? Of course I'm only an amateur drunk, but the only one
I've heard of is, "Men and women drink because they like the effect."
Seriously, I'm curious.
Oh, add another to make up twelve: Ann Parker's Alcoholic Signature,
which is too complicated to get into here. I suppose that's the one
I'd go with, really. But I'd like to know about the other eleven.
Martha Brummett
><some nameless person quoted me>
>>> ...it really *is* difficult to get an accurate picture of
>>> what AA represents, when "word of mouth" is what we must rely on.
>>
>>That's what the Big Book and other publications are for. So that we don't
>>have to rely on only word of mouth.
>
>Bit simplistic there, dontcha think? Seems most people who just walk in the
>door can hardly focus their eyes, much less read the BB.
That is why we read the book with the new drunk. Anyone, no matter
how fast and easily s/he just read it for herself, can benefit from a
slow progress through it out loud, with a dictionary handy.
Martha Brummett
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>> personally would list every and any possible recovery-oriented group out there
>> in any pamphlet I had anything to do with, which is, incidentally, what I do
>> when I encounter anyone with an alcohol problem. Isn't that the purpose of
>> "carrying the message"? Does it have to be a "Strictly Codified and
>> Conference-Approved AA-Only Message"?
>
>There's a professional "psychic spiritual healer" in town, offering to help
>"cure" alcoholism (and just about anything else) using crystals, voodoo
>chants & other such. Should we send you the address so you can be sure to
>include it in your list?
LOL! And the Magick 8-Ball too! But seriously, the point is that we,
as a fellowship:
"Ten - No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to
implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues -
particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion.
The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters
they can express no views whatsoever."
Ž1994 Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Software development
by cyb
Mention of other societies in a meeting directory could imply
affiliation; that is why the Denver Area Central Office, some years
ago, removed Al-Anon listings.
JoeRaisin
JoeRaisin
Julie wrote in message <19990715102341...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>>Julie wrote:
>>
>>>we also perform monthly male virgin sacrifices at our
>>>meetings?
>>
>>Uhm, Julie, where do you find a virgin male alcoholic?
><snip>
>
>Um...Ted...Joe...think about the many ways a man could be "a
virgin"...dang,
>see what happens when I try to be subtle in a troll?? Guess I'll have to be
>more explicit in warning about gay meetings who recruit male virgins for
>sacrificial offerings. You boys have been warned now...
>
>Julie (only 5 more people to recruit before I get my toaster oven!)
Jim McMahon
><guya...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
>> rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from
>the published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special
>interest" groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
>> listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I would
>like to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe to this
>> convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also removed
>all gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender Group".)
>>
>> -Guy
>Well, these types of meetings exist all over the country as well as all over
>the planet. Have been for years. They should pool their resources and
>print their own meeting lists. They could also simply omit the special
>needs descriptions from the list itself and be sure to post them on the door
>so that people can see them when they enter the meeting.
>--
>Derek M.
One of the things I like about A.A. is that it is chock full of
PRACTICAL suggestions, like this one by Derek. Why rant and rave
about how things SHOULD be versus how they ARE? Why not simply take
some ACTION to bring the REALITY closer to the IDEAL?
With that in mind, I can think of a few more options:
a. Publish your (our) own damned books and withhold the funds
needed to do it from the service agency that refuses to do it.
Exercise the power of the purse.
b. Get involved politically, and lobby for the desired change at the
level necessary (group, district, area, whatever). I was once part of
a group that actually fired it's district, and joined another one.
c. Seek out any published GSO Guidelines that may exist on the
matter, and use them as "leverage" if they support your case. Of
course, being guidelines and not laws, you're free to ignore them if
they don't support your case. (BTW, I don't know if any such GSO
guidelines exist on this topic, but would be interested in seeing them
if they do).
All the options should be evaluated for a realistic assesment of the
probability of success, and the possible adverse affects of each
course of action. Then, make a decision and take the path that
presents itself - remain flexible enough to try something else if that
doesn't work out. In other words, apply the SERENITY PRAYER.
Now, to answer Guy's original question for the area in which I live:
I know that Men's, Women's and Gay meetings are listed in the Oklahoma
City metro area directory. I know that there are Men's and Women's
meetings sponsored by my group and held in the clubhouse where we have
our meetings. I further know that at last month's General Service
meeting (the local GSR's alterates, and others interested meet
monthly) there were two speakers on the topic of "specialty" meetings.
Both were in favor, but they only mentioned "Young People's" meetings
and "Women's Meetings" - I was surprised they didn't mention the
existence of Gay meetings - I thought they should have, but didn't
bring it up since it wasn't a participative type of meeting, but more
one of "featured speakers on featured topics", and I didn't see any
benefit (or reason) to bring up gay meetings.
Personally, I have nothing against specialty meetings, but don't go
out of my waqy to attend any, either. Earlier in my sobriety, I do
recall being very aware of where the Women's meetings were and, sure
enough, there was rarely a Men's meeting too far away!
Being ordinary and nothing special is a full-time job.
mcma...@flash.net (Jim McMahon in real life)
Julie
Ms. Trollean Royalus Highnus...please forgive your loyal subject, but you left
out the "D" in my title...
Respectfully,
Julie, Trollean Dancing Stream Sprite
Kimba
>>On 15 Jul 1999 13:25:56 GMT, shrin...@aol.comic (Julie) wrote:
>>
>>>JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
>>>message??!!!!
>>
>>May I?
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>Love,
>>Kimba
>>
>>
>>JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
>>message??!!!! ---Julie, TSS
>
>Ms. Trollean Royalus Highnus...please forgive your loyal subject, but you left
>out the "D" in my title...
>
OK. Julie - DTSS (phonetically, it sounds like DITZ....)
Heh.
HareKimba
JHC on a popsicle stick, how 'bout focusing on carrying the %$*^@&
message??!!!! ---Julie, DTSS
Dick M
> Have you seen Areas listing Groups for alcoholics who take psychiatric
>medications?
Like the old Woody Allen movie where he asks a crowd if anyone has a
Valium and everyone reaches for one - that’s araa. I believe you
would find a disproportionately high number of posters here on some
sort of medication for depression. Over the past couple of years I
have been reading here and the numbers are mounting up. I am
wondering if it is representative of the numbers one would encounter
in a meeting.
Regards
Dick
guya...@my-deja.com
I am trying to determine if there is any other area in North American that
has denied Women's/Men's groups a listing of such groups in an AA meeting
list directory.
FWIW the first meeting of a woman's group was on May 20, 1941 in Cleveland,
OH. Also in Cleveland, the West Side Men's Group was formed and first met on
September 4, 1941. And since that time thousands of women's and men's groups
have met and are meeting all over the continent.
-Guy
In article <378dca7...@news.diac.com>,
mo...@diac.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:15:24 GMT, guya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> >rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
> >published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
> > groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and the
> >listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions.
>
> While I concur with the interpretation of the Traditions, it does not
> seem a move calculated to be in the best interest of the new drunk.
> My experience, and what I must believe works, is: get the new drunk to
> a "gay" meeting, get her a sponsor, start her working the Steps, get
> her to a "regular" meeting, get her to service work and learning about
> the Traditions, to become a bleeding deacon on a.r.aa!
>
> Martha B.
> Denver CO
> 10/3/83
>
Jim S.
as a whole.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Take your pick, either one can serve as an argument for either position.
Jim S. (who has no opinion on this issue;)
Derek M.
Sergeant Bilko <fwr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7mkkcs$p5a$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Derek M. wrote in message <7mjtr2$mk3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> >Well, these types of meetings (special interest) exist all over the
country
> .........
> > They could also simply omit the special
> >needs descriptions from the list itself
>
>
> *Special needs* is used to refer to disabilities such as hearing impaired,
> wheel cahir bound, sight impaired, etc. Most AA communities are working
> hard to try to accomodate the needs of these members.
>
> *Special interests* is used to refer to members who believe their needs
are
> unique in that their gender or affiliation requires separate meetings.
>
> Sarge
and yet you have shown no evidence that someone's needs are not valid
reasons for special interest meetings. Just because it doesn't affect your
recovery directly doesn't mean that it won't affect another person's. We
are not and should not be mindless carbon copies of each other. In recovery
or not. We are free to reach out to any alcoholic in need in the best way
that we can. Common needs meetings such as gay/ women's /men's /HIV / dual
diagnosis(mental illness as well as alcoholism) are needed. If you or
anyone else doesn't want to or need to attend you are always free to go to
another meeting. This falls under group autonomy. What falls under "or
affects other groups or AA as a whole." is this type of behavior where
meetings are dropped from our meeting lists, dropped from full participation
in our service meetings by those who fear them or the members who attend
them.
Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those who
feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
--
Derek M
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
Derek M.
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999071516...@mail.replay.com...
> In article <19990715092009...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
> shrin...@aol.comic (Julie) wrote:
>
> > ...And none of these meetings that I've ever
> > encountered has ever "excluded" anyone (note *that I've encountered* ---
no
> > doubt someone has a horrid tale of exclusion out there, God knows I have
a few
> > of my own). I recall a "women's meeting" where a man came b/c that was
> the only
> > one in walking distance and he was only visiting the area. It was
> absolutely no
> > problem and he was given a very warm welcome.
>
> Sure I've got some stories:
>
> I once walked into my home group oblivious that a women's meeting was
> underway. Got as far as the coffee pot when I realized the pointed silence
> that had suddenly begun. I turned and looked at the tables -- all women.
> Staring and/or glaring at me. Finally, the chairlady spoke up and told me
> the obvious: "This is a women's meeting. Men aren't allowed." The tone was
> challenging and icy.
you didn't know your homegroup was a women's meeting?
--
Derek M
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
>
> I felt a kind of shame for even being in the room and hastily exited,
> feeling like an outcast that had just violated them.
>
> > Hell, for this "special interest" thread, let's just toss "non-smoking"
> > meetings out, too...
>
> Yes, lets. How many practicing, bleary drunks do you know that stay out of
> the meetings because of the smoking going on in there? Ever seen any that
> won't sit through one if they can't smoke?
>
> > Afterall, majority rules, does it not?????? (Sorry folks, but this
control
> > queen crap does drive me up the proverbial wall.)
>
> It's not about Rules. It's about Primary Purpose and practicing some
principles.
>
Mike
>
> Autonomy. Anonymity.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~mesh/a2
Hypertext Webster Gateway: "Autonomy"
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=Autonomy&method=exact
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Autonomy \Au*ton"o*my\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. autonomie. See {Autonomous}.]
1. The power or right of self-government;
self-government, or political independence, of a city or a state.
2. (Metaph.) The sovereignty of reason in the sphere of morals; or man's
power, as possessed of reason, to give law to
himself. In this, according to Kant, consist the true nature and only
possible proof of liberty. --Fleming.
From WordNet (r) 1.6 (wn)
autonomy n 1: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political
independence [syn: {liberty}] 2: personal independence
[syn: {self-direction}, {self-reliance}, {self-sufficiency}]
where's the 3rd step fit in this??
--
Mike
Derek M.
> Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
> inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those who
> feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
>
oh and were any of these groups addressed in open discussion about this? If
not, why? If yes, what was their reaction?
Mike
> Some AA groups have dozens of meetings in a week, at various times
> of day, held in the same one or two meeting rooms.
> Regards,
> Buddy
AAkron,OH has 314 + per week... :)
One time long ago, me a two other alcoholics went to 7 meetings in one
day!
Mike
7-1-84
_____ http://welcome.to/AAkron
_____ recovering...@juno.com
_____ Today's Date: July 16, 1999
Love to gossip or criticize?
Is it True?
Is it Kind?
Is it Necessary?
Derek M.
Mike <Mi...@SPAMFREE.com> wrote in message news:378EC5...@SPAMFREE.com...
The third step does not say anything about turning anything over to the
"control" of anyone or anything. No where does it say that we give up our
own free will or autonomy.
Try again.
Derek M.
> In article <7mmdmb$lk8$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, "Derek M."
> <der...@mind.com> wrote:
>
> > ...We
> > are not and should not be mindless carbon copies of each other. In
recovery
> > or not.
>
> same certain special interest factors?
saftey. from physical threats as well as emotional ones.
no presure to change just to fit in. like all these moronic statements
about how it's okay to be gay just don't flaunt it shit that we have seen in
here.
being able to talk with people who know what we are feeling and maybe know
what it takes to get through it.
take this newsgroup for example. How many Tom Gosnel type reactions have
come out trying to stop any of the homosexuals from freely discussing things
that affect us, in language that is comfortable to us?
are all gays like the ones in this newsgroup? nope. which means that not
all gay people need the same things. What I would like to know is who are
you or anyone else, anywhere else, to decide what they need? And what they
can actually have?
>
> > We are free to reach out to any alcoholic in need in the best way
> > that we can.
>
> Sure. Feel free. Anywhere you like. Good 12th Step outlook.
>
> > Common needs meetings such as gay/ women's /men's /HIV / dual
> > diagnosis(mental illness as well as alcoholism) are needed. If you or
> > anyone else doesn't want to or need to attend you are always free to go
to
> > another meeting. This falls under group autonomy. ...
>
> Perhaps "these types" of meetings just aren't really AA "type" meetings.
> Can't think of any reason that every meeting that has anything at all to
do
> with "recovery" somehow must be an "AA meeting."
think about, you're sitting in a meeting alabama, and black gay male starts
sharing about his desire to just give up and get drunk, because his lover
left after finding out he was HIV positive.
would you like to know what I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my
own ears when this "has" happened? There was nothing resembling the
traditions taking place.
>
> > Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
> > inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those
who
> > feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
>
> Doesn't seem "arbitrary" at all. If all are evenly welcome at an AA
> meeting, then defining any meeting as being "for" only certain alcoholics
> that are identified by any criteria other than their alcoholism just isn't
> about the primary purpose. In fact, it defies it.
we live in the real world. Traditions or not, hate and fear and prejudice
still exist, and do not go away simply by walking into an AA meeting.
funny thing though, I have seen gays chased off from meetings, people with
HIV chased off, women harrassed. I have "heard of" these things happening
to white straight men from time to time, but nothing like what I have seen
done to minorities.
>
> AA meetings have very specific purposes, and a pretty clear and simple
> program. Groups of people that have other things in mind, especially as
> requirements, are just as free to simply do whatever they wish outside AA.
Just because a special interest meeting takes place does not mean that those
who do not meet that interest or common traight will be turned away. what
you just wrote above is misleading. Not a lie, because there are some of
these meetings that will turn people away, but that is the exception not the
norm.
>
> Ought not feel any compulsion nor concern with identifying it as "AA"
> though. After all, why?
>
Because they are AA meetings, even if you and a few others do not aprove.
Derek M.
Buddy H. <bud...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:378EC761...@earthlink.net...
> "Derek M." wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous wrote:
>
> > > underway. Got as far as the coffee pot when I realized the pointed
silence
> > > that had suddenly begun. I turned and looked at the tables -- all
women.
> > > Staring and/or glaring at me. Finally, the chairlady spoke up and told
me
> > > the obvious: "This is a women's meeting. Men aren't allowed." The tone
was
> > > challenging and icy.
> >
> > you didn't know your homegroup was a women's meeting?
> >
> > --
> > Derek M
>
> just show up, knowing there will be some kind of meeting at a
> certain time. So, it's quite believable that a newish person
> might inadvertently walk into stag meeting for the opposite sex,
> even in his home group. (Not more than once, I suspect.)
> :)
> --
> Regards,
> Buddy
>
groups like that around here publish there own meeting list.
Derek M.
Mike <Mi...@SPAMFREE.com> wrote in message news:378ECB...@SPAMFREE.com...
> Buddy H. wrote:
>
> > Some AA groups have dozens of meetings in a week, at various times
> > of day, held in the same one or two meeting rooms.
>
> > Buddy
>
> AAkron,OH has 314 + per week... :)
>
they are not all apart of the same group.
> One time long ago, me a two other alcoholics went to 7 meetings in one
> day!
>
>
no life huh?
>
> Mike
Kimba
wrote:
>Dear Friends,
> After reading much of this thread, I notice that the terms "group" and
>"meeting" are used as though they meant the same thing.
> Uh, oh. New thread?
>
>In blue polka dotted gay straight black white male female tall short young
>and old Fellowship of the Spirit,
>Jeff C.
>
You forgot green.
Kimba
a disgruntled lil troll
Sergeant Bilko
trying to explain how the 2 terms (special interest and special needs) are
used in AA.
I have spent several years serving on *Special Needs* committees.
I have attended several *special interest* meetings and chaired discussions
about same. The only one I see a valid need for are those where attendance
is limited to women only. After witnessing the preponderance of 13
stepping, pidgeon hawking, cutting off the top of the barrell attitudes - I
would be reluctant to encourage any youthfull attractive woman I cared about
to attend regular meetings.
Sarge
Derek M. wrote in message <7mmdmb$lk8$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>
>> We differentiate between *special interest* and *special needs*.
>>
>> *Special needs* is used to refer to disabilities such as hearing
impaired,
>> wheel cahir bound, sight impaired, etc. Most AA communities are working
>> hard to try to accomodate the needs of these members.
>>
>> *Special interests* is used to refer to members who believe their needs
>are
>> unique in that their gender or affiliation requires separate meetings.
>>
>> Sarge
>
> This falls under group autonomy. What falls under "or
>affects other groups or AA as a whole." is this type of behavior where
>meetings are dropped from our meeting lists, dropped from full
participation
>in our service meetings
Of course you are free to interpret the Traditions within the limits of your
ability to understand. I think most would see it the exact opposite.
The service reps who accept the responsibility for publishing the meetings
lists have the authority to decide who or what is included.
The people who directly disregard our singleness of purpose are those that
adversly affect AA as a whole.
Sarge
Bette C.
>>and old Fellowship of the Spirit,
>>Jeff C.
>>
>You forgot green.
>
>Kimba
>a disgruntled lil troll
And purple.....
Julie
>>>May I?
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>>
>>>Love,
>>>Kimba
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ms. Trollean Royalus Highnus...please forgive your loyal subject, but you
>left
>>out the "D" in my title...
>>
>OK. Julie - DTSS (phonetically, it sounds like DITZ....)
>
>Heh.
>
>HareKimba
>
>message??!!!! ---Julie, DTSS
Um...<sniff> Kimba...I thought I was the Trollean Dancing Stream Sprite, not
the Dancing Trollean Stream Sprite...but if that's how my Trollean Princess
wishes to know me, 'tis right with me as well.
Julie, TDSS, DTSS
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true." -- Robert Wilensky
Melia Tomas
Julie wrote in response to Jimb:
>
> I guess I adhere to the one size doesn't fit all theory. It's up to the idividual to find what works for them. People will flame me and say, "but they might *die* while they find that out." Yep. People who go to AA die, too.
>
> My point was that the fact that there are other paths doesn't make them wrong, and someone might just find a non-AA path that works for them and not use any of AA.
melia wrote:
My husband did this Julie. He was beginning to have health problems and
the doctor gave him 2 choices: surgery or quit drinking. Like many
people, hubby cringes at the word surgery. The doc told him if he quick
drinking, most likely his body would heal itself. Hubby's problem was
that he had a bleeding ulcer. The doc plainly said it was the alcohol
that was irritating it. (he was a bourbon & coke drinker)
To keep drinking only meant that he would eventually kill himself from
bleeding internally b/c he didn't want to have surgery to get the damn
thing removed. This is all it took for him, he's never picked up
another drink since then. Geeesshhhh, it's been almost 10 yrs now.
I don't have as much willpower as him I guess. I'm 43 and started
drinking when I was 13. Even though it was only "light beer" I was
drinking, (at one time I was drinking 2 cases a beer a week all by
myself) I was able to get my drinking down to 7 days a week, at least 6
cans a day sometimes 12 day depending on how bad of a day I was having.
Time didn't matter either when I picked them up. Hell, I could get up at
7 am and pick up a can of beer before putting on a pot of coffee.
Through the years I've tried to stop drinking on my own like hubby did,
but failed every time. That's why I decided to try AA to see if they
could help me. Who knows, I might fail here too, as the saying goes,
what is good for one might not be good for another, right? I'm still not
sure the AA Meetings are helping yet. I still haven't got up to speak or
share at one of them. I don't know what my problem is. Last night,
sitting home before the meeting I made the decision that tonight was
going to be the night. I was ready to share on what I thought Step 9 was
and how I was going to apply it to my life. Had 2 pages of notes in my
pocket, but when I was approached just to ask if I would be a reader, my
insides tightened up and those word no came out my mouth quicker than
sh*t. And of course, my courage flew right out the window again. But,
I'm still sober, I still read my BB and the 12 X 12 and I'm always here
seeing what others have to say. I don't know what's wrong with me and
the "sharing technique's" at the Meetings but I do know what's right at
the moment, and that is that I'm still sober! Thank God, Thank you guys,
and Thank AA.
Melia
Day 54
<snip>
>
> Julie
Jeff C
Jeff C
>>>
>>You forgot green.
>>
>
>And purple.....
>
Melia Tomas
healthy too...<BG> Enjoy your day!
Melia
Day 54
Simon/Bridged wrote:
>
> Lech K. Lesiak wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 guya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have successfully
> > > rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings from the
> > > published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special interest"
>
> (snip)
>
> > Any of the Brits know if this situation has changed?
> >
> > Cheers.
> > Lech
>
> I've just looked in my March 1999 book of "Meetings in the London Area"
> (UK). There are *no* special interest meetings listed - only 'open' or
> 'closed' ones (together with the 'no smoking' ones!)
>
> While I'm posting, I've been to four meetings now. Two smoking and two
> non smoking. The non smoking ones both had about 50% less attendance
> than the smoking ones. Three of the meetings were held in rooms no more
> than 15 minutes walk apart.
>
> I haven't been around long enough to know any more, but reading this
> thread made me think.
>
> With serenity,
>
> Simon
Julie
> I was ready to share on what I thought Step 9 was
>and how I was going to apply it to my life. Had 2 pages of notes in my
>pocket, but when I was approached just to ask if I would be a reader, my
>insides tightened up and those word no came out my mouth quicker than
>sh*t. And of course, my courage flew right out the window again. But,
>I'm still sober, I still read my BB and the 12 X 12 and I'm always here
>seeing what others have to say. I don't know what's wrong with me and
>the "sharing technique's" at the Meetings but I do know what's right at
>the moment, and that is that I'm still sober! Thank God, Thank you guys,
>and Thank AA.
>Melia
>Day 54
Hey Melia,
This is all new stuff...a lot of folks get the jitters about reading the BB
aloud, fraid they'll screw it up or mispronounce something. It's ok! I'll never
forget being the ripe age of 21 and mispronounced "alma mater" (thankfully no
one corrected me) at a meeting right across from George Washington University
in DC. You think anyone *but* me remembers it? LOL Read when you're damned good
and ready, and likewise for sharing. You'll know. And if you get called on and
wish to just listen that night, it's perfectly fine to say just that. I finally
took the leap and decided to volunteer at my church to be the lay reader once a
month. This week (my first attempt) I have to read Matthew's gospel about
"gnashing of teeth" which *always* makes me laugh. Sh*t, please God, let me get
through my first stint with public Scripture reading without breaking into
peals of laughter over imagining "gnashing teeth"! That would just not do...LOL
All in good time, Melia,
Julie
Julie
>And for what it's worth, Derek, I think homosexuals should get in the
>face of everyone, if they feel like it to vent openly what is wrong in
>our world. If the minorities of the world waited on the majorities to
>correct wrongs, the sky would still be black in human history. It's
>about being treated human and the way human nature is, people will not
>treat what they think is beneath them human unless it rises up in
>their face and spits on them. Sorry, but that seems to be the way it
>works....some notable exceptions, but only exceptions. Don't let
>assholes put you on the defensive for staking you claim to a spot on
>the earth so that you can become whatever you want to in your time
>alloted. Most of the grand masters of what is right and wrong for
>other people have never seen the short end of the stick....not the way
>that society dishes them out.
>
>Best,
>GaryE
Hey Gar, wanna come to a commitment ceremony? <g> I never thought I'd "mimmick"
the idea of marriage, but I think over the years I've come to see that I was
"brainwashed" into thinking I didn't deserve that "spot on the earth" you just
mentioned. The best I should hope for is to not get arrested, fired, or beaten
up for my "perversion". That society was being magnanimous in just allowing me
to exist as long as I respectfully shut the hell up about it. Having a
commitment be a private affair seemed to me to be a way to thumb my nose at
those in my life who "should" be present to celebrate the loving union of two
people, but probably would be too uncomfortable to attend, or worse wouldn't
think it was "important" to be committed witnesses of that union. Not to
mention, I'd hate for them to attend out of some sense of "gulit" if they
didn't. Of course, I'm teasing you about coming to the ceremony, as we are
friends here in a rather strange medium, but you remind me that I *do* want my
family and friends to bear witness, to celebrate with us, and to support us
through the good and the bad times. Thanks, Gar...
Love,
Lech K. Lesiak
> While I'm posting, I've been to four meetings now. Two smoking and two
> non smoking. The non smoking ones both had about 50% less attendance
> than the smoking ones. Three of the meetings were held in rooms no more
That's because non-smoking meetings attract a better class of people, and
these are in the minority in the fellowship.
Cheers,
Lech
Mike
it's true!
--
Jim
Jim wrote-
Sounds rational, but is it practical.? There are eleven distinct
>>theories of alcoholism. Around each of these has been constructed a
"method
>>of recovery."
Martha wrote
>What are they? Of course I'm only an amateur drunk, but the only one
>I've heard of is, "Men and women drink because they like the effect."
>
>Seriously, I'm curious.
THEORIES of ALCOHOLISM
1- Genetic Theory
2- Neurobiological Theory
3- Neurobehavioral Theory
4- Psychoanalytic Theory
5- Personality Theory
6- Classical Conditioning Theory
7- Alcohol Use and Abuse: Social Learing Theory
8- Systems Theory
9- The Availability Theory
10- Economic Theory
11- Anthropological Theory
(Source: Theories of Alcohoilism, C.D. Chaudron, D.A. Wilkinson, Addiction
Research Foundation, 1988)
The A.A. BB states - "Selfishness - self-centeredness! That, we think, is
the root of our troubles" (p.62). Far too simple for the scientific mind?
Jimb
Ted L.
>Source: Theories of Alcoholism, C.D. Chaudron, D.A.
>Wilkinson, Addiction Research Foundation, 1988)
Thanks Jim. (Anything newer, though?) But, you claim
these are *distinct* theories -- is that really true?
For something to be labelled as a meaningful theory in any
scientific endeavour (even if this is probably pseudo-
science) and as distinct from some other theory there has
to be at least hypothetically possible some observation
or experiment that would hold true for one of the theories
and not for the other. Pick all 55 possible pairings
of the theories -- for each pair, what test or observation
will pick which of the two in the pair is the (more?)
correct one?
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Mars Hill
I read your recent posts on "critics" and thought you highlighted some
excellent points in need of address, if mostly through our own
individual examples. Once we get sobriety figured out, it is always
important to keep in mind that many others will hopefully be following
not only in our footsteps, but will stride along with us. I hope to
join the many I see here on on this newsgroup and in my daily travels
who will keep these things in mind when a new person walks in to our
meetings/groups. <grin> And while I don't go to any of the "special
interest" groups, I know many people who have found comfort, good
sobriety and yes, "safety" there. I personally am in favor of keeping
our "primary purpose" first and foremost but the cold hard truth is,
some folks are, shall we say, "less welcome" than others in a general
AA meeting, though it can be subtle. We are often a program of ideals,
and removing those "special interest" meetings from the lists will
likely provide more alienation and argumentation than unity in AA.
Blessings to all,
Mars H.
In article <7mmfql$85i$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Jeff C" <jeff...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> After reading much of this thread, I notice that the terms
"group" and
> "meeting" are used as though they meant the same thing.
> Uh, oh. New thread?
>
> In blue polka dotted gay straight black white male female tall short
young
> and old Fellowship of the Spirit,
> Jeff C.
>
> guya...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7mjqp6$657$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >I live in a large metropolitan area where the "purist" have
successfully
> >rammed through a motion to remove all Mens and Womens group listings
from
> the
> >published meeting book.. They have reasoned that these are "special
> interest"
> > groups and have no place in an AA published list of meetings, and
the
> >listing of such meetings is a violation of the Traditions. What I
would
> like
> >to know: "Is there any other areas in North America that subscribe
to this
> >convoluted interpretation of the 12 Traditions?" (They have also
removed
> all
> >gay listings and one listing that calls itself a "Trans-Gender
Group".)
> >
> >-Guy
Jim
Ted L. wrote in message <9321472...@www.remarq.com>...
>For something to be labelled as a meaningful theory in any
>scientific endeavour (even if this is probably pseudo-
>science) and as distinct from some other theory there has
>to be at least hypothetically possible some observation
>or experiment that would hold true for one of the theories
>and not for the other. Pick all 55 possible pairings
>of the theories -- for each pair, what test or observation
>will pick which of the two in the pair is the (more?)
>correct one.
There is no collection of theories which is more recent. I do not
consider these to be theories. They are really models of alcoholism found
within a particular field of study.
What is interesting is that I have a book from the sixties which
proposes five models of alcoholism.
I will have to read the book to answer your question. Oh, well, it's the
week-end.
Jimb
Melia Tomas
Virtualoso wrote:
>
> In article <378F3E35...@home.com>, l wrote:
>
> > I'm still not sure the AA Meetings are helping yet. I still haven't got up to speak or share at one of them. I don't know what my problem is.
>
> I'd suggest you try not to worry at all about whether you speak or "share" at meetings. Fact is, you definitely are "sharing" there... your very presence. Your sobriety. If no one showed up sober, there'd be no meeting. If you just don't feel comfortable speaking or simply don't want to -- that's fine. Listen, then. That's an invaluable contribution at meetings.
I want to thank you for your kind words here, but I'm having a hard time
seeing how sitting quietly is the same as "sharing". I just get the
impression that they are two different things. Like you said, and I
agree, listening is an invaluable contribution at an AA. From what I've
seen so far, this is a valuable tool in the program. But the definition
of sharing is: sharing equally with another.
>
> > Last night, sitting home before the meeting I made the decision that tonight was going to be the night. I was ready to share on what I thought Step 9 was and how I was going to apply it to my life. Had 2 pages of notes in my pocket, but when I was approached just to ask if I would be a reader, my insides tightened up and those word no came out my mouth quicker than sh*t. And of course, my courage flew right out the window again.
>
> You're doing Step 9 already?
>
No, not really, but when approached last week and asked if I wanted to
share Step 8 with the group (I've been attending a 12 Step Meeting) I
declined saying I didn't know enough about the Step to speak about it.
After thinking about my response to him during the week, I realized that
I was only scared and if I was to learn the steps I would have to work
them and a part of working them meant that I have to share about them.
So that is when I took my 12 X 12 book and read Chapter 9 to form some
opinions about it and see what I had to do to apply it to my life.
That's what my 2 pages of notes were about, but like I said, my courage
just flew out the window...
> You might look at sharing at meetings as less of a "speech" kind of thing. Exactly what you've been doing here... sharing with us the truth and plain reality of your experience is the real sharing. You seem to be doing fine on that score. At meetings, you maybe will find sometime that you'd like to do the same there.
Hopefully I will obtain the courage one day that I need to get over this
fear of sharing in public, face to face. I've learned today that it's
only gonna happen when I learn to stop taking control of my own life and
let God take control.
>
> There is no compulsion or external "need" for you to do so. There's nothing "wrong" with you about that. Fact is, "public speaking" is among most people's biggest fears, alcoholic or not. Very common. So if you see it that way, it's no wonder that it can feel daunting.
>
> Instead, some brief sharing about yourself (and I always suggest not spilling one's guts or revealing personal information too freely) can be a good way to let some of the people at the fellowship begin to get to know you.
You just made me see my "double whammy" here. I'm dealing with "public
speaking" and "making friends" two big mountains in my life at the
moment. I never was one to have many friends either (face to face that
is) I am thankful for your suggestions and grateful for the support
you've shown me here. Thanks....
Melia
Day 54
Along with whatever conversations you may have before/after the meeting,
it can be nice to make some little progress in taking a place in a
fellowship and finding your way to those you prefer.
>
> > I'm still sober, I still read my BB and the 12 X 12 and I'm always here
> > seeing what others have to say. I don't know what's wrong with me and
> > the "sharing technique's" at the Meetings but I do know what's right at
> > the moment, and that is that I'm still sober!
>
> Which is the over-riding important thing. See? You're being very successful
> at working your program.
homerr..
Sergeant Bilko wrote in message <7mn80o$17l$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Derek - you missed it completely. For clarity of communication I was
>trying to explain how the 2 terms (special interest and special needs) are
>used in AA.
>
>I have spent several years serving on *Special Needs* committees.
>
>I have attended several *special interest* meetings and chaired discussions
>about same. The only one I see a valid need for are those where
attendance
>is limited to women only. After witnessing the preponderance of 13
>stepping, pidgeon hawking, cutting off the top of the barrell attitudes - I
>would be reluctant to encourage any youthfull attractive woman I cared
about
>to attend regular meetings.
>
>Sarge
>
>Derek M. wrote in message <7mmdmb$lk8$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>>
>>> We differentiate between *special interest* and *special needs*.
>>>
I can see a need for "many" special interest meetings [not groups].
Especially professions where discussion of professional aspects of
drinking/sobriety need to be private. In no case, however, do I think that
anyone should attend these exclusively. Attendance at "regular" meetings is
necessary to rejoin the human race.
Some of these are, Priests.. Cops.. Physicians.. Nurses.. Airline Pilots..
Attorneys, to name a few. These meetings should not be published nor
attended by anyone who isn't a member of the special interest unless
invited. Should someone "stumble" [not literally] into one of these.. the
group conscience can handle whether to allow attendance; refer to another
meeting; or change topic/discussion for that meeting only.
This may even be the best way to handle womens and gay/lesbian meetings. By
referral and/or invitation by other members of the "special interest" but
not to the exclusion of the "regular" meetings.
homerr..
[donning flameproof suit]
homerr..
Dyps...@aol.com
> Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
> inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those
who
> feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
>
Starting these types of meetings is divisive and shows a lack of
respect for AA. The AA Big Book states that we have found a solution
unon which 'we absolutely agree'.....any meeting that has as its
premise anything other than that solution is not an AA meeting.
"The needs of the whole outwiegh the needs of the many or the one"
Mr. Spock
Derek M.
> In article <7mmoie$qos$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, "Derek M."
> <der...@mind.com> wrote:
>
> > Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
> > news:1999071605...@mail.replay.com...
> > > <der...@mind.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > are not and should not be mindless carbon copies of each other. In
> > recovery
> > > > or not.
> > >
> > > Exactly. So why the emphasis on meetings that only include people with
the
> > > same certain special interest factors?
> >
> > saftey. from physical threats as well as emotional ones.
> > no presure to change just to fit in. like all these moronic statements
> > about how it's okay to be gay just don't flaunt it shit that we have
seen in
> > here.
>
are you from this planet? or are you one of those fortunate people to have
never seen real gay bashing?
>
> > being able to talk with people who know what we are feeling and maybe
know
> > what it takes to get through it.
>
> Alcoholics often know pretty well what it's like to struggle with
drinking.
> Which is what AA is about. Spans all the differences. But you're right --
> people are people, so we find society's mixture.
>
> A key part of the program is to finally face life on life's terms, not
just
> retreat into a haven from it.
and sometimes society's problems prevent AA from helping individuals when
those problems are rampant within a local AA community.
>
> > take this newsgroup for example. How many Tom Gosnel type reactions
have
> > come out trying to stop any of the homosexuals from freely discussing
things
> > that affect us, in language that is comfortable to us?
>
> I have no idea. Nor do I know just why gay person would want to discuss
> their sexuality here.
I thought you posted above that AA spans this gap of ignorance?
>
> > are all gays like the ones in this newsgroup? nope. which means that
not
> > all gay people need the same things. What I would like to know is who
are
> > you or anyone else, anywhere else, to decide what they need? And what
they
> > can actually have?
>
> Just what are you asking here?
reread it. there is no hidden message in that statement.
> I bet we could all come up with a huge collection of examples about all
> manner of people and topics that some others got ruffled or worse about. I
> mean, just look at how miffed you're reacting here regarding yet others.
> This is why some call the one homosexual item a "special interest"
thing --
> because it's only one among a really large collection of them. If
everybody
> with their own particular brand of difference to protect insisted on a
> special group that only included the people with that feature involved,
> we'd fracture back into just individuals, wouldn't we?
nope, we would continue to do as we have been doing by allowing these
meetings. We would give those people who would benefit from these meetings
the oportunity to get sober in a safe environment and then help them come
out to the rest of the community(not only the process of a gay person coming
out of the closet) at their own pace.
>
> > > > Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
> > > > inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for
those
> > who
> > > > feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
> > >
> > > Doesn't seem "arbitrary" at all. If all are evenly welcome at an AA
> > > meeting, then defining any meeting as being "for" only certain
alcoholics
> > > that are identified by any criteria other than their alcoholism just
isn't
> > > about the primary purpose. In fact, it defies it.
> >
> > we live in the real world. Traditions or not, hate and fear and
prejudice
> > still exist, and do not go away simply by walking into an AA meeting.
>
> Right. And so?
and so the real need for these meetings.
>
> > funny thing though, I have seen gays chased off from meetings, people
with
> > HIV chased off, women harrassed. I have "heard of" these things
happening
> > to white straight men from time to time, but nothing like what I have
seen
> > done to minorities.
>
> Depends on what one pays attention to, doesn't it?
also depends on what some people deny even when they see it in front of
them.
>
> > > AA meetings have very specific purposes, and a pretty clear and simple
> > > program. Groups of people that have other things in mind, especially
as
> > > requirements, are just as free to simply do whatever they wish outside
AA.
> >
> > Just because a special interest meeting takes place does not mean that
those
> > who do not meet that interest or common traight will be turned away.
what
> > you just wrote above is misleading. Not a lie, because there are some
of
> > these meetings that will turn people away, but that is the exception not
the
> > norm.
>
> As you've just gone to lengths to explain it, the core purpose of those
> meetings is to only include the people that are the same in some certain
> way... not to welcome all. Now you're backpedaling and it plain doesn't
> make sense.
no that's not what I said, thanks for twisting my words.
>
> Why don't these people with something in common just go together to the
> regular meetings? How is that any different than special interest
> identified meetings supposedly open to all others?
a group of gay men, or a group of sexually harrassed women, or a group of
people with HIV or some other illness sitting in silence and fear
accomplishes what?
a newcomer who shares these traights will be able to find like people how?
when that newcomer is terrified of talking about what they are dealing with
or are told "if you are new, do not share just listen and then talk to
someone after the meeting."
are you really thinking about others or just what feels comfortable?
>
> And let's not kid ourselves -- homosexuals are every bit as biased and
> rejecting of other people as anyone else.
not all. But there are plenty out there, I piss them off just as piss off
homophobes. Funny thing though, there are more gays who put their
prejudices aside to help others than straights who put their homophobia
aside to help gays for any reason.
>
> > > Ought not feel any compulsion nor concern with identifying it as "AA"
> > > though. After all, why?
> > >
> >
> > Because they are AA meetings, even if you and a few others do not
aprove.
>
> Except for the part about being "for" anyone other than everyone. Which is
> a main thing.
Except that our traditions do not forbid us from being creative and reaching
to specific groups of people within the society that we live. If meetings
"must" be for everyone I can list quite a few types of AA meetings that
would have to be disbanded in order to keep that requirement. The simple
truth is that not every meeting is for every alcoholic. It is the
individual's responsibility to find those meetings where they feel
comfortable. And if they can't, they are free to start their own meetings.
Derek M.
Sergeant Bilko <fwr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7mn80o$17l$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Derek - you missed it completely. For clarity of communication I was
> trying to explain how the 2 terms (special interest and special needs) are
> used in AA.
>
> I have spent several years serving on *Special Needs* committees.
>
> I have attended several *special interest* meetings and chaired
discussions
> about same. The only one I see a valid need for are those where
attendance
> is limited to women only. After witnessing the preponderance of 13
> stepping, pidgeon hawking, cutting off the top of the barrell attitudes -
I
> would be reluctant to encourage any youthfull attractive woman I cared
about
> to attend regular meetings.
>
> Sarge
and in some places I have been too, some sadly even in my own home town, I
would not recomend a gay male/female newcomer to attend for fear of their
life.
Yes, tolerance is still spreading, but prejudice is like a virus, if you
don't kill it completely it keeps flaring back up, and prejudice cannot be
stamped out completely in this world.
--
Derek M
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
>
> Derek M. wrote in message <7mmdmb$lk8$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >>
> >> We differentiate between *special interest* and *special needs*.
> >>
Derek M.
effect on me what so ever that I start contemplating adding you to the kill
file then you go and post something like this, and I have to say to my self;
self, now you have to keep reading his posts so you don't miss that gem he
tries to slide in there every now and then.
Derek
Thank You.
Gary E <gar...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:C88677A189C48EDC.95751CFB...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:54:51 -0400, "Derek M." <der...@mind.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >and yet you have shown no evidence that someone's needs are not valid
> >reasons for special interest meetings. Just because it doesn't affect
your
> >recovery directly doesn't mean that it won't affect another person's. We
> >are not and should not be mindless carbon copies of each other. In
recovery
> >or not.
>
> There is always the ever crushing perverse force to make all people
> alike. These same minds make it into AA, no mystery there. Reduce
> the world. Use whatever is handy as a 'justification'. It's too bad
> the "AA Police" aren't out policing some of the real horror stories in
> AA. Now that would be of service, rather than the nit picking about
> clause 3a in sub paragraph 4d of whatever. Some people have nothing
> better to do than to concern themselves with trivia and myopia. All
> in the name of Good, mind you. How else could it be? The Force of
> Good is enlisted again.....charge, charge...let's smash these
> individuals out, they are evil, slobber, slobber.
>
> >
> >Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
> >inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those who
> >feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
>
> No Derek, it shows the level of understanding reached. We have hall
> monitors in our newsgroup, and in AA meetings. Someone, you know has
> to make sure things are, what is the word, 'appropriate.' God knows
> what would happen in 'inappopriateness' ever mangaged to sneak into
> AA. People appoint themselves to the task, you see. No one asks
> them, there is no clamor for this service. Control freaks have to
> have an outlet, you know. You can tell them by their use of the
> language. "Dishonest" instead of mistaken or misunderstood. Why
> accuse someone of being mistaken when you can call them dishonest?
> These are real bright minds, Derek, cream of the AA crop. Who
> wouldn't want to emulate them? Winners they are. Find something you
> don't like, find a way to get rid of it in the name of Good versus
> Evil. Make it always personal, how else can they think? Everything
> in their lives is personal, either for or against them. They aren't
> that tought to spot, are they? And they ain't going to change.....no
> way Jose. "Right" never changes.
>
> And for what it's worth, Derek, I think homosexuals should get in the
> face of everyone, if they feel like it to vent openly what is wrong in
> our world. If the minorities of the world waited on the majorities to
> correct wrongs, the sky would still be black in human history. It's
> about being treated human and the way human nature is, people will not
> treat what they think is beneath them human unless it rises up in
> their face and spits on them. Sorry, but that seems to be the way it
> works....some notable exceptions, but only exceptions. Don't let
> assholes put you on the defensive for staking you claim to a spot on
> the earth so that you can become whatever you want to in your time
> alloted. Most of the grand masters of what is right and wrong for
> other people have never seen the short end of the stick....not the way
> that society dishes them out.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
>
> A sober man may become a drunkard through being a coward. A brave man
> may become a coward through being a drunkard. Chesterton
>
fke
>
> Derek - you missed it completely. For clarity of communication I was
> trying to explain how the 2 terms (special interest and special needs) are
> used in AA.
>
> I have spent several years serving on *Special Needs* committees.
>
> I have attended several *special interest* meetings and chaired discussions
> about same. The only one I see a valid need for are those where attendance
> is limited to women only. After witnessing the preponderance of 13
> stepping, pidgeon hawking, cutting off the top of the barrell attitudes - I
> would be reluctant to encourage any youthfull attractive woman I cared about
> to attend regular meetings.
>
> Sarge
>
yeah, i used to think like that too....
my self centered fear that others were as capable of my sickness
as i was...
then id hide it by trying to elimnate circumstantial opportunities
rather than changing it.
pretending i was a person who had the girlies best interest at
heart...
who takes their pants off in a 13th step?
i know i did...
readily, willingly, and ably.
:)
Julie
>
>We don't have to imagine it, you've been demonstrating it here quite a bit
>lately.
<GASP>
Derek! Did you let those hets recruit you?? Ohmigod, get me a doctor quick!
Sh*t, I sure hope you're not contageous, Derek...ewww.
Sergeant Bilko
Sarge
fke wrote in message <7mppv2$rua$e...@208.28.237.5>...
>Sergeant Bilko wrote:
>>
>> Derek - you missed it completely. For clarity of communication I was
>> trying to explain how the 2 terms (special interest and special needs)
are
>> used in AA.
>>
Thinker
>Mr. Spock
And yet the crew all went back to rescue/save Mr. Spock, curious.
Bob
Dyps...@AOL.com wrote in message <7mp2hb$3u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7mmdmb$lk8$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Derek M." <der...@mind.com> wrote:
>
>> Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
>> inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those
>who
>> feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
>>
>
>Starting these types of meetings is divisive and shows a lack of
>respect for AA. The AA Big Book states that we have found a solution
>unon which 'we absolutely agree'.....any meeting that has as its
>premise anything other than that solution is not an AA meeting.
>
>"The needs of the whole outwiegh the needs of the many or the one"
>Mr. Spock
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
tommykins
not all. But there are plenty out there, I piss them off just as
piss off
: homophobes. Funny thing though, there are more gays who put
their
: prejudices aside to help others than straights who put their
homophobia
: aside to help gays for any reason.
Derek, Thanks for the insights in the thread, I'm learning a lot
here and I'll just add one more of my homophobias-even though I
don't believe I have prjudices about sexuals of either gender or
preference. I'm totally iognorant of what they 'do', and I've
repeated before that I DONT CARE. In your snip above you call
what homosexuals have as prejudices - but you call what straights
have as a phobia, now is there not a word for homosexual
prejudices - if you get around to it explain please. Let me say
I find your replies enlightening and I don't see them as
retaliatory and as for the thread itself, Oh the gift that god
would gi'e us to see ourselves as others see us. That sits
uncomfortable on me as I have to admit I join in the verbal gay
bashing bit as a bit of fun - I see it as fun, so I apologize
wholeheartedly if I hurt anyones feelings, Now I don't know if
the special interest groups or meetings are a good idea or nay -
You certainly put up a powerful argument not only for gay ones
but others as well, and, I will keep this in mind the next time
some KNOW-ALL brings it up at intergroup. Pity I can,t print the
last few threads and show it to them. Also IMHO ' anonymous' is
putting his AA point of view and I respect him for that. Cheerio
and godbless tommy k (Oh at the last intergroup convention we
had, the matter of "electronic" was minutted but we did'nt get
around to it. That will really show up some bias ,Tradition12
and all that - should shut up the Oul farts for a while , whilst
us youn-uns show our knowledge.)
--
tomm...@indigo.ie take out INSurance to reply
reading between the lines will give you narrow vision
Derek M. <der...@mind.com> wrote in message
news:7mp3kr$atl$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
:
: Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
:
:
:
Jim McMahon
<snip>
> The only type of groups that the Gen. Ser. Conf. has issued advisory
>actions on are Couples Groups (A.A.'s and spouses) and Alcohol and Pill
>Groups (dual addiction).
<snip>
> Jimb
Just out of curiousity, how and when are "GSO Guidelines" developed as
opposed to conference advisory actions? I would assume that there are
many more advisory actions than there are published guidelines, since
some of the advisory actions wouldn't be appropriate for publication
as guidelines.
For example, the average group wouldn't need a guideline to establish
publishing and copyright policies for AA as a whole, so I assume there
is no guideline published on the topic. On the other hand, many
groups have had to deal with the issue of clubhouses, and so a
guideline (not a law) exists to share the common expereince.
In the Womens/Mens Group thread, I asked if any guidelines existed
adressing the topic of special need and/or special purpose meetings.
Anyone know the answer?
Being ordinary and nothing special is a full-time job.
mcma...@flash.net (Jim McMahon in real life)
Jim
Jim McMahon wrote in message
>In the Womens/Mens Group thread, I asked if any guidelines existed
>adressing the topic of special need and/or special purpose meetings.
>Anyone know the answer?
The answer is no. We used to have six points which constituted an A.A.
Group which appeared in the pamphlet the A.A. Group. These were removed
around 85' as no one knew where they came from.
The guideline today seems to be "Any two or three akcoholics gathered
together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a
group, they have no other affiliation."
Now that seems clear. The problems come when we start to discuss meeting
lists and Group Directories.
Some Areas list only meeting put on by groups which are registered with
the Area. The Directory published in by GSO list Groups, not meetings and it
has restrictions based on the Conference actions.
So, I the answer is anyone can start a Group and put on a meeting but
listing it is dependent upon the conscience of the District, Area, GSO.
JImb
The Doctor
>
> Starting these types of meetings is divisive and shows a lack of
> respect for AA. The AA Big Book states that we have found a solution
> unon which 'we absolutely agree'.....any meeting that has as its
> premise anything other than that solution is not an AA meeting.
>
> "The needs of the whole outwiegh the needs of the many or the one"
> Mr. Spock
>
History has proven these meetings are NOT divisive and many have shown more
respect for AA than some of your so called coed groups. Those who attend
women's/men's meetings have discovered that common solution and have the
same way out "on which we absolutely agree...". According to the Big Book
we all absolutely agree on the way out. Is this not the same premise of
your group?
-JHC
Derek M.
<Dyps...@AOL.com> wrote in message news:7mp2hb$3u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7mmdmb$lk8$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Derek M." <der...@mind.com> wrote:
>
> > Arbitrarily removing these meetings from our lists does not show
> > inclusiveness and unity. It shows disrespect and prejudice for those
> who
> > feel they need the extra help these types of meetings provide.
> >
>
> respect for AA. The AA Big Book states that we have found a solution
> unon which 'we absolutely agree'.....any meeting that has as its
> premise anything other than that solution is not an AA meeting.
>
> "The needs of the whole outwiegh the needs of the many or the one"
> Mr. Spock
>
so it's okay to ignore the minority.
--
Derek M
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
>
Derek M.
> In article <7mp42n$9hk$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, "Derek M."
> <der...@mind.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, tolerance is still spreading, but prejudice is like a virus, if you
> > don't kill it completely it keeps flaring back up, and prejudice cannot
be
> > stamped out completely in this world.
>
>
they are not exclusive meetings.
your ignorance on the topic doesn't change the real world.
Derek M.
tommykins <tomm...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:oH1k3.126$O5....@news.indigo.ie...
> Derk wrote in his replies:
> not all. But there are plenty out there, I piss them off just as
> piss off
> : homophobes. Funny thing though, there are more gays who put
> their
> : prejudices aside to help others than straights who put their
> homophobia
> : aside to help gays for any reason.
who's Derk?
>
> Derek, Thanks for the insights in the thread, I'm learning a lot
> here and I'll just add one more of my homophobias-even though I
> don't believe I have prjudices about sexuals of either gender or
> preference. I'm totally iognorant of what they 'do', and I've
> repeated before that I DONT CARE. In your snip above you call
> what homosexuals have as prejudices - but you call what straights
> have as a phobia, now is there not a word for homosexual
> prejudices - if you get around to it explain please.
the words are often interchangeable. generally phobias are fear based
irrational conditions that can be treated(in many cases), and prejudices are
fear based excuses to hate what we don't know. We are taught to be
prejudiced, phobias are not always caused by an experience or what someone
has taught us. My words. If you want exact definitions you'll have to use
a medical dictionary.
--
Derek M
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
Derek M.
Julie <shrin...@aol.comic> wrote in message
news:19990717095115...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> >> Imagine the testimony at a meeting of homosexuals Anonymous...
> >
> >We don't have to imagine it, you've been demonstrating it here quite a
bit
> >lately.
>
> <GASP>
>
> Derek! Did you let those hets recruit you?? Ohmigod, get me a doctor
quick!
>
> Sh*t, I sure hope you're not contageous, Derek...ewww.
>
> Julie
>
the post that anonymoose attempted to flame me over was simply a quote from
a gay comics book.
However I did see an add in my local paper for a group called, you guessed
it, Homosexuals Anonymous. I called them up out of curiosity. The guy I
talked too, sounded extremely depressed and annoyed at the phone call, he
had to stop so that he could threaten and curse his children who were
obviously playing in the background(I mean he called them stupid assholes,
motherfuckers, and bitches and threaten to beat the shit out of them, his
words.) I guess he forgot that people can often hear what you are saying
even if you move the phone away from your mouth, especially when they are
screaming at the top of their lungs. He explained to me that HA was a non
religious program but you had to accept Jesus Christ or it wouldn't work.
That if you wanted to attend meetings a personal interview would have to be
set up in a nuetral place so that your sincerity and willingness could be
determined. If you passed muster you would be given directions and a
meeting schedule or would be offered a ride. They will send you literature
and an audio tape of a speaker. The literature sent to me was poorly
written and badly typed photo copies of photo copies. And the guy on the
speaker tape was so depressed and depressing all I could think was how badly
this guy needed to relax, forgive himself, and simply stop trying to fit in
to the christian churches (or what he thinks is) definition of a decent
male. The speaker stated that he had attempted suicide over a dozen times,
each time when he was fighting to "remain" in the closet. How he
desperately craved his fathers approval and how he had always tried to do
everything that he was told to do by his father, who was himself a heavy
drinker and wife beater. The speaker talked about his marriage to a woman
who doesn't know anything about his past and when he said that he was
happily married it sounded like he was reading from a script after being
hose whipped for a week, kinda like the hostages a few years ago who were
torchered and forced to denounce the USA.
There is a link to their website at http://recovery.alano.org
I quite drinking and using other drugs because they made my life as
misreable as these people, why would any sober homosexual subject themselves
to that crap?
--
Derek M
http://www.bannerdudes.com/fransway
http://derekm.home.mindspring.com
http://listen.to/recovery
hat a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
homerr..
They needed Spock!
homerr..
Gary E wrote in message
<35D94C0EAE58B4CE.EC015046...@lp.airnews.net>...
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:53:17 -0700, "Thinker" <couns...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>"The needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the many or the one"
>>>Mr. Spock
>>
>>And yet the crew all went back to rescue/save Mr. Spock, curious.
>>
> How so? The crew is not Spock and Spock is not the crew, right? The
>question is, 'who is right?"
>
>Best,
>GaryE
Thinker
to make the whole, whole?
In "some" groups the whole is more important than the one, but without the
ones who is the group.
Bob
homerr.. wrote in message <7mrieq$i0k$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
Julie
>misreable as these people, why would any sober homosexual subject themselves
>to that crap?
Wow, Derek, now *that*'s depressing. And people wonder why the gay teen suicide
rate is so high. I had an interesting evening pondering this stuff. Just like
I've agreed to go back to one AA meeting a week to *maybe* keep a newcomer from
running away from some of the codswallop that goes on, I'm having stirrings
about being gay and going to a Christian church. Sure, it's MCC, but it's still
a x-tian church. I went to hear a phenominal x-tian singer/pianist tonight, a
man I've just fallen in love with musically. Very talented, elegantly simple,
an artist. Wouldn't you know to open up the concert some pseudo x-tian emcee
had to say something about "christian values" and how wonderful it was some
"homosexual agenda" bill was defeated by one of MD's state reps who was there
tonight. People applauded. My friend (who is straight) and I just shook our
heads. Then the guy said something about divorce and my friend, who is
divorced, leaned over and said, guess neither one of us is welcome here. I
leaned over and said, nah, he's too busy with that large beam in his own eye to
see the error of his own ways. JHC on a popsicle stick (and I know you're not
x-tain, Derek, and you probably think I'm just barking up the wrong tree to
begin with), this concert was supposed to be just that...music, fellowship,
worship, community, and this ^%#^ had to kick it off with a message of hate.
"Jesus, save us from your followers." Of course the artist himself had nothing
to say about either topic, and gave a beautiful concert, and I'm glad I was
able to put that idiot out of my mind for most of it. But I have the name of
that rep and I plan on firing off a Policy of Reconciliation letter to him, and
that he can rest assured he'll not get my vote, nor anyone of my church
affiliation ('course I'll just omit the MCC part...LOL).
So like my leaving AA b/c in my mind it had been taken over by control queens,
I'm returning, if only a little at a time. Now I think I'll have a t-shirt
printed up to wear to each and every main-stream x-tian function I ever (IF
EVER AGAIN) go to that says something like "Jesus Loves His Gay
Children"...that oughta get a few panties in a twist. People wonder why gay
people "have to talk about being gay"...well, this is a prime example what
closets get you. And I guess I'm wondering, should I just go back to my hole
and not bother with it? Sh*t 30 years ago black and white people couldn't marry
b/c of the Bible-Thumpers. Slavery, subjugation of women, etc. condoned by
Bible-thumpers. Do I just step back and throw it all out as hog-wash? I did
that for a lot of years, b/c *I* felt so much hatred and condemnation from
people just in name...they didn't know me from Eve. Just that they were taught
to hate and condemn.
Eh, I've rambled, and I guess I'm still smarting a bit from what happened
tonight. The best I can do is send the guy a pointed, but polite letter (that
will get sh*t-canned) and send a cc: to the radio station ministry who
sponsored it (who will also sh*t-can it). But if I don't take that bold step,
who will? If I don't show up at AA and greet the newcomer and help instill a
message of hope along with the fear-mongers, who will?
Rambled long enough, too many other worlds to save tomorrow...g'nite friends...
Julie
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
DypsoMan
>
yes.....AA helps persons with drinking problems....they should seek 'outside
help' for their minority problems....there's so many minorities these days
that AA would never have time to help drunks anymore if we started doing
'special' things for each and every one of them.
Julie
>They needed Spock!
>
>homerr..
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:53:17 -0700, "Thinker" <couns...@juno.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>"The needs of the whole outweigh the needs of the many or the one"
>>>>Mr. Spock
>>>
>>>And yet the crew all went back to rescue/save Mr. Spock, curious.
This stuff is right out of the Bible...Star Trek was always slipping this stuff
in there...here ya go: JC says, "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and
loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go
after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts
it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors
together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep."
Julie
"But wait! We don't have to be just sheep!" ---lone sheep speaking to his herd,
Gary Larson cartoon
Derek M.
> closets get you. And I guess I'm wondering, should I just go back to my
hole
> and not bother with it? Sh*t 30 years ago black and white people couldn't
marry
> b/c of the Bible-Thumpers. Slavery, subjugation of women, etc. condoned by
> Bible-thumpers. Do I just step back and throw it all out as hog-wash? I
did
> that for a lot of years, b/c *I* felt so much hatred and condemnation from
> people just in name...they didn't know me from Eve. Just that they were
taught
> to hate and condemn.
did you know that North Carolina just made interracial marriages legal at
the beginning of this month?
Some of the MCC chapters are really screwed up. I contacted the one hear
when my husband and I were getting ready for our holy union. I was told not
to bother because gay marriages don't last. A Lutheran church said we could
use their church and the minister even offered to conduct the ceremony, but
they wanted us to become members of the congregation first, I am not a
x-tian and Paul is not Lutheran. But we did end up having an ordained
minister preside over our ceremony. That was over 10 years ago.