BP> I guess you REALLY believe the AA program is a failure.  That does not
BP> quite coincide with my experience but you are entitled to your opinion.
ES>I can agree with this statement that you have made. *WE* are entitled to 
our
ES>own opinions.  However, I personally get rather disturbed seeing
ES>personalities
ES>put before the principles, as is case in point.
I made the above statement with the intention of complete respect and in
keeping with the tradition of principles before personalities.  And yet
you seem to have interpreted it in a different way.  I think one of the
difficulties of using this electronic medium to discuss controversial
subjects is that we do not always get a correct "sense" of the "tone" of
a persons statements.  But again my original comment was not meant to be
sarcastic but rather a statement of the due respect I was giving to
someone whom at the same time I was disagreeing with.
BP> A member was dragged to court
BP> by AA for only expressing his viewpoint?
BP> I'd like to hear more about this.  My experience has been that no one
BP> has ever been tossed out of AA in the 20 years I have attended. The
BP> only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. If
BP> someone violates the traditions, they are spoken to about it, but
BP> there is no procedure in place to "toss them out" (or sue them for
BP> that matter).
ES>To clarify a point, it wasn't so much a member but a non conference 
approved
ES>book was written and used the AA guidelines within it also claiming itself
ES>to
ES>be affiliated.  This battle has ensued at various point's in the General
ES>Conference for the last 3 to four years.
I thank you for clarifying this for me.  It makes more sense to me under
that description.  As for whether it was appropriate for AA to undertake
this endeavor, I would need to know a lot more about the details to form
an opinion.
BP> I'm really quite disturbed at the percentage of people in this and other
BP> Fido forums who appear eager tear down the program and start over.
BP> Those who feel that way are free to do so.  Just call yourself something
BP> a little different and start your own recovery program.
BP>
BP> However as for me and the majority of my brothers and sisters in AA (and
BP> GA for that matter), we'll keep the program just the way it is.  It has
BP> worked miracles for hundreds of thousands of addicts for around 60
BP> years.  Prior to that time there was no known recovery for alcoholism.
BP> Studies show that although alcoholics now have several treatment options
BP> (many of whom "stole" a lot of ideas from AA) AA is still the most
BP> successful program available.
ES>I agree with you.  I for the last few messages have been trying to stress
ES>the
ES>point that the program doesn't need  to be changed all out.  But instead 
f
ES>being taken at literal definition adopted for usage via the principles 
hat
ES>it
ES>maintains.  And I too am grateful for having my life saved by this simple
ES>program.  I never question how the program works just know that it has, &
ES>does, and as long as I'm willing to be honest, open minded, and willing, 
t
ES>will continue to do so on a daily basis.  My sponsor pointed out to me 
that 
ES>do not need to know how a watch works, just what time it is.  I really 
ish
ES>people would quit trying to analyze something that needs no analysis.
Thank you.  Your comments above are a far cry from the diatribe.  I too
agree that there may be times where AA needs to re-examine itself in
light of changes in society.  (For example, I think it is about time we
stop reading that litany before every meeting regarding the need to
confine our experiences to our problem with alcohol.  Must of us who
have been in recovery for a while know that an alcoholic IS a drug
addict and stories related to alcohol and drug addiction together are
appropriate at meetings).
However, the 12 steps and 12 traditions should remain as written in my
opinion.
Have a happy 24.
Bob
---
 * OLXWin 1.00 * Bakersfield: California's Hot Spot!
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------