Mark T <m...@technologist.com> wrote in article <6btm92$p...@usenet48.supernews.com>...
| RRiley9945 wrote in message
| <19980212020300.VAA28...@ladder02.news.aol.com>... | >In my neck of the woods---Long Island New York--- we maintain a 24 hour | phone | >service. If all the groups took to meeting in their houses and not kick in | a | >few bucks(self supporting) then goodbye hot line. That's what self | supporting | >is about | | In my neck of the woods groups DO meet in homes. But we still kick in a | buck for the district, books, Grapevines, etc. Our Hot-Line is alive and | well. | | I still don't charge rent or for coffee, although I kinda like Fred's | bathroom idea. | | -- | Mark T. | "I am not a trouble maker; I am a catalyst for change." | | m...@technologist.com
Heh heh. When I was in college (and the drinking age was 18) the Student Union was having trouble with underage drinking... seems that some high-school students discovered they didn't look all that different from a fresh[wo]man.
Being an engineering school, my buddies and I were one day discussing possible solutions to this predicament. Since the administration had threatened to end beer sales completely, we were having a rather vigorous discussion! That, and the pitcher of beer that each of us was drinking ;-)
From out of the blue, one guy suggested what appeared to be a truly inspired solution that was in keeping with then president Reagan's trickle-down economics: let the Student Union sell beer to whomever wants it, but you'd have to be over 18 to use the rest room (AKA water closet)!
We congratulated ourselves on this creative solution until someone pointed out a slight problem - who among us had not used a tree or the like in a pinch?
Thanks for the "remember when"! I'd suggest rethinking your bathroom idea! -- Go gently. MartyB note: remove all SPAM from my ID before replying -- "Miracles are explainable; it is the explanations that are miraculous." - Tim Robinson; British Writer & Cartographer
> >When I was a GSR in NA (i donno how they handle this one in AA) it was > >made very clear OVER and OVER in most of the area service meetings I > >attended that any group that is NOT paying rent for it's meeting space > >is violating the seventh tradition.
> >Sean
> Perhaps NA is more sensitive than AA. (G)
> Best,
> Nat
Oh YEAH. They sure as hell are!
In the area that I served in, if it came out that a group was violating tradition, we'd refuse to allow them to be listed in the meeting directory! And there was the whole big argument at one point about whether NA groups intended for HIV positive addicts were really NA at all, since "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using", yada yada yada... and HIV is an outside issue, etc.
That's why we always refered "Area Service Meetings" as "The Area Circus"
Nat H wrote in message <34eb30e6.17520...@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
-- snip --
>Sometimes, out there in the convoluted real world, it's better to "go with >the flow " than argue a tight point. My view is that much of AA's policies >must be rigidly adhered to, but this isn't one of them.
>Best,
>Nat
You know, you bring to mind the first tradition, "Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends on A.A. unity." I'm sure this is listed first for a reason. Like Gary said elsewhere in this thread, we must have bigger fish to fry.
-- Mark T. "I am not a trouble maker; I am a catalyst for change."
beth and jeff wrote in message <34E2836B.930F6...@cinci.infi.net>... >Ken R wrote:
>> Ought every group be self-supporting or not?
>Let's go to the source. Here's the seventh tradition in its long form, straight from >the big book:
>"The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions >of their own members. We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that >any public solicitation of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly >dangerous whether by groups, clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies, that >acceptance of large gifts from any source, or of contributions carrying any obligation >whatever, is unwise. Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which >continue, beyond prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose. >Experience has often warned us that nothing can so surely destroy our spiritual >heritage as futile disputes over property, money, and authority."
>OK, now piece-by-piece, let's look at it:
>"The A.A. groups themselves ought to be fully supported by the voluntary contributions >of their own members."
>"Supported" means, "keeps it alive", right? In other words, let's say the hospital >decided not to let the group meet there anymore, or wanted some rent. Could the group >survive anyway? Or is it dependent on the hospital's sovereignty for its survival? >Could the group pass a basket and pay said rent? Could they pull up stakes and hold >their meeting someplace else?
>"We think that each group should soon achieve this ideal; that any public solicitation >of funds using the name of Alcoholics Anonymous is highly dangerous whether by groups, >clubs, hospitals, or other outside agencies, that acceptance of large gifts from any >source, or of contributions carrying any obligation whatever, is unwise."
>Does letting the group use an empty room for an hour a week constitute a "large gift"? >Does it carry with it any obligation?
>"Then too, we view with much concern those A.A. treasuries which continue, beyond >prudent reserves, to accumulate funds for no stated A.A. purpose.
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Sean wrote: > In the area that I served in, if it came out that a group was violating > tradition, we'd refuse to allow them to be listed in the meeting > directory! And there was the whole big argument at one point about > whether NA groups intended for HIV positive addicts were really NA at > all, since "the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop > using", yada yada yada... and HIV is an outside issue, etc.
One group in Calgary ran a hooker raffle once a month, and this caused members from other groups to appeal to Central Office to get it de-listed.
> On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 17:18:18 GMT, nh...@centuryinter.net (Nat H) > wrote:
> >>>>When I was a GSR in NA (i donno how they handle this one in AA) it was > >>>>made very clear OVER and OVER in most of the area service meetings I > >>>>attended that any group that is NOT paying rent for it's meeting space > >>>>is violating the seventh tradition.
> >>>>Sean
> >>> Perhaps NA is more sensitive than AA. (G)
> >>>Best,
> >>>Nat
> Perhaps AA has bigger fish to fry than the rent clause.
|
