One of our
“personal” favourites!
Comment:
Another easy one!
a) What action should be taken? None! (But we would say that wouldn't we!). And it's a bit difficult to determine how one would go about making a “personal attack” on a whole group? The clue's in the word “personal”! And finally of course if someone is sufficiently aggrieved there is always the recourse of legal proceedings. We ourselves (strange to say) are occasionally threatened with the latter … but much to our disappointment nothing ever materialises.... Otherwise it's called 'freedom of speech'
b) See above - and specifically 'freedom of speech'
c) Easy peasy! Stop abusing newcomers and you will cease to be of any interest to us! Or putting it another way – start acting responsibly … if you can remember how!
For your information:
Tradition 10
Short form:
.jpg){kind=small}
Long form:
.jpg)
It's worth noting carefully the wording of this tradition (and for that matter all of the traditions – even the much misquoted Tradition Four). We have emphasised the relevant sections:
“in such a way as to implicate AA” ie. to represent oneself as being a spokesman for the organisation. AA doesn't have a spokesman and we (aacultwatch) certainly don't represent ourselves as being such. (implicate: to involve as a necessary inference; to imply).
“outside” ie. outside the direct context of AA. Our subject matter deals specifically with 'internal' issues – what should NOT be going on in our fellowship
“can” - “can should be used only to express the capacity to do something, may must be used to express permission”. Semantically speaking therefore this is ineffective. Clearly AA members do have the capacity to act and speak thus. Whether they choose to do so or not is up to them (and subject to the law). But even where legal sanctions may apply they still 'can' act if they are prepared to take the consequences. But note the use of the word “may” in Tradition Three (long form)
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous ….. but only semantically speaking!)
