Well it would seem that
Tim W has been elected (?) to the job of responding to South Middlesex IG's letter of complaint (see
below: 31/07/11 “CULT THUG BULLIES DISABLED PENSIONER OUT OF EALING MEETING” for
another of Tim W's initiatives!). Presumably the Happy One has been sent to
convalesce somewhere else (or indeed anywhere else!) whilst a more “reasoned”
defence for the cult groups' conduct is advanced. It all looks very impressive.
The traditions are cited, bits of AA literature are mentioned, group autonomy is
alluded to (but of course leaving out that inconvenient second part). All very
reasonable … and all less than candid. And so …....
4. Each group should be autonomous except in
matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
and of course
Tradition 3 (which is not mentioned at all in this disingenuous
missive):
3. Our membership
ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who
wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity.
Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call
themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other
affiliation.
(our
emphases)
The cult groups in
Ealing were set up with absolutely no consultation with AA groups or intergroup,
and with no regard whatsoever as to their impact on legitimate AA meetings.
These groups produce (and promote) their own literature (in probable breach of
AAWS copyright) and moreover circulate a version of the Where to Find which
contains adverts for the cult website referred to in this “spokesman's” letter.
We have in fact had ample opportunity to study this website and contrary to the
assertions made in Tim W's response there is much in there which is NOT derived
from the Big Book and other AA literature (ie. the section: Alcohol in Solid
Form). Here a number of assertions are made about the employment of prescribed
medication (specifically anti-depressants) in relation to mis-diagnosis (or
otherwise) of a putative underlying condition (ie. alcoholism). None of these
statements is made by anyone with any professional qualification, and in fact
represent purely the opinions of the author. Apart from the questionable
views expressed (and the misquotes from AA literature) what is of greater
interest is the discrepancy between what is evident and what is “inferred”. This
latter term is employed with great frequency in the course of Tim W's rebuttal.
Naturally one might infer anything about anything – in its extreme form this
might be termed “subjectivism” or even “solipsism” - or to put it another way –
everything is open to interpretation. So for example some people might take the
term “suggested” to mean:
1. To offer for
consideration or action; propose.
2. To bring or call to
mind by logic or association; evoke.3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply.
4. To serve as or provide a motive for.
In the cult circles
however the word assumes an entirely different guise - it is “inferred” as an
imperative, and worse still something that may be imposed by one
person upon another. Here we remind you of that central imperative about
which all cult sponsorship revolves:
“Sponsor
It is suggested that
you phone daily and do exactly what your sponsor tells you. If you don't
have a sponsor, look upon every meeting you go to as a chance to find
one.
NB If anything
is unclear, ask your sponsor.”
(our
emphasis).
(an excerpt from
another cult website linked to the one cited above)
So although the
position adopted by the cult groups is presented by Tim W as being quite
reasonable and entirely in accord with the Traditions etc it is in fact far
removed. This may be exemplified by contrasting what is currently included under
the present 'redaction' of the aforementioned website with its previous version.
This throws some light on the covert, intrusive and indeed voyeuristic (some
might say perverted) tendencies of its authors.
Under the section Step
Four “Sexual Conduct” the original version contained the following statement:
“In the inventory we
should be prepared to include sex with: men, women, children, animals..... . and
bottles”
This has now been
edited out.
Now it might be
“inferred” from the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous that such matters should
be included in the Step Four inventory. However we would assert that this is an
inference that may not be drawn and on two fairly obvious grounds: legal and
therapeutic. Two of the sex acts referred to would fall under criminal
jurisdiction and if revealed to a “sponsor” would place both individuals at risk
of prosecution; the “sponsee” for the criminal act itself, and the “sponsor” as
an accessory should they fail to report the incident(s). These communications
are not legally “privileged”. Therapeutically it does not require an enormous
leap of the imagination to consider the impact that such revelations might have
on both parties especially where the “sponsor” may not be trained to handle such
disclosures.
We include this
example here as indicative of the cult's underlying agenda in Great Britain and
elsewhere (quite apart from their deliberate – and overt - manipulation of the
Traditions to promote their objectives). The façade that is presented by Tim W
et al is precisely that – a show of unity but one without any substance. The
letter may sign off with the traditional “Yours in fellowship” but actions do in
fact speak so much more eloquently than words......
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends
of Alcoholics Anonymous)
(our thanks to our
local reporter)
