idea and threatened, unsuccessfully, to secede. He criticized Bill and
the 'New York office' vitriolically at every opportunity. Bill
steadfastly refused to hold a grudge against him and in their
correspondence 'used soft words to turn away wrath.'
Much later, when they met at the International Convention in Toronto,
they actually spent several hours together, reminiscing. However,
Clarence, a popular speaker on the Steps and the recovery program,
continued to raise hackles wherever he appeared by calling press
conferences in which he was photographed full face with his full name,
holding the Big Book which he claimed he wrote, and identifying
himself as the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. He asserted he was not
bound by AA's Traditions because they were written later - and written
by Bill. Clarence S moved to Florida in retirement, where he remained
extremely active until his death in 1984."
matters, beyond that expressed in AA Comes of Age namely, so that 'the
basic facts of AA's growth and development never can become
distorted.' By 1955, the facts were already being distorted by
Clarence S and other oldtimers who were attempting to undermine Bill's
place in AA's history. So Bill wanted the records available. Also Bill
was visionary; he saw the sweep and scope of the Fellowship he had
helped found and foresaw its significance as a social movement to be
studied by future historians."
Bob P also write:
"The choices quickly boiled down to 'The Way Out,' favored by most in
Akron, and 'Alcoholics Anonymous,' favored by most in New York. Bill
asked Fitz M, who lived near Washington, DC, to check both titles
through the library of congress. Fitz wired back to the effect that
the Library of Congress had 25 books entitled 'The Way Out,' 12
entitled 'The Way,' and none called 'Alcoholics Anonymous.' That
settled the matter. The title of the book quickly became the name of
the Fellowship as well. Clarence S later called himself the founder of
Alcoholics Anonymous, basing his claim on his being the first to use
the name for a group. Which he probably was. But the fact is, the book
Alcoholics Anonymous was already off the press, and the name had been
used a year earlier to refer to the Fellowship as a whole."
April-June and cited in "Not God") in which Bill W informed Dr Bob
that he had dictated and mimeographed two chapters of the proposed
book. Bill stated that he felt that "the completed book should
represent the works of many people; particularly the individual
stories." Bill W wrote "My feeling is that Anne should do the one
portraying the wife of an alcoholic." Later in the long letter Bill
wrote "By the way, you might all be thinking up a good title. Nearly
everyone agrees that we should sign the volume "Alcoholics
Titles such as Haven, One Hundred Men, Comes the Dawn, etc. have been
suggested." Bill also asked Dr Bob "What would you think about the
formation of a charitable corporation to be called, let us say,
"Alcoholics Anonymous?" (re GSO Archives letter "Alco.
Fd." R-28 Bx
59, Not God pgs 74-75, 333).
"Alcoholics Anonymous." (re Lois Remembers pg 197)
the Fellowship as "Alcoholics Anonymous" prior to publication of
Big Book. It contained the following excerpts which have been joined
together and are separated by ellipses:
"Many alcoholics are men of exceptional character and will power, as
proven by the type of men that make up Alcoholics Anonymous ."
first step has been the establishment of a trust known as The
well-known business men who are non-alcoholics and by two members of
Alcoholics Anonymous.." "The publishing of this book, to be known
"One Hundred Men" is the subject of the attached material ."
chapters have now been written)". "It is an indisputable fact that
over the past four years over one-hundred true alcoholics have
recovered, who from the standpoint of medicine and psychiatry, were
considered hopeless. These men have dubbed themselves Alcoholics
Anonymous ..." "The name Alcoholics Anonymous has been adopted
of the nature of the work, because of the desire to keep away from
Contrary to your email message, the above documentation serves to
shape the impression I have of Clarence S and it is substantiated by
many independent and unambiguous sources. It is a result of study and
correlation of evidence - not "resentments, being closed minded and
misquoting." Your message might suggest a case of "physician heal
[mailto:AAHistoryLovers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell K.
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:55 PM
Subject: [AAHistoryLovers] Clarence did not write program for 1st
program for that event. The Stanley brothers were
pretty much in charge. Art says "This was all part of
Clarence Snyder's claim..." Again Art - CLARENCE HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WRITING OF THE PROGRAM - THE
FINAL COPY, THE DRAFT COPY OR THE TENTATIVE COPY!
was the first to use the TERM Alcoholics Anonymous to
describe itself. There is NO evidence or documentation
(maybe there is now, like the so-called loaner stamp
on the multilith which was never there before) showing
where gatherings of members of the Fellowship called
these meetings Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Clarence
called the meeting itself an Alcoholics Anonymous
meeting after the book of the same name - he wasn't
referring to the Fellowship or the book or the
foundation but specifically the MEETING. NOWHERE in
the archives (unless it was recently manufactured) is
there a reference to holding an Alcoholics Anonymous
meeting where a bunch of members met to share their
experience, strength and hope.
There is also NO evidence showing that Alcoholics
Anonymous was ever called AA prior to Clarence using
that term. Nell Wing said that Clarence was the first
to use the initials AA as a description of Alcoholics
Anonymous. Ergo...Clarence was the founder of AA (not
Alcoholics Anonymous but the term AA).
restrictions on reprinting?
From: ricktompkins . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/17/2006 1:18:00 PM
Pulling permission to reprint anything from whom?
The sourcing protocol for AAWS has not changed from what's in the AA
Service Manual and no 2006 decisions by the AA General Service Board have
added any new restrictions. The objections from members of the Fellowship
would be immediate, because such decisions bypass the General Service
Conference without an expressed emergency need.
To generally describe reprint policy, AAWS has a very loose permission
agreement for AA members and AA Groups where a simple excerpt needs the
source and the phrase "used with permission of AAWS, Inc."
and Six still apply.
Longer and complete tracks, let's say an entire chapter of Experience,
Strength, and Hope or one from the AA Grapevine's Language of the Heart
would need a written request for approval from the Boards of the relevant
publishing houses (AAWS or Gv). If the reprinting is definitely an intra-AA
venture that has no connection to outside enterprise, permission would most
likely be granted. I believe that hidden agendas or non-altruistic motives
would be seen as reason for reprint denial.
AAWS Archives Workbook for review by the 2001 National Archives Workshop
attendees was requested but didn't need a formal approval from the General
Service Board. In fact, GSO administration staff gave permission over the
telephone while mailed letters went back and forth on the activity. Even a
Researcher's Card goes before the Trustees Archives Committee if it's
necessary to establish the intent of the research activity at GSO's AA
Archives, and this has been policy for decades. Nothing has changed to my
To re-publish an AAWS work for a larger distribution from an 'ouside-AA'
publishing entity is something different. Does "IWS" or the
Press" come to mind? For another hypothetical example in the copyright
world, Penguin Books would be in legal trouble if it published Mitchell's
own How It Worked biography without contact first. The copyrights for AAWS
and Gv are in effect, and the 'used with pernission' as footnotes to
excerpts acknowledges those copyrights.
From AAWS or Gv, some reprint activity needs a formal permission request
but most don't!
Rick T., Illinois
From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/18/2006 12:28:00 AM
as though one can copy almost nothing from a work on
which someone else has claimed a copyright. But this
is not correct. There are all sorts of different kinds
of copying which are regarded as "fair use." (This
is the technical legal term.)
Those who are concerned should look at the following
three discussions of the legal concept of "fair use"
of copyrighted materials:
balanced against one another:
market for the original or for permissions
if the use were widespread?
In the case of the first factor: nonprofit, educational,
or purely personal use tips the balance towards fair use.
Commercial use tips the balance the other direction, that
is, makes it more likely that it would be regarded as a
In the case of the second factor: copying facts, and
(interestingly enough) things that are already published,
tips the balance towards fair use. Copying from something
that someone else has not yet published tips the balance
the other direction.
Third factor: the more of the work you copy, the less
likely it is to be regarded as fair use.
if the original is out of print or otherwise unavailable,
or if the copyright owner is unidentifiable. It is tipped
the other way if the copy will be published in a way
that will take sales away from the original.
What makes it difficult to figure out what is fair use,
is that there are four different balance factors at work,
and each of them affects the overall balance.
So photocopying an entire library book looks bad in
terms of Factor 3, because it is the entire book. But
as long as it is only for your own personal use, this
tips Factor 1 so far in the direction of fair use, that
this is regularly regarded as fair use in actual practice.
This is why most American libraries have photocopiers in
them nowadays, because this kind of use is generally
regarded as fair use in actual practice. The important
thing is, you can only copy things on the photocopier in
the library for your own personal use. You cannot sell
these copies to other people.
As a college professor, I would make two or three
photocopies of selections from one or more of the books
in the library, which were going to be required reading
for one of my courses, and then put these on reserve,
for the students to check out and read. The university
librarians and university lawyers said that this was
On the other hand, I could not make a copy for each
student in my course and charge the students the price
of the photocopying, because that tipped Factor 4 over
towards a commercial transaction. A famous court case
back in the 1980's against a major national photocopying
chain cost them a lot of money when the judge ruled
that this practice (in which they had been deeply
involved) was copyright infringement.
of print book to keep on their shelves, this would
probably be regarded as fair use, looking at the
to decide. A copyright lawyer might well say to you,
"On a scale of 1 to 10, I would call that a 7. You can
probably do it, and a judge would probably approve it
if it went to court. But that would not be a sure thing
that you could count on one hundred percent."
sometimes people (usually at the lower level) in the
New York GSO who do not really know anything much
about American copyright law. They can sometimes become
over zealous, and believe that they are "following the
strict letter of the law" in telling people they
cannot copy something, or that they have to obtain
permission to copy something, when in fact many years
of appellate cases have established that what they
are objecting to is considered "fair use" by every
judge in the United States.
But lawsuits are expensive, and copyright law is
slippery and ambiguous enough that copying something
that is even a 7 or 8 on a "fair use" scale of
1 to 10, might not be worth the legal risk.
From: George Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/19/2006 11:07:00 PM
Ann R., Alcoholic
By MAURA J. CASEY
Published: September 16, 2006
Former Gov. Ann Richards of Texas will be remembered for her wit, her
one-liners and especially for the keynote speech at the 1988
Democratic Convention, which was, in retrospect, the high point in the
party's dismal campaign for the presidency that year. To intrigued
television viewers nationwide, Ms. Richards, with her big hair and big
attitude, epitomized the kind of formidable woman that is a hallmark
of the Lone Star State. People liked her down-home phrases. When she
said, "We're gonna tell how the cow ate the cabbage," they
her. She leavened a plain-spoken manner with wisecracks. Both helped
elect her governor two years later.
But her political career eclipsed what Ms. Richards called "one of the
great, great stories" of her life: her recovery from alcoholism and
her nearly 26 years of sobriety. That triumph deserves to be more than
a line in her obituary.
rehabilitation program in 1980, after a painful intervention by family
and friends, was necessary for her continued rise in public life. What
made Ms. Richards different was her decision to be forthright about
the fact that she was a recovering alcoholic. She didn't hide it. "I
like to tell people that alcoholism is one of my strengths," she said.
She was right. Alcoholics know that seeds of healthy recovery grow
from the need to mend their own flaws to stay sober, one day at a
time. Ms. Richards faced her imperfections fearlessly, and that
enabled others to be fearless, too, if only for a little while.
mail she received after enrolling in a rehabilitation program was an
encouraging letter from Ms. Richards. A politician who left rehab and
wondered how on earth he was going to avoid drinking when he got home
well after midnight found Ms. Richards waiting for him when he
arrived. As governor, she started treatment programs in Texas prisons.
When she visited, she would tell the inmates the simple truth: "My
name's Ann, and I'm an alcoholic." Her imperfection had become a
source of inspiration for others.
Ann Richards was funny, wise and compassionate. At 73, she died too
soon. But she died sober.
From: John Wikelius . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/19/2006 11:41:00 PM
need Harper date
does anyone know how many of each Harper was printed?
From: Ernest Kurtz . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/20/2006 8:25:00 AM
I am trying to trace the history of online AA,
AA online. Individual members no doubt communicated
with other members as one way of enhancing their
sobriety long before the web, perhaps even in the
early days of ARPA-NET.
But does anyone have any idea when and where and
how the first self-conscious "group" or "meeting"
began . . . maybe in "bulletin-board" days?
Please, I will appreciate any help on this, via
AAHL or directly, if you prefer.
(kurtzern at umich.edu)
From: Danny S . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/19/2006 7:59:00 PM
world population is alcoholic - usually qualified with the inclusion
of "estimated" and "professionals".
Does anyone know from where these estimates originate and who
the "professionals" are who did the estimating? I am looking to
validate this statement.
++++Message 3718. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Brown Visit 2005
From: jlobdell54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/19/2006 10:32:00 AM
right at (I think) the next street, there is (or used to be) five-hour
parking (I can't recall the names of the streets). I can assure you
the pencil-and-pad restriction applies to all researchers (or did when
my wife and I were last there). The collections at Brown include the
Kirk Collection (put together by Charlie Bishop), the Dr. Bob papers,
Clarence papers (put together by Mitch K.), Marty Mann NCA (NCADD)
Papers which include material from Yev Gardiner, the Ernie Kurtz
papers gathered both before and after he wrote Not-God, and a whole
lot of temperance stuff. Tovah is Librarian for the whole Kirk/CAAS
[Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies] and other connected
Collections. I believe Brown subscribes to the same anonymity
restrictions with regard to their collections as GSO does with regard
to theirs (barring the Clarence collection where his own views on
anonymity may take preference and of course the Marty Mann NCADD
collection, which does not involve her work with AA). The Kirk online
++++Message 3719. . . . . . . . . . . . AA now started in India''s seventh
From: robin_foote . . . . . . . . . . . . 9/18/2006 2:36:00 AM
[AA celebrates its first year in Ahmedabad, the seventh
largest city in India. Ahmedabad, with a population of
more than 5.2 million, is over on the western side of
India in Gujarat, about seventy miles from the seacoast,
up near the border with Pakistan. Moderator's note.]
Ahmedabad, September 17 (Express India News Service)
An year off bubbly, Alcoholics
Anonymous drinks to its health
the Ahmedabad chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
AA, a voluntary group that helps alcoholics overcome
their addiction, completed one year this month and the
chapter held a meeting on Sunday to share their
experiences of the past year. It's ironical that the
group is thriving in what is known to be ''the driest
State of them all.''
strengths and hopes with one another, started with a