was not founded (directly or indirectly) by the efforts
of J. D. Holmes (from Akron) and Doherty Sheerin (who
was twelfth stepped by Irwin Meyerson from Cleveland).
++++Message 3869. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: How did Bill W. annual dinner
begin in New York?
From: Tom Hickcox . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/15/2006 4:02:00 PM
At 19:31 11/13/2006 , James Blair wrote:
>"This year I had a strong sense of being at a
>historical event, and I wondered what you all
>know about it."
>The December 1944 issue of the GV reported on the
>gathering of 1500 people, most of them drunks at the
>Hotel Commodore to celebrate the 10th anniversary
>of the founding of AA. Bill gave a report on the
>first 10 years of AA and a female member also shared.
>Fulton Oursler of the Reader's Digest was the
>(The date of the dinner is not mentioned).
The N.Y. World-Telegram article quoted by the N.Y.
Sun and included in the December 1944 Grapevine
article James Blair cited says "last night". I
would presume "last night" was in the recent past.
None of the responses to the initial query addresses
two of the three questions Sasha posed:
1. How did it come to be?
[And why late October/early November?]
2. Was it always conceived as a fundraiser?
3. Akron has its Founders' Day [Shouldn't Founders
be plural?] on the traditional founding date,
June 10th, annually.
Perhaps, tho, we are trying to read importance into
it that isn't there. 8^)
My wife, late of Long Island, has attended the N.Y.
dinner and experienced feelings similar to those
Tommy in Baton Rouge
++++Message 3870. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: "at" vs. "for" on Big Book p. 66
ex-alcoholics and former alcoholics and these terms
were subsequently changed, but I digress . . .
I checked my library and four first editions, the
5th, 10th, 11th, and 13th printings all have "at."
I checked all 16 printings of the second edition
and they all have "for." They all also have "New
and Revised" on the spine, even the one that says
The first twenty printings of the third edition
have "for." The twenty-second printing has "at."
My modest library lacks a twenty-first printing,
so I can be no more definitive than that. Subsequent
third editions that I checked have "at." My one
fourth edition, a first printing, has "at." It
does not have "New and Revised" on the dust jacket
I realize this doesn't answer the why question, but
I can't answer that.
Tommy H in Baton Rouge
++++Message 3871. . . . . . . . . . . . Hospital records and the date of Dr.
Bob''s last drink?
From: Russ S . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/16/2006 10:56:00 AM
Hello Fellow History Lovers,
Today, on the anniversary of the passing of our
beloved Dr. Bob I received an email saying he
"began his sobriety on or about June 16, 1935."
I know this issue has been raised in several
previous AAHL posts.
Has anyone ever tried to check hospital records in
Akron to see when Dr. Bob operated and who the
famous, um, person was, who had to have a "delicate
Love and Service,
++++Message 3872. . . . . . . . . . . . Early Grapevine article and the word
From: john.otis . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/18/2006 1:06:00 AM
Hi. Back in the 60s I had a sponsor in Lancaster,
Calif. and he had one of the first Grapevines.
In it someone had written "Slipping From the Hands
Of God," and said that this is what we mean by the
Not sure about the Grapevine article but the term slip
or slipper was used very early on. In Cleveland, ca
1941 (pre-Grapevine which was published 1944) in the
rules for hospitals there is a definition of a
"retrovert" or "slipper." That definition is "A man
woman who has been sponsored, and has attended at
least one A.A. meeting, then takes a drink, is
considered a retrovert, or slipper."
Responding to Message 3872 from "john.otis"
(suzkem at theriver.com)
Subject: Early Grapevine article and the word "slip"
++++Message 3877. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Re: "at" vs. "for" on Big Book
From: firstname.lastname@example.org . . . . . . . . . . . . 11/20/2006
Looking at the grammar:
"We were prepared to look AT IT..."
The antecedent of "it" is "The Inventory."
Therefore, "We were prepared to look at the inventory..."
"We were prepared to look FOR IT..."
The antecedent of "it" is "the key."
Therefore, "We were prepared to look for the key..."
From a grammatical point of view, either FOR or AT
makes perfect sense in that sentence. The meanings are
different but both valid sentences. You need to figure
out what the groups approved and not what someone
thought was better. Or did Bill change it himself?
As was obvious in the flap over changed commas in the
original Fourth Edition version of "Dr Bob's Nightmare,"
some of the "editors" who try to "improve" the Big Book
have yet to master the English Language. Some changes
that "sounded right" to them changed the meanings in
(jimlynch279 at yahoo.com)
I think to say the sentence with "for" makes no
grammatical sense is not accurate.
If the phrase is "look FOR it from an entirely
different angle," the antecedent of the pronoun "it"
is "the key", something that we need, must find and
will search for by looking from a different angle.
If the phrase is "look AT it from an entirely
different angle.", the antecedent of the pronoun "it"
is "the list," something that we have available for