The following files have been uploaded to the Files area of the [email protected] group.

• /Historical and Local Pamphlets/p-6 Three Talks to Medical Societies by Bill W.(retired pamphlet).pdf

By: Thom R.

Description:
Originally published in 1949 and out of copyright in the US, this pamphlet was "retired" recently for reasons that, for the life of me, I cannot get a straight answer to. If anyone can shed any light on the true reason(s) this pamphlet was "retired" please let us all know. This is an incredible pamphlet and even included the best (only) verbose version in Bill's own words, the six steps as Ebby gave them to him. I am making it available here on AAHL not only because of its immense historical value but also in protest. I have spent a lot of time, effort and even money travelling to regionals, etc. trying to get answers but am never given true, direct answers even by those who rammed it through (without any actual stated reasons that I could find in the Conference background nor by direct questions to the committees involved, as to what exactly was wrong with this pamphlet where the PI/CPC committee (an outward facing committee it can be argued) of panel 68 was able to decide for all of us inside AA itself that this pamphlet should be taken from us. They did this while the literature committee just sat back and watched, without objection, as it was forced through a very busy GSC that has over 90 items on the agenda to tear through. All of this stinks to high heaven and some answers would be nice. In the meantime, can anyone spot anything in this historical pamphlet that would be so "dangerous" to the internal AA fellowship that it should be taken away from us wholesale? Because I sure can't. --Thom

开云体育

--
Eugene Lane
Redondo Bch Ca

But it WAS still selling. It was much more popular than many other pamphlets still. We do not need to speculate. I've spent a few thousand dollars of my own money and much time trying to find out what happened to this pamphlet and the people who did this have been tight lipped.?

Thom

Ahhh but therein lies the rub.

If that is the actual reason, some arbitrary issue of "tone" then we had better retire Doctor's Opinion, A Member's Eye View, Jack Alexander, even the 12 and 12, to name only a few, before somebody gets "hurt."?

That being said, I have some pretty strong evidence (that I am still following up on) that the motion and decision to retire it was made entirely out of order and in a way that can be argued is very much against the Traditions and Concepts.

Intrigued? So am I. This is why I have spent so much time, money and energy investigating this. The very fact that certain real answers have been so difficult to obtain and the fact that certain parties have told me conflicting answers that can only be seen as sketch at best has turned this simple question, ("What exactly, EXACTLY is wrong with it?") into quite the adventure in detective work.

So far, everything I am finding in my quite thorough investigation of the past few years points to Three Talks being a victim of "cancel culture" and little else.

Surely, the bar to decide to "retire" an entire historical pamphlet that is still in much higher demand than many others still available would be higher than some arbitrary reason than what GSO and the conference report stated? I thought motions were supposed to be specific? What, EXACTLY, is wrong with it??

I truly believe that this is a dangerous precident. If the bar is that low, if no actual specific issues need be raised that the conference can merely start wiping out literature because of "tone" then why can't we take a machete to much of our other "dated feeling" literature as well?

Were the possibilies of an edit if something actially was now provably "wrong or bad medical advice" (of which this pamphlet was never Intended to be, even in 1949, in fact that was the entire stated point of it in the first place) or maybe even an added footnote or disclaimer stating that this may be dated "feeling" but still is important AA history, were these even explored?

"Retiring" something in AA means that while you and I as archivists might know it is available through a manual process on a case by case basis, I wonder that our posterity no longer has a good way to even know it existed since it is no longer in catalog nor is it available on demand in the still too small "history" section of the AA web site. In cases like this, where no clear reason is ever given, even when it is begged for, one could conclude that this is a form of censorship.?

I cannot agree that a copy buried in the unindexed archives is a proper fate for such an important work.?

I have made it available here.? I invite you to tag it for yourselves and to please,? tell me what is specifically objectionable about it in light of pretty much all of our other literature??

If the movement that is trying to "modernize" our historical literature can't get love on the idea of a "plain language" Big Book (whatever that means) then why not go after something that is obtainable, instead? I am under a very strong impression that this is exactly what has occurred here. It is the only theory I have at the moment that fires on all cylinders at once.

Best,

Thom

Welcome ??

I wasn't aware that it was "retired". Just last year, I gave this pamphlet to my primary care physician, hoping to enlighten her. She always asks about alcoholism during my visits, I think just trying to learn about it.?
As an RN, I see a lot of opportunities to use this pamphlet to help educate people in the medical field.?
I'm sad to learn that it has been retired.? I will definitely hang on to the only other copy I have!

开云体育