|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > September 2006 > Disc leader local styles
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Disc leader local styles
|
|
| Srgnt Billko 2006-09-27, 9:21 pm |
| Just got back from the "new Wednesday night disc mtg". About the same
number of people each week but not many "regulars". The "one man show"
asked me if I would take the key for next week.
But anyway - a question. The accepted local style now seems for leaders to
just qualify "briefly" and then sit quietly for the rest of the meeting. I
used to prefer the format where the leader responds to some of the "shares".
I always thought, "leaders lead ...."
Has the old style gone away all over the place or does it still exist in
some areas ?
| |
| Craig S. 2006-09-28, 4:21 pm |
| "Srgnt Billko" <frrt@blipl.net> wrote in message
news:z3GSg.239702$5i3.121246@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Just got back from the "new Wednesday night disc mtg". About the same
> number of people each week but not many "regulars". The "one man show"
> asked me if I would take the key for next week.
>
> But anyway - a question. The accepted local style now seems for leaders
to
> just qualify "briefly" and then sit quietly for the rest of the meeting.
I
> used to prefer the format where the leader responds to some of the
"shares".
> I always thought, "leaders lead ...."
>
> Has the old style gone away all over the place or does it still exist in
> some areas ?
A few years ago it was leaning toward a brief topic qualifier and then
"let's just go around the room" and "thanks, next." I do know that on the
occasions when the discussion leader was commenting between shares, I
frequently got the impression that he mostly just liked to hear his own gums
flap.
| |
|
|
"Srgnt Billko" <frrt@blipl.net> wrote in message
news:z3GSg.239702$5i3.121246@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Just got back from the "new Wednesday night disc mtg". About the same
> number of people each week but not many "regulars". The "one man show"
> asked me if I would take the key for next week.
>
> But anyway - a question. The accepted local style now seems for leaders
> to just qualify "briefly" and then sit quietly for the rest of the
> meeting. I used to prefer the format where the leader responds to some of
> the "shares". I always thought, "leaders lead ...."
>
> Has the old style gone away all over the place or does it still exist in
> some areas ?
>
>
Sarge, you are just going to have accept that you are just plain old
fashioned and out of touch. Have you ever heard of "cross talk" at a
meeting? The issue of cross talk came out of the ACA, ACOA & Coda meetings
of the early 90's. In these meetings it was considered absolutely improper
to comment on someone's "share" either by others at the meeting or from the
chair. Many meetings announced this rule from the chair and people did not
comment on what others shared during the meeting. Approaching the person
after the meeting and opening a discussion on what they shared in the
meeting was OK. This idea has filtered over to some AA meetings.
The primary reason for this cross talk rule is that many of these people who
grew up in a dysfunctional family were shut off from speaking by parents or
constantly interrupted in speaking and always "corrected" by their
dominating parents. Therefore to comment about a person's share in a meeting
is the same as having a parent correcting them for speaking about their
issues, etc.
RonG
| |
| Biljo White 2006-09-28, 4:21 pm |
| "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
> Sarge, you are just going to have accept that you are just plain old
> fashioned and out of touch. Have you ever heard of "cross talk" at a
> meeting?
Sarge, Ron has it right (and you are indeed a straight-laced old fart, but
loveable).
I have never been to a meeting where crosstalk was allowed.
Crosstalk, as I understand it, is interjecting your comments *while
another person is speaking,* usually at a discussion meeting. I have heard
speakers and discussion participants comment briefly on another person's
talk when it was their turn to speak, but not often. This isn't crosstalk
as I understand it.
I think 'no crosstalk' is a very good idea. It is often very difficult for
people to tell their stories, or comment on what's bugging them, and they
don't need the distraction of comments, well-intentioned or not, from
others. This is their time, exclusively.
And as Ron said, before and after the meeting is an ideal time to have a
conversation with others.
Bill W.
(not bill wilson)
| |
|
|
"Biljo White" <biljowhite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060928134606.801$b7@newsreader.com...
> "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sarge, Ron has it right (and you are indeed a straight-laced old fart, but
> loveable).
>
> I have never been to a meeting where crosstalk was allowed.
>
> Crosstalk, as I understand it, is interjecting your comments *while
> another person is speaking,* usually at a discussion meeting. I have heard
> speakers and discussion participants comment briefly on another person's
> talk when it was their turn to speak, but not often. This isn't crosstalk
> as I understand it.
>
> I think 'no crosstalk' is a very good idea. It is often very difficult for
> people to tell their stories, or comment on what's bugging them, and they
> don't need the distraction of comments, well-intentioned or not, from
> others. This is their time, exclusively.
>
> And as Ron said, before and after the meeting is an ideal time to have a
> conversation with others.
>
Making a comment even after a person has shared, either by someone at the
meeting or by the chair is considered cross talk. However, knowing about
cross talk, I am not all that in favor of this idea in AA meetings. I can
think of several situations where I would interrupt someone sharing at a
meeting and for that matter, make some comments about what they have said
after they have completed sharing.
RonG
| |
|
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:09:05 -0400, "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
>
>Making a comment even after a person has shared, either by someone at the
>meeting or by the chair is considered cross talk. However, knowing about
>cross talk, I am not all that in favor of this idea in AA meetings. I can
>think of several situations where I would interrupt someone sharing at a
>meeting and for that matter, make some comments about what they have said
>after they have completed sharing.
>
>RonG
Your definition of cross talk may well be the real definition and
where it came from as you stated in another post might be correct too,
but I've attended a half dozen or so meetings where the subject came
up and was batted around...more often than not a definition couldn't
or wouldn't be reached and the subject just died a natural death.
Almost all the meetings I attended during the late 70's up to the late
80's it was standard practice for the chair to comment or not as they
saw fit. As for commenting on what someone else said when it was your
turn to share was common practice at the meeting I attended too. The
idea was each person got to say whatever they wanted.
When and where I have attended meeting that have already adopted the
'no cross talk' along the lines of the definition you put forth
....well they seem (to me) to be bland and nothing much more than a
report of what has taken place since the last meeting attended or an
announcement of what the person is going to do before the next
meeting...a kind of Hi, I'm XSX an alcoholic and everything
is...great...or bad..or I'm going on vacation...etc...then hold hands,
say a prayer, and scatter.
I prefer the way they were...but then when I do take part in the
fellowship these days on rare occasions I'm quickly labeled a crazy or
bleeding deacon.
| |
|
|
"Tex" <twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e8oh2hc2ogpfckj8ls293mdscfgqlt0dr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:09:05 -0400, "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your definition of cross talk may well be the real definition and
> where it came from as you stated in another post might be correct too,
> but I've attended a half dozen or so meetings where the subject came
> up and was batted around...more often than not a definition couldn't
> or wouldn't be reached and the subject just died a natural death.
>
> Almost all the meetings I attended during the late 70's up to the late
> 80's it was standard practice for the chair to comment or not as they
> saw fit. As for commenting on what someone else said when it was your
> turn to share was common practice at the meeting I attended too. The
> idea was each person got to say whatever they wanted.
>
> When and where I have attended meeting that have already adopted the
> 'no cross talk' along the lines of the definition you put forth
> ...well they seem (to me) to be bland and nothing much more than a
> report of what has taken place since the last meeting attended or an
> announcement of what the person is going to do before the next
> meeting...a kind of Hi, I'm XSX an alcoholic and everything
> is...great...or bad..or I'm going on vacation...etc...then hold hands,
> say a prayer, and scatter.
>
> I prefer the way they were...but then when I do take part in the
> fellowship these days on rare occasions I'm quickly labeled a crazy or
> bleeding deacon.
I am in your corner on this. As I earlier stated, cross talk did not
originate in AA but became adapted in some meetings. I called these meetings
"whiners meetings". In discussion about this issue I would give the example
about the guy that opens with, "I'm feeling so bad...........my goldfish
died! I am so reminded about all the losses in my life, etc etc." Under the
cross talk rule, no one is allowed to ask him if he fed the XXXXing fish or
cleaned the bowl.
And yea, I've noticed that your posts are bit crazy and you do come across
quite often as a bleeding deacon..........
RonG
| |
|
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:10:54 -0400, "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
>And yea, I've noticed that your posts are bit crazy and you do come across
>quite often as a bleeding deacon..........
>
>RonG
Well when you're crazy and a bleeding deacon they are suppose to come
across that way. I think I'll go to a meeting tonight just to check it
out...check out me being crazy & a bleeding deacon...not the meeting.
| |
|
|
"Tex" <twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3acoh2hom1cl4340v579fasrfa6it2eeib@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:10:54 -0400, "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well when you're crazy and a bleeding deacon they are suppose to come
> across that way. I think I'll go to a meeting tonight just to check it
> out...check out me being crazy & a bleeding deacon...not the meeting.
I'm not the best when to comes to making jokes. I meant the crazy & bleeding
deacon bit to be a subtle joke about cross talking by commenting about your
self evaluation just in case you didn't pick up on that. 
RonG
| |
|
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:30:19 -0400, "Ron G" <ron@network12.com> wrote:
>
>"Tex" <twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3acoh2hom1cl4340v579fasrfa6it2eeib@4ax.com...
>
>
>I'm not the best when to comes to making jokes. I meant the crazy & bleeding
>deacon bit to be a subtle joke about cross talking by commenting about your
>self evaluation just in case you didn't pick up on that.
>
>RonG
>
No, I got it...I'm still thinking about making that meeting tonight
just for the hell of it.
| |
|
|
"Biljo White" <> Crosstalk, as I understand it, is interjecting your
comments *while
> another person is speaking,* usually at a discussion meeting. I have heard
> speakers and discussion participants comment briefly on another person's
> talk when it was their turn to speak, but not often. This isn't crosstalk
> as I understand it.
>
> I think 'no crosstalk' is a very good idea. It is often very difficult for
> people to tell their stories, or comment on what's bugging them, and they
> don't need the distraction of comments, well-intentioned or not, from
> others. This is their time, exclusively.
>
> And as Ron said, before and after the meeting is an ideal time to have a
> conversation with others.
>
> Bill W.
> (not bill wilson)
Well no, in some instances corsstalk is referred to as when a
chairperson/leader/secretary etc, replies after a person has shared. I
dispute the chairs right to do this.
It is usually a frosty oul bastard, and he or she, usually remonstrates with
the last person sharing for something or other that was supposedly 'wrong'
in this persons share.
I won't tolerate it at any meeting I attend. If you want to criticise
someone, be prepared to be criticised back in return. Mostly these
arseholes aren't asked back. I've been present when they were asked to sit
down in the group. And I have been known to ask if they had a licence to
take others' inventories for them.
Ever notice these people, for want of a better name, always seem to have a
"favourite step " and they always make a right bollocks of themselves by not
adhering to the principle involved in that step.
Feck this I'm going back into service. There is something missing out of my
life, and I just now realised that it must be putting some of these gougers
into their places. Heh heh, my ambition is to be at a meeting where
Bilkobabby tries his oultimer shite..
Thumping Tommy
| |
|
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:47:25 +0100, "Tommy"
<tommyleprechaunATgmail.com> wrote:
>Well no, in some instances corsstalk is referred to as when a
>chairperson/leader/secretary etc, replies after a person has shared. I
>dispute the chairs right to do this.
Good for you. I don't agree though.
| |
| Srgnt Billko 2006-09-28, 9:21 pm |
|
"Tex" <twizzard@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08soh29cajopeg9r2pqoaqo1i4alft3jb1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:47:25 +0100, "Tommy"
> <tommyleprechaunATgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Good for you. I don't agree though.
So the Christmas Turkey doesn't like others to "crosstalk" but it's OK if he
does it himself. What a joke.
| |
| imbibe@mindspring.com 2006-09-29, 8:21 am |
|
Tommy wrote:
>
> Well no, in some instances corsstalk is referred
> to as when a chairperson/leader/secretary etc,
> replies after a person has shared. I dispute
> the chairs right to do this.
One time a guy shared that "only 5% of the people
in this room will stay sober." I followed that, no,
that's 5% of all those who ever try AA. Most of
the people here are regulars, so the success rate
of those present will be much higher (I wasn't the
chair, tho) (a lady came up to me after the meeting
& thanked me for saying it).
> [...] And I have been known to ask if they had
> a licence to take others' inventories for them.
One "oultimer" told me "It's all right to take
someone's inventory if they leave it hangin' out!"
> [...] Heh heh, my ambition is to be at a meeting
> where Bilkobabby tries his oultimer shite..
I'd rather be there than be square!
..
..
--
|
| |
|
|