David “The Icon” C
[No not David B – but David C – a newer and much sleeker model - who has since 1988 made his tortuous way up the cult hierarchy – perhaps even to the very summit. David C (or as we prefer to call him David “An Icon in His Own Time” C – David The Icon for short) began his humble career as a foot soldier in the ranks of The Joys of Recovery way back in the year of Our Lord ’88: tea person, setting up fellow, treasure and literature secretary (even did a bit of moonlighting at Chelsea Tuesday Step as tea person and put in a lot of overtime at Kensington Friday). When the schism came in ’92 David The Icon made the right move and followed the leader into the heavenly realms of A Vision For You in Belgravia, becoming treasurer and then secretary. Finally all those years of selfless endeavour paid off and he became Chairman of London Region May 1994. It was from this point that he finally met his full potential as Master of the Concepts and gave a virtuoso performance at the 1997 Conference. He even wrote an article about his own daring dos in Share Magazine which so impressed Paul F that the latter felt that he had to respond.]
Letters section
CONCEPT TWELVE: NOT EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG
Not everyone else is wrongThank you for publishing David C’s article on Concept Twelve (DEC ’97). While I feel that I do not have the time, nor SHARE the space, for a full reply, there are some points that must not be allowed to go uncorrected.
Firstly, let me say that David is right to remind us that when we attend Conference we should speak and vote as our consciences dictate. I have been to Conference with my Region’s view and my own in place and on more than one occasion I have been happy to change my mind when I have heard the experience and views of others. Equally I have had something to offer and have swayed the opinions of others. This is consultation and is surely the essence of Conference, otherwise we could have postal votes on everything and save a lot of money. Moreover, the whole point of the voice of the minority being heard is essential to get a balanced view.
However, the minority, having been heard, and indeed on this particular matter being given generous time and forbearance, must, if it remains a solo plaint speaking against a large majority, accept for that occasion that Conference is not going to accede to his wishes and that he must not waste the time of Conference or antagonise the other delegates with endless repetition.
The fact that some delegates over-reacted to David’s somewhat over-persistent repetition is regrettable, but hardly surprising and for David to suggest the minority in general is made to feel unwelcome is nonsense.
However, to the question of the Concepts and their use (as ratified by 75% of the Conference) that so upsets a few’; it has been made abundantly clear that the Concepts as written by Bill W are unchanged. Indeed, they cannot be changed.
But what is the objection to the use of those valuable thoughts in another document? For the purposes of that document some words (and in no case the spirit) have been changed. Does that make it wrong? Does Cole Porter’s “Kiss Me Kate” destroy or in any way change Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew”? Not at all!
Perhaps a more accurate analogy is the Highway Code, which sets out the Road Traffic Acts and various other bits of legislation in another form. It most certainly does not change the law and its whole purpose is to help, not hinder.
There is much more I could add, but hope I have made the point that, valuable as David’s view is, his minority voice was fairly heard, considered and over-ruled. To suggest then that everyone else is wrong is taking things too far.
I am delighted that SHARE now has the courage to publish such contentious articles.
PAUL F
[No not David B – but David C – a newer and much sleeker model - who has since 1988 made his tortuous way up the cult hierarchy – perhaps even to the very summit. David C (or as we prefer to call him David “An Icon in His Own Time” C – David The Icon for short) began his humble career as a foot soldier in the ranks of The Joys of Recovery way back in the year of Our Lord ’88: tea person, setting up fellow, treasure and literature secretary (even did a bit of moonlighting at Chelsea Tuesday Step as tea person and put in a lot of overtime at Kensington Friday). When the schism came in ’92 David The Icon made the right move and followed the leader into the heavenly realms of A Vision For You in Belgravia, becoming treasurer and then secretary. Finally all those years of selfless endeavour paid off and he became Chairman of London Region May 1994. It was from this point that he finally met his full potential as Master of the Concepts and gave a virtuoso performance at the 1997 Conference. He even wrote an article about his own daring dos in Share Magazine which so impressed Paul F that the latter felt that he had to respond.]
Letters section
CONCEPT TWELVE: NOT EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG
Not everyone else is wrongThank you for publishing David C’s article on Concept Twelve (DEC ’97). While I feel that I do not have the time, nor SHARE the space, for a full reply, there are some points that must not be allowed to go uncorrected.
Firstly, let me say that David is right to remind us that when we attend Conference we should speak and vote as our consciences dictate. I have been to Conference with my Region’s view and my own in place and on more than one occasion I have been happy to change my mind when I have heard the experience and views of others. Equally I have had something to offer and have swayed the opinions of others. This is consultation and is surely the essence of Conference, otherwise we could have postal votes on everything and save a lot of money. Moreover, the whole point of the voice of the minority being heard is essential to get a balanced view.
However, the minority, having been heard, and indeed on this particular matter being given generous time and forbearance, must, if it remains a solo plaint speaking against a large majority, accept for that occasion that Conference is not going to accede to his wishes and that he must not waste the time of Conference or antagonise the other delegates with endless repetition.
The fact that some delegates over-reacted to David’s somewhat over-persistent repetition is regrettable, but hardly surprising and for David to suggest the minority in general is made to feel unwelcome is nonsense.
However, to the question of the Concepts and their use (as ratified by 75% of the Conference) that so upsets a few’; it has been made abundantly clear that the Concepts as written by Bill W are unchanged. Indeed, they cannot be changed.
But what is the objection to the use of those valuable thoughts in another document? For the purposes of that document some words (and in no case the spirit) have been changed. Does that make it wrong? Does Cole Porter’s “Kiss Me Kate” destroy or in any way change Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew”? Not at all!
Perhaps a more accurate analogy is the Highway Code, which sets out the Road Traffic Acts and various other bits of legislation in another form. It most certainly does not change the law and its whole purpose is to help, not hinder.
There is much more I could add, but hope I have made the point that, valuable as David’s view is, his minority voice was fairly heard, considered and over-ruled. To suggest then that everyone else is wrong is taking things too far.
I am delighted that SHARE now has the courage to publish such contentious articles.
PAUL F
(Original below can be saved as a picture on your computer and then magnified)
