iou1na

.. With all the talk about sponsors and the like, I did a search thru SRNA looking for any references to the new Sponsorship book recently approved by NAWS. The thing became a bit of a contentious issue around my area during the vetting process and after it became approved.
.. Some people love the book. Others hate it. I haven't found anyone yet who sits in between with an "Annhh, whatever" belief (attitude?!).

.. Me. I found the book to be too full of quotes. I'm told that is because the book is written by addicts, so their words need to be put in. Well, the Basic Text, It Works: How & Why, The Step Working Guide, plus the rest of our literature was written by addicts. Why weren't they quoted? Oops, maybe 'ceptin' the 2nd half of the BT, which is pure quoting!
.. I just found the book a wee bit too hard to read with those goldanged quotes. Sometimes the quote will have only a coupla words dealing with the immediate subject matter, and then others would be so bang on that I wondered why they weren't just incorporated as part of the text.
.. My sponsor said to buy the book and support "carrying the message". He also said that if I can't stomach the quotes, then don't read 'em! That made for a real short read, I can tell ya! I keep the book for an odd reference tool, like all the other 12 Step lit I've got from all those other 12 Step programs. I admit that it does give me just enough of a different viewpoint to help me maybe kinda sorta learn something. I guess.

.. Has anyone else read the thing? Did it help? Didja re-gift it after yer sponsor gave it to ya?

godsonmyside

I don't like the Sponsorship book!!!!

I think the pamphlet is good enough, I bought the book and turned around and gave it to a newcomer that really wanted it. I read some of it and didn't agree with some of it and just came to realize that NAWS put it out there without a Group Vote, must of been one of the Regional things that expediates business by no going back to the group for a vote..

I have come to realize that the book was a money making thing, I and many others I have talked with believe the same thing. I actually told my sponsor it sucked and he believed me enough to take my word for it. I can deal with the IWHW and the Sponsorship book, you are like me, remembe the Basic Text, even before the 90's, in 88 I had 5 Basic Text 4 editions with a soft covered without We Do Recover, and I got the paste-in of that chapter.

Soi Yeah, anyway, I am not in flavor of the Sponsorship Book. Out here some groups study it in group settings, It take my stand against that, but the home group members of those meetings feel differently and that is ok too.

Peace,
Todd J.

Old fart

Just one mans opinion I just got through the book and found it hard to follow and just kinda wandered why. I beleave that the ip on sponsorship has worked well for some time.In the time that I have been in recovery I have seen NA change.It seems that we are trying to micro manage every thing about it if you are not doing this then you are wrong.If you are doing that you are wrong.It has at times become about the money.I have a copy of the manuscript sent out to the groups for their approval for the basic text.Back then their was a part that I hold dear to my heart.(But more importantly, those members have conscientiously sought to insure a "group conscience"
text).I would love to read this on all of our lit. I belive NAWS has forgot this is a we program.We are addicts we all ways think we know better.What ever happened to if it works dont fix it. My basic text is 1982 first printing model and I have been cleen by reading and following it.We are in one mans opinion trying to complicate this thing to death.I agree the book was put out for prophet reasons sham on us.So back for me back to the basics where it is truely a we program.Take what we want and leave the rest well this is one I will leave.

daydream

I have not read the sponsorship book yet, so what I am about to say here is not because I disagree with others' opinions about the quality of the book.
I am in no way trying to suppress anyone's right to speak their opinion, nor looking for a debate. The following is but my own opinion: It upsets me to hear people say that certain things are done for the money. I hear people say the police get bonuses for arresting people, the judges make money for sending people to DUI school or substance abuse counseling, children's services gets bonuses for taking people's kids away, people on talk shows only do it for the money, etc.... Last night I saw where someone said NA conventions are done to make money. Now to hear that our sponsorship book was written to make money? Who said so? It sounds pretty egotistical for someone to assume they know something was done to make money. Additionally, it sounds pretty ungrateful to speak so disrespectfully (character assassination?) of the program that saved my life, especially without showing the evidence to prove the allegations. Just my 2 cents.

namommy

daydream, Fortunately, NAWS is NOT the program. Unfortunately, they are about making money. What do you think the 18 month key tag was about?

I have the sponsorship book, and I am finding it hard to read through. It's just not getting my interest. I understand why they have so many different view points in there, but come on now, it seems to complicate sponsorship more than the many opinions already do.

The approval draft was sent out to the groups in the CAR I think (not sure)2004. It's the process that didn't include the groups or a Lit. Review committee since the Intellectual Property Trust took that right away from us.

Those at NAWS do what they want, they way they want it. Unfortunately, not all growth is good.

I'm keeping it, because I collect NA memorobelia and I want to add it to my collection.

godsonmyside

If NAWS wants something to go through, about 17 members of the Board can push it through even if the Home Groups vote no. And you are absolutely right, It is sad. Naws did the 18 month key tag, Sponsorship book, and passed The reading card "We Do Recover", and members think its ok, That what NA want, but its not. This is why the home group ids so important, it is very important to get involved with the home group and attend the Group Conscience.

Peace,
Todd J.

P.S. 4 votes this year from the CAR Report Agenda

iou1na

.. EEK! I totally forgot about the ranting and raving that went on in my Area (not to mention Region... oops! which I just did!) about World blahblahblah. Or as the internet Fellowship likes to call 'em, NAW$.
.. In response to all the above, I am eternally grateful that we have a World Service Comittee. Even if sometimes they seem to be looking the other way when Tradition 2 comes a-knockin'.
.. Our World Service can be part of a different thread (then again, maybe not! A discussion like that might get us all banned!! ). I did ask for thoughts and views on the book itself, not the conception and birth of it. But taking from what little y'all did say about the Sponsorship text, it didn't go over too well. At least, I ain't alone!!
( ( ( ) ) )

namommy

I guess we got a little :sad6:

godsonmyside

Sorry, I will clarify so this is no mistake about the Sponsorship book. IT SUCKS!!!!!!

Peace,
Todd J.

iou1na

.. Sorry about that, Todd. Obviously, you did say the book sucked. I missed that due to another of my character defects.
.. There are times when I hear what I want to hear and read what I want to read. Thus, I lose out on all the other good stuff going 'round. It's kinda like putting my personality before any sorta principle.

Thanks for the clarification. But, uh, next time? Give me a bit of a heads-up so's I can get my ear protectors on before ya yell?? hehe

cj.

The perfect 'excuse' smiley for me to keep my opinions to myself!

All I will say is that I do not like the book at all.

Recoveree

Todd....what you said about no group votes....nothing could be further from the truth. THOUSANDS of home groups voted on the draft of the book. If YOUR home group chose not to participate in the process, thats on them....that does not extrapolate into no groups voting throughout our world wide fellowship.

If you knew the history of the sponsorship book you would know it started with a motion from a group that went to the ASC then to the RSC then to the WSC. The process took 10 years to get to the WSC. The drafts of the book were the most widely distributed piece of draft literature in our fellowships history, largely due to the internet.

This book generated so much interest in my home Area that at the final tally of votes, we had one of largest GSR turnouts ever in the last 22 years.

The assertion that the book was about money is utterly rediculous. The sponsorship project passed through 5 or 6 different World Service Conference cycles. If you or your home group didn't participate, why didn't you. If your trusted servants were so inept that the RDs or RCMs or GSRs didn't bring their reports to you or your home group, then perhaps you need to call them on the carpet.

I highly doubt that your RSC made any decision about the book without sending it back to groups. I would be real interested to read the minutes of the RSC the week they decided how they want the Regional Delegate to carry their vote.

When I get a minute, I will post some details about the history of the book for everyone to read, to dispell the rumours, innuendos and innacurate information i see flying around the internet.

I wonder Todd,...have you or any subcommittees in your Area been invloved in reviewing the Public Relations Handbook or is that going to be another piece of material people are going to wonder 'when the heck did this happen'?

anyway,
regards and hugs my northern neighbor,

Richie

Recoveree

Hey old fart ,love the name...I identify hehe...

just curious...on what facts do you base your statement about the book being put out for profit reasons??
Thanks for helping me understand???

Richie

Recoveree

if it helps some addicts, its a good book

Recoveree

Hi NA mommy...

it seems you dont understand the process. The CAR is for the groups...your statement makes no sense. The process included thousands of groups and lit review committees, service committees and individuals. What the heck do you know about who was involved??/ What FACTS do you base your statements on???

The FIPT didnt take any rights away from you , the NA member. Where did you get that piece of misinforamation???

Those at NAWS do what they want??? LOL The WSO and WB are today under more scrutiny than ever in history. There are more checks and balances than ever before. NAWS answers to the fellowship. They are directed by the groups through the World Service Conference. What ever projects NAWS takes on have to first be approved by the groups, including the budgeting and prioritizing.

It would be nice if someone here based their statements on reality instead of false impressions.

Thanks

richie

Recoveree

Todd...
it does our fellowship no good to make up statements that are not true.
The WB is accountable to the groups and all their activies are directed by the groups through their representatives, the GSRs RCMs and RDs.

All the things you mentioned were approved by representatives of the more than 100 regions around the world. I was there when the votes were taken on these things. If you did not have a say, that was your choice. Members from around the world discussed these projects and made a decision. Seems like you didnt participate for some reason and have sour grapes because of that.

If you took the time to learn the process, you would know that the World Board can't "push through" anything that we don't allow them to.

It wouldn't kill ya to look to the facts before throwing out these rediculously inaccurate statements.

Richie

godsonmyside

I am involved and yes I do remember the 2004 Car report and not one of those things were on it, the Sponsorship pamphlet was on there and the Basic text, I don't recall the reading card "We Do Recover". The Sponsorship book is another story, maybe I talked out my butt, don't believe I did though, some Regions are a little more involved, something went on in some areas because alot of people have the same amnesia I do, if 2 people see the same thing its no longer a hallusination!! LOL

Peace,
Todd J.

Moontime

Hey Richie, Thank god we have predecessors like you in here. So many blessing blockers in all areas of peoples recovery. So many people talk out of their ass without facts or truths, thank you for setting it straight Richie. I was on a workshop for three days going over thissponsorship book with a couple of old timers in my area, Kermit O, Richard S, Phillip C the guys who are the predecessor's for my area and area's around the world, who bleed NA. They didn't hate on it, they said what you said Richie "If it helps addicts, where going to get involved." Thank you bro

Recoveree

Hi Todd and all.....here are a few factual details....

WORLD SERVICE CONFERENCE 2002

MOTION 12
“To allow the WB to delay the Basic Text evaluations project until 2006 so that we can spend more time on development and review within the Sponsorship project.” Failed - voice vote

MOTION 22
"To approve the Basic Text Evaluation project plan for inclusion in the 2002-2004 Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Budget." Carried - voice vote

MOTION 27
"To approve the Sponsorship project plan for inclusion in the 2002-2004 Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. Budget." Carried - voice vote

From the DRAFT MINUTES OF THE WSC 2004

SESSION ON SATURDAY MAY 1

The record will reflect that there was overwhelming conference support to

*accept the smooth-finish medallions,

*change the Third Step posters to add the words “many of us have said,”

*create a reading card from the third paragraph from the Basic Text’s “We Do Recover” beginning, “When at the end of the road.”

godsonmyside

See now, I didn't see 2002 all of it, if you have it on the computer could you email it to me. [email protected]

Every thing is up for revision, especially what we thought we knew about the truth!!!!

Personally, I don't like the sponsorship book, but I am just one.

I have been misinformed and thank you for correcting this for me.

Peace,
Todd J.