90 in 90 (was: list?)

[Guest guest]

Pete writes, " McIntyre claims that

90 days is a traditional " trial period " for AA, and I consider this

to be untrue. I have heard that " 90 meetings in 90 days " actually

became a tradition because it was a common court-mandated attendance. "

I'd agree that it wasn't traditional at all. In Pennsylvania in 1975 I didn't

hear about

90 in 90. That didn't come until later. For this to be true, there have to be

meetings

daily. And in 1975 there simply weren't meetings every day, unless you happened

to be in

a large enough city. This is something more recent. Nowadays you can find

meetings all

over the place, even in little villages, and there are daily meetings in the

nearest town

of any size, but that was not yet the case back in the mid-'seventies.

I saw the phone number in the local paper, and I called because I'd stopped

drinking and

believed I should get into a support group to stay stopped. I went to the

Wednesday night

meeting and said I'd be back next week. A couple of people suggested I ought to

come to

the Friday night meeting and to the Tuesday Night meeting in another town. But

I said I

felt fine with this one meeting, and I'd be back next week.

That was all. There was no further pressure, and in those days 90 in 90 was

impossible

anyway, because there were days without meetings.

I stayed sober with no difficulty whatsoever, and came back the next week.

And I never heard about " trial periods " .

This 90 in 90 stuph didn't start happening till later. I wasn't aware of it

coming from

courts. First there had to be enough meetings within easy driving distance in

an area,

anyway. And when ppl started talking about it, it seemed to come from rehabs.

(Of

course, courts probably forced the majority of those ppl into rehabs in the

first

place...what do I know? I was never in rehab and never forced by a court.)

All that was a long time ago.....

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

At 08:06 PM 10/8/01 -0700, Tomboy wrote:

> Also, we never got any kind of " court ordered " stuff coming our way. I

didn't see much of that until I went to meetings in the U.S.of A. (thinking

specifically of Seattle) where it was rampant. At one meeting there I saw a

good 20 minutes of signature signing going on before the meeting could even

start.

Did those there to get court slips signed stay for the meeting? In

the meetings I went to, slips were not signed until after the meeting,

to assure that the person stayed for the meeting.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 08:06 PM 10/8/01 -0700, Tomboy wrote:

> Also, we never got any kind of " court ordered " stuff coming our way. I

didn't see much of that until I went to meetings in the U.S.of A. (thinking

specifically of Seattle) where it was rampant. At one meeting there I saw a

good 20 minutes of signature signing going on before the meeting could even

start.

Did those there to get court slips signed stay for the meeting? In

the meetings I went to, slips were not signed until after the meeting,

to assure that the person stayed for the meeting.

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley