A Member’s Eye View Of “Crosstalk”
August 28, 2008 by Mark
Filed under Diseases & Conditions
Keep ‘em coming Alex! You’re making it easier for me 
Following up on the “crosstalk” topic… we have an email written from a oldtime member of AA;
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 4:22 pm
From: olemoleI’ve been around and sober for close to 37 years and so called crosstalk in one meeting is standard format in another all depends on the size and make up of the meeting. Cross talk is as old as AA.
On Aug 18, 8:52 am, Sottovoice wrote:
“I have to profess that I am not one who understands the detailed history of “cross talk” or what it really has to do with AA but I do know it didn’t exist as an idea until fairly recently (last 10 years or so). Today’s definition is one where someone shares on someone else’s share. It is tantamount to someone leading off their share with “I don’t want any feedback but…” That is appropriate if you feel that AA meetings are places to dump your stuff (There is a four letter word more descriptive but this is a family show) and split. If that is what you feel AA meetings to be it might be better to share that stuff with a sponsor instead.
But if I was to share in a meeting that I enjoyed drowning puppies in my spare time and saw no problem with that I would hope someone would let me know that sobriety isn’t measured by the drinks I didn’t take but by the spiritual life I need to live.
I’m sure there’ll be a couple of angry comments but if I want to go somewhere and dump there are better places to do that than an AA meeting. If I’m afraid that my comments won’t be well received I might save those comments for my sponsor – clearing my conscience at the expense of others and insisting that no one should say anything about it is a little arrogant and selfish. And, God forbid, it becomes fodder for the rumor mill – all the more reason it should be shared with a sponsor who may be able to give some valuable experience or direct you to someone who does.
Jim
The Into Action Group of Manhattan
DOS 8/8/80″
I’ll say it again – thanks God for those who’ve developed wisdom in its simplest terms.
No prob my rate is 10%…I mean it’s all pro bono for my favorite thump
You have the rumor mill in America too? I thought it was just in London.
Direct crosstalk is generally disapproved of in most meetings. What usually occurs in a good homegroup when someone dumps at length about unspiritual acts is these two things. One, a member who dislikes drowning puppies diplomatically shares their experience, strength and hope regarding puppy welfare without directly confronting the bad puppy. This keeps the discourse civil. After all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Second, after the meeting a couple of the “boys” gets together with the sick puppy and talk to him in the parking lot, explain AA social niceties, suggest counseling and sponsorship, etc. The main reason for crosstalk prohibitions is to avoid arguments and general disruption in meetings. We wish not to allow morons to dump, nor, on the other hand, to allow the exercise of a pompous egotist’s belligerent urges to correct other people. Frequently some “tough-love” bigmouth alienates the whole meeting by picking on a newcomer about some minor faux pas, instead of quietly correcting him after the meeting. So there is a fine line. How much do we exercise tolerance, and when and how do we choose to correct them? Diplomacy is always the best way. It carries with it many virtues- including patience and love.
My home group, Tuesday Basics, does not have a no crosstalk edict. It is announced just before a topic is picked and the attendance has more than doubled in the past few months. Seems like if someone has a problem with it that there are several other meetings they can choose to attend that do prohibit crosstalk. We don’t let it get out of hand, however. If 2 people wish to debate we suggest that they do it over coffee after the meeting. BTW I have been attending this meeting for almost 20 years.