In a message dated 11/1/00 4:34:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> A<snip> C<snip> wrote:
> > By publicly aligning with one, and using his position as head of OTO
> > to say that there was only one lineage. Hence all other groups
> > claiming a lineage are invalid. However this issue has been argued
> > to death on this list previously.
> Yes it has, but that hasn't stopped you from misrepresenting HB's views
> all the same. From what I remember (I haven't the article in front of
> me) his argument was that there is *no such thing* as an A.A. "lineage".
> This is a view that I happen to agree with, based on Crowley's writings
> on the A.A. (see long exchange between myself and Tyagi about this
> matter for details).
> During the previous discussion I seem to recall challenging anyone to
> produce an official A.A. document setting out this "lineage" system. Any
> takers this time around?
Gee, looks like your challenge scared em off, Rodney-Dwarf of Orange!
How could you tell if it were an official AA document, btw?
Laughter is the law, laughter under will.