top of page


We hear so much mention of the term “crosstalk” at our meetings these days and many of us including myself are becoming confused about what the term implies.

When I first came into the rooms it was very common for the experienced chairperson to make a helpful comment when someone had shared and who was obviously struggling to deal with an issue.

An experienced chairperson might then share briefly on how he or she dealt with a similar situation in their past through using the recovery process as outlined in Alcoholics Anonymous.

The intention was of course to provide support and encouragement to the person currently struggling with the issue.

This of course is what "fellowship" implies and in accordance with our preamble which simply says that we “share our experience strength and hope with each other in order to solve our common problem”.

So, there we have a chairperson sharing with someone in the group how they solved that problem which of course is common to both.

So why is it that if anyone today shares similarly to what I have written here that they feel obliged to apologise for cross-sharing?

I personally feel that the newcomers to our fellowship are often being misled and mis-informed about the "crosstalk syndrome" as some of the old-timers are coming to label this fairly new phenomena.

So if I should find myself compelled to support someone in the room who is struggling or troubled by a current issue, and then by sharing with them openly about my own experiences in dealing with a similar issue in order to encourage and support them, then I shall not feel the need to apologise for “crosstalk”.

Additionally, when a meeting has a topic that participants are invited to share on, there are bound to be comments of a similar nature amongst the shares.


There is therefore absolutely no need at all for anyone to "apologise for crossharing," simply because they may be using the same lexicon as someone who shared previously. I feel this would be going beyond sense and sensibility.

You do not have to agree with my own comments here, but I am compelled to express them in case it might help just one open-minded individual. and even allow people to gain real perspective on what we are about.


It is my sincere belief that this fairly new phenomenon is akin to "phsycobabble" (which as we know can be very damaging).

Although the above is just a simple illustration, I will never condone someone who would critically comment openly at a meeting or being judgemental on another person’s share. When this happens it can be interpreted as the height of sheer arrogance on the part of the critic and a far cry from the meaning of fellowship itself.


This is my own analysis of "crosstalk." (as I see it) and you do not have to agree with it.

But in all honesty, I feel better for sharing it with those who care to read it.

Yours in fellowship and service………..Doug Kuwait

bottom of page