For a while, I don't think we should consider revising the 12 Steps. It's put forward without claiming authority over anyone's work; no one's required to involve themselves with it; so I think we should only do more on it if there's a compelling reason to. It seems to have gotten some intelligent people thinking more about strategy and tactics, but I don't see anything so far that is a better idea, and I don't know of any instance in which people disagreeing have demonstrated that progress toward animal rights can be made any other way.
People often base their strategies and views of strategy on their own temperaments and wishful thinking, not on thorough political and historical analysis. That's a reason animal rights hasn't made much progress, not a reason to change our assessment of the movement's needs.
I think your approach of thanking people is perfect. Let's just accumulate comments and see how it goes for a while.
I wonder if further postings shouldn't include, in the introduction, something about its being offered as a way to get people to reconsider strategy and to assess whether animal rights or something else is what they might be promoting and that we don't seek to dictate what others do or don't do.
And do you think it goes far enough toward indicating we don't think any sort of violent or anti-social methods can work and that they are likely to keep AR off the public agenda?