From: fglaysher@hotmail.com To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai-discuss on talk.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, September 21, 1997 8:21 AM [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] [A sampling of opinion from the bahai-discuss listserv on talk/alt.religion.bahai.] From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 13:08:05 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xC91m-0003ucC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 15:47 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Subject: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Robert Moldenhauer Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:45:09 -0500 X-Sender: persia@persia.com I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 13:40:02 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xC9jN-0003u4C; Fri, 19 Sep 97 16:32 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:18:16 -0700 From: Ragna Jensen For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? Thanks, Ragna ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. ---------- I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 14:10:32 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCA72-0003ueC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 16:57 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3422E6CC.4A361D8@lightspeed.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:55:40 -0700 From: "John B. Cornell" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. Dear Robert, I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a group like BCCA is a blessing. John From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 14:30:57 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCARR-0003sNC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 17:18 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Reply-To: Graham Sorenson In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 21:22:40 +0100 From: Graham Sorenson In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer writes >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes >comes out. > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al #with all the attendent spams etc. > -- Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from my address. http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 15:54:37 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCBpq-0003rfC; Fri, 19 Sep 97 18:47 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> <3422E6CC.4A361D8@lightspeed.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34224FCA.115C@TENET.EDU> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-STWB (Win16; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: haukness@tenet.edu Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 03:11:22 -0700 From: haukness@tenet.edu John B. Cornell wrote: > > Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Dear Robert, > > I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at > alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom > learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a > group like BCCA is a blessing. > > John Allah-u-Abha Friends: I am waiting on the Baha'i scholarship freedom on Noble to sift down before I decide on jumping in or not. As Tom Hodges posted what is my inclination, that the topic is not suited for Noble and is better suited for a place like here as it is not a topic we need to air out with non-Baha'is. I see this as going back to Resurrection and Renewal, the MacEion sympathy bandwagon and talisman. The statements coming out of these 3 camps were as if written in stone, that only a few persecuted and enlightened scholars knew what true freedom is, and the Baha'i Administration and core of non-thinking blind followers thwarting freedom didn't respect free the study of concepts but got hung up on methods. I am waiting to see how this last round of who is anti and un scholarly and who is a bona-fide scholar. What I recognize is that the Baha'i Administration has a long history of surrounding itself with great scholarship, indeed represents the best of scholarship concepts and methods. There is only a rift, to those who I believe see the covenant a lot differenlty than did the Guardian. Now, there is always a lot of posts that no one can call anyone a covenant breaker. This is true, but there are, however well intentioned it may be, lot's of voices among us, I believe, who extend this to mean that we Baha'is cannot discuss the covenant. Which correlates to the current snides that have been taken the past 2 years that Adib Taherzadeh represents a case in point of non-scholarship, because he is just a follower and not independent enough in secular science, but then too, that one cannot write about what he titled his vol5 book, "The Covenant of Bahaullah," because 'no one can talk about this. The problem is, that this then means one cannot come to a conclusion that the problem sometimes, in some of this stuff, is that the Baha'i Covenant is not being taken into proper consideration in the summations bandied about. And if indeed the issue in some of the neo-Baha'i literature, voices in error because of a departure from the Sacred Writings, that it is not true scholarship, to ignore bringing the Covenant into the analysis of the discussion. Thus this is not the same or even allied with calling anyone a covenant breaker, but rather, that a paragraph or a sentence, when held up to analysis, can be found to be at variance with the Baha'i Covenant. If so, this can be important to point out. It is not just the Universal House of Justice which can discuss the nature of obedience, following, and intigrating the covenant, both when it happens and when it doesn't, it is also a topic open to all Baha'is. Thus when MacEoin does a 50/50 study of the Faith "Thge polarization of Azalis and Baha'is resulted in the rapid displacement of any serious alternative definition of Babi Orthodoxy." and "the sectarian biases of the 2 opposing groups," he fails to give us the information of why the reader should accept that the Babi's are as biased as their persecutors. and "doctrines may be reconstucted with out serious prejudice to either side of the dispute." more 50/50 suggesting both sides as equally causing the dispute, and MacEion's very casual description of the Bab "years he (no caps used) regarded himself as..." leaves us with an examlple of where, I think along with Abbas Amanat and talisman gives us this rift of dogmatic Baha'i scholarship, (my social group) and true free thinking new Baha'i scholarship. That we can see The Bab so casual like, does not impress me from a standpoint that it is something that I could never dream up, indeed, I was raised a Westerner where Rice and Weber portrayed Judas as the victem in Jesus Christ Superstar because he was the sane one, and Jesus was too radical, so I know all about scholars being cute. What I hope happens, is when we encounter each other, that we can quote what we feel is wrong and then the group of us can examine our quotes to see what indeed we have said and what indeed we have not said. Something the free thinking real scholars on talisman, from what I could see, could never do. To be revisited later. au revoir jh From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Sep 19 22:30:22 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCHpl-0003riC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 01:11 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34235AF5.285CD2CD@inwave.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 00:11:17 -0500 From: "Michael R. Moum" Ragna Jensen wrote: > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, don't bother. Baha'i Love, Mike > > Thanks, > Ragna > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > ---------- > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: http://www.inwave.com/~mmoum From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 04:54:44 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCO24-0003tVC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 07:49 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <01BCC500.518B8060@ppp-19.asis.com> <34235AF5.285CD2CD@inwave.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <342489E7.35E3@pipelinepc.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: rhoff9@pipelinepc.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:43:51 -0700 From: "J. Richard Hoff" Reply J.Richard Hoff Thanks for the basic information. It is enlightening on this issue J.Richard Hoff ichael R. Moum wrote: > > Ragna Jensen wrote: > > > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? > > CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a > new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued > to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more > knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. > > Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of > his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, > don't bother. > > Baha'i Love, > Mike > > > > Thanks, > > Ragna > > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > > > ---------- > > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > -- > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > home page: http://www.inwave.com/~mmoum From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 09:15:12 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCS6b-0003uKC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 12:10 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:09:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Hodges Others have defined the terms here. So, I have read a good bit of what is on alt.religion.bahai. Not a pretty site but not as bad as I expected. Several Baha'is are participating regularly (Don, Chris, ...) and trying to guide some of the threads onto productive channels. 90-95% of the content is pure junk or pointless bickering that I am glad is not allowed on our moderated list. But I don't think much harm has resulted and some good has come of it. So it probably doesn't matter much whether it is approved or not. If disapproved, the alt newsgroup will continue. If talk.religion.bahai is approved, it will have wider circulation but with the same content as the alt. group and the alt. group may be abandonded (or maybe not). Tom Hodges On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Sep 20 16:28:31 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCXuJ-0003rBC; Sat, 20 Sep 97 18:21 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <199709202221.SAA10879@mx01.together.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0, March 15, 1997 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" From: dmcadam Date: Sat, 20 Sep 97 18:25:55 -0400 9/20/97 1:11 AM In answer to your last message : >visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of >his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, >don't bother. Dear friends- I deleted the name of the writer referred to above for I don't wish to solicit negative feelings about him. My vote is to allow those who are on this alternative list to do what they want to do, I want no part of it. If we pay no attention to them they will lose whatever little energy they have. In thinking about all this my thoughts as always turn to the subject of purpose. What is their purpose in speaking the way they do? We know that reality consists of both what appears and and seen by our physical senses in addition to what underlies these appearances which is only observed by our spiritual powers of the intellect, faith, reason and intuition. So I say to myself, "what underlies the appearances of these words"?, in some of these negative postings on these unmoderated lists. Several reasons come to mind and none appear to be justified by any reasonable interpretation of the Writings regarding speech and the principles of consultation. I don't like thinking this way. I want to think of higher motives. So I allow mistakes, allow slips and even name-calling once in a while for we all make mistakes. But to see the same friends repeatedly using the same style of delivery, tone and sometimes abusive language tells me that there is an underlying problem in the writer. They say they want freedom of speech. Well, what about me? I need freedom too and I don't feel free to participate in conversations that are constantly bombarding my lower level sensations. It inhibits me and my heart feels hurt at these expressions of a distasteful and uncivilized nature. I think to myself, "do they really want my opinion in their search for truth and unity". If they did would they not be sensitive to my needs too? I am of theirs. How can either of us have true, open and honest freedom to express ourselves if we are reacting constantly out of our lower nature.? The Writings were given to us to free ourselves from the "satanic strength" of the lower nature and translate it into that "heavenly power" available to the soul. Why would we want to keep ourselves anchored down in the depths of the material self when it is so obvious that this will not solve our problems? Instead of criticizing moderation I praise us for having such a facility to act as a traffic cop and regulate the flow. If we really want unmoderated lists, and I believe we should have them, then lets demonstrate our spirituality and there will be no need for moferation. In the meantime until we are more developed I welcome the Moderators whom I found to be most cooperative and helpful. regards, doug -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet