From: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Bahai-discuss sampler #2 Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 3:10 PM [Further selections from a Bahai listserv regarding talk/alt.religion.bahai.] From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sun Sep 21 17:01:27 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCvgO-0003sIC; Sun, 21 Sep 97 19:44 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" References: <3423BC01.20ED@TENET.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19970921184142.340742f4@pop.ipa.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: X-Sender: johnb@pop.ipa.net Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:41:42 From: John Bromberek Friends, I have hesitated to weigh back in on this issue because I'm not sure I can trust myself to keep a level head, but here goes. First I will not vote on the question when the Call for Votes (CFV) is issued, nor will I discuss it with those who will want to have another knock-down-drag-out fight over it. I don't think that it concerns me. Alt.religion.bahai has indeed become what most people feared talk.religion.bahai might, only with a slightly smaller following than if it had come into being under the second name. Basically, it's a conversational sewer. (Oops! Gettin' emotional again...) What I see as the most unfortunate thing about all this is not so much the contributions of the "enemies of the Baha'is" (who feel that they are either Baha'is or friends of the Faith but just can't stand the Baha'is), or the "enemies of the Faith" (who are only doing what they think is right), or the covenant breakers, or the would-be Messiah's. I'm quite content to have all these people talk to one another, and I don't much care what they say, because they are so ill tempered and obnoxious that the general public isn't going to listen to them for very long, or give them much credence. No, the only problem I see are the few Baha'is who are staying on there and trying to "educate" these poor unfortunates, and thereby feeding them, and prolonging their rants. Yes, it is a very sad thing to see the occasional deer in the headlights phenomenon of an innocent seeker wandering into that forum, but we can help them more (if at all) with personal e-mail than trying to jump into the public fray on the newsgroup. Much care needs to be exercised even in that, though, since a lot of the participants have no regard for private communications. If you send something to them in confidence it is likely to end up copied to the newsgroup whether you want it there or not. So, my only plea is to leave them be. If they want their talk.religion.anti-bahai newsgroup, so be it. But let's see whether they can sustain any interest in it by themselves without this oppositional fertilization from other Baha'is. And, beyond that, just leave it to the Institutions. They are well aware of what's going on. John B. Fayetteville, Arkansas johnb@ipa.net-- From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sun Sep 21 20:49:56 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xCzNt-0003rdC; Sun, 21 Sep 97 23:42 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" Message-Id: <199709220340.WAA00767@indy2.indy.net> Subject: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:40:39 -0500 (EST) From: William Rieske Thankyou Chris! You said all the things that I couldn't figure out how to say about unmoderated groups! Don't get me wrong everyone, I like soc.religion.bahai well enough but there has been more than a few times that my posts have been sent back to me because the moderaters felt they weren't conducive to the Baha'i Faith. I'm sorry but everything we deal with here in this world involves the faith. Normally the posts that the moderators have refused to put up have been with women's rights, history issues, racial issues and so forth that they thought wasn't in line with discussion the faith. And that just left me feeling very confused about the purpose of this news group. I don't post there anymore because of this. If I may say, the purpose of moderators (from my understanding) is to weed out the spamming and defamation posts. It is not the role of a moderator to send me back my posts just because they don't feel it goes along with the topic being discussed. I *feel* that it does. Shouldn't that be enough? Thoroughly frustrated, Roxanne risky@indy.net > Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > > I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the > impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the > discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about > individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the > Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of > prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the > discussion. > > I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB > (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. > At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time > I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days > there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and > insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded > to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers > withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers > which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In > fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion > group. > > I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts > and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven > where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We > cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding > school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the > critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up > with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh > world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our > beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of > satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the > right word, being in there where the action is. > > So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an > unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest > poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the > formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an > interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite > of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly > 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have > ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so > many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in > discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > > Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack > the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news > about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put > ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, > the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad > light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > > I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at > all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for > the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > > Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected > by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > > Peace be to all of you, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 > -- > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn > not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide > in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the > eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the > knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee > to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. > Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) > For more information go to , > or . > From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 08:30:48 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xDAJ9-0003sBC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 11:21 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: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Robert Moldenhauer Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:19:24 -0500 X-Sender: persia@persia.com My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is not. Nor is it's would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a perticularly pleasant place. On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. So I guess it's not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 04:58:16 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xD6zR-0003tZC; Mon, 22 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" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <199709221146.HAA06376@mx02.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: Mon, 22 Sep 97 07:51:31 -0400 9/20/97 8:05 AM In answer to your last message : Dear friends- John makes a good point here IMO. I still wonder why it is that some people want to just say whatever comes into their mouths with no concern about anything. For example, having a discussion on infallibility is fine if it increases our understandings and appreciation for our Central Figures, etc. but why is it necessary to use ad hominum attacks, four letter words, or appeals to the baser nature? Or why is it necessary for those who feel they have some convincing evidence to make sweeping, authoritative conclusions about their evidence when in reality none of us really understands the reality of certain things, or anything for that mantter. Yet if one disagrees with these individuals who feel they are right in their conclusions then all manner of undesirable communications arise. And then they want to say that opposers are threatening their right to freedom of speech. There is a quote, and I don't have it at hand, about anyone who creates doubt in another soul. If I remember correctly this is a grave matter to say or do anything that might cause doubt in another heart. Can we really risk this kind of thing? regards, doug >Now I haven't seen research on this, it shouldn't make any difference as >to the strict definition of an un-moderated list, but my feeling, until >I see research that tells me otherwise, would be that the two above >lists would be very different, even though supposedly one can say >whatever they want to on either list. But as I have said, I don't >believe un-moderated means that one can say whatever they want to. Some >degree of integrity and truth is required where ever one is on earth. >Probably more truth and honesty required in the rural streets, and less >in the urban streets. -- 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.