From: r_wagner@foma.wsc.mass.edu[SMTP:r_wagner@foma.wsc.mass.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 1998 9:18 PM
To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us
Subject: Oppositionist literature
*The Baha'i Studies List*
A search of the New York Public Library catalog returns
the following titles under the heading Baha'i Faith --
Controversial literature (a subject heading meaning
hostile literature).
1.Adwa ala al-Bahaiyah : al-fikr wa-al-aqidah
: [hiwar bayna Muslim wa-Baha(1985)
2.Adwa wa-haqaiq ala al-Babiyah, al-Bahaiyah,
al-Qadiyaniyah / Aminah Muham(1984)
3.Bahai / Francis Beckwith.(1985)
4.al-Bahaiyah : wasail wa-ghayat / Taha
al-Dusuqi.(1985)
5.Haqiqat al-Bahaiyah / Mustafa Mahmud.(1985)
6.Khatamiyat va pasukh bih sakhtahha-yi
Bahaiyat / ba mulhaqqat va zamayim-i tazah(1978)
7.Maa zaim al-Bahaiyah : istidrajuhu wa-kashf
khitatihi wa-fadh amrih / Mahmud.(1987)
8.Miftah Bab al-abwab. Persian. 1980([198-?])
9.al-Nihlah al-laqitah : al-Babiyah
wa-al-Bahaiyah : tarikh wa-wathaiq / Abd
al-Mu(1989)
10.al-Qadyaniyah wa-al-Bahaiyah / li-Muhammad
al-Khidr Husayn ; jamaahu wa-haqqaqah(1975)
11.Qiraah fi wathaiq al-Bahaiyah / Aishah Abd
al-Rahman (Bint al-Shati).(1986)
12.al-Radd ala al-Bahaiyin fi daw al-manhaj
al-lughawi / talif Muhammad Abd(1986)
Observations: 9 titles in Arabic, 2 in Persian, and
only 1 in English! It occurred to me that we in the
West are aware of Islamic attacks on the Baha'i Faith,
but quite unfamiliar with the specifics of their
arguments.
Over to you:
Can someone provide translations of the Arabic and
Persian titles?
Is anyone familiar with the arguments presented in
these books?
Ralph Wagner
-
To switch to the digested list,
send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body
-
unsubscribe bahai-st
subscribe bahai-st-digest
----------
From: Snoop81485[SMTP:snoop81485@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 1998 12:09 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Re: Re:RFD:talk.religion.bahai
I'm writing using my own screen name now. But I was the one posting the message
about talk.religion.bahai and about how a forum including both mainstream
Baha'is and Covenant-breakers would be helpful to the general Internet public.
Unfortunately, I forgot what I wrote you using the screen name MusMan1@aol.com!
Was it the same as what I posted to news.groups?
Robin Peters
Snoop81485@aol.com
tx200@juno.com (my preferred email address)
Rosewell97@juno.com
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:19 AM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <34ac83a2.4107456@news.wwa.com>...
>
>Now comes the hard part......
>
>>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups,
>>>>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the
>>>>Baha'i faith.
>>>[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition
>>>for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not
>>>be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."]
>>
>>Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith
>>or any other faith....
>>
>>I suggest:
>>
>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious
>>groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be
>>considered an official organ of any religious organization,
>>including the Bahai Faith.
>>
>>NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>>its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>>trb should have one....
>
>[snip].....
>
>>Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable,
>>would be:
>>
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional
>>religion.
>>
>>For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable
>>compromise and would delete the whipping post
>>reference for this.
>
>I think you are getting much closer to a real compromise on this.
>That is good. Try different combinations of the above ideas until
>you and your co-proponents come up with something you can all
>agree on.
I'm willing to compromise.... I don't see any reason to be
inflexible on this passage or any other....
>
>[snip].... no argument with your other points.
>
>Henrietta
Thanks again!
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <34ac83a2.4107456@news.wwa.com>...
>
>Now comes the hard part......
>
>>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups,
>>>>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the
>>>>Baha'i faith.
>>>[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition
>>>for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not
>>>be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."]
>>
>>Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith
>>or any other faith....
>>
>>I suggest:
>>
>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious
>>groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be
>>considered an official organ of any religious organization,
>>including the Bahai Faith.
>>
>>NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>>its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>>trb should have one....
>
>[snip].....
>
>>Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable,
>>would be:
>>
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional
>>religion.
>>
>>For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable
>>compromise and would delete the whipping post
>>reference for this.
>
>I think you are getting much closer to a real compromise on this.
>That is good. Try different combinations of the above ideas until
>you and your co-proponents come up with something you can all
>agree on.
I'm willing to compromise.... I don't see any reason to be
inflexible on this passage or any other....
>
>[snip].... no argument with your other points.
>
>Henrietta
Thanks again!
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.zoroastrian
Poster wrote in message <683r1q$j0n$1@ha2.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>
> The reason I proposed an "unmoderated" newsgroup was because :
>
> 1) I do not believe in censorship.
> 2) I for one do not have the time to moderate it.
How about changing the hierarchy to TALK.religion.zoroastrian?
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 1998 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
>In article <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>>After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the
>>proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need
>>for an unmoderated group.
Jonathan Grobe wrote...
>The proponent did not create alt.religion.bahai; I did (based on the
>significant number of Yes votes it was clear to me that there was
>enough interest to support a group).
Let me just mention the last vote was 157 YES to 691 NO and
express again my thanks to Jonathan Grobe for creating
alt.religion.bahai which gave people a place to talk about their
concerns and interests from April 1, 1997 to October '97.
Since April 1st, more than 5,000 messages have now been
posted to alt.religion.bahai....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 11:42 AM
To: musman1@aol.com
Subject: Fw: 3rd RFD sent to David Lawrence
Here's your message to me. I never saw it posted to news.groups so I
suppose it was strictly private email. I think it would help a lot for
others,
Bahais and non-Bahais, to hear your views.... Too often I'm the lone
voice with only an occasional person sharing their experiences with
the Bahai Faith.....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: MusMan1 <musman1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: news.groups
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, December 27, 1997 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD sent to David Lawrence
>Thanks for putting an RFD for talk.religion.bahai in.
>I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the face of
consistent
>censorship.
>One of the reasons why I left the faith is that there was consistent peer
>pressure to do as we were told. I can understand being told outright to do
>something; once it's out in the open, I can accept or reject that without
>feeling like an immature baby. People understand that perhaps obeying open
>orders might violate one's conscience. But subtle peer pressure to
conform -
>when you don't even know you're being pressured to do so - is what gives me
the
>willies. I am afraid that mainstream Baha'is might be subtly coerced to
violate
>their consciences (not to mention unwritten Internet policy, which is
actually
>written explicitly in many Internet books for newbies) and "stack the deck"
or
>"vote Chicago style - early and often" against talk.religion.bahai.
>Thanks again.
>Robin Peters
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 11:59 AM
To: Dale Grider
Subject: Re: Fireside/ Christian perspective considered
Since I'm reading your first installment, incidentally, it occurs
to me, have you mentioned your site on talk.religion.misc?
I would think many people over there might find it interesting....
Bahais have been posting there for a long time, on and off,
myself for much of 1997.... As a largely Christian readership,
trm might provide a lot of perceptive and sympathetic readers.
Best wishes,
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Grider <howdybud@bellsouth.net>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 23, 1997 11:07 AM
Subject: Fireside/ Christian perspective considered
>Dear Baha'i brother,
> The Fireside Letters is a website of vital importance to the Baha'i
>mandate to "independently investigate" for truth. In its present "book"
>type format it will admitedly involve the patience of a true seeker
>willing to spend the time to read it. I am certainly open for
>suggestions that might improve the palatability of the very important
>information that is there. But I suppose I have expected that Baha'is,
>more than most, should be expected to be hungry do absorb and digest any
>information that helps clarify their perspective.This seems a vital part
>of Baha'i belief. Thoroughly legitimate study in any investigation that
>is genuine, actually rests more critically upon full consideration of
>opposing viewpoints and perspectives than it does confirming ideas. One
>must be able to consider how opposing concepts might, or might not,
>genuinely bear upon one's present level of understanding and belief.
>Then one can honestly grow in understanding from a genuinely informed
>vantage point. The old saying is that one can "miss the forest for the
>trees". One can be too close and involved in what one assumes to be true
>making one's willingness to step back and see ideas in a larger context
>absolutely critical.
> I would think, at any rate, that the introduction at the beginning of
>volume 1 would be enough of a "teaser" to get the spiritual seeker
>interested. For myself, the reading takes off if one can just get
>started (that is, if one has a genuine interest in the considerations
>and issues that face the Baha'i adherent as he or she confronts the
>Christian perspective.) But how could a Baha'i be anything less than
>anxiously interested in such consideration? As the bedrock dogma exists
>within Baha'i theology that all major religions are really the same at
>their root level and differences are either only trivial or illusory
>("seeming" as Baha'i writers allege), then the Fireside Letters exist as
>an imperative consideration, whether in a passively "easy" format, or
>one that takes some work and reading.
> Perhaps the person visiting the site could be advised to copy and paste
>volumes into their Word Processing application to be printed out or read
>at leisure off line? I have often done this in many instances with
>lengthy Baha'i writings like Some Answered Questions, and Gleanings from
>the Writings of Baha'u'llah. The library I have built in my own "search"
>for truth consists as much or more of opposing viewpoints that I have
>worked through as affirming ones. Through facing and investiagting such
>considerations comes true growth. Another cliche' that comes to mind
>says something about the wasted energy of "preaching to the choir"
>(those already of like mind who will not provide the opportunity for you
>to test your ideas).
> Please reconsider spending some time reading through the volumes. I
>know that you will discover some considerations that have never occured
>to you (and didn't to me either until the engaging discussion that is
>the Fireside Letters transpired).
> In another vein I am interested in further critical input from Baha'is
>and have every expectation that editing and growth toward clarity of the
>Baha'i perspective can come from input from folks like yourself. In that
>sense my invitiation is one that provides the Baha'i community a chance
>to shape to some extent just what the Fireside Letters consists of. My
>search for truth is certainly still evolving.
> Please refer others to the site and invite them as well to offer
>critical feedback which will be taken in a spirit of peace and the quest
>for truth.
>
>The URL for the Firside Letters is;
>
>http://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.ht
ml
>
>Thanks,
>Dale:)
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 12:11 PM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai?
It seems there has to be a 4th RFD to clarify the "disclaimer"
passage and a few other minor details....
I'd like to finish discussion of the 4th RFD in a week or so,
post it to news.announce.newgroups, and then after, I believe,
the required 7 days, is it, send in the Questionnaire. Since
it may take the UVV two or three weeks to assign a Vote
Taker, interest polling on trb might very well not start until
late January or early February even under the best of
conditions....
Any suggestions for the 4th RFD? Please make them
as soon as possible, or forever hold your peace, as they
say....
Can anyone confirm that only 7 days are required for
a waiting period on a 4th RFD before sending in a
Questionnaire?
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 12:11 PM
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai?
It seems there has to be a 4th RFD to clarify the "disclaimer"
passage and a few other minor details....
I'd like to finish discussion of the 4th RFD in a week or so,
post it to news.announce.newgroups, and then after, I believe,
the required 7 days, is it, send in the Questionnaire. Since
it may take the UVV two or three weeks to assign a Vote
Taker, interest polling on trb might very well not start until
late January or early February even under the best of
conditions....
Any suggestions for the 4th RFD? Please make them
as soon as possible, or forever hold your peace, as they
say....
Can anyone confirm that only 7 days are required for
a waiting period on a 4th RFD before sending in a
Questionnaire?
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 1:03 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Cc: Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>
> NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
> its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
> trb should have one....
If I were you I would not agree to include this disclaimer.
This seems to me a point of principle, that Usenet groups
are ALWAYS public property, and to hint otherwise is to
infer that there is some doubt, even if the clause is there
to deny the doubt. I accept that the Baha'i Faith is full
of nervous willies who can't boil a pot of tea without
saying "It's only _my_ opinion that tea tastes good, it's
not a teaching of the Faith", but there IS a limit to how
much f***ing about the rest of us should be expected to do
to keep them happy. Usenet groups are public property,
paid for by an assortment of public and commercial
benefactors, and to imply that _any_ Usenet group even
might be private property is beyond the pale.
However, Fred, whatever you decide is OK by me.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:47 AM
To: Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: TRB participants only - Change of address
Is your new address working? Let me know for sure...
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris <Chris@breacais.demon.co.NO_UCEuk>
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai
Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 3:32 PM
Subject: TRB participants only - Change of address
>Dear friends,
>
>Just a short note (posted blind) to say that my e-mail address has
>changed and is now <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>. Mail sent to my old
>address is currently not being received but is being stored by my IAP
>pending my getting multiple access sorted out on my system. If anyone
>has sent me anything in the last 6 hours (it is now 2030GMT) please can
>you retransmit it to the new address.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317
>Co-proponent of talk.religion.bahai
>--
>NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing.
>Go to <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm> to read the REVISED RFD for
>talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:53 AM
To: Robin M Peters
Subject: Re: third RFD on talk.religion.bahai
Post this to news.groups and alt.religion.bahai, if you have
access to the alt.* hierarchy....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin M Peters <tx200@juno.com>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: third RFD on talk.religion.bahai
>I'm replying to your recent email to MusMan1@aol.com, using my Juno
>account for a change (just because I feel like it).
>You have a point; although many Baha'is are sincere in their beliefs, I
>find the vast majority of my former Baha'i compadres to be somewhat
>easily led by the NSA and worry about them for that reason. I mean, the
>NSA could tell them that the moon is made of green cheese, and they'd
>believe it. I don't mean to backbite - I'm sorry if it comes off that way
>(I don't like to spread rumors any more than the next person, any more
>than I like being the subject of false rumors) - but it seems to me
>almost a fact of the universe that many Baha'is give up their critical
>thinking skills when it comes time to examine the holy writings of their
>faith or the dictates of their relevant NSA. That's why I think
>talk.religion.bahai is so valuable. And that's why I decided to say what
>I did about bringing out the vote, Chicago style (believe me, I am a
>native of suburban Chicago - a lifelong native at that - and I feel I
>know whereof I speak!).
>Robin Peters
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 8:01 AM
To: Ron House
Cc: Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Ron,
I entirely agree with you in principle but the worry has been
that many Bahais will vote NO if a disclaimer isn't in the
RFD. Many have said so on bahai-discuss and on news.groups.
Most news groupies have thought the passage is meaningless
and harmless enough that it should be included if it "buys" some
votes. I've cynically, I suppose, adopted that attitude, perhaps
to my discredit.... Why don't you mention this online on news.groups
to test the waters and see what the present attitudes are?
Also, it seems to me the disclaimer is becoming so general
that I even worry about less and less.... I'm increasingly of the
mind to stick it in and forget it and get the vote rolling....
Ron, you've got a full veto around here and if you really feel
strongly about this you can use it. Do so online though so
that everyone hears it straight from you....
Chris, where are you at these days on this one?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Cc: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, January 04, 1998 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>> its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>> trb should have one....
>
>If I were you I would not agree to include this disclaimer.
>This seems to me a point of principle, that Usenet groups
>are ALWAYS public property, and to hint otherwise is to
>infer that there is some doubt, even if the clause is there
>to deny the doubt. I accept that the Baha'i Faith is full
>of nervous willies who can't boil a pot of tea without
>saying "It's only _my_ opinion that tea tastes good, it's
>not a teaching of the Faith", but there IS a limit to how
>much f***ing about the rest of us should be expected to do
>to keep them happy. Usenet groups are public property,
>paid for by an assortment of public and commercial
>benefactors, and to imply that _any_ Usenet group even
>might be private property is beyond the pale.
>
>However, Fred, whatever you decide is OK by me.
>
>
>--
>Ron House
> house@usq.edu.au
>An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
>because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 7:23 AM
To: Snoop81485
Subject: Re: Access to alt.religion.bahai
Thanks for mentioning AOL. During the last year nearly a dozen
people have told me they were unable to access arb through it.
With its huge number of subscribers, AOL really should be
offering it. I hope you're successful!
Incidentally, if you post to news.groups, with a crosspost to
arb, your message will appear on both....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: Snoop81485 <Snoop81485@aol.com>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 1:18 PM
Subject: Access to alt.religion.bahai
>AOL allows me access to the alt.* heirarchy; I am subscribed, for example,
to
>alt.tv.x-files.
>The problem I am having is that AOL does not consider alt.religion.bahai to
be
>a valid newsgroup; I understand that this is a common problem among
Internet
>servers - each ISP allows only limited access to newsgroups, and it is not
>unusual to be denied access to a valid newsgroup solely because the ISP
does
>not consider it valid. I have made AOL aware of the problem, and I hope to
be
>allowed to access alt.religion.bahai soon.
>Hope this helps!
>Robin Peters
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:08 AM
To: talisman
Cc: UHJ
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette <schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu>
To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
>Fred Glaysher wrote:
>
>>> I'm not so sure. It seems quite doubtful even. It appears to me that
>>> it must have been too busy to attend to the details of Berstein's
>>> piece or whoever handled it in the secretariat failed to pass on to
>>> them the subtleties of the issues involved in interest polling and
>>> made it appear a normal type of election voting.
>
>Don C commented:
>>And perhaps they believe they have more important topics to consult on.
>
>And I'll add:
>
>In any case, Fred's request is not internally consistent. The UHJ has
>taken a hands-off, let everyone decide for themselves what to do position,
>which seems exactly what Fred wanted. What MORE does he want, now?
I don't believe the UHJ has taken a "hands-off" position. The entire
notion of conscience is inappropriate to an interest poll. They entered
the discussion and have now affected it, for some, if not many, and
I would think it only reasonable to ascertain whether or not they truly
understand what they are doing.... I don't believe so.... It appears to
me they must have been misinformed. Their counsel of "conscience"
is actually tantamount to supporting voter fraud, in, let's say, a
national election in Canada or the United States.... I don't believe
the UHJ would or should do such a thing. Ergo, I assume someone
in the Secretariat failed them or they received flawed advice on
the nature of Usenet interest polling--notice, not "voting."
>
>If the UHJ took a position FOR the newsgroup, wouldn't that be precisely
>the sort of "politically" motivated and centrally-sponsored group voting
>that he's been criticizing so vehemently for months as inappropriate or
>criminal?
I am not advocating that the UHJ should take a position FOR
talk.religion.bahai. Rather, that they not take a position AGAINST
trb, which they have, I hope, inadvertently done.... Their "conscience"
is, by the way, against the consciences of many others, Bahai and
non-Bahai.... If one fully understands interest polling, it is reminiscent
of the hatred and passion that often animates old world politics and
religious intrigues.... 100+ people cannot honestly and fairly be
denied their right to form a newsgroup within which to express their
consciences. Baha'u'llah's injunction against the "destruction of
books" fits this context quite well.... To suppress trb would be
tantamount to a violation of his stricture in the Kitab-i-Aqdas....
If the UHJ knowingly chooses to do that, fine, it may.... But I hope
for better....
>
>Call the vote, already. If it loses, wait 6 months, prove TRB has value
>with a longer track record, and call another vote. I just can't believe
>that all this endless jockeying around is accomplishing anything useful.
Why would it lose? On what basis? Political and religious passion
and opposition are illegitimate reasons for voting NO. Over 5,000
postings to alt.religion.bahai is more than sufficient proof that
100+ people are interested in creating a newsgroup on the subject,
as are the over 1,200 different threads and over 513 different
individuals who posted up to October 1997. I can't believe all the
endless opposition to free speech and conscience that many
Bahais have displayed.... If the UHJ opposes trb, it should come
out in the open and say so, not pretend it's neutral by employing
strategems to justify and excuse the NO votes of fundamentalist
Bahais.... Again, I hope for better and will cc this message to
the UHJ to help them understand the nature of Usenet interest
polling....
>Wade
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:17 AM
To: talisman
Cc: hart@lycosemail.com
Subject: Re: Catch-22 in Faith
-----Original Message-----
From: hart@lycosemail.com <hart@lycosemail.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 5:18 PM
Subject: Catch-22 in Faith
Scott S. Hart wrote:
> During my time as a Baha'i, I saw potential converts lied to by Baha'is
regarding the >membership of the Faith. The Baha'is, especially the Baha'i
leadership, have always >grossly inflated the 'official' numbers in order to
present an inaccurate picture to the >world (as well as to individuals
considering conversion) and to make the Faith seem >much more successful and
influencial than it really is. The Faith is really a 'footnote' >religion,
in my view, and all the peace/race unity statements and p. r. in the world
will >not change this.
You cite the figure of 30,000 to 80,000. How or why do you estimate
the true figures are this low? If they've been inflated, how does that
help the Bahai Faith?
>
> I do not know how to solve the above problem, except to be completely
honest and >open to the public and to people who may be interested in the
Faith. It does little >good to 'hide' things regarding the Faith that may
be unpleasant or misunderstood, >intending to reveal these things later when
the new Baha'i has been in the Faith for a >few years. If people feel that
they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will >leave or become
disenchanted. Believe me, I observed this phenomenon over and >over during
my years as a Baha'i.
Can you share a few examples?
>
> These are just some friendly observations from someone who is familiar
with Baha'i matters. Wishing everyone the best. Shalom. Scott
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:45 AM
To: talisman; Chris Manvell; Ron House
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
It's getting hard to remember who wrote and revised:
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
I'd like to use this passage for the "disclaimer."
Any objections or comments? If Bahais don't really care about
this statement any more, we could just drop it, as Ron House,
a co-proponent, has suggested to me in email.... If you care
about this, please speak up and make your views known....
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:45 AM
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
It's getting hard to remember who wrote and revised:
>>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
I'd like to use this passage for the "disclaimer."
Any objections or comments? If Bahais don't really care about
this statement any more, we could just drop it, as Ron House,
a co-proponent, has suggested to me in email.... If you care
about this, please speak up and make your views known....
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Rick Schaut wrote in message <68ulei$hoa@news.microsoft.com>...
>What I care about is that this newsgroup will significantly increase the
>exposure of Baha'is to material that is potentially extremely harmful to
>their spiritual well-being. Covenant-breakers had become almost an extinct
>species, and, because of this, people who've become Baha'is over the past
25
>years have almost no knowledge of the issues that the handful of remaining
>Covenant-breakers raise.
>
>Ultimately, it's up to the proponents to decide how they will attempt to
>address this concern. I think I've about given up on the hope that this
>concern will receive the kind of open and respectful consultation that it
>deserives, so I will simply decide how to vote after careful consideration
>of all the issues involved including how well I think this concern has been
>addressed by the proponents.
Short of requiring everyone to check their souls at the door, your
request "to do" something about covenant breakers is not
realistic.... What is it you expect people on an unmoderated forum
to do? Should Bahai participants interrogate them? Drive them
away? Curse them? On alt.religion.bahai, they would post what
they want and Bahais would simply ignore them and they would
go away eventually.... I don't see talk.religion.bahai as working
much differently.... Talk to whom you want to.... Or you can have
the thought police, as at soc.religion.bahai, reject everyone who
doesn't pass their tests....
Let's be fair, many people have tried to explain this to you for
months....
>
>
>Warmest Regards,
>Rick Schaut
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Annie wrote in message <01bd1b24$805a0e00$8eb360cf@baha>...
>>Frederick: If being an "official organ of any institutional faith"
implies
>censure, a moderator, or anything to do with telling me what i should
>think, how i should think it, and so on, then, give me the opposite!
Your opposite is what talk.religion.bahai would be! Unmoderated....
>A newsgroup should be left open, i believe, to a free exchange of ideas. If
>any religion or sect wanted their own newsgroup, why don't they just create
>one and post their rules for the participants to follow? So, if this is not
>what you want, but you want a group that encourages a healthy exchange of
>profound and worthy ideals between posters, then, why don't you get on with
>it and get the group rolling? What's all this World Wide Waiting thing all
>about?
The Bahai Faith has soc.religion.bahai, which many feel is highly
censored and the de facto official mouthpiece, though often denied....
Because the perception of censorship is so pervasive, many Bahais
and non-Bahais have and do support the creation of an umoderated
newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai.... I'm trying to get on with it. Everyone
took the holidays off, myself included, and I've just posted in the last
few days messages about getting the vote rolling within a week or
two. I've got to give people a chance to get in their last comments
on the "disclaimer" clause, which has created a lot of discussion,
or else appear to be ramming something through....
Part of the waiting, though, has been to give time for Bahais
to understand the nature of interest polling versus voting. Many
claim Bahais voted NO last spring because they failed to
understand. Well, they've had all fall, a full year now to come to
grips with the Usenet system.... The vote last spring was
157 YES: 691 NO.... Such an excuse this time will be extremely
untenable given the 6 months of discussion since August now....
Some Bahais seem to feel that the highest Bahai authority,
the Universal House of Justice, secretly supports a NO vote by
stating that they should vote their "conscience." The reality is
that such a vote would deprive 157 people, or whatever this
time, of the rights of THEIR consciences.... This too has taken
time....
Sorry.... I hope we can post the 4th RFD within a week or two
and then the CFV....
>
>
>Annie
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: T.R.B. needed
whateverman wrote in message <34B2DF47.6A41@tacks.stupidity>...
>I'm a Baha'i who lost touch with the his faith. I recently tried to
>find some kind of forum in which to discuss "Baha'i issues", but was
>intimidated by s.r.b; there seemed to be a level of knowledge needed to
>even offer opinion.
>
>In *my* opinion, t.r.b, or the continued existence of a.r.b is needed as
>I'd like to participate without feeling as if I weren't compitent to
>participate...
The problem with alt.religion.bahai is that very few people who
voted YES last spring have access to it. The entire alt.* hierarchy
is not widely available. AOL, for instance, does not even offer it.
I hope that talk.religion.bahai would be a more open forum
to your liking....
>
>--
> Whateverman
>
>http://www.erols.com/whateverman/Home.htm
>
>"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and
>parade those discriminations before others."
>--Taoist philosopher Chuang Tzu
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i, Christain, Hindu, Jewish, Moslem
grayfeather@centralva.net wrote in message
<884042587.363659267@dejanews.com>...
>As a longtime member of the Baha'i faith I have seen changes yet there is
>not a recognition of Native American religion. yet Abdu'l-Baha stated
>that when the American Indian becomes ignited with the fire of the Baha'i
>Faith then the whole world will become Baha'i.Is it not time that we
>forget about these dead old world religions?
I think you're right that the emphasis is on the old "mainline"
Western religions.... As someone who has lived and pioneered
on the Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation in Arizona for
two years, I know a little about the traditional native religions and
respect them.... There is a deeply spiritual understanding of the
transcedence of human experience in the Native American
religions that Bahais and others would do well to consider much
more seriously. Sad to say too, that many Indians, like all peoples
in the modern world, have forgotten the richness of such
experience....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:43 AM
To: talisman@umich.edu
Cc: house@usq.edu.au; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
SOME KIND OF WEIRD CODE THING IS FAILING TO PUT
IN THE ">" FOR THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE. SORRY TO
HAVE TO USE CAPS.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Pierce <PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu>
To: fglaysh@hotmail.com <fglaysh@hotmail.com>; talisman@umich.edu
<talisman@umich.edu>
Cc: Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>;
house@usq.edu.au <house@usq.edu.au>
Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 4:12 PM
Subject: re: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
Mr. Glaysher,
This is really becoming rather tedious in its repetition. I find your
opinions about the communications from the BWC to be so wildly
speculative as to be of very little value, and they continue to make
it difficult to stomach the possibility of supporting t.r.b.
SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY....
For anyone that saw the original "pro-t.r.b." question that was put to
the Universal House of Justice, it was obvious that the reply from the
BWC neither supported nor opposed t.r.b., and they had no intent to
send a coded "anti-t.r.b." message. Given the fact that the tone of
the question was "pro-t.r.b.", the fact that the BWC declined to warn
the questioner away from a "pro-t.r.b." opinion could easily been seen
as implicit support of the legitimacy some "pro-t.r.b." views.
NOT SO OBVIOUS AT ALL, IN MY OPINION.... IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT MANY BAHAIS, ON BAHAI-DISCUSS AND ELSEWHERE,
HAVE TAKEN THE UHJ'S MESSAGE AS A CODED NOD TO
ATTACK WITH ANOTHER MASSIVE NO VOTE....
Your attempts to over-interpret the message from the BWC in order to
drum up support for a forum that will allow you to gain a wider
audience for your frequently abusive and paranoid excesses and
fanaticisms is discouraging.
I AM REACTING TO THE MANNER IN WHICH MANY BAHAIS
HAVE INTERPRETED THE UHJ'S MESSAGE. I HAVE TRIED
NOT TO INTERPRET IT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU YOURSELF
INTERPRET IN EXTENSIVELY IN THIS MESSAGE. I DON'T BELIEVE
SUCH CHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSTINGS ARE FAIR....
INCIDENTALLY, I DO NOT WANT AN UNMODERATED FORUM
FOR MYSELF ALONE, THOUGH MANY HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IT
APPEAR AS SUCH. RATHER, FOR ALL BAHAIS AND NON-BAHAIS,
AS MADE CLEAR IN THE RFD....
As far as I know, you have provided *NO* coherent supporting analysis
from any scholars in Baha'i studies (or other sources, etc.) as to the
legitimacy of the use of the "book burning" comparison. I get the
impression that you have discovered an emotionally laden issue that
you have decided to use to flog your real or supposed opponents in the
Baha'i community with (rather than explore consultatively).
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE BOOK BURNING ANALOGY
IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF ONE OF THE TEACHINGS
TO COVER A MODERN, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
THAT DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF REVELATION.... NO
FLOGGING INTENDED.... RATHER, AN APT COMPARISON
FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESULTS OF THE LAST
MASSIVE NO VOTE (691 REMEMBER) THAT DEPRIVED
BAHAIS AND NON-BAHAIS THE CHANCE TO CREATE AND
READ TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI.....
I am also confused by the manner in which you consider the Usenet
system to be analogous to some near-sacred social institution or
democractic governmental entity. The nuances and minutae of the
interest polling mechanism for newsgroup creation is something that
you should hardly expect Baha'i institutions to gloriously advocate
or become immersed in, especially given the loose "enforcement" of a
voluntary set of ideas in such a chaotic and decentralized
environment.
BAHA'U'LLAH TEACHES WE SHOULD RESPECT THE LAWS
OF ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS OF GOVERNING.... DO YOU
ADVOCATE OTHERWISE? MANY, MANY INTERENT MANUALS
HAVE PUBLISHED THE USENET CONSENSUS ON INTEREST
POLLING AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO VOTES ARE AN
ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM. AS A BAHAI, WHY ARE YOU NOT
CONCERNED ABOUT BAHAI ABUSE OF INTEREST POLLING?
USENET VOTING IS NOT THE CHAOS YOU MAKE IT OUT
TO BE. RUSS ALLBERY'S PASSAGE IN THE RFD MAKES
THAT QUITE CLEAR. HE IS INCIDENTALLY A MEMBER OF
THE USENET VOLUNTARY VOTETAKERS (UVV).
IF BAHAIS WERE DESTROYING AND ATTACKING THE
NEXT NATIONAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, SHOULD THE INSTITUTIONS BE CONCERNED?
I HUMBLY THINK SO....
While some of the consensus-driven aspects of the Usenet system are
probably laudible in their democratic underpinnings, there are many
other aspects of Usenet that are hardly compatible with Baha'i ideals
of enlightened social/ethical systems.
SO IS THAT A JUSTIFICATION TO UNDERMINE IT? BY ANALOGY,
SHOULD BAHAIS BOMB AND DESTROY OTHER
SOCIAL STRUCTURES THEY DISAGREE WITH OR THINK
INCOMPATIABLE WITH BAHAI IDEALS? LOGICALLY EXTENDED,
SUCH THINKING AMONG BAHAIS WORRIES ME A GREAT
DEAL....
I hope I have been as clear as possible that the problems I have
identified above seem counter-productive to a balanced "pro-t.r.b."
agenda, and are obstacles to bringing about a positive acceptance of
the legitimacy of an unmoderated usenet Baha'i forum.
ARE YOU ADVOCATING VOTING NO? SUCH A VOTE
WOULD BE ANOTHER DISGRACE FOR THE BAHAI FAITH
AND WOULD DO MORE TO HARM ITS REPUTATION, AS
RUSS ALLBERY POINTS OUT IN THE RFD, THAN ANYTHING
THAT COULD EVER BE SAID ON TRB....
Feel free to further distribute or post responses elsewhere, but
if doing so, please remove Mr. Shuette's name/address (unless he has
instructed otherwise).
Eric D. Pierce
(home email: EPierce@ns.net)
Sacramento, California - USA
cc: talisman@umich.edu,
"Chris Manvell" <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>,
"Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6 Jan 98 at 7:08, Frederick Glaysher wrote:
> From: "Frederick Glaysher" <fglaysh@hotmail.com>
> To: "talisman" <talisman@umich.edu>
> Copies to: "UHJ" <secretariat@bwc.org>
> Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
> Date sent: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 07:08:06 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette <schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu>
> To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, December 24, 1997 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
>
>
> >Fred Glaysher wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not so sure. It seems quite doubtful even. It appears to me that
> >>> it must have been too busy to attend to the details of Berstein's
> >>> piece or whoever handled it in the secretariat failed to pass on to
> >>> them the subtleties of the issues involved in interest polling and
> >>> made it appear a normal type of election voting.
> >
> >Don C commented:
> >>And perhaps they believe they have more important topics to consult on.
[WS:]
> >And I'll add:
> >
> >In any case, Fred's request is not internally consistent. The UHJ has
> >taken a hands-off, let everyone decide for themselves what to do
position,
> >which seems exactly what Fred wanted. What MORE does he want, now?
[FG:]
> I don't believe the UHJ has taken a "hands-off" position. The entire
> notion of conscience is inappropriate to an interest poll. They entered
> the discussion and have now affected it, for some, if not many, and
> I would think it only reasonable to ascertain whether or not they truly
> understand what they are doing.... I don't believe so.... It appears to
> me they must have been misinformed. Their counsel of "conscience"
> is actually tantamount to supporting voter fraud, in, let's say, a
> national election in Canada or the United States.... I don't believe
> the UHJ would or should do such a thing. Ergo, I assume someone
> in the Secretariat failed them or they received flawed advice on
> the nature of Usenet interest polling--notice, not "voting."
[WS:]
> >If the UHJ took a position FOR the newsgroup, wouldn't that be precisely
> >the sort of "politically" motivated and centrally-sponsored group voting
> >that he's been criticizing so vehemently for months as inappropriate or
> >criminal?
[FG:]
> I am not advocating that the UHJ should take a position FOR
> talk.religion.bahai. Rather, that they not take a position AGAINST
> trb, which they have, I hope, inadvertently done.... Their "conscience"
> is, by the way, against the consciences of many others, Bahai and
> non-Bahai.... If one fully understands interest polling, it is reminiscent
> of the hatred and passion that often animates old world politics and
> religious intrigues.... 100+ people cannot honestly and fairly be
> denied their right to form a newsgroup within which to express their
> consciences. Baha'u'llah's injunction against the "destruction of
> books" fits this context quite well.... To suppress trb would be
> tantamount to a violation of his stricture in the Kitab-i-Aqdas....
> If the UHJ knowingly chooses to do that, fine, it may.... But I hope
> for better....
[WS:]
> >Call the vote, already. If it loses, wait 6 months, prove TRB has value
> >with a longer track record, and call another vote. I just can't believe
> >that all this endless jockeying around is accomplishing anything useful.
[FG:]
> Why would it lose? On what basis? Political and religious passion
> and opposition are illegitimate reasons for voting NO. Over 5,000
> postings to alt.religion.bahai is more than sufficient proof that
> 100+ people are interested in creating a newsgroup on the subject,
> as are the over 1,200 different threads and over 513 different
> individuals who posted up to October 1997. I can't believe all the
> endless opposition to free speech and conscience that many
> Bahais have displayed.... If the UHJ opposes trb, it should come
> out in the open and say so, not pretend it's neutral by employing
> strategems to justify and excuse the NO votes of fundamentalist
> Bahais.... Again, I hope for better and will cc this message to
> the UHJ to help them understand the nature of Usenet interest
> polling....
>
> >Wade
>
> Frederick Glaysher
> UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
> The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
> news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric D. Pierce
Information Technology Consultant
Client-Server Database/PC Network Server
Student Services
Lassen Hall 1008
California State University, Sacramento
Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA
desk phone (916) 278-7586
internet email: PierceED@csus.edu
la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:25 PM
To: talisman
Cc: UHJ; Chris; Ron House
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: David Bikman <dbikman@bwc.org>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysh@hotmail.com>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>; house@usq.edu.au
<house@usq.edu.au>; Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: To UHJ #9 (Re Response from UHJ)
>Mr. Glaysher wrote,
>
>> NOT SO OBVIOUS AT ALL, IN MY OPINION.... IT SEEMS TO
>> ME THAT MANY BAHAIS, ON BAHAI-DISCUSS AND ELSEWHERE,
>> HAVE TAKEN THE UHJ'S MESSAGE AS A CODED NOD TO
>> ATTACK WITH ANOTHER MASSIVE NO VOTE....
>
>
>This statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding as to how the
>Universal House of Justice operates. They do not "code" their messages.
>They do not assume hidden knowledge. If the happened to feel that the
>proper response of the Baha'i community was to vote "no" they would say
>"Please vote no." They would not take it as a given that the Baha'i
>community knows this, and just give a slight nod in its general
>direction. They have not told us to vote "no," thus the only logical
>conclusion to for us to read the message at face value.
I did not say the UHJ codes it's messages.... I said many Bahais
seem to have taken it as such.... A significant diffference.... I have
said and still maintain the message evinces no understanding of
the nature of Usenet interest polling but conceives of it as though
it were a conventional vote, which it is not....
>
>The Universal House of Justice does not say any more or less than what
>they feel is needed to sufficiently address the issue at hand.
I believe they have not properly addressed the issue at hand.... If they
have, they're then undermining an established system of governing
public forums on the Internet, tantamount to the fatwa against
Salman Rushdie or a similar fanatical attack on the West.... It may
be the BCCA is complicitous in this or erroneously advising the
UHJ....
The
>evidence for this is replete in every message they've ever sent. The
>House of Justice is not in the business of creating precedent, they are
>in the business of dealing with the issues at hand, one at a time. If a
>problem is facing the Baha'i community, and the House of Justice knows
>what to do in order to solve it, would they leave the solution up to
>chance by dropping vague allusions and subtle hints? How could the
>Trustees of God deliberately withhold their guidance?
Their message suggests, I believe, that they did not understand
the nature of the polling. NO votes are illegitimate votes, except
for technical reasons, and none exist.... Many PUBLISHED Internet
manuals, published in huge numbers, on Usenet, state it straightout....
>
>Regards,
>David Bikman
Since Juan Cole and others have suggested there are people
passing on messages to the UHJ, I'll forward this one myself
to them so that they don't miss it.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:47 PM
To: Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34B28890.62C6@boi.hp.com>...
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>> >>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>> >>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>> >>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
See Ron House's comments on the disclaimer in another thread....
>I think this wording is fine. I personally don't need the
>disclaimer. I am, however, very familiar with how many people
>mistook S.R.B. as some kind of official arm of the Faith so the
>possibility for misconstruing is high and I know many others
>have raised these concerns. So, if I were the proponent I would leave
>it in there as its inclusion should buy you votes as has been
>indicated by other interested parties, so why not? Practically
>speaking, I think its a no-brainer to keep it in.
I'm not at all opposed anymore to including a disclaimer, as worded
above, broad and open and obvious.... If it helps, as Mr. Detweiler
suggests, I see no harm in compromising a little.... The most
important reason for now including it in the 4th RFD, to my mind, is
so that if anyone does vote NO they will no longer be able to say the
lack of a disclaimer was the basis for doing so.... Discussion over a
disclaimer extends back at least to early October and a solution or
response should be made to those people worried about this issue.
If this wording is acceptable to Mr. Detweiler, I then urge everyone
to support it as probably acceptable to most Bahais. Let's put
the issue behind us and get the 4th RFD in so that the interest poll
can get rolling.
>
>Dick D.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Dick Detweiler wrote in message <34B28890.62C6@boi.hp.com>...
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>> >>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>> >>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>> >>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
See Ron House's comments on the disclaimer in another thread....
>I think this wording is fine. I personally don't need the
>disclaimer. I am, however, very familiar with how many people
>mistook S.R.B. as some kind of official arm of the Faith so the
>possibility for misconstruing is high and I know many others
>have raised these concerns. So, if I were the proponent I would leave
>it in there as its inclusion should buy you votes as has been
>indicated by other interested parties, so why not? Practically
>speaking, I think its a no-brainer to keep it in.
I'm not at all opposed anymore to including a disclaimer, as worded
above, broad and open and obvious.... If it helps, as Mr. Detweiler
suggests, I see no harm in compromising a little.... The most
important reason for now including it in the 4th RFD, to my mind, is
so that if anyone does vote NO they will no longer be able to say the
lack of a disclaimer was the basis for doing so.... Discussion over a
disclaimer extends back at least to early October and a solution or
response should be made to those people worried about this issue.
If this wording is acceptable to Mr. Detweiler, I then urge everyone
to support it as probably acceptable to most Bahais. Let's put
the issue behind us and get the 4th RFD in so that the interest poll
can get rolling.
>
>Dick D.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <34B3778B.60F6@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>The discussion had really slackened over the last month, due in part to
>the holiday, but I think also due to the fact that the main issues have,
>for the most part, been discussed. The last couple of RFD's have been,
>IMHO, tweaks to the wording which don't substantially affect the
>proposal. I'd say we should hold the vote soon.
If we can agree on using the disclaimer as Detweiler approved it,
which is fine with me, I'd be happy to submit the 4th RFD on Friday
or Saturday. I'd include in it the minor revisions that Henrietta Thomas
mentioned a few days ago....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 7:00 PM
To: Ron House
Subject: the disclaimer....
Ron,
Your mentioning you're opposed to the disclaimer has helped
a lot, perhaps driving Detweiler into saying it's acceptable at
least, better than nothing from his point of view.... See my
response to him in which I try to answer your concerns too.
I really think the passage is so watered down it would now
be best to include it so that no one has an excuse to vote NO....
Would you consider begrudingly accepting it so that things
can get rolling? It's a meaningless passage. If anyone ever
brings it up after the vote, there's plenty of material to throw
back in their faces, such as the "whipping post" passage
in the 3rd RFD....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 7:59 AM
To: Spam; Chris; Ron House
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Guy Macon wrote in message <691ncl$ohg$3@news01.deltanet.com>...
>
>Looks like someone has decided to spam an ad for a bahai newsgroup.
Please do not spam anything related to the interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai!!!!
I had nothing to do with this and emphatically denounced it. And I hope
no one involved on either side of the discussion is responsible for it.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am not secretly hoping someone goes
ahead and does something like this. The interest poll has to be fair
for it to have any meaning. As someone said a couple of months ago,
in order to know whether Bahais have learnt anything from the now
6 months of discussion, a year really, the interest poll has to be above
board all the way through....
I'm sending a cc of this message to the spammer and others might
also email him directly to inform him of the seriousness of what he's
doing and that it shouldn't be done.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
>I believe that, in the name of preserving the good reputation
>Bahais have on the Internet, someone should try to stop this person
>from using "Bulk E-Mail Software" and "news posting software".
>Such software has only one use; to fill up newsgroups and email
>mailboxes with unwanted messages. Leave that sort of behavior
>to the 1-900 phone sex advertisers. Bahais should have nothing
>to do with net abuse.
>
>Here is a copy of the offending usenet post:
>
>Path: news.deltanet.com!news.he.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail
>From: rlking@iquest.net
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>Lines: 10
>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>
>here is a cool religion link.
>
>
>http://www.bahai.org
>
>happy reading!
>
>
>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>http://www.emailmagnet.com
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Guy Macon wrote in message <691ncl$ohg$3@news01.deltanet.com>...
>
>Looks like someone has decided to spam an ad for a bahai newsgroup.
Please do not spam anything related to the interest poll for
talk.religion.bahai!!!!
I had nothing to do with this and emphatically denounced it. And I hope
no one involved on either side of the discussion is responsible for it.
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am not secretly hoping someone goes
ahead and does something like this. The interest poll has to be fair
for it to have any meaning. As someone said a couple of months ago,
in order to know whether Bahais have learnt anything from the now
6 months of discussion, a year really, the interest poll has to be above
board all the way through....
I'm sending a cc of this message to the spammer and others might
also email him directly to inform him of the seriousness of what he's
doing and that it shouldn't be done.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
>I believe that, in the name of preserving the good reputation
>Bahais have on the Internet, someone should try to stop this person
>from using "Bulk E-Mail Software" and "news posting software".
>Such software has only one use; to fill up newsgroups and email
>mailboxes with unwanted messages. Leave that sort of behavior
>to the 1-900 phone sex advertisers. Bahais should have nothing
>to do with net abuse.
>
>Here is a copy of the offending usenet post:
>
>Path: news.deltanet.com!news.he.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail
>From: rlking@iquest.net
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>Lines: 10
>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>
>here is a cool religion link.
>
>
>http://www.bahai.org
>
>happy reading!
>
>
>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>http://www.emailmagnet.com
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: T.R.B. needed
whateverman wrote in message <34B3A407.75BC@tacks.stupidity>...
>Perhaps I should instead mention that a moderated forum is more
>intimidating than an unmoderated one. I would like to see a forum free
>of "Well, is this *really* a valid topic?"
Basically, this is what talk.religion.bahai would provide Bahais and
non-Bahais interested in discussing the Bahai Faith and is its
primary rationale....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
Annie wrote in message <01bd1be4$de69a1c0$92b360cf@baha>...
>Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com> wrote in article
><68vqha$n9o@news1.zippo.com>...
>> Annie wrote in message <01bd1b24$805a0e00$8eb360cf@baha>...
>>
>snip and clip....
>
>> The Bahai Faith has soc.religion.bahai, which many feel is highly
>> censored and the de facto official mouthpiece, though often denied....
>> Because the perception of censorship is so pervasive, many Bahais
>> and non-Bahais have and do support the creation of an umoderated
>> newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai.... I'm trying to get on with it....
>
>---------
>
>What i don't understand, Frederick, is why you need the word "bahai" at all
>in this proposed newsgroup of yours.
>
>I understand from what you write that the "bahas," it was surmised, voted
>against the idea last year. So, there you have it. If these people don't
>support you (and i am assuming you are in the same religion as they) then,
>you shouldn't go ahead with the project. But if you do go ahead with the
>project despite the NO of your co-religionists, then you're getting
>yourself into trouble. On the other hand, it is true to say that most
>breakthroughs have seen the light despite their non-popularity.
And talk.religion.bahai would indeed be a breakthrough perhaps
for Bahais.... Incidentally, I'm not the only Bahai who would like
to see its realization.... The newsgroup has been discussed now
for an entire year this month on the 17th!!!!
>I have always believed that a good idea should be carried through. Only
>after its realization, and sometime later, can we know if it should be
>continued or stopped. If it's good, good and well. If it isn't, well, stop
>it!
>
>
>Annie
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
whateverman wrote in message <34B4C118.2643@tacks.stupidity>...
>Why not say that the group is merely an unmoderated form of s.r.b., such
>that it would allow non-Baha'is to freely participate?
This may be the gist of it but we're trying to find a way of saying it
that is as diplomatic as possible....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Zutetflute[SMTP:Zutetflute@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 10:06 PM
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com
Subject: TRB
Hello Fred
Thanks to one of your posts I was able to finally access alt.religion.bahai
again via dejanews (I had switched to AOL because the provider I had was
really bad).
And I found that the discussion for talk.religion.bahai continues even after
all these months. But I must wonder why--the newsgroup exists. Hardly anyone
ever posts to it, and right now it has mostly ads in it. Are people unaware
of its existence?
Andree
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:02 AM
To: Zutetflute
Subject: Re: TRB
Everyone's energy has been going into discussing talk.religion.bahai
on news.groups since early October. It should be going to a vote
again this month. Look in on news.groups. It needs every vote it can
get!
I'm afraid even after an entire year many people do not know of the
existence of alt.religion.bahai because of its propagation problems.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: Zutetflute <Zutetflute@aol.com>
To: fglaysher@hotmail.com <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 9:06 PM
Subject: TRB
>Hello Fred
>
>Thanks to one of your posts I was able to finally access alt.religion.bahai
>again via dejanews (I had switched to AOL because the provider I had was
>really bad).
>And I found that the discussion for talk.religion.bahai continues even
after
>all these months. But I must wonder why--the newsgroup exists. Hardly
anyone
>ever posts to it, and right now it has mostly ads in it. Are people
unaware
>of its existence?
>
>
>Andree
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
whateverman wrote in message <34B513A3.736B@tacks.stupidity>...
>
>Sorry if this has been rehashed, but can you post previous ideas for
>this disclaimer?
>
There have been more versions than I or probably anyone else
can remember! I think we've finally found a form most people
can agree on so I'll post the 4th RFD tomorrow morning unless
there are substantive suggestions for other changes. The interest
polling should begin now as soon as possible.
Incidentally, I recommend everyone read "1997 Newsgroup Votes
in Review," if you haven't already.... I think the numbers speak for
themselves....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
Scott P. Duncan wrote in message <34B4E8B4.4E55@mindspring.com>...
>> And talk.religion.bahai would indeed be a breakthrough perhaps
>> for Bahais.... Incidentally, I'm not the only Bahai who would like
>> to see its realization.... The newsgroup has been discussed now
>> for an entire year this month on the 17th!!!
>
>I must admit that I have not been following the history
>of the proposal of TRB for a long time. But as to its
>perceived need, I do have a few questions, since I am
>neither pro or con about it in any strong way.
>
>While there may be a number of people who want to see TRB
>get formed and it has been noted in other posts that >5000
>messages have been posted on this (ARB) newsgroup, most
>of the posts I have see have been by one person and/or about
>the TRB formation. This may be quite fair and, as noted in
>another post, many may not be able to get this newsgroup who
>would otherwise post here.
513 different people posted on over 1,200 different threads
on alt.religion.bahai from April 1, 1997 to early October. Many
more people than I myself are interested in trb and have posted
about it. Search www.dejanews.com for the above dates or
to today and you'll see over 5,000 have indeed posted to it with
many different substantive conversations on things other than
formation of trb.
>
>However, if ARB is a sample of what TRB might contain once
>stripped of discussing of newsgroup formation and past con-
>cerns over voting, there has not been a whole heck of a lot
>of interesting stuff posted here. For me, the most interesting
>was actually some discussion about what Islam is/is not.
Ultimately, trb is not bound by what has or has not taken place
on alt.religion.bahai. 157 people voted for trb last spring and
then most of them were unable to access the alt.* hierarchy.
I just received a message from one of them who was shocked
to have just discovered arb has been going on all this time and
trb is heading for the 2nd vote!
>
>To a great extent, most posts could easily have been elsewhere
>(at least talk.religion.misc if other groups did not find them
>relevant either).
You've got to be joking....
>
>What are the actual topics people really excpect to get discussed
>in TRB that would not make it on to SRB or just as easily belong
>in some other group?
We've discussed this for 6 months now, at least 4 on news.groups.
Search dejanews for back discussion you have apparently missed.
>
>My willingness to participate in a vote about TRB is affected
>greatly by the lack of examples of what would be really be
>discussed. What an RFD hypothetically says could/should be
>is, especially for an unmoderated group, only vaguely indicative
>of what will happen. What has been going on in ARB seems to be
>more illustrative of what people currently care about, isn't
>it?
Not at all. What's going on presently is that most people are
exhausted from the long drawn out battle for free speech and
religious conscience.... Trb is not contingent on arb....
>
>Should I ignore the content of ARB as an example of what to
>expect in TRB? If so, what else is there? If not, then I
>think there seems to be little reason to have TRB based on
>the past year of postings which I have browsed through.
You should ignore much of the present content, I would say,
not the massive NO vote prevented the full 157 YES voters
from participating. Nonetheless, significant conversation
did and has occurred on arb. I don't believe your analysis of
the content of arb is accurate.... Much worthwhile discussion
has taken place....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai
>One technical question, Frederick: I was wondering why so many of your
>postings go to a.r.b. & news.groups, but follow-ups are set to n.g only?
>Is this an oversight or a technical glitch?
>
>DZO
As I understand it, all followup discussion should take place
on news.groups. It's stated in the RFD.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:28 AM
Subject: Please read "1997 Newsgroup Votes in Review"
I recommend everyone interested in the proposal for trb read
"1997 Newsgroup Votes in Review," if you haven't already.... I
think the numbers should give everyone pause as we approach
the present interest poll on talk.religion.bahai.
With extremely few exceptions, all the NO votes are in the
10 to 20 to maybe 50 range. The 691 NO votes cast against
talk.religion.bahai stand out starkly....
Since Bahais have had an entire year now to come to an
understanding of Usenet interest polling, I do not expect similiar
RESULTS. The soc.religion.bahai RESULTS in 1992 were
236 YES to 48 NO. Bahais seemed to understand the Usenet
system quite well then....
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:33 AM
To: Spam
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Roger Reini wrote in message <34b8c6a5.62541305@news.zippo.com>...
>Did you contact this individual yourself? I don't recognize the ID as
>one that's active in the online Baha'i discussion community.
>
>I agree -- we Baha'is should not engage in spamming.
Roger, you're asking me that? Yes, I did cc him with my first response.
I'll cc this message too just to be sure he understands more than
one person would prefer he not spam "on behalf" of the Bahai Faith.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
>
>
>>From: rlking@iquest.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>>Lines: 10
>>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>>
>>here is a cool religion link.
>>
>>
>>http://www.bahai.org
>>
>>happy reading!
>>
>>
>>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>>http://www.emailmagnet.com
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith spam
Roger Reini wrote in message <34b8c6a5.62541305@news.zippo.com>...
>Did you contact this individual yourself? I don't recognize the ID as
>one that's active in the online Baha'i discussion community.
>
>I agree -- we Baha'is should not engage in spamming.
Roger, you're asking me that? Yes, I did cc him with my first response.
I'll cc this message too just to be sure he understands more than
one person would prefer he not spam "on behalf" of the Bahai Faith.
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
>
>
>>From: rlking@iquest.net
>>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>>Subject: Baha'i Faith
>>Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:57:58
>>Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
>>Lines: 10
>>Message-ID: <6908sd$7sd$12@news.iquest.net>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: tht-0000-27.iquest.net
>>Xref: news.deltanet.com soc.religion.quaker:9080
>>
>>here is a cool religion link.
>>
>>
>>http://www.bahai.org
>>
>>happy reading!
>>
>>
>>This message was posted using E-Mail Magnet
>>The World's Leading Bulk E-Mail Software
>>Get our FREE news posting software, News Blaster(tm), at:
>>http://www.emailmagnet.com
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:35 AM
To: zutetflute@aol.com
Subject: Re: Baha'i, Christain, Hindu, Jewish, Moslem
If you haven't noticed your message didn't make through to
alt.religion.bahai.
Try it again. Thanks for your note....
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <884239715.1616707587@dejanews.com>...
>In article <884042587.363659267@dejanews.com>,
> grayfeather@centralva.net wrote:
>>
>> As a longtime member of the Baha'i faith I have seen changes yet there is
>> not a recognition of Native American religion. yet Abdu'l-Baha stated
>> that when the American Indian becomes ignited with the fire of the Baha'i
>> Faith then the whole world will become Baha'i.Is it not time that we
>> forget about these dead old world religions?
>>
>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Baha'i, Christain, Hindu, Jewish, Moslem
If you haven't noticed your message didn't make through to
alt.religion.bahai.
Try it again. Thanks for your note....
--
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <884239715.1616707587@dejanews.com>...
>In article <884042587.363659267@dejanews.com>,
> grayfeather@centralva.net wrote:
>>
>> As a longtime member of the Baha'i faith I have seen changes yet there is
>> not a recognition of Native American religion. yet Abdu'l-Baha stated
>> that when the American Indian becomes ignited with the fire of the Baha'i
>> Faith then the whole world will become Baha'i.Is it not time that we
>> forget about these dead old world religions?
>>
>> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 9:43 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Fw: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
>
>Henrietta Thomas wrote in message <349f2243.4158591@news.wwa.com>...
>>OK, here comes the line-by-line I've been wanting to do. It may or may
>>not agree with what other people are saying, but I think the final
decision
>>on all points should be made by the proponents themselves.
>
>Thanks for taking the time....
>
>>In news.groups on Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:56:51 GMT, "Frederick Glaysher"
>><fglaysher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
>>
>>[snip]..... no problem with introduction
>>
>>>RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
>>>
>>>Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
>>>specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
>>>need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
>>>would meet that need.
>>
>>[Delete unnecessary paragraph and substitute the following]
>
>A whole lot of discussion went into that paragraph during
>August and September on alt.religion.bahai. I'd hate to throw
>all that away, for historical reasons if nothing else. The breakdown
>of figures I think further help to document how extensive
>the interest in trb really is.... Personally, I'd like to keep all this.
>
>>
>>After the defeat of the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, the
>>proponent created alt.religion.bahai to demonstrate the need
>>for an unmoderated group. From April 1 to September 27, 1997,
>>over 2,863 messages were posted to alt.religion.bahai by people
>>with highly varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This works
>>out to about 16 messages per day for 179 days, and 477 messages
>>per month for six months. During this time period, approximately
>>513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads.
>>
>>[I've deleted the reference to talk.religion.bahai in the paragraph
>>below]
>
>Jonathan Grobe points out it was he who created alt.religion.bahai.
>I did not ask him to do so but am very grateful that he did. This
>morning, December 31, 1997, there are 4,975 messages on
>dejanews posted to arb since April 1, 1997. More than a little
>interest there, by anyone's fair-minded estimate, I would think....
>
>>
>>>These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
>>>for alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time period. Please note that
>>>despite the poor propagation of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of
>>>posting demonstrates significant interest, justifying the formation
>>>of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith in the talk.*
>>>hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility
>>>of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by
>>>interested people.
>>
>>[No change in this paragraph]
>>
>>>The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
>>>rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
>>>soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
>>>alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
>>>opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
>>>YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
>>>alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
>>>anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
>>>see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
>>>unmoderated newsgroup.
>>>
>>>CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
>>>
>>>All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
>>>teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
>>>discussion.
>>
>>[rearranging paragraphs; word changes underlined]
>>
>>>The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
>>>is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
>>>large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam,
>>>and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
>>
>>>Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
>>>are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
>>>crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
>>>rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to
>>>this charter.
>>^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Sure, "this charter" reads better. Move the paragraph makes
>sense.
>
>>
>>>Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and
>>>not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead
>>>on articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
>>
>>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious groups,
>>>the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of the
>>>Baha'i faith.
>>[Or you could say, "In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition
>>for all religious groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not
>>be considered an official organ of the Baha'i faith."]
>
>Other religious groups are not official organs of the Bahai Faith
>or any other faith....
>
>I suggest:
>
>In keeping with long-standing Usenet tradition for all religious
>groups, the talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should not be
>considered an official organ of any religious organization,
>including the Bahai Faith.
>
>NOTE: soc.religion.bahai has no such disclaimer in
>its charter.... I still believe there is no legitimate reason
>trb should have one....
>
>>>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
>>>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>>
>>[I left out the "whipping post" paragraph because I don't think it
>>adds anything to the charter, but would not be upset if the proponents
>>decide to put it back in]
>
>Well, as long as there is a subordinate clause or language
>that clarifies the situation sufficiently, I'm willing to drop the
>whipping post passage though I believe it's only a fair
>compromise.... No one else seems willing to compromise.
>
>Another acceptable reading to me, even preferable,
>would be:
>
>As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
>religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
>newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional
>religion.
>
>For clarity, I would consider the above an acceptable
>compromise and would delete the whipping post
>reference for this.
>
>>
>>>END CHARTER.
>>>
>>>PROCEDURE:
>>>
>>>The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
>>>stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
>>>the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
>>>news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
>>>groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
>>>three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
>>>the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
>>>
>>>The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
>>>pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
>>>more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
>>>e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
>>>Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
>>
>>[Add paragraph]
>>
>>The CFV is usually posted twice over a 21-day period, and then the
>>votetaker tallies up the votes and the RESULT is posted to news.
>>announce.newgroups and news.groups. If after a 5-day waiting period,
>>there are no challenges to the RESULT, the group will be created if
>>the proposal passed. But if the proposal failed, then the proponent(s)
>>must wait six months before they try again.
>
>Soc.religion.bahai's interest poll was 236 YES: 48 NO. That's the
>usual ratio, roughly.... 30, 40, maybe 50 NO votes.... Anything
>beyond that, I'm certainly going to challenge and believe everyone
>interested in fairness and the preservation of Usenet as a system
>should....
>
>The last sentence I would delete....
>
>>
>>[I have mixed emotions about the Allbery quote. It seems kind of
>>long to me, and I wonder if it will backfire and just make people
>>angry. But I will leave that decision to the proponents here.]
>
>It's a lucid statement on interest polling that I believe should
>remain in so that Bahais reading the RFD understand what
>is involved.... Many claim they didn't understand the nature
>of interest polling last time. This passage helps educate
>them and ought to remain. If that is a basis for voting NO,
>David Lawrence and every techie on news.groups ought
>just give up right now....and create some other way of forming
>new groups....
>
>>>An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
>>>considered by all:
>>>
>>>"There is no official "list of acceptable reasons for voting"; Nothing
>>>of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
>>>the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
>>>certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
>>>voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
>>>the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
>>>voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
>>>assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
>>>the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
>>>*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
>>>This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
>>>amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
>>>advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
>>>the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
>>>(Message-ID: <m3pvo9ggjh@windlord.Stanford.EDU>>
>>>
>>>This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
>>>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
>>>"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "How to Write a Good Newsgroup Proposal"
>>>questions about the process.
>>>
>>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>>
>>[No problem with the distribution or listing of proponents]
>
>Okay. Thanks a lot, Henrietta, for going to all this trouble of
>considering this 3rd RFD. I appreciate it. All your suggestions
>are taken to heart here. I'm willing to incorporate the changes
>I've commented on. What do others think? Chris? Ron?
>Anyone else back yet?
>
>Hope you all had a wonderful Christmas!
>And even a more Happy New Year!
>
>Frederick Glaysher
>UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
>The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
>news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <34B65DAF.5C80@SPAMBLOCKford.com>...
>
>The moderator on duty must have felt that this message was not
>sufficiently on-topic for soc.religion.bahai. Usually, the note of
>rejection states the reason for the rejection.
>
>This would appear to be a case of moderator's discretion. The primary
>subject of the article is net abuse. The Faith was involved only
>because of the subject of the original, off-topic post.
>
>I understand that the original poster is a very new Baha'i. Perhaps he
>posted out of ignorance, in which case a private note to him would
>likely be sufficient. Now if he kept on doing it, you'd have grounds
>for further action.
How do you know the poster is "a very new Bahai"? What difference
would that make anyway in terms of discussing the reputation of the
Faith as a result of his actions? Bahais have stated often that they
want to protect the Faith from one thing or another on
talk.religion.bahai, why are they not concerned about protecting it
from such incidents as this spammer?
>I think it should be possible for a discussion of netiquette to take
>place on s.r.b, if it's tied in tightly with the principles and
>teachings of the Baha'i Faith. To be honest, I think such a discussion
>would be easier to conduct on either alt.religion.bahai or (if it
>passes) talk.religion.bahai, since the lack of moderation might allow
>the discussion to proceed more smoothly.
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 10:05 AM
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Just Government
-----Original Message-----
>From: T.ALBERT-ISHMAEL ANDERSON <talishman@usa.net>
>To: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
>Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 5:01 PM
>Subject: Just Government
>Shoghi Effendi, regarding `Abdu'l-Baha's commands to Baha'is to
>obey the just government(s), says:
>"What the Master's statement really means is obedience to a duly
>constituted government, whatever that government may be in form.
>We are not the ones, as individual Bahá'ís, to judge our government
>as just or unjust--for each believer would be sure to hold a different
>viewpoint, and within our own Bahá'í...."
>-Directives from The Guardian, Page 56
Many people have argued, myself included, that the Usenet system
of interest polling is a form of a "duly constituted government." It
provides the rules and rationale for forming and regulating the
newsgroup social order, if you will.... Yet Bahais have shown no
lack of alacrity to judge it and violate its most basic tenets of
interest polling....
How do you explain or justify such blatant dismissal of the
Guardian's guidance?
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Please read "1997 Newsgroup Votes in Review"
Jeff Davey wrote:
Yes, there are some
>people who will be voting their own agenda. I have read some people will
vote
>NO on it, and they think that this action is still within their rights and
in
>accordance with the guidelines. I have read (not firsthand, but
secondhand)
>that some people will vote NO because they have something against Fred
>personally. I have also read some people threaten to vote YES *just* to
offset
>what they consider unjustified NO votes.
Can you tell us WHERE you have read these things?
Frederick Glaysher
UseNet: alt.religion.bahai
The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups,
news.announce.newgroups, or at <http://www.baha.demon.co.uk/rfd.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:22 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
(Message-ID: <m3pvo9ggjh@windlord.Stanford.EDU>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:22 AM
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
(Message-ID: <m3pvo9ggjh@windlord.Stanford.EDU>>
The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD
stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining
the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion
groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a
three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify
the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups.
The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must
pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100
more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an
e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet
Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's.
This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and
"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,
alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,
soc.culture.israel
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman <Talisman@umich.edu>
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies <Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us>
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe smaneck@BERRY.EDU or jrcole@umich.edu
Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups:
soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern,
soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu,
soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker,
soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava,
talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage,
alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,a.bsu.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship
And to the following seven Bahai-only listservs:
Subscribe via bahai-request@bcca.org
Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF)
Baha'i Discuss (Discuss)
Baha'i Singles (Singles)
Baha'i Teachers (Teachers)
Baha'i Women Converse (Women)
Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group)
Baha'i Announce (Announce)
Mentor: Chris Stone <cbstone@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Proponent: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Proponent: Chris Manvell <Chris@breacais.demon.co.uk >
Proponent: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au.uk>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 1998 11:22 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House; Chris Manvell
Subject: 4th RFD: talk.religion.bahai
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated
worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to
news.groups,alt.religion.bahai.
CHANGES from previous RFD:
The only major change on this 4th RFD is the "disclaimer" passage
under the Charter. A few other minor changes have been made.
Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith.
RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai
Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists
specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A
need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup
would meet that need.
From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until
March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning
talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days.
From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages
have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly
varying points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages
per day for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months.
Since www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an
additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have
probably been lost from the archive. During this time period,
approximately 513 different individuals posted on over
1,200 threads.
These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com
for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time
periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the
alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant
interest, justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on
the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable
to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy
will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people.
The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement,
rather than supplant, the existing moderated group
soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to
alt.religion.bahai, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the
opportunity to participate, especially since many people who voted
YES on the first proposal were unable to join in on
alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is
anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users
see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative
unmoderated newsgroup.
CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai
All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history,
teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for
discussion.
Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not
to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on
articles and threads written in more moderate terms.
The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith
is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages,
large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography,
spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature.
Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers
are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive
crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been
rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this
charter.
As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular
religion, including soc.religion.bahai, the talk.religion.bahai
newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be
considered by all:
"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing
of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote
the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that
certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block
voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of
the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block
voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically
assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for
the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i
*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful.
This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no)
amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that
advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and
the Baha'i Faith to avoid that."
(Message-ID: <m3pvo9ggjh@windlord.Stanf |