From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:14 AM
To: Ron House
Cc: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
Excellent piece, Ron. It really reads well. And perfectly
addresses the issues involved.... Let's use it verbatim.
I agree too with Fran about keeping the rhetoric as low
keyed as possible....
I'll add it to the next draft of the RFD and post it in a few minutes.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu
<fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Here is my solution to the 'civil rights' question.
>See what you all think:
>
>
>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.
>
>Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
>Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
>uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
>for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
>eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
>from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
>also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
>Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
>becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
>those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
>as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
>electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
>spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
>
>As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>
>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
>
>Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
>open Internet forum:
>
>"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
>participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
>Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
>through some form of electronic communication."
>Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
>
>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>
>(The rest as before)
>
>
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:17 AM
To: Frank Baker
Subject: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
To: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Excellent piece, Ron. It really reads well. And perfectly
>addresses the issues involved.... Let's use it verbatim.
>I agree too with Fran about keeping the rhetoric as low
>keyed as possible....
>
>I'll add it to the next draft of the RFD and post it in a few minutes.
>
>Fred
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
>Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu
><fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 11:13 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>
>
>>Here is my solution to the 'civil rights' question.
>>See what you all think:
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
>>Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
>>uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
>>for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
>>eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
>>from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
>>also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
>>Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
>>becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
>>those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
>>as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
>>electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
>>spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
>>
>>As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>>responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>>the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>>Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>>
>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
>>
>>Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
>>open Internet forum:
>>
>>"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
>>participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
>>Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
>>through some form of electronic communication."
>>Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
>>
>>Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting
>>procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation.
>>
>>(The rest as before)
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>>
>>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:26 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. Ron House
contributes all of the revisions regarding "civil rights."]
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.
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.
From September 28, 1997, to August 31, 1998, over 23,000
messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting
in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per
month for nine months.
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.
As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
since May 8, 1998.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
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.
Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
open Internet forum:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
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."
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" and available for perusal on news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups. 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
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe 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.scientology,
soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism,
talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.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)
Proponent: Frederick Glaysher
Proponent: Ron House
Proponent: Fran Baker
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 1998 5:31 AM
To: M Clark
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
Please post this to alt.religion.bahai. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: M Clark <mclark@tpgi.com.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, August 30, 1998 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
>At 04:20 24/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>Deceit and lies in the name of the Faith are wrong.... And so
>>is censorship for the same specious reasons....
>
>True. It sounds like you have had some bad experiences in this regard.
>
>I don't know how long you have been associated with the Faith, or how you
>feel about it at the moment. After 20 years as a Baha'i, I have seen most
>of what goes down, but I have also become aware that a mechanism exists
>within the Faith that sooner or later deals with abuses. I believe it is
>one of the mechanisms referred to in the quote about "there is a power in
>this cause ... " Many Baha'is are aware of it. The problem with some is
>that they believe that because the recognise the Cause, they automatically
>understand it. Situations develop where people, sometimes without realising
>it, exercise authority which they do not possess. Only the elected have
>authority, and only then as members of an Assembly, not as individuals.
>Persons _appointed_ to positions may have responsibilities, but do not have
>authority. The Faith has no priesthood, but there are a few would-be
>Mullahs and Cardinals running around within it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Martin Clark
>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:14 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
Your message was posted to arb. No one has commented
on it yet. I didn't add it to the 2nd draft because I first I
forgot (sorry) and then earlier I had been thinking it could
be used to drag out the discussion period for another
week or so to get us well into at least the middle of
September. There are a number of things that will have to
be discussed about it. I've been trying to get the cb
thing finished first before taking up the newsgroups.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Cc: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> Excellent piece, Ron. It really reads well. And perfectly
>> addresses the issues involved.... Let's use it verbatim.
>> I agree too with Fran about keeping the rhetoric as low
>> keyed as possible....
>>
>> I'll add it to the next draft of the RFD and post it in a few minutes.
>>
>Thanks Fred. Did you add those extra newsgroups I
>suggested?
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:26:52 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher"
><fglaysher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
>>Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
>>uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
>>for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
>>eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
>>from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
>>also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
>>Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith.
>
>This should be qualified with "unmoderated", for s.r.b is universally
>accessible -- at least for those sites which choose to carry the soc.*
>hierarchy.
Sure: "only universally accessible unmoderated Internet forum...."
>
>> As the Internet is clearly
>>becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
>>those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
>>as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
>>electronic forums.
>
>Hm -- now this is an interesting twist in the argument, stating the
>reasons why it should be regarded as a civil rights issue. I'm not
>necessarily agreeing with it, but putting it in this form helps to
>build the case.
>
>> Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
>>spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
>>
>>As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
>>responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
>>the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
>>Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
>>
>>"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
>>upheld." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, page: 186.
>
>It was not Shoghi Effendi who said this but the Universal House of
>Justice. Actually, the reference is "From a letter written on behalf
>of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly,
>October 29, 1974)
> (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186)
>
>Please correct this.
Had meant to before posting this 2nd draft and then forgot
somehow. Thanks. Will do so on the 3rd draft, if I can remember....
>
>>
>>Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
>>open Internet forum:
>>
>>"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
>>participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
>>Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
>>through some form of electronic communication."
>>Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
>>
>
>This is better, though I doubt that those who object to an unmoderated
>newsgroup on principle will be convinced to re-evaluate their
>position.
What "principle" do they object on?
>
>
>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)
>http://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
John Noland wrote in message
<2A90EF02E296956B.A64F0B938A213433.74076DA3C98E0B3D@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>
>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6sdtqi$dut@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. Ron House
>>contributes all of the revisions regarding "civil rights."]
>
>
>>As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
>>it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
>>Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
>>since May 8, 1998.
>>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
>
>Hi Frederick, Ron and Fran,
>
>Have you run this by the news.groupies yet? I honestly don't think
>the inclusion of your Web site hits is necessary or appropriate.
>First of all, as written it doesn't explain how this relates to an
>interest in trb. There's also no way to relate web traffic to
>newsgroup traffic. Also, how accurate is the count? I've visited
>your web site at least half a dozen times, so each of those counts
>as a hit. I think the data from arb and srb is adequate to show
>interest.
>
>John
It will have to be in the draft posted to news.announce.newgroups
for the news.groupies to see it. It can then be deleted before the
final official posting of the RFD before the interest poll starts. I'll
try to revise the intro somehow and make it clearer. I don't
believe it can be disputed that the vast majority of the hits on the
web site are from readers from Usenet.... Since I don't have a
counter on every page, there have certainly been many more
hits than have been recorded. There have been times too when
the counter has gone beserk and not been able apparently to
keep up with the traffic....
How would srb data relate to arb or trb?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 5:58 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: The Baha'i Technique
Kent Johnson wrote in message <6s9tma$1oi$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>As a Baha'i who has experienced and observed these things you talk about, I
>find it sad. The Baha'i Faith is not living up to its destiny in this
>regard. I have seen them do all the things you mention, and more. It
turns
>my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group while doing these
things
>so obviously partisan and consciously unjust. I have pointed it out to
some
>of the moderators and they are in an Us Vs Them mindset. I can only
>apologize for them.
>
>--Kent
Thank you, Kent, for having the honesty and integrity to acknowledge
the seriousness of the situation at soc.religion.bahai. I believe you
identify something that really needs to be addressed and few Bahais
have had the courage to do so. The "moderators," and really Bahais
in general, almost always respond to anything other than the most
pedestrian opinion with reactionary sentiments and accusations of
one type or another.... I believe you're quite right about their mindset
having become "Us Vs Them." I would think their injustices are evident
to outside observers too.... I think especially of their banning me from
posting to soc.religion.bahai because of my signature file, which points to
my web site, which points to Yahoo, which ultimately points to a couple of
covenant breaker sites.... Not to mention one of the most complete
listings of Bahai information on the Net, which is why I put it on my
site....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6s94hd$6f4@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
>>several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
>>or discredit people who hold other opinions than their own...
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: The Baha'i Technique
Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6sgk20$r0f@news3.newsguy.com>...
>Kent Johnson wrote in message <6s9tma$1oi$1@as4100c.javanet.com>...
>
>>As a Baha'i who has experienced and observed these things you talk about,
I
>>find it sad. The Baha'i Faith is not living up to its destiny in this
>>regard. I have seen them do all the things you mention, and more. It
>turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group while doing
>these things so obviously partisan and consciously unjust. I have pointed
>it out to some of the moderators and they are in an Us Vs Them mindset.
>I can only apologize for them.
>>
>>--Kent
On further reflection, let me add too that this touches on what is
THE really profoundly disturbing problem with the Bahai Faith as it
has become for many Bahais.... EVERYTHING is a threat,
EVERYONE is an enemy, if they don't share what such Bahais
believe is the correct interpretation of the Bahai writings or whatever....
Their response is always akin to some kind of demonization or
denunciation, never a good-faith exchange between people of
good will, albeit differing opinions.... Their response is clearly
partisan, while attempting to obscure or deny the fact.... THEY
possess the truth; everyone else is a heretic....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>>
>>
>>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6s94hd$6f4@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>>During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
>>>several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
>>>or discredit people who hold other opinions than their own...
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 6:53 AM
To: Ron House
Subject: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
The news.groupies will care though. They believe one
should post the RFD or a pointer to too many groups.
That when you do that you're fishing for votes in a way
that's comparable to spam. They'll ask have you subscribed
to these groups and is the proposal relevant to them?
At least they have in the past. I'm all for adding them. I'll
to get to it as soon as possible....
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> Your message was posted to arb. No one has commented
>> on it yet. I didn't add it to the 2nd draft because I first I
>> forgot (sorry) and then earlier I had been thinking it could
>> be used to drag out the discussion period for another
>> week or so to get us well into at least the middle of
>> September. There are a number of things that will have to
>> be discussed about it. I've been trying to get the cb
>> thing finished first before taking up the newsgroups.
>
>I don't know that the average person particularly cares which
>newsgroups get told. Why not just add the lot and see if
>anyone objects?
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 6:57 AM
Subject: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>> >This should be qualified with "unmoderated", for s.r.b is universally
>> >accessible -- at least for those sites which choose to carry the soc.*
>> >hierarchy.
>>
>> Sure: "only universally accessible unmoderated Internet forum...."
>
>I disagree that srb is universally accessible. Covenant
>breakers and Fred can't post there - and, I presume, based
>on the absurdity of their treatment of Fred's case, neither
>can anyone else who commits the sin of mentioning Yahoo.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>
>List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/
>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
>
>FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 6:58 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Fw: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>> John Noland wrote in message
><2A90EF02E296956B.A64F0B938A213433.74076DA3C98E0B3D@library-proxy.airnews.n
et
>>...
>>>>As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
>>>>it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
>>>>Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
>>>>since May 8, 1998.
>>>>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
>>>
>>>Hi Frederick, Ron and Fran,
>>>
>>>Have you run this by the news.groupies yet? I honestly don't think
>>>the inclusion of your Web site hits is necessary or appropriate.
>
>I'd concur with Roger and John that it is inappropriate to include
>Frederick's website in the RFD. For one thing, web hits don't
>necessarily translate into Usenet interest. For another, if one
>includes this website, then why not also hits on other Baha'i-related
>websites as further "evidence" of potential interest in Usenet
>discussion? And another, this website has what strikes this reader as a
>very selective presentation of past events. Frederick is certainly free
>to publicize his website during the discussion period (though I would
>hope this would not be a part of rehashing old debates), but IMHO it
>doesn't belong in the RFD.
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>DZO
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: The Baha'i Technique
The truth is the UHJ knows exactly what the "moderators" of
soc.religion.bahai are doing and apparently approves of it and
appears even to be advising them through the BCCA, or
while hiding behind the BCCA....
The UHJ has no excuse of ignornance whatsoever. I've emailed
them directly over 30 times, recently on July 24th notifying them
of the imposition of the ban on my signature file, and they've
stood by and condoned such contemptible fanaticism as they
always do....
There's nothing "isolated" about the srb. It's widely known and
many, many people have said so.... Messages to that effect from
more than 30 people can be found on my web site.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Chris Manvell wrote in message ...
>In article <6shqbu$81n$1@as4100c.javanet.com>, Kent Johnson
><compx2k@javanet.com> wrote
>>All of the criticisms you mention are, in many cases, fair. They trouble
>>me. In my opinion, however, they are criticisms of individuals who ban
>>together and do harm to the Faith while calling themselves Baha'is. The
>>criticisms do not apply to the Faith itself unless and until these groups
>>find a way to usurp the power that is the Baha'i Faith itself. As long as
>>you and I keep noticing, that will not happen.
>
>I respectfully ask to disagree. The Faith itself is the Faith of
>Baha'u'llah. If others usurp it, it is no longer the Faith of
>Baha'u'llah but something else calling itself the Baha'i Faith. I do
>not believe that this has happened, apart from in fairly isolated cases.
>--
>Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317
> Fax.:+44+(0)870-0568081
>Personal Web site: <http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
>Association of Baha'i Studies (English speaking Europe):
> <http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/BSR/BSR.htm>
>Sgriobtiurean Creidimh nam Baha-i
> <http://www.breacais.demon.co.uk/gaelic/index.htm>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 7:16 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: Fran Baker page added to web site
Chris Manvell wrote in message ...
>You obviously were not reading SRB during the Ahmadiya (sp.)/Baha'i
>debate, or the debate between a Christian minister and the Baha'is.
>What, in spite of the protestations of some people, is NOT allowed is
>rudeness, personal attacks, and UCE. Sometimes one moderator is
>stricter in their interpretation that at others but generally, if one
>wants to discuss the Faith without having to put up with the personal
>invective of some people, it is a good place to be as one can
>concentrate on the matter at hand and not in having to defend oneself
>etc.
What "personal invective" is their in my signature file? Is it rude?
There are many suppressed messages on my web site that were
not rude in any way whatsoever.... This accusation is merely a ruse....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 8:09 AM
To: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram
Subject: Re: reliabilty of information
I came across this message while cleaning out my old
files. Would you perhaps have a copy of the "Wilson Diary"?
I'd like to add it to my web page.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram <jarmstro@iusb.edu>
To: irfan <irfan1@umich.edu>
Cc: Talisman <talisman@umich.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 04, 1997 6:26 PM
Subject: reliabilty of information
>It would seem appropriate to mention that I know from sources other than
>Juan that the information he gave about a list member being under
>'investigation' because of postings is correct. This has actually being
>going on for some time.
>
>I might also mention, that the time I worked at the National Center
>included the period covered by the 'Wilson diary' as it has been seen in
>electronic form. Whoever may be the author of that text, those events for
>which I have personal knowledge are accurately portrayed, however
>'colorized' these passages may seem to those who were not there.
>
>I do not intend to engage in any discussion or further elaboration of this
>post. I simply felt that it needed to be made clear that just because
>news comes from Juan that does not in itself make it dismissable.
>
>Jackson
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 4:47 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Fw: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
>>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
>>Date: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:38 PM
>>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
>>
>>>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>>>>This should be qualified with "unmoderated", for s.r.b is universally
>>>>>accessible -- at least for those sites which choose to carry the soc.*
>>>>>hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Sure: "only universally accessible unmoderated Internet forum...."
>>>
>>>I disagree that srb is universally accessible. [...]
>
>As soc.* and talk.* are both "Big 8" hierarchies, the groups in them are
>equally accessible as I understand it. So if talk.religion.bahai would
>be "universally accessible" ("universally" for people with access to
>computers, of course...) then so is soc.religion.bahai.
>
>The whole issue of access as I understand it was brought up in the first
>place (and put in the t.r.b. RFD) because alt.* hierarchy groups are not
>carried by all servers, but "Big 8" groups supposedly are. So, even
>though a.r.b. is not moderated, it is not "universally accessible," and
>therefore t.r.b. is "needed" so to have a "universally accessible"
>non-moderated ng.
>
> [ . . . ] Covenant
>>>breakers and Fred can't post there - and, I presume, based
>>>on the absurdity of their treatment of Fred's case, neither
>>>can anyone else who commits the sin of mentioning Yahoo.
>
>S.r.b. is a moderated group. As such *what* is posted may be limited,
>not *who* posts. IOW, it's not an "access" issue, but one relating to
>standards of moderation. Anyway, as I understand it, a Covenant-breaker
>or Fred *can* post anything relating to the Baha'i teachings that
>doesn't include Covenant-breaking material (or links to it). One may or
>may not agree with the moderation policy, but moderation does not affect
>the accessibility of a newsgroup.
>
>I would therefore concur with what Roger suggested.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>DZO
>
>NB- The message to which I'm replying responds to a posting in another
>part of this thread.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:02 AM
Subject: alt.religion.bahai FAQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for
Alt.Religion.Bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com
September 3, 1998
This FAQ will be reposted approximately every two weeks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that crossposting your messages to talk.religion.misc
makes it possible for some people without access to the alt.*
hierarchy to follow along with the discussion on alt.religion.bahai.
Similarly, crossposting or sending a courtesy copy, "cc," to
bahai-faith@makelist.com also allows people with only email
access to participate. Currently, 23 individuals are subscribed.
Other people with web access might use www.dejanews.com or
www.reference.com They both offer reading and posting capabilities,
including free email accounts, for people who can't directly access
alt.religion.bahai.
Though these stopgap measures may appear cumbersome or repetitive,
they really do compensate a little for the lack of
talk.religion.bahai, which would be an unmoderated newsgroup
on a major hierarchy that most people ought to be able to use.
Alt.Religion.Bahai is now available on America Online (AOL).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Not all people agree on the interpretations given below.
Question #1 "what would be the difference between the proposed
newsgroup talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai?"
ANSWER: The alt.* hierarchy is not widely available, while the
talk.* hierarchy is, since it is on what's called the Big 8 hierarchy
of Usenet. Many more Bahais and non-Bahais would be able to
access talk.religion.bahai.
Question #2 "Isn't ARB also unmoderated?"
ANSWER: Yes. Alt.religion.bahai is unmoderated and talk.religion.bahai
would be too. Though not a newsgroup, the mailing list
bahai-faith@makelist.com is also unmmoderated.
Question #3 "Why create a t.r.b.?"
ANSWER #1: Because many people believe they experienced or are
continuing to experience censorship when attempting to post to
soc.religion.bahai. See the quotations from Abdu'l-Baha:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
ANSWER #2: Because the Bahai writings support free speech and
religious conscience.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
ANSWER #3: [fill in the blank according to your own opinion.]
Question #4: "Why do the srb moderators oppose trb?"
ANSWER: [Perhaps they'll supply us with an answer to place
here]
Question #5: "Are Bahais opposed to freedom of speech and
conscience?"
ANSWER: Despite glowing words of love and support for
other people's opinions, despite the Universal House of Justice
stating at least publicly it is not opposed to an unmoderated forum,
the record of actual behavior by Bahais and on soc.religion.bahai
and the experience of many Bahais and people who have left the Bahai
Faith give reason for concern.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology of major events: talk.religion.bahai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17, 1997: The 1st proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted to news.announce.newgroups.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRFD.htm
Early March 1997: Mark Towfiq, chairman of the BCCA, the
Bahai Computer and Communication Association, posts to
three Bahai-only mailing lists a call for Bahais to vote NO
against talk.religion.bahai.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Towfiq.htm
March 1997: soc.religion.bahai bans all discussion of
talk.religion.bahai from its newsgroup. This ban is still in
effect more than a year and a half later.
March 31, 1997: The 1st proposal was defeated 157 YES to
691 NO.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/1stRESULT.htm
April 3, 1997: Jonathan Grobe, a non-Bahai, creates
alt.religion.bahai.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/arb.htm
October 14, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message stating it has no objection to unmoderated
newsgroups: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ1.htm
November 1997: At a time when discussion was highly
favorable in support of talk.religion.bahai, the BCCA deprives
Frederick Glaysher of access to the private Bahai-only mailing
list bahai-discuss and all of its other lists, inflaming Bahai
passions against trb. See bahai-discuss archived files and
correspondence between Frederick Glaysher and the BCCA
committee: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
December 19, 1997: The Universal House of Justice releases
a message that suggests it does not understand the nature of
Usenet interest polling:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/UHJ2.htm
January 12, 1998: The 2nd proposal for talk.religion.bahai was
submitted.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRFD.htm
February 22, 1998: The 2nd proposal was defeated 109 YES
to 65 NO.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/2ndRESULT.htm
May 25, 1998: srb bans all messages from Frederick Glaysher
that contain his signature file.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb23.htm
August 28, 1998: The 3rd proposal scheduled to be submitted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For past discussion of censorship on soc.religion.bahai and other
issues, including censorship within the Bahai community, see the
Web site below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB SITE:
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAILING LIST:
bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) For Web subscription
& List Archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com
To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:05 AM
Subject: REPOST - To UHJ July 24, 1998
From: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
To: UHJ <secretariat@bwc.org>; Letters to Editor <letters@nytimes.com>;
bahai-faith @ makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998
Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM
July 24,1998
Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice:
As a Bahai, I am saddened by the news of the execution of yet
another Bahai in Iran. However, the immediate public statements
made by Firuz Kazemzadeh of the National Spiritual Assembly
of the United States, reminiscent of Robert Henderson's piece in
The New York Times on January 13th of this year, appear equally
lamentable for their blatant hypocrisy: "We had hoped that President
Khatami's assertions about freedom, justice and the rule of law in Iran
would apply to the Baha'is of that country.... We urge the international
community to protest vigorously Mr. Rowhani's killing and to seek
justice for the beleaguered Iranian Baha'i community."
The tragic loss of Bahai lives in Iran and the subsequent exploitation
of their deaths by Bahai spokesmen, often in the American media,
always courting the President and other members of the government,
has become a predictable pattern rendered intolerable in the context
of continuing and pervasive Bahai censorship and denial of human
and civil rights in the United States and elsewhere. Such incidents as
I queried you about in my unanswered email of March 31, 1997,
available on my Web site, regarding the crushing of the magazine
Dialogue, the resignations of a number of scholars from the Bahai
Encyclopedia, the attacks on the listserv known as Talisman I at
Indiana University, the harassing and blacklisting of many individuals,
Bahai and non-Bahai, suggest profoundly deep-seated problems within
the Bahai community and administration.
To these incidents must now be added the apparent conspiracy for more
than a year and a half of the Bahai Computer and Communications
Committee (BCCA), under the chairmanship of Mark Towfiq, to defeat
twice now, along with the collusion of other Bahais, the creation of an
unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith which would be known as
talk.religion.bahai. You may find extensive documentation for all of
these violations of the basic human rights of many Bahais and
non-Bahais on my Web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom
of Conscience": http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
Because the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet is
approaching, after August 28th, I ask you again to investigate the
BCCA and its depriving me of access last November from all private
Bahai-only mailing lists at a crucial moment just when the tide of
discussion was going very much in favor of the newsgroup, noted by
many observers. I also ask whether you supported or were involved in
that decision? The relevant files can be found on my Web site under
Bahai-Discuss Archives.
Similarly, I would like to know whether your institution or the BCCA has
approved of or advocated the recent ban of my email signature file by
the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, as well as their complete ban for
more than a year and a half now on all discussion regarding
talk.religion.bahai.
The prevailing atmosphere of suppression of free speech and
religious conscience that now characterizes the Bahai Faith cannot
but call into question the honesty of many members of the Bahai
administration and perhaps the institutions themselves.
I ask once more whether censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith and
what passages of the Bahai Writings support it, what are the "rules," if
you will, of Bahai censorship?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
cc: The New York Times, letters@nytimes.com
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:12 AM
To: Ron House
Cc: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
Sounds good. I'm not dodging this issue, I'm just so
busy with everything else and really believe we need to
hold on to it in order to drag out discussion through much
of this month if possible in order to get the USA student
vote on our side as advised by some news.groupies.
We've got a national holiday over here until Sept. 8th.
I'm over due for a break.... Hope you and others can
take up the slack....
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: ROUGH DRAFT - news release
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> The news.groupies will care though. They believe one
>> should post the RFD or a pointer to too many groups.
>> That when you do that you're fishing for votes in a way
>> that's comparable to spam. They'll ask have you subscribed
>> to these groups and is the proposal relevant to them?
>> At least they have in the past. I'm all for adding them. I'll
>> to get to it as soon as possible....
>
>I did subscribe to all of them, read sample posts, and
>anything I cross-post will be specifically written for
>the NGs concerned, not just general appeals aka spam.
>
>--
>Ron House house@usq.edu.au
>
>Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is
>unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30.
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:33 PM
To: AGrove1756@aol.com
Subject: Re: Baha'i Youth Classes
Nothing offensive intended against you but your
comments strike me as cheap and meaningless rhetoric as
long as the systematic censorship continues here in the US,
where I live and have experienced in the Bahai faith
now for over 20 years, especially on soc.religion.bahai....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: AGrove1756@aol.com <AGrove1756@aol.com>
To: fglaysher@Hotmail.com <fglaysher@Hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Baha'i Youth Classes
>Regarding the postings that you forwarded: an eloquent
>description of the old world order. I have not encountered
>any of those techniques when serving at the Baha'i World
>Centre, when consulting with the Asian Counselors as
>an ABM or when working with various NSA's, I am saddened
>that you think of it as a trend. If you were to look outside
>of the US you would find other old world order problems,
>but also a very strong effort to shed old patterns.
>
>We are are after all, children of the half light.
>Anne
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:41 PM
Subject: fw LaAeterna Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
-----Original Message-----
From: LaAeterna@aol.com <LaAeterna@aol.com>
To: bahai-faith@makelist.com <bahai-faith@makelist.com>
Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>The quotes Burl pulled out do not in any way say the the Universal House
has
>anything other than a legislative function. Nor can he show anything that
>gives the UHJ legitimacy without a Guardian. As Abdul'Baha stated over and
>again, it is a legislative body only, with some arbitration duties.
Period.
>That it has chosen to take a huge interpretive leap and given itself
majesty
>where it has none appointed it, shows exactly why a Guardian_is_essential:
to
>maintain the *spiritual* aspect of the Faith. That there IS NO Guardian
now
>cannot be shrugged off.
>Shoghi Effendi states (page 9, WOB) that the administration
*is*not*the*Faith
>but is, instead, an instrument of the faith. Instruments are not perfect
nor
>are they permanent institutions, but have been shown throughout the history
of
>humanity to be temporary tools useful for a period of time (sometimes
>undefined).
>It could well be that the "tool" we are using now is defective, exactly
>because one of the primary aspects is missing, As one poster so aptly put
it
>: a headless body. I would say rather: an empty shell without a guiding
>spirit. That it is making such shocking decisions re: its members and
>alienating so many demonstrates my point quite nicely.
>Nancy
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>
>List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/
>To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com
>
>FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:08 PM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Recommendation?
Fran,
I hope you don't mind my giving your name and email address
to America Online as someone who might vouch for me. AOL
has a number of forums that require a Forum Leader. The
current one is very inactive and many things that might make
for a fairer representation of viewpoints have been nicely
neglected somehow.... It seems to me no one else is going
to do it so what the heck....
Fglaysher@AOL.com
(please continue to use my fglaysher@hotmail.com address)
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:10 PM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: a vacation?
Just got your note. Guess we're on at the same time.
Rare for me. I'm usually online early in the morning....
Trying to get the bugs out the system and get caught
up..................
-----Original Message-----
From: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu <fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: a vacation?
>Dear Fred,
>
>Thanks for the pep talk. I was beginning to need one badly!
>It was all I could do not to tell Rick to stop Schaut-ing at me.
>
>Thanks for the update, too.
>
>--Fran
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu
>Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
And I think the lack of institutional checks
>and balances in the current structure, which Shoghi Effendi thought so
>essential, are an excellent explanation for why the mutilation of the
>Baha'i faith has occurred. Someone accused me of conducting a personal
>vendetta. But this is not about personalities. The structures are the
>problem; even really promising people are corrupted by absolute power,
>which is what the Baha'i institutions now have within the community.
Plato, of course, is the other classical meditation on republicanism
devolving into demogoguery and tyranny, especially his Republic....
I'd also recommend the Federalist Papers for serious consideration
of checks and balances and reflection on the lessons of the classical
past as well for that matter.... Allan Bloom's Closing of the American
Mind draws insightfully from these works....
A pity, but it seems Shoghi Effendi's education was lacking in
such sources.... Given my experience with censorship on
soc.religion.bahai and the involvement of the BCCA in it,
I agree fully with Dr. Cole that there are no checks or balances
now within the Baha'i Faith.
By the way, for a fascinating aside on Galileo, which fits the context
so penetratingly well, one might look at the excerpts from
John Milton's Areopagitica on my web site. Milton visited Galileo
while he was under house arrest....
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Areopagitica.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:10 AM
To: Fran Baker
Subject: Re: Recommendation?
Lovely picture of you and Frank!
By the way, where is he? I'm worried that he's never
really participated on arb, as you have....
-----Original Message-----
From: Fran Baker <fran@crhc.uiuc.edu>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu <fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Recommendation?
>Sure thing.
>
>By the way, I have a web site, but it is just personal stuff.
>It's http://chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu/~fran/.
>
>--Fran
>
>Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>
>> Fran,
>>
>> I hope you don't mind my giving your name and email address
>> to America Online as someone who might vouch for me. AOL
>> has a number of forums that require a Forum Leader. The
>> current one is very inactive and many things that might make
>> for a fairer representation of viewpoints have been nicely
>> neglected somehow.... It seems to me no one else is going
>> to do it so what the heck....
>>
>> Fglaysher@AOL.com
>> (please continue to use my fglaysher@hotmail.com address)
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:13 AM
To: martinc
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
The least you can do then, is write srb "moderators" and
ask them to post a retraction of the abuse of my message
so that readers understand how it has been abused....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----Original Message-----
From: martinc <martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au>
To: 'Frederick Glaysher' <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 7:37 PM
Subject: RE: Censorship on SRB
> You said:
>
> "As far as I can recall, I asked for it to be posted to
>> alt.religion.bahai, not soc.religion.bahai.
>>
>> I believe you've abused the nature of my message to
>> you."
>>
> Looking back through the inbox, I find that you are right, and I
>apologise for this error. I certainly picked up the thread from SRB and
>our correspondence followed on from that, so maybe that explains the
>oversight.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin Clark
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
The message George refers to was posted to srb without my
consent. I believe it was allowed in order to further agitate
Bahais against me and talk.religion.bahai. I specifically
requested the person in question to post to arb, never to
srb....
-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
To: martinc <martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship on SRB
>The least you can do then, is write srb "moderators" and
>ask them to post a retraction of the abuse of my message
>so that readers understand how it has been abused....
>
>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
>Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: martinc <martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au>
>To: 'Frederick Glaysher' <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 7:37 PM
>Subject: RE: Censorship on SRB
>
>
>> You said:
>>
>> "As far as I can recall, I asked for it to be posted to
>>> alt.religion.bahai, not soc.religion.bahai.
>>>
>>> I believe you've abused the nature of my message to
>>> you."
>>>
>> Looking back through the inbox, I find that you are right, and I
>>apologise for this error. I certainly picked up the thread from SRB and
>>our correspondence followed on from that, so maybe that explains the
>>oversight.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Martin Clark
>>
>>
>
George wrote in message <6spa1i$d35$1@news.eli.net>...
>
>George wrote in message <6snvml$211$1@news.eli.net>...
>>Found this on SRB.
>>For those who may not post there.
>>Thought you might not know.
>>PostOn.
>>George
>>
>>mclark@tpgi.com.au wrote in message
>><"X7F7cD.A.YhD.k7K71"@bounty.bcca.org>...
>>>Date sent: Tue, 01 Sep 98 07:12:43 GMT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>At 04:20 24/08/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote:
>>>>Deceit and lies in the name of the Faith are wrong.... And so
>>>>is censorship for the same specious reasons....
>>>
>>>True. It sounds like you have had some bad experiences in this regard.
>>>
>>>I don't know how long you have been associated with the Faith, or how you
>>>feel about it at the moment. After 20 years as a Baha'i, I have seen most
>>>of what goes down, but I have also become aware that a mechanism exists
>>>within the Faith that sooner or later deals with abuses. I believe it is
>>>one of the mechanisms referred to in the quote about "there is a power in
>>>this cause ... " Many Baha'is are aware of it. The problem with some is
>>>that they believe that because the recognise the Cause, they
automatically
>>>understand it. Situations develop where people, sometimes without
>realising
>>>it, exercise authority which they do not possess. Only the elected have
>>>authority, and only then as members of an Assembly, not as individuals.
>>>Persons _appointed_ to positions may have responsibilities, but do not
>have
>>>authority. The Faith has no priesthood, but there are a few would-be
>>>Mullahs and Cardinals running around within it.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Martin Clark
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 6:29 AM
Subject: REPOST - The Bahai technique
During the last year and a half, a number of observers have noted
several common methods many Bahais use to avoid various issues
or discredit people who hold opinions other than their own:
Frederick Glaysher:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai."
More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES.
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm
This document may also be found on my web site:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
I wish I knew how to look into this but it's really quite complicated
and beyond me. I'll forward this to news.groups in the hope that
someone there can and people won't mind though the RFD
is still a week or two away from posting....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
K. Paul Johnson wrote on talk.religion.misc in message
<35f57c54.0@vlinsvr>...
>Today I did a DejaNews check of alt.religion.bahai, which I
>cannot read at this site. I found three or four cancelled posts;
>two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>kind, and I'd hope there might be some way to identify the
>culprit. Is this against the law? What can be done?
>
>Marangella is a so-called "Covenant breaker," while Mulligan is
>an ex-Baha'i. This cancellation pattern is symptomatic of what
>certain kinds of Baha'is think is the right way to deal with
>dissenting voices-- SILENCE THEM. What sort of "New World Order"
>would it be if such behavior and attitudes were in control?
>Probably paradise in the eyes of such people, but hell on earth
>for the rest of us.
>
>Fred, please look into this.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:40 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: Fw: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 2:49 PM
Subject: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
>Today I did a DejaNews check of alt.religion.bahai, which I
>cannot read at this site. I found three or four cancelled posts;
>two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>kind, and I'd hope there might be some way to identify the
>culprit. Is this against the law? What can be done?
>
>Marangella is a so-called "Covenant breaker," while Mulligan is
>an ex-Baha'i. This cancellation pattern is symptomatic of what
>certain kinds of Baha'is think is the right way to deal with
>dissenting voices-- SILENCE THEM. What sort of "New World Order"
>would it be if such behavior and attitudes were in control?
>Probably paradise in the eyes of such people, but hell on earth
>for the rest of us.
>
>Fred, please look into this.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:43 AM
Subject: Cancelled messages - a call for help
I wish I knew how to look into this but it's really quite complicated
and beyond me. I'll forward this to news.groups in the hope that
someone there can, and people won't mind, though the RFD
is still a week or two away from posting....
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
K. Paul Johnson wrote on talk.religion.misc in message
<35f57c54.0@vlinsvr>...
>Today I did a DejaNews check of alt.religion.bahai, which I
>cannot read at this site. I found three or four cancelled posts;
>two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>kind, and I'd hope there might be some way to identify the
>culprit. Is this against the law? What can be done?
>
>Marangella is a so-called "Covenant breaker," while Mulligan is
>an ex-Baha'i. This cancellation pattern is symptomatic of what
>certain kinds of Baha'is think is the right way to deal with
>dissenting voices-- SILENCE THEM. What sort of "New World Order"
>would it be if such behavior and attitudes were in control?
>Probably paradise in the eyes of such people, but hell on earth
>for the rest of us.
>
>Fred, please look into this.
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:15 PM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
For the umpteenth time, I'm not the moderator, I'm not
the moderator, I'm not the moderator!!!
For a long time I tried to forward EVERYTHING and
about killed myself trying to keep up with it all. For
roughly TWO months now the FAQ has stated in
painful detail how to "cc" messages to
bahai-faith@makelist.com George is one of the
few people who does so fairly regularly.
I forward what I want, none too consistently, and
shan't accept criticism lightly for it. You're free to
forward his message. By the way, why doesn't he
post it himself to alt.religion.bahai? Or have the
last two Bahai attacks on talk.religion.bahai
deprived him of access? Why didn't he vote YES?
Unlike most Bahais, I've attempted to rectify the
situation....
What's your excuse?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Richard Schaut wrote in message ...
>
>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6t8aq4$a76@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>>>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu
>>>Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>
>
>Fred, is there any particular reason that you keep forwarding these
messages
>that Dr. Cole has sent to bahai-faith@makelist.com but have not forwarded
>the remarks of some of the other participants (e.g. Burl Barer)? How is
>your failure to foward both sides of that discussion any different from
what
>you accuse the moderators of soc.religion.bahai of doing?
>
>BTW, those who are interested in views that differ from those of Dr. Cole
>regarding the necessity of a living Guardian should point their browsers to
>http://www.interlog.com/~winters/articles/flow.html
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
For the umpteenth time, I'm not the moderator, I'm not
the moderator, I'm not the moderator!!!
For a long time I tried to forward EVERYTHING and
about killed myself trying to keep up with it all. For
roughly TWO months now the FAQ has stated in
painful detail how to "cc" messages to
bahai-faith@makelist.com George is one of the
few people who does so fairly regularly.
I forward what I want, none too consistently, and
shan't accept criticism lightly for it. You're free to
forward his message. By the way, why doesn't he
post it himself to alt.religion.bahai? Or have the
last two Bahai attacks on talk.religion.bahai
deprived him of access? Why didn't he vote YES?
Unlike most Bahais, I've attempted to rectify the
situation....
What's your excuse?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
Richard Schaut wrote in message ...
>
>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6t8aq4$a76@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com
>>>From: Juan Cole <jrcole@umich.edu
>>>Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further)
>
>
>Fred, is there any particular reason that you keep forwarding these
messages
>that Dr. Cole has sent to bahai-faith@makelist.com but have not forwarded
>the remarks of some of the other participants (e.g. Burl Barer)? How is
>your failure to foward both sides of that discussion any different from
what
>you accuse the moderators of soc.religion.bahai of doing?
>
>BTW, those who are interested in views that differ from those of Dr. Cole
>regarding the necessity of a living Guardian should point their browsers to
>http://www.interlog.com/~winters/articles/flow.html
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:19 PM
To: Timothy Mulligan
Subject: Fw: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
Timothy,
Are you aware that someone may have
cancelled three of your messages to arb?
Let us know if you did this yourself or someone
else is at work for Baha'u'llah....
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai
>Richard Schaut (RSSchaut@email.msn.com) wrote:
>:
>: K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <35f57c54.0@vlinsvr>...
>
>: >two by Joel Marangella and one or two by Timothy Mulligan. Don't
>: >have a clue as to how this kind of cancellation is done. But
>: >apparently this is an instance of censorship of the most offensive
>
>:
>: Gads, you have no idea how it's done, but it somehow has to be
censorship.
>
>You misrepresent my position. I did not say it *had* to be
>censorship. I said-- as you can see-- that *apparently* it was
>censorship. Why? Mulligan and Marangella have been the most
>unpopular of contributors in the eyes of people who make it clear
>that they do not want all sides of Baha'i issues aired.
>
>: Amazing.
>
>Your knee-jerk defensiveness amazes me at least as much as my
>suspicion of the dark possibilities of Baha'i fundamentalism
>amazes you.
>:
>: People, for a number of reasons, cancel their own posts. Had Mr. Johnson
>: done a thorough enough search, he would have found at least one of my
posts
>: cancelled--I cancelled it.
>
>Why in the world would I have done such a search?
>:
>: And, yes, it's possible to fake a cancellation message, but any
individual
>: who has the knowledge can do so.* When that happens, the people whose
posts
>: have been cancelled generally complain about the fact. In this case,
>: neither Mr. Mulligan nor Mr. Marangella have so complained.
>
>Thus you assume that they did cancel their own posts? OK, let's
>ask them.
>:
>: Thus, it takes a substantive leap to go from the appearance of a couple
of
>: cancelled messages to the conclusion of censorship. One needs a bit more
>: evidence of such, and that evidence is lacking here.
>
>Evidence you choose to disregard: it's not just a couple of
>cancelled messages but actually five (not three or four as I
>said.) Not just any two random people but two of the most hated
>contributors in the eyes of fundamentalist Baha'is: one, a
>"Covenant-breaker" leader-- and it is abundantly clear that
>Baha'is *do not want the views of "Covenant-breakers" to be
>freely expressed*-- the other, a disgruntled and very articulate
>ex-Baha'i, who has attracted a whole lot of negative emotion from
>defenders of Baha'i orthodoxy.
>:
>: BTW, if you think your messages have been cancelled by someone else, you
>: should contact the news administrator at your particular ISP.
>
>Rick, if you believe that Marangella and Mulligan canceled their
>own posts, why don't you write and ask them? If you won't, I
>will.
>
>PJ
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:07 PM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release. . . [or]
For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
Contact: Frederick Glaysher (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
fglaysher@hotmail.com
Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
moderated newsgroup.
Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
elements of a conservative orthodoxy. Both appear ready for
another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
censorship and distortion of information throughout the
religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
within the faith and without."
A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
than two decades of membership, Frederick Glaysher,
one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
interference with free speech by the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
and others have a lot to say on the matter!
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:21 PM
To: Mulligan, Tim
Subject: Re: Cancelled posts at arb
Tim,
It's not paranoia; it's that so many of their tricks
have been so low and dirty!
I wish you wouldn't leave. It plays right into their
hands at a crucial moment. The RFD will probably
be posted during the week of the 20th. How about
if you take a few weeks off? Or just post every
other day, or once in a while.... Whatever....
For God's sake, please come back and vote in
early October....
Don't consign other people to a religion in which
no other opinions can ever be heard. Help us
provide a forum where you, for instance, can
receive the hearing you want or wanted.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Mulligan, Tim <TMulligan@Central.UH.EDU>
To: 'fglaysher@hotmail.com' <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:22 PM
Subject: FW: Cancelled posts at arb
Thanks for your concern. I have to agree with the Baha'I fundies in
this case however: you guys are paranoid! I suggest you take a one
month break from all posting. Seriously. Just let it go, at least for
a little while. You need the break.
My response to Paul follows.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Mulligan, Tim
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:36 PM
To: 'K. Paul Johnson'
Subject: RE: Cancelled posts at arb
Paul,
I'm afraid you are mistaken. I canceled all my remaining posts
last week, in the interest of pulling up stakes and disengaging from the
ego battles on arb and srb.
I appreciate your intent, which was to defend my right to post.
But you were simply mistaken, and you need to admit that in the
newsgroups. I will not post any further in Baha'I newsgroups, or any
other newsgropus for that matter, because, as I've said, with rare
exception, they're simply an arena for the psychological equivalent of
gladiator battles.
You have my permission to post the content of this email message
to the newsgroups, but only if you quote the entire message.
Tim Mulligan
Tmulligan@central.uh.edu <mailto:Tmulligan@central.uh.edu>
-----Original Message-----
From: K. Paul Johnson [SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]
<mailto:[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu]>
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:30 PM
To: jmara@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
<mailto:jmara@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Cc: tmulligan@central.uh.edu
<mailto:tmulligan@central.uh.edu>
Subject: Cancelled posts at arb
Dear Joel and Timothy,
On a Dejanews search of alt.religion.bahai, I found several
cancelled posts from each of you; five from TM and three at
least
from JM. I then expressed suspicion that someone other than
yourselves was cancelling them out of the desire to censor
opinions regarded as anathema to certain Baha'is.
The fundamentalists then accused me of making an accusation with
no evidence and of being mentally ill.
So I am writing to ask each of you if you did indeed cancel your
own posts to arb, or if you know who did. Please answer me ASAP
and better yet, post to arb and talk.religion.misc about this
issue.
Sincerely,
Paul Johnson
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:22 PM
To: Ron House
Subject: Fw: NEWS RELEASE
Ron,
What do you think of this draft?
-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
To: Frederick Glaysher <fglaysher@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:09 PM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE
> NEWS RELEASE
>
>For immediate release. . . [or]
>For Use the Week of September 20th. . .
>
>Contact: Frederick Glaysher (xxx) xxx-xxxx or
>fglaysher@hotmail.com
>
>Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience
>
>The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai,
>a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the
>Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the
>Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a
>year and a half because they would not be able to exercise
>the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a
>moderated newsgroup.
>
>Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a
>newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of
>moderators chooses which messages are posted for all
>subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle
>between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the
>elements of a conservative orthodoxy. Both appear ready for
>another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group
>where the creation of a new forum is always debated.
>
>Some critics even go further. Dr. Juan Cole of the
>Department of History at the University of Michigan, a
>former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than
>twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive
>censorship and distortion of information throughout the
>religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of
>its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks
>and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion,
>within the faith and without."
>
>A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more
>than two decades of membership, Frederick Glaysher,
>one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed
>a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of
>Conscience," documenting numerous instances of
>interference with free speech by the moderators of
>soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration:
>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm
>
>Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more
>than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less
>accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is
>and others have a lot to say on the matter!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:37 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: On AOL- Re: ARB more harm than good?
This is exactly what's happening on America Online from
my observing for more than a month now. The largest ISP
is being used and manipulated by Bahais in the very same
way as they have approached the interest polls for
talk.religion.bahai and as described in "The Bahai technique."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6tafaq$g6b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is
so
>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not granted
>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the
atmosphere,
>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very
>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous
>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions.
I
>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask
>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I
>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out
here
>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with
>laughter and free speechkate
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:45 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: Re: fw Ron House Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <35f05772.13211616@news.newsguy.com>...
>
As far as
>Fred's blockage from posting because of a .sig statement, that does
>begin to stretch things. Perhaps if the URL pointed to his main
>homepage rather than his Baha'i page, that might be enough to get the
>posting through.
The URL in my signature file did and does point to my
main hompage/index.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD - talk.religion.bahai
Roger Reini wrote in message <35eadbae.4455680@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 06:26:52 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher"
><fglaysher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. Ron House
>>contributes all of the revisions regarding "civil rights."]
>>
>
>This is better, though I doubt that those who object to an unmoderated
>newsgroup on principle will be convinced to re-evaluate their
>position.
Roger, you've never answered me. What principle is that?
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:04 AM
Subject: 3rd ROUGH DRAFT - RFD talk.religion.bahai
[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ]
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.
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.
From September 28, 1997, to September 11, 1998, over 30,000
messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting
in X messages per day for 331 days and X messages per
month for nine months.
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.
As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup,
it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,000 hits on it
since May 8, 1998.
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm
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.
Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith.
Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be
uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door
for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the
eyes of their neighbours by asking questions and reading replies
from anyone who is interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai
also fills the need for the first and only universally accessible
Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly
becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for
those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be
as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non-
electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the
spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.
As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and
responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of
the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However,
Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question:
"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously
upheld."
From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice
to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of
Guidance, Page: 186.
Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an
open Internet forum:
"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is'
participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the
Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or
through some form of electronic communication."
Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A.
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."
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" and available for perusal on news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups. 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
and the following three mailing lists:
Talisman
Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu
Bahai Studies
Subscribe via: major@johnco.cc.ks.us
h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu
Subscribe 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.scientology,
soc.religion.vaishnava,talk.religion.buddhism,
talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion,
uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith,
uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship,
alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christian.last-days,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,aus.religion.christian,
alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.religion.vaisnava,
alt.individualism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism,
talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc,
alt.philosophy.debate
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)
Proponent: Frederick Glaysher
Proponent: Ron House
Proponent: Fran Baker
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:43 AM
To: Frederick Glaysher
Subject: soc.religion.bahai victims speak out
Kent Johnson:
"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group
while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously
unjust."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb61.htm
Ron House:
"I think the following is a clear case of malicious
rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb53.htm
Timothy Mulligan:
"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those
SRB moderators."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb59.htm
RobertNik:
"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb54.htm
Bruce Burrill:
"What are Baha'i afraid of?"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb60.htm
Zuteflute:
"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which
would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb50.htm
YU ZIR:
"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher
is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to
address."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb46.htm
Matthew Cromer:
"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles
which they agree with...."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb47.htm
Melissa Boyer Kafes:
"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai
and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb44.htm
Harold Shinsato:
"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb33.htm
Maryam:
"Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB
material."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm
Laeterna:
"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was
putting it mildly indeed."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored2.htm
Guy Macon"
"Please explain which portion of the charter the following
post violates."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored1.htm
Robin Peters:
"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the
face of consistent censorship."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb43.htm
jgoldberg:
"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and
mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. "
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb57.htm
Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under
soc.religion.bahai censorship.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:53 AM
To: D E Siegel
Subject: talk.religion.bahai
>Please do not turn the next t.r.b debate into a wrangle over who has
censored
>whom on s.r.b, either via moderation or via cancels. >
> -David E. Siegel
David,
I'd really appreciate your advice on how to approach the
interest poll this time. So many people have experienced
censorship that it seems inescapable and is the impetus
behind why people want an unmoderated newsgroup
on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. I do intend to try
more to keep discussion of the religious side of the issues
on alt.religion.bahai and the technical only, if possible,
on news.groups. Emma Pease suggested this a couple
of months ago. I'd appreciate hearing any ideas you might
have.
Thanks.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:57 AM
To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com
Subject: On soc.religion.bahai - brief quotations
Kent Johnson:
"It turns my stomach that they call themselves a Baha'i Group
while doing these things so obviously partisan and consciously
unjust."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb61.htm
Ron House:
"I think the following is a clear case of malicious
rejection of an article by the worst of the moderators of
soc.religion.bahai."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb53.htm
Timothy Mulligan:
"(Sigh) Fred, I'm beginning to think you're right about those
SRB moderators."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb59.htm
RobertNik:
"these guys are pompous arseholes IMHO."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb54.htm
Bruce Burrill:
"What are Baha'i afraid of?"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb60.htm
Zuteflute:
"Frankly I could not see anything in the letter I wrote which
would prompt someone to ask whether or not I am a Baha'i."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb50.htm
YU ZIR:
"But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher
is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to
address."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb46.htm
Matthew Cromer:
"The current moderators regulate the contents--posting articles
which they agree with...."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb47.htm
Melissa Boyer Kafes:
"For me, I have posted a couple of times on soc.religion.bahai
and have gotten a couple of nasty emails...."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb44.htm
Harold Shinsato:
"It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb33.htm
Maryam:
"Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB
material."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm
Laeterna:
"To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was
putting it mildly indeed."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored2.htm
Guy Macon"
"Please explain which portion of the charter the following
post violates."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/censored1.htm
Robin Peters:
"I think you're to be commended for your persistence in the
face of consistent censorship."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb43.htm
jgoldberg:
"I refuse to post on soc.religion.bahai because of the arbitrary and
mean-spirited manner of censorship practiced by the moderators. "
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb57.htm
Many other similar messages may be found on my web site under
soc.religion.bahai censorship.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
----------
From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:16 PM
Subject: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL
I ask all Bahais or non-Bahais on AOL to email
the TOSGeneral@aol.com and inform him or her what you
believe may be actually involved here on the part of Bahais.
I myself have stated my opinion below.
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
-----
Subj: Terms of Service
Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT
From: TOSBoards2
To: Fglaysher
Dear Member,
I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of
our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the
information I have placed on the account regarding this incident:
On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a
message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal-
minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The
typical response of Bahai fanatics....
Frederick Glaysher:
"Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by
many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about
an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to
the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai,
ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their
messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them
through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up
on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action
of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to
talk.religion.bahai.
"More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages
explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais
NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make
them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with
censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by
suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who
believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai
community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily
support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote
YES."
Ron House:
"I know what you mean. I've found over the years that
there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and
others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so
much he says something intemperate, then point out
how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how
nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this
technique works, so I've been making a conscious
effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the
dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he
invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they
can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did
this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions.
At any other time, they would overlook faults, as
Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode
they go for the jugular. Very sad."
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm
Fran Baker:
"Just have to say that in my experience this is a common
technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially
effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both
sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating
technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is
to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat
up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard
to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal
relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group
acts this way. Very scary."
Dr. Juan Cole:
"Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional
reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the
more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom
they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to
silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to
depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any
victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible
and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect
racket.
"Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously
successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining
Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case,
either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that
go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!"
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm
Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience:
http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai,
talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts)
Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/
baha'i
baha'i"
Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up
process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above
all,
fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword
<A HREF="aol://1391:41-4688">TOS</A>. This area also has information and
tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take
a
look at our <A HREF="aol://1722:parentalcontrols">PARENTAL CONTROLS</A>.
This
will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen
names from various online activities.
Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen
name
cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions
please
send mail to <A HREF="mailto: TOSGeneral">TOSGeneral</A>.
Regards,
Bill
Community Action Team
America Online, Inc.
* Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version,
4.0?
You can upgrade for free at keyword: <A
HREF="aol://1722:Upgrade">Upgrade</A>.
With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen
names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more.
Upgrade today!
------
Bahai posts on AOL responding to "The Bahai Technique":
-------
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:46 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:Holly7711">Holly7711</A>
Message-id: <1998090915464300.LAA29616@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Friends,
This stuff is not only ugly in its outlook toward Baha'is, but now there is
criticism of the Universal House of Justice and the beloved institutions of
the Faith.
This is right on the edge... borderline.
Charlotte
--------
Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:59 EDT
From: <A HREF="aol://3548:Karndor">Karndor</A>
Message-id: <1998090915595200.LAA03894@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Charlotte,
before you read a post, look who wrote it, and if it is someone, that you
might think is a CB, or will make you mad, don't read it, and go on to the
next one. trust me it works.
Karen
Momie to
Forrest Febuary 17,1994
Terran October 23, 1996
<A HREF="http://members.aol. |