From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 7:30 AM To: bahai-request@bcca.org Cc: fglaysh@hotmail.com Subject: Subscription fglaysh@hotmail.com Glaysher, Frederick Announce;BINS;BCF;Discuss;Helping;Homeschool;Singles;Teachers;Tech;Women;Youth;Read ings;Race U.S. 0084057 I prefer not disclosing any address information. I would like to subscribe to all of the following lists, indicated, perhaps, above: Baha'i Announce (Announce) BINS (BINS) Baha'i Campus Forum (BCF) Baha'i Discuss (Discuss) Baha'i in the Helping Professions (Helping) Baha'i Homeschool (Homeschool) Baha'i Singles (Singles) Baha'i Teachers (Teachers) Baha'i Tech (Tech) Baha'i Women Converse (Women) Baha'i Youth (Youth - aimed at the 12-18 age group) Baha'i Readings (Readings) - this is not Baha'i only, but you may subscribehere. Race Unity - this is not Baha'i only but you may subscribe here. ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 10:47 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: re: RE: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga: an informal In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 11 Sep 97 at 13:02, Rick Schaut wrote: > From: Rick Schaut > To: "'pierceed@csus.edu'" , > bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us, talisman@umich.edu > Subject: RE: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga: an informal poll > Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:02:31 -0700 >... the appropriate action > is to sit down and write a letter to either the Canadian National > Spiritual Assembly or the Universal House of Justice expressing those > concerns and asking for a clarification of the principles involved. Rick, As usual, thanks for the feedback. Sorry I haven't had time to pursue unresolved questions arising from previous threads several weeks ago. According to a source close to the Canada NSA (who does not wish to be identified), the Canada NSA really was not involved, except that in the end the Canada NSA wrote the letter to MM informing him of the action of the Univeral House of Justice. Again, according to this Canadian source, MM's "removal" was such a serious matter that the Canada NSA *would not have had the authority* to carry it out by itself (even if it had been aware of the details, which it wasn't). I'm being slightly ironic here, but the problem with writing to the BWC about a matter such as this is that it might get you "removed" from membership. But obviously I personally have somewhat greater reason to worry than most folks! Several months ago, after a great deal of heartfelt consultation with a distinguished group of concerned colleagues from diverse backgrounds, a Baha'i academic submitted a set of suggestions about lessening tensions between "scholars" and "administrators", primarily revolving around the need for the House to issue a "hands off" policy to both "sides". In response, the House characterized western academia as being materialistic, and referred the academic to the so called "Individual Rights" letter. Let me know if you would like me to try to get permission to privately forward the letters to you. EP - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 11:36 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: politics of truth/ Re: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga In the Baha'i Studies List today: John, As always, and especially given your exemplary and humble rugged individualism, it is a great pleasure to hear from you. I hope to see you at Bosch in a few weeks. I have gotten so buried with personal email at home that I know I lost track of some stuff we were talking about a while ago, I hope we get a chance to catch up. Given your long interest in legal issues and Baha'i administration, I wanted to take advantage of your expertise and explicitly ask something that seems to be lurking between the lines in these discussions. Are Baha'i authorities required (by scripture, precedence, etc.) to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" to the best of their ability when an individual asks a question such as the one Rick has suggested? If so, is it possible that telling the whole truth will come into conflict with their duty to protect the Faith? This is aside from the issue of an individual who has to deal with their own case and complications arising from confidentiality vs. "due process" issues. Thanks, EP On 11 Sep 97 at 14:44, John B. Cornell wrote: > Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:44:12 -0700 > From: "John B. Cornell" > To: Rick Schaut > Copies to: "'pierceed@csus.edu'" , > bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us, talisman@umich.edu > Subject: Re: mundane vs. unique/ Re: the McKenny saga: an informal poll ... > > The paragraph quoted below is an example of exactly what I > > feared would happen. > > Why should anyone fear expression of personal opinion? > Isn't it agreed that we all have a right to our own opinions? ... > > If anyone has > > any concerns, and they are quite valid concerns, the appropriate action > > is to sit down and write a letter to either the Canadian National > > Spiritual Assembly or the Universal House of Justice expressing those > > concerns and asking for a clarification of the principles involved. > > Haven't umpteen letters already been written the past year? > What clarification of what principles do you think are needed? > > John - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 12, 1997 1:13 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Poll and Speculation; In Hands of UHJ In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, all, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I notice a great deal of talk on the reasons that I was notified, without warning, that my name had been removed from the membership rolls of the Baha'i community. I have not read many of the posts. However, having glanced at some, including one announcing a poll on the issue, I would like to make the following statement. My understanding is that the Universal House of Justice did not refuse to provide specific reasons for stating that I could no longer be considered a Baha'i. What was communicated through the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada was that the Universal House of Justice does not respond to correspondence shared with e-mail lists. As I, personally, consider it degrading both to the human station, and to the Supreme Institution of the Baha'i Faith to conduct such matters in the dark, in secret, in the manner of autocratic tyrannies, favouring this opportunity for intimidation and injustice, a perception possibly confirming the assessment by the Universal House of Justice that I am not a member of the Baha'i community, I felt I could not take the opportunity to write another letter without sharing it with the lists. However, on Sunday morning I received a copy of an e-mail message sent to the Universal House of Justice by a person who has never been a Baha'i, nor a participant in Baha'i cyberspace, a social activist, a member of this country's Green Party, one frequently writing to various levels of government here to urge progressive action. Although I know this person very well, this message was not sent at my behest, and it so moved me that I responded with a message to the Universal House of Justice, and to the sender of the original message. I will interpret very broadly the words communicated by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada, and say nothing about the contents of these two messages. However, the response by the Universal House of Justice may render the extensive speculation in this thread and poll unnecessary. Fare very Well, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 8:53 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: fwd: "Expulsion" in Baha'i Usage (fwd) In the Baha'i Studies List today: FYI (forwarded from H-Bahai via irfan1@umich.edu). I though the last item about a (Sandanista?) Baha'i being expelled for arranging arms shipments, and the USA NSA apologizing to Samoza was interesting! EP ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 12:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram To: irfan Subject: "Expulsion" in Baha'i Usage (fwd) I have been asked by Iskandar Hai to forward this recent H-Bahai posting to Irfan: There has been some confusion expressed recently on several Baha'i email lists as to whether "expulsion" from membership is a new sanction available to the Baha'i administration. A number of these posts have stated an understanding that the only previous sanctions were removal of administrative rights or being declared a covenant breaker and there has been a tendency toward conflating "expulsion" with the latter. However, this confusion simply illustrates once more the Baha'i community's lack of knowledge of it's own history and the bases on which it is supposed to function. "Expulsion" is both a long established administrative usage and quite distinct from being declared a covenant breaker. The most recent of the sanctions is actually the removal of administrative rights. This concept required the prior development of the idea of a set of administrative rights and previous to that an administrative system in which such rights might be exercised. The early Western Baha'i community maintained two basic types of lists: Lists of names and addresses of people who wished to be notified of Baha'i activities; and lists of "members" (however this concept was operationalized in particular instances) of Baha'i communities. The distinctive purpose of the latter was that it served as an electoral roll that delimited who could vote or be voted for as local elected bodies became established. Thus, the beginning of lists and the operationalization of "membership" occurred initially in local, face to face, community contexts. The first intercommunity lists were of mail contacts for the spread of news nationally, and internationally, and the subscription lists of Baha'i periodicals -- the latter not necessarily being limited to "members" of Baha'i communities. As the national convention of the Bahai Temple Unity developed in the 'teens in North America, and particularly in association with the intra- and inter-community disputes of 1915-1919, a national concern with the validity of local membership in relation to seating and voting rights of BTU convention delegates arose. This led to a quasi-official 'national' endeavor to limit community boundaries more explicitly in relation to doctrinal viewpoints and organizational allegiance. When communication was fully restored with 'Abdu'l-Baha after the war, he declined to support most of the attempted exclusions of individuals that had occurred and tried to direct the Baha'is toward expansionist and inclusive goals. Only in a very few cases did he draw hard community lines that placed named individuals outside the community. Within the North American Baha'i community, whatever the doctrinal rhetoric in which these disputes were framed, the main practical issue was one of access to control of community policy and resources. "Membership" was still essentially about the right to vote or be voted for. As the Executive Committee of the BTU reformulated itself as the NSA of the Baha'is of the United States and Canada, one of the issues dealt with in the Declaration of Trust under which it assumed a legal identity in 1926 was that of membership. In Article I of the By-Laws appended to the Declaration of Trust, authority was given to the NSA for "scrutiny of local membership rolls" and "the right of final decision in all cases where the qualifications of an individual or group for continued voting rights and membership in the Baha'i body is in question." And in Article II Baha'is are defined as "persons...who are recognized by the National Spiritual Assembly as having fulfilled the requirements of voting membership in a local Baha'i community." These requirements are spelled out as being resident within the jurisdiction of an LSA, being at least 21, and having "established to the satisfaction of the local Spiritual Assembly, subject to the approval of the National Spiritual Assembly, that he possesses the qualifications of Baha'i faith and practice, required under the following standard: Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner (the Bab), the Author (Baha'u'llah), and 'Abdu'l-Baha the True Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause: unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred _Will_; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of present-day Baha'i administration throughout the world." In Article VII Section 6, the LSA is given authority to "pass upon and approve the qualifications of each member of the Baha'i community before such members shall be admitted to voting membership; but where an individual is dissatisfied with the ruling of the local Spiritual Assembly upon his Baha'i qualifications, such individual may appeal from the ruling to the National Assembly, which shall thereupon take jurisdiction of and finally decide the case." In Section 7 of the same Article, the LSA Secretary is required to annually send to the NSA Secretary "a duly certified list of the voting members of the local Baha'i community for the information and approval of the National Assembly." We can see how "membership" is essentially about voting, and defining and controlling membership is about establishing the parameters of an electorate. It would also seem from the foregoing that membership/voting is limited to those who live within the jurisdiction of an LSA. But, not withstanding the earlier explicit language, Section 12 of Article VII, after defining the "sphere of jurisdiction" of an LSA as limited to the civil boundaries goes on to state "but Baha'is who reside in adjacent, outlying or suburban districts and can regularly attend the meetings of the local Baha'i community, may be enrolled on the membership list of the adjacent Spiritual Assembly and enjoy full voting rights pending the establishment of a local Assembly in their home community." This section concludes by again reserving to the NSA the final decision on the affiliation of any Baha'i. There is an ambiguity in the use of the term "Baha'i" in Section 12. As by earlier usage in the By-Laws one could only become a Baha'i while living in the jurisdiction of an LSA it could be argued that this section only refers to previously enrolled Baha'is who had moved to an area outside an LSA jurisdiction. For it to mean that an LSA can enroll _for the first time_ an individual who lives outside any LSA area of jurisdiction would require the first usage of "Baha'is" in this section to be a more open definition than that used otherwise in the document. We should also note that the term "Baha'i" was not at all used consistently in the manner defined in this document by the NSA in the late 1920s. In fact, at least once the NSA took the position that "Baha'is" were people who accepted the social teachings of the faith and that "Believers" were people who accepted the "Manifestation." Thus, if a community had nine "Baha'is" it could not form an Assembly: That required nine "Believers"! Such inconsistency in terminology is not uncommon in NSA documents (or letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi) and goes well beyond the simple fact that words change denotations and connotations over time. It is very unlikely to lead to a valid analysis to assume consistency of usage without further investigation when using texts associated with the Baha'i community. Under Article VIII, voting for Convention delegates is provided for within each local community on the basis of the LSA membership roll. And finally, Article IX states that in all cases where the By-Laws give final jurisdiction to the NSA "it is understood that any decision made or action taken upon such matters shall be subject in every instance to ultimate review and approval by the Guardian of the Cause or the Universal House of Justice." Thus, "membership" was first and foremost a local matter, but under national oversight; and like all national matters was subject to the ultimate oversight of the Guardian or House. Furthermore, membership (=voting rights) was not a one time thing but remained subject to ongoing NSA approval and thus by definition approval by the Guardian/House. The control of membership was further explicated by the NSA in a Baha'i News (132:p.3) statement of 1940 on the "twofold authority involved in the question of voting membership in the Baha'i community." The statement brings up an apparent discrepancy between the By-Laws which grant full authority to the LSA on local matters and the provision in _Baha'i Procedure_ that requires an LSA to refer the matter of removing names from the voting list to the NSA. To demonstrate that this does not involve a discrepancy the NSA points out that an LSA may exercise "original jurisdiction" over admission to the voting list "because the Guardian has laid down a set of qualifications of membership which is uniform throughout the entire country" and this provides the LSA "with a clear and simple code." Although there are "general qualifications" regarding removal there is nothing that can readily be applied in a uniform manner. Thus, to prevent inconsistency of application influenced by local factors, the NSA "retains the right and duty to give definite permission before the local Assembly can either suspend or expel any member of the Baha'i community." Thus, the original administrative concern in membership lists was about controlling the parameters of the community's electoral roll. LSAs could bring people onto the roll, subject to the oversight of the NSA, itself subject to the oversight of the Guardian/House. The NSA could "suspend" or "expel" people from the roll, subject to the oversight of the Guardian/House. That the NSA could "suspend" someone from membership is what later developed into the concept of the removal of administrative rights -- earlier simply called removal of voting rights. The only 'right' associated with membership originally was electoral. The development of a package of rights (attending feast, giving to the fund, going on pilgrimage, publicly representing the faith, etc.) occurred later as the Baha'i community institutionalized firmer boundaries and a exclusivist concept of "membership" in the 1930s and after. But the nucleus of this congerie of rights remained electoral and the "membership" lists the electoral roll. Thus, it was important for these lists to actually represent the community in order to be able to plan for the expansion and maintenance of elected bodies. The US NSA used its perogative to "expel" (to remove permanently from the membership lists) on a large scale several times when Shoghi Effendi asked them to produce a realistic roll as a basis for planning. (One of these purges cut the list by such a large percentage that Shoghi Effendi asked for a detailed explanation of the size of the reduction and why the list had been allowed to accumulate so many questionable entries: Should the list not be more regularly maintained to give an accurate picture of the community's strength?) The NSA also used its power to "suspend" membership as a disciplinary tool in individual cases. However, the use of the power to "expel" tended to be less visible. Someone who was suspended remained connected to the community and was expected to regularize their position and regain full membership. In the interim it was necessary for there to be some knowledge in the community of their disadvantaged status for the sanctioning to be implemented. But if expulsion was threatened and that caused the individual to reconsider a course of action, then this process did not need to become known outside the administration -- it had achieved its purpose and was over. It is also possible that detailed analysis may show that suspension had its own tendency toward expulsion as a suspended individual who did not regularize their situation might after a number of years be dropped from the roll permanently in one of the periodic large scale expulsions. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis and could have provided a less abrasive way to permanently remove individuals than would have been the case with a direct personal expulsion. Note, I am suggesting this as a possible cumulative effect of the process rather than a conscious policy. As a corollary, one might suggest the possibility that the more recent policy of removal of administrative rights and no large scale expulsions could lead to a build up of technical community members who are in tension with the administration. (In parentheses -- as I don't have the documents at hand to cite -- let me give two examples of expulsion as it is so little known. After a very prominent and wealthy Baha'i died, his widow was not happy with the disposition of his estate in his will and was threatening to dispute the will in court. Shoghi Effendi informed the NSA that he had apprised her that as she knew that the will represented her husband's wishes accurately, and that as testamentary dispositions were sacred to Baha'is, that if she disputed the will she would be expelled. She did not take legal action. While the US NSA had jurisdiction over all of Latin America, a university professor became a Baha'i. His enrollment was considered to be quite a catch and he was frequently used as a travel teacher. After a failed attempt to overthrow Somoza, it was discovered that the professor was one of the coup leaders (he was to become Minister of Education if the coup had succeeded); and that while he was on his Baha'i teaching trips he had also been making the arrangemnets for the arms needed for the coup. The US NSA wrote a letter of apology to Somoza explaining that the professor's actions were incompatible with being a Baha'i and thus he was no longer a member of the community.) R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 9:07 AM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: fwd (Cole): heresy baiting and the future of the Faith In the Baha'i Studies List today: ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:06:22 -0400 To: talisman@umich.edu From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: heresy baiting and the future of the Faith Josh has told me that he has received some troubling forwards about a certain list member essentially accusing someone else on Talisman of being a heretic. As you all know, this is not allowed, and if it happens again he says there will be consequences. This subject leads me to say some things about the current juncture the Baha'i faith is going through. I think it is fair to say that the Information Revolution has been very hard on the Baha'i leadership. It has suddenly allowed the expression of individual opinions, the emergence of public controversy, the spreading around of information the leadership would rather see repressed, glimpses into the true nature of Baha'i governance (that it is highly authoritarian), and the beginnings of a public opinion that might end up successfully putting pressure on the leadership to alter some of their policies. In the old Print world, things were much easier. Most opinions remained private. The old joke was that anyone could own a newspaper in a democracy. All you needed was a million dollars. Literature Review could be used to ensure that only official opinions (which is to say, the opinions of officials) could be aired in print. Communication was very top down. The American Baha'i went out to a few tens of thousands of households, and nothing was expected to come back except obedience. The system was that, essentially, of a one-party state. Like all one-party states, the Baha'i administration is extremely worried about the internet and the Web. But its worries have only just begun. Because information is getting cheaper to acquire and transmit, at *exponential* rates. In the summer of 1996 I needed a $3000 computer and basic HTML code writing skills to run a Web page. A better computer than the one I had then can now be had for $1200 and falling. And there are increasingly easy wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) programs for setting up Web pages that do not involve so much as knowing that makes for italics. Chips are getting cheaper by the minute. That means processing bytes of information is also. The cyberspace communities that have grown up, like Talisman, Irfan, Bahai-St., H-Bahai and others are only the beginning. When Web tv becomes a mass market item these will explode in numbers and effect. The gentlemen who run the Baha'i faith make no secret of being absolutely horrified at this outbreak of free speech and cheap communication. Their idea of the Baha'i faith is that it is a mechanism for preventing controversy and for controlling speech and for projecting the monopoly on discourse and power within the community of the "administrative order" (which they just happen to control, as lifetime incumbents). Probably this was always an unrealistic idea in a voluntary organization that aspired to being a world religion. Tight control and significant growth just don't go hand in hand. Moreover, this kind of system *always* fosters corruption and inefficiency, dooming it. That the US Baha'i administration was largely incapable of taking full advantage of the openness to the faith obvious among tens of thousands of Americans in the 1970s only proves my point. The new Information Age is the biggest revolution in human affairs since the advent of movable type metal cast printing in the 1450s. But note that there were winners and losers in that printing revolution. The Western Europeans allowed printing and benefitted enormously from the spread of scientific and technological knowledge and literacy that it allowed. The Muslim sultans recoiled from printing for almost exactly the same reasons as the Baha'i authorities are now recoiling from cyberspace, and they banned it. As a result, the Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred in Europe, as did great technical advances that left the Muslim world in the dust. Muslims were demoted from being bearers of a great world civilization to being largely illiterate and relatively backward, only even getting the news about the earth going around the sun in the 19th century. In the same way, those religious communities who embrace the new information technologies will gain powerful means to project themselves in the world. Those, like the Hare Krishnas, the Watchtower, and the Baha'is, who mainly see the Information Highway as a policing problem on which free discourse must be squelched, will remain small sects and perhaps disappear altogether. But it might be objected that if the Baha'i authorities let go and allow Baha'i cyberspace to flourish unimpeded, that it will put the unity of the religion in danger and weaken the authority of the central institutions. These are not completely unfounded fears. But they are largely unfounded. In fact, by flailing around accusing its scholars of verbal covenant breaking or declaring its devoted servants "not Baha'is," the Baha'i institutions are only making themselves look ridiculous and small minded, and are undermining their authority within significant elements of the community. The right response is to have the same courage the Indian nsa had when mass conversions began there in the 1960s. It decided to let chain conversion run its course, and to open things up. This is the opposite decision of the one the US nsa made around 1971, when it was decided to undermine the mass teaching by shifting resources to consolidation instead. The difference in outcomes is obvious. India claims 2 million Baha'is, and even if that is an exaggeration, there are still lots and lots of Baha'is there. The US claims 130,000, which is a phony figure deriving from Wilmette's propensity to simply raise its claims rather than bothering with real teaching. People sometimes complain that I have become so negative about the Baha'i administration that I offer no positive advice on how to deal with the problems. But this *is* my advice. Open it up. Call off the doberman pinschers. Nothing bad will happen. The same nsa was elected in Ridvan, 1997 as had been elected in the Ridvans before, despite the negative press that resulted from the crackdown on Talisman I. But if all that negative press could not affect the outcome of the election, then how could Talisman I's continuation have done so? Talisman was irrelevant. Coming after its prominent posters was unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, was a stupid mistake. Dropping Mike McKenny from the rolls was an even more stupid mistake. Since Baha'is will be in increasing communication in cyberspace (see above), they cannot help expressing their views, but now they will feel that Big Brother is looking over their shoulders. And Big Brother is sometimes feared; he is never loved. Perhaps in the hothouse and cloistered atmospheres of Wilmette and Haifa, it is easy to forget that institutions can squander their popularity. Before 1967 the Pope was universally loved and respected in the US Catholic community. Then he issued the ban on condoms, making himself both intrusive and ridiculous, and now only half of US Catholics say they even pay any attention to him on such issues. The current uhj's Inquisition against a mild-mannered Canadian fantasy writer is similar in form. It is ridiculous and intrusive. And in the end such actions will cause the Baha'is to hold their institutions in contempt. That there was a 60% fall-off in contributions to the international fund from the US community in 1996, the same year in which the uhj came after the talisman posters, may not entirely be a coincidence. The Baha'i institutions were not designed to control the *opinions* of adherents. In fact, `Abdu'l-Baha explicitly says that opinions may be freely expressed, and only behavior is punishable. Making internet speech into punishable "behavior" is breaking with this covenant `Abdu'l-Baha made with free and thinking human beings who had seen the excesses of religion and wanted no more religions like that. The uhj should stick to legislating, which is its only legitimate role, not interpretation of scripture and deciding whether McKenny's interpretation is the right one. Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab, by their arrogance and narrow-mindedness, have turned the Baha'i faith into just another inquisitorial religion, distinguished from past ones only in preferring psychological to physical torture of dissidents. If the Baha'is are unleashed to deploy the full power of the internet, to catch the wave of the Information juggernaut, they can hope to amount to something in the coming century. Except in the narrow field of posting translations of scripture, more has been accomplished with regard to making information available about the Baha'i faith on the Web by Juan Cole, Jonah Winter and Don Calkin, three individuals, than has been by all the Baha'i institutions put together. If the Baha'i institutions go on behaving like the elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, then that is the sort of religious organization they will be. And the stagnating 30,000 American Baha'i Witnesses can sit around into the 21st century and congratulate themselves for the rest of their lives on how loyal to the Covenant they are and how wicked the other 270,000,0000 Americans are, who have joined religions focused on unleashing their individual potential rather than on repressing it. cheers Juan - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 5:02 PM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: fwd (not Cole): early problems between hierarchy and scholars In the Baha'i Studies List today: The below link provides interesting references to a pattern of conflict between progressive scholars and fundamentalist elements long before the hippy, non-conformist, etc. 1960s academics came on the scene. EP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (17-September-1997) https://www.interlog.com/~winters/articles/zuhur.html ... Fadil-i Mazandarani is undoubtedly among the most devoted Baha'is of the twentieth century who on numerous occasions has received incomparable expressions of love and appreciation from Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. His historic services stretched well over half a century and spanning three continents in places as far as Iran, India, North America and Europe, and in fields as diverse as teaching, deepening, scholarship, collection of Text and protection of the Faith, remains a shining examples for those who aspire to serve this noble Cause. Therefore, one is deeply saddened to note that after his passing, "The Baha'i World", volume 13, does not carry a "In Memoriam" article honoring this remarkable figure of the Faith. As such, it is with utmost humility that I respectfully request of the Universal House of Justice to address itself, should they consider the matter worthy of their precious time, to publish a belated "In Memoriam" article honoring the noble life and deeds of Jinab-i Fadil, and to redress the grave injustices which befell this outstanding figure of our Faith in latter phase of his life. I can think of very few other believers of this century who have rendered comparable serviced to the Cause of the Ancient Beauty as Fadil-i Mazandarani has. Many Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha and the beloved Guardian amply testify to this fact. Though some forty years has lapsed since his passing, it is my profound hope, and the hope of many others who seek knowledge, that the Supreme Body will take steps to restore a ruined reputation and to once again honor a peerless scholar and teacher of the Faith. Further, as a sign of our fidelity to the memory of the beloved Guardian, I ask the Universal House of Justice that the Guardian's specific instruction for the Jinab-i Fadil to be numbered among those ranked as a Hand of the Cause of God, be graciously instituted. Additionally, if I may be so bold, permit me to request that steps be taken to truly honor the memory of Fadil through publication of his greatest contribution to the scholarship of Faith, the nine volume series of Zuhuru'l-Haqq. I believe that publication of the seven remaining volumes of this masterpiece will provide fresh impetus for serious study of our history and offer a superb model of scholarly achievement for all the students of the Cause, both present and future generations, to emulate. ... A.R. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Ahang Rabbani (281) 586-2524[SMTP:Ahang.Rabbani@usa.dupont.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:48 AM To: BAHAI-ST@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Fadil-i-Mazandarani/was: early problems between hierar... In the Baha'i Studies List today: I was asked by Dr. Hai to comment on Fadil-i Mazandarani and as such I share this blind post with Bahai-St, and I do so with trepidation as I do not wish to be drawn in this debate. The facts that were presented by Dr. Hai, himself the scion of a household dedicated to Baha'i scholarship, are indeed what I understand them as well. However, I would say the fact that Fadil remained active in teaching field to his very last breath is a testimony to the nobility of his spirit and the unparallel zeal for the promotion of the Cause that burnt in his soul. After all, he had been a truly exceptional apostle of Abdu'l-Baha and the most dedicated of all Baha'i teachers his entire life, therefore it was only fitting for his to pass away in the course of a travel teaching trip. But it is also undeniable that his important works continue to be suppress to this day! And yes, there were prominent Baha'is on the Iranian NSA and other circles who were out to get him -- and for their deeds they must bear the shame. In fact, its is rather sad to note that to this day their efforts to eradicate the name of Fadil continues very actively. Fadil's monumental history of the Cause, his nearly 7000 page Zuhuru'l-Haqq series, remains unpublished to this day (except the vol 3 and 8, with vol 8 not being very significant). As early as last year, when the World Centre was requested permission for the publication of further volumes of this series, it was denied! His other monumental work, the 12 volume series of Asraru'l-Athar-i Umumi, is also under lock and chain and God only knows if it ever be published. And the fact that his 5 vol. series, Asraru'l-Athar-i Khususi is now being "reworked" by Dr. Muhammad-Husayni is only an effort to reduce Fadil's presence in literary heritage of the Faith. His other histories of the Faith has never been published or made available in any way. He was elevated to the rank of the Hand of the Cause of God in late 1930's by Shoghi Effendi, but has anyone ever seen a list of the Hands where Fadil is mentioned also? No! One can go on and list many other factors why Fadil's work and memory is being actively suppressed but the greatest testimony is perhaps Fadil's own children who witnessed the treatment that their father received and decided they don't want to have anything to do with the Faith. I know this as his son lives here in Houston and I have spoken at length with him about these issues. The lesson to be drawn by the present generation of Baha'is from the tragic case of Fadil is one of actively eliminating intolerance and welcoming diversity of views. Fadil was a victim because he dared to write history incongruent with the Dawn-breakers; let us pray that we are wiser than the Iranian NSA of fifty years ago and that our vision is loftier than those of bygone ages. yrs, ahang. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 1997 3:14 PM To: sfotos@gol.com Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re Heresy and Reason For Expulsion 3 In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Sandy, from Ottawa. Many thanks for your comments on this topic. On the specific point connected with Michael McKenny, I would just like to say that there was no secret correspondence between me and the Universal House of Justice, containing material not available on these e-mail lists. I recently provided under the title "Reason For Expulsion Number One" and "Reason For Expulsion Number Two", the two chief messages I addressed to the Universal House of Justice in the months prior to my expulsion, my carefully composed letter of March 23rd, and the response I made to the covering letter of the answer from the Universal House of Justice. I have been unable to locate my copy of a message I sent, I believe in May, in response to a statement on one of these lists that that poster felt he or she was being reported to the Universal House of Justice. I'm pretty sure my message was also posted to the list on which I read the complaint and the original message. What I wrote was that my reading of the original message was that it was an obscure question being presented to the Universal House of Justice, and not snitching on the person complaining. I added that the atmosphere in which it was felt one could be reported to the Universal House of Justice, as if by Soviet style informants was an indication of a problem, and that it would be a good idea to remind us all of the importance of the freedom of thought, understanding and expression in the Baha'i vision for the attainment of human harmony. This is from memory after four months. If Eric or someone has the actual message maybe it can be sent to me, and I will delete the names and post it. Please be careful about simply posting material which may even be from Irfan which has rules about forwarding material without the consent of the poster. I am only interested in posting my own material, so what I wrote to the Universal House of Justice may be seen for what it is, and the hypothesis of additional secret stuff laid to rest. If my faulty memory has me forgetting other messages I sent to the Universal House of Justice at the time specified in the letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada to me, I would be astounded were any such produced which contained material I have not shared on these lists, that is thoughts and understandings of mine you are not already quite familiar with. I believe it is a quite credible hypothesis that it was precisely because I am a relatively articulate and outspoken liberal, one with a fairly convincing position that even if this issue of rijal and the General House of Justice of Chicage did not exist, the fundamental Baha'i principle of the equality of the sexes would take precedence over any particular passage soever seeming to exempt Baha'is from following fundamental Baha'i principle, precisely because I stated openly such views in cyberspace that my name was removed from the Baha'i membership rolls. I find it fascinating that unknowingly I addressed the ad hominems thread the evening before I received the expulsion notice and said that it was what was said, always subject to verification that mattered and not who said it, for example the fact I have a degree in Classics is of no import, but if I name Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenephon as historians prior to Alexander the Great the fact, their books, may be verified in the library. In addition although I remain convinced of the above, those who seem so very preoccupied with the person uttering something have now provided Baha'i cyberspace with a person who is now a pagan, very able to address the issue of the intolerance of monotheistic systems, both in early history, and contemporary affairs. The fact that I am becoming more and more involved in pagan thought and activity does not make preoccupation with persons rather than facts any more valid, nor the above provision any more effective a means of silencing liberal thought, even were such silencing in agreement with fundamental Baha'i principle, which it isn't. I will repeat my statement made a week ago that on Sunday September 7th a message was sent to the Universal House of Justice by one who has never been a Baha'i, nor a participant in Baha'i cyberspace, and that this drew a reply from me to the person who sent that message, and to the Universal House of Justice. When the Universal House of Justice answers this correspondence, further speculation on the reasons of my expulsion may become unnecessary May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael Regarding Mr. Mckenny, I don't believe that his situation was due to participation on email lists or nets, but rather to information contained in his private correspondence with the Universal House of Justice. I therefore question why his situation is presented to "prove" censorship of cyberactivities. Sandy Fotos -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 1:57 AM To: sfotos@gol.com Cc: Bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; Talisman@umich.edu; Jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re Heresy, Reason 3 and Optimism In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Sandy, from Ottawa. Many thanks for your further comments on this topic. Firstly, the chief factual intent of my response to you was to counteract the suggestion from your post that there was some other content, unshared with these e-mail lists, but included in "private" correspondence of mine to the Universal House of Justice, and this unknown material explains the expulsion. As to me "trying to find out the real facts" of the expulsion, before entertaining thoughts on the matter, I have now written three letters to the Universal House of Justice concerning the reasons for my expulsion, and I am not the only one who has written. At present the information is that it had something to do with attitude and behaviour as demonstrated by correspondence. There is nothing in the correspondence to the Universal House of Justice you have not had the opportunity to read here, along with everyone else. I ought to make it clear that it is a fact that in May one of the members of one of these lists felt an e-mail message to the Universal House of Justice was the report by a snitch of that member's supposedly unorthodox views. It is a fact that I stated to the Universal House of Justice that I did not consider such a feeling accurate, and that I felt the existence of that feeling was proof we needed more clearly to appreciate the importance of the freedom of thought, understanding and expression contained fundamentally in the Baha'i Faith. I have to add that it was precisely because I did not have a negative attitude toward the Baha'i Faith, nor of its Institutions, including the Universal House of Justice, that I spoke my mind very freely, that I consulted with Auxiliary Board Member Mrs. Suzanne Tamas in January, and that I followed her suggestion and wrote completely openly to the Universal House of Justice. My intent stated openly on these lists, on which I invited anyone who wished to send any post soever of mine to the Universal House of Justice, was to demonstrate that there is freedom of thought, understanding and expression within the Baha'i Faith, and to show those presenting a vision of the tyrannical Rulers of the Faith to be wrong. I was aware of the quite powerful and beneficial energy latent within this Faith, and I had imbibed the Baha'i viewpoint of not seeing enemies, but only friends. And, I do not believe such a Baha'i view invalid, now that I am in a post-Baha'i state. In my opinion, there is no necessity for the Baha'i Faith to undergo a thousand years of pre-Baha'i attitudes concerning friends and foes, ins and outs, personalities and factions, nor all the methods of suppression and control which caused religion to be called "the opium of the people." I decided to act as if the Universal House of Justice were more advanced than that. My message to the Universal House of Justice on March 23rd was intended clearly to convey the information that there is no more important matter to move on to before addressing the necessity to follow fundamental Baha'i principle, and recognize that women have to be eligible for service to the Universal House of Justice. The persistence in current discriminatory policy is incompatible with the harmony of humanity. There are male chauvinists, and there are fundamentalists, and there are bigots, and there are martyrs with the spirit of self-sacrifice, soldiers in the army of light who can be counted on to accept anything at all. I think it is time these humbly accept they do not compose, and never will, the totality of the human spectrum. The majority of our population in the West, and especially our most progressive people, the ones most apt to accept the principles of the Baha'i Faith, as a block regard the Baha'i Faith as a hypocritical and false religion, when they learn of this discrimination, and it is, in my opinion not an appropriate Baha'i response, as one of my fundamentalist friends conveyed to me, to gleefully write off the West, and especially America, as expendable. I have encountered more prejudice against America on Baha'i cyberspace than I ever encountered from our most fervent Canadian nationalists. The exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice is a non-starter. It is unacceptable. It prevents the harmony of the species. It squanders all the good feeling people had for those obviously nice people being killed by Islamic fundamentalists. The blood of the martyrs in Iran has flowed for nothing, and the Most Great Peace is unattainable, until there are women on the Universal House of Justice. Or, the spiritual energy which led to the fall of the Berlin Wall can be transmuted to a prayer for the resumption of hostility, for some kind of Catastrophe to knock some of this modern nonsense out of American skulls and bring us in line with fundamentalist values of paternalism, patriarchy and a military style of life where the morality of the mature human being is summed up in the word, "Obedience." It takes a special brand of spiritual being to entertain such expectations, and pray such prayers. As to shooting the child, my assessment is that likely an interstellar observer, conscious of the history of this planet, and the vast potential for intolerant monotheism to impose such a male military mindset on the planet by such enervating means as Dr. Friberg's repetition ("repetition being a very sound way of influencing people's thinking") of the control mechanism that the world cannot be moved, that principle cannot be followed, that patriarchy is a given, that literalist fundementalism is the order of the millennium, would quite understandably recommend that civilized galactic society anticipate this planet becoming a hive of wasps, and to prepare to react accordingly, or even to take pre-emptive action. In my view, nothing more closely corresponds to shooting the child than for the persistence of hardline attitudes and an unwillingness to implement fundamental Baha'i principles. It should not be forgotten that often what is first argued to be necessary on the grounds of it being temporary, then becomes argued as being an unchangeable condition. It is a basic fact of life that there is change. Everything progress or declines. I am not negative. I believe humanity can progress. That optimistic attitude has been the major influence on my behaviour for all the time I have been here. I remain optimistic that those who are at present the Baha'i Patriarchs can overcome the weight of negativity represented by the energy-draining words of Dr. Friberg and resist the common corruption of power, emulate the Hands of the Cause and implement the Baha'i principles required for the blood of the martyrs of Persia to have any real meaning, for the true growth of the Tree of the Most Great Peace. It is a terribly challenging goal, a quite difficult test of ego. However, if the alternative is bashing America, contending with freedom of thought, conscience and expression, seeking to impose a single fundamentalist mindset on a species divinely endowed with such diversity that witch-finders, inquisitioners, gas chambers and gulags ultimately failed, and presenting your neighbours in space with a hive of wasps, then, perhaps, letting it be this generation that resolves to move the world will seem much more possible. Nothing worthwile, and in accord with fundamental Baha'i principle is impossible. All that is required is for knowledge, volition and action. Live Long and Prosper, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Quanta Dawn-Light[SMTP:quanta@mindspring.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 5:40 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca; Sandra Fotos Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Re Heresy and Reason For Expulsion 3 In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dearest Sandy, If, I am understanding you correctly you are putting the blame of the "politics of distrust" on the distrustees and not on the mistrusted ones in this case. Could you please give me fair examples why people should afford unconditional trust to the organizations you mention here? Trust is given based on the level of trustworthiness of any entity run by people, not demanded by authoritarian means. There are ample references in the Advent of Divine Justice which serve as a warning to the Baha'i Institutions in America, as to not to resemble the organizations of the past and present which cause the "politics of distrust" in the hearts of and minds of all people. love, quanta Sandy Fotos wrote: >(Stephen Freiberg) He talks > about the populist tradition, > > "which is strongly suspicious of all organizations, be it > banks, organized mercantile interests, government, or institutional > hierarchies of any kind. For example, the Catholic church with its > worldwide organizational structure is particularly distrusted. > American politics is now dominated by this type of very conservative > "politics of distrust." I think that this attitude is abundantly > apparent in many of the ways that some of the Baha'is address the > Baha'i institutions." - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 12:07 PM To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp; pierceed@csus.edu Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! In the Baha'i Studies List today: Well, this is impressive! Some really good posts from various *sides* on this issue. I think Quanta, Eric, Stephen, Auntie Sandy, Rick, Michael (of the Other) et al have all made brilliant points. I am proud to know and wrestle with all of you. I can understand, to a significant degree, Eric's frustration. I think he is correct when he discusses *mindsets*. The Guardian, no less, warned us repeatedly of our *conservative nature* of our being infected with the same *spiritual illness* that afflicts the larger American community, and what causes me the most anxiety, from Citadel of Faith, those *nefarious elements* seeking to undermine the Faith from within. There is little doubt that there is a mindset that will do everything possible to shut people up. If one does bring out well reasoned evidence of problems within the Community one is usually labeled a *disunifying* element, that one is being *negative* etc. Unity too often is synonymous with *uniformity*. It is easy to understand how this has come about - from our Christian background. the congregation doesn't make waves. Do so and you will be roundly shushed! and not invited to the next church social in the park. Where Eric and others of considerably more paranoic strain are incorrect though is to assign any of this to the Structure of the Faith. Now there is little doubt that as an organic structure it has a long way to grow. But the Structure, for all its beauty, must be peopled in order to function. If the people coming in are, to a large degree, dragging in the viruses of our society, whether of conservative or liberal nature, THAT is where we need to be looking, if we are to bring about an effectual cure. Our American Baha'i community has become increasingly *ill* because we have not followed the perscription laid down by the Guardian. We have been and continue to be incredibly insular. We talk a cute game about *entry by troops* and *preperation* etc, mimicking the Universal House of Justice, or whatever Counselor has recently come through town, but we immediately go back to the same insulating behavior. Like all good Americans (and especially Texans) we talk and talk and talk our way around the Reality of our situation. But we are to never glance toward the center, where it rests. We have done this for so long we have developed an amazing blindspot. Most of us can't even see it when it is pointed out. Seriously. Point out the history of the Cause in this country, compare this with the most blatant quotes from the Guardian concerning our Mission, and you will get a blank look from most. I have often wanted to simply give up on trying to convince the Community at large. I have been accused of every Baha'i crime in the book, right up to and allllmmmmoooost including being a cb. All from well-meaning yet ruthless Baha'is. Their ruthlessness came from fear. Wonderfully nasty letters filled with not one fact but a lot of alligations against me have been sent off to just about everyone/institution of merit. I could be bitter and angry about all this but why? We're dealing with a Community that is ill and feverish. Taking offense at the viciousness that has been directed toward me would be terribly immature and would not solve the problem. It is a frightened community. It knows, even in this fevered state, that something is terribly wrong, even though it is rarely spoken. So one must continue to try and engage the patient. If the patient can be fully engaged then it will be cured. You could hear this from Mr. Mitchell's talk which I have mentioned numerous times. The audiance was deathly quiet, not at all like they were a few days before with Dr, Khan. Mr. Mitchell asked, point blank, "Where is the Double Crusade??" Silence. This tape was SUPPOSED to be deliverd to every LSA in the US. I know of only ten people who have heard it. Even people in Wilmette know nothing of it. The patient clamps their mouth shut and refuses to take their medicine. Lastly, (I can hear Stephen esp. breathing a sigh of relief!) this is not an evolutionary process here that is being discussed. The organic growth of the Administrative Order and the Baha'i Community - yes. America's spiritual destiny, no. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 3:45 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: talk.religion.bahai I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 9:05 AM To: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! In the Baha'i Studies List today: Jim, Many thanks for your supportive comments. I have a huge workload right now (not that I'm any more coherent when I don't have a lot of work!), so excuse any shortness, disorganization or lack of clarity in my expressions. more... On 19 Sep 97 at 12:07, Alethinos@aol.com wrote: > Date sent: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:07:25 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alethinos@aol.com > To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp, pierceed@csus.edu > Copies to: talisman@umich.edu, bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! ... > I can understand, to a significant degree, Eric's frustration. I think he is > correct when he discusses *mindsets*. The Guardian, no less, warned us > repeatedly of our *conservative nature* of our being infected with the same > *spiritual illness* that afflicts the larger American community, and what > causes me the most anxiety, from Citadel of Faith, those *nefarious elements* > seeking to undermine the Faith from within. ... > There is little doubt that there is a mindset that will do everything > possible to shut people up. If one does bring out well reasoned evidence of > problems within the Community one is usually labeled a *disunifying* element, > that one is being *negative* etc. Unity too often is synonymous with > *uniformity*. It is easy to understand how this has come about - from our > Christian background. the congregation doesn't make waves. Do so and you will > be roundly shushed! and not invited to the next church social in the park. > > Where Eric and others of considerably more paranoic strain are incorrect > though is to assign any of this to the Structure of the Faith. Now there is > little doubt that as an organic structure it has a long way to grow. But the > Structure, for all its beauty, must be peopled in order to function. ... I agree almost completely Jim, and (at least in my mind) always have. I think you have a somewhat overly simple formula however. I am not a sociologist, but I think that there is a complex set of relationships between the community and institutions that need to be explicated for most of these discussions about "renewal" or "reforms" to begin to make much sense. In a nutshell, I am talking about a "culture of leadership" and a "culture of followers" where the lines are blurred, but an obvious tendency toward ritualistic privilege of hierarchy and elitism exists GENERALLY. Now, I think that it is quite possible for a legitimate (scripturally based) Baha'i viewpoint to exist that views radical egalitarianism, etc. with suspicion. That said, we also have to recognise the nefarious tendency of human beings to create articifial cultures of elitism within their organizational (sub)- cultures. As a side point, I would say that your idea that the Guardian's "nefarious elements" are the conservatives in the Baha'i community (and/or perhaps the its social/administrative heirarchy) is something that seems quite maverick. Perhaps it is the remnants of all that Baha'i brainwashing I was subjected to as a youth that prevent me from being able to fully embrace your idea! For the purposes of discussing the sociolological factors that relate to "reform" or "renewal" in the larger Baha'i (sub)culture I suggest that perhaps it might be useful to think in terms of a seperation of: 1) Baha'i institutional "structures" and the texts that define them 2) Baha'i leadership culture (bureaucracy) 3) Baha'i social/administrative hierarchy 4) Baha'i folk religion 5) Baha'i intellectual culture Of course that are many other elements and dynamics, but again, I'm no expert. In other words, there is a great deal of confusion of the institutional structures with the potentially flawed manner in which they are being operationalized. Thus many of the critics, and the critics of the critics are really incapable of breaking out of the wet bag that they feel so smothered by, and turn to self-blame and mutual vilification to express frustration. I guess that one of my main points is that by worshipping the culture of the hierarchy, its artificial elitism and rituals of privilege (which includes ritualistic and frequently pulic sacrifice of "the system's" victims), and equating this with a required "obedience" to the institutions is really quite quite unhealthy, immature and silly. On the topic of "renewal", you appear to be saying that the Guardian called for some sort of spiritual renewal in the wake of the first 20 or 30 years of the disappointing development of the american Baha'i community. This is what I would call a significant challenge to the hierarhical and artificially elitist elements in the culture of Baha'i bureaucracy. So, I guess we agree on the need for renewal. One posible area of disagreement is that I do not understand how we can get to a point where there is a better operationalization of institutional structures when dominant culture of the bureaucracy appears to be dead set on maintaining a largely closed (or at least highly limited) atmosphere of community discourse. How is it possible to see this as anything other than a mechanism of self-protection and corruption of proper electoral practice is puzzling to me. Which brings us to the issue of leadership and back to your main point. I would suggest that it isn't *just* the common/amalgamate Baha'i culture that has deficiencies, it is also the culture of leadership. In one sense they are the same, because the leadership arose from the entirety of the people. But wait! The bureaucracy and leadership culture also had/has a controlling role in how the process unfolds and the structures are, as you say, peopled. Adios, EP - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 4:18 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? Thanks, Ragna ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. ---------- I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes comes out. ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 4:55 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. Dear Robert, I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a group like BCCA is a blessing. John ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 5:07 PM To: pierceed@csus.edu; talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Fizzy Heresy and snappy reasoning...crack! In the Baha'i Studies List today: Oh I would agree whoelheartedly with your more specific assessment... I was simply giving an overview. Sure, the love of leadership, the desire to see the John Wayne up there on the big horse leading us on, telling us what to do, the manuavering by those who do thirst for leadership - good God you can see all of this. And it wouldn't be easy to root it out. I think that may be one reason we are seeing the UHJ implement the Regional Councels, etc. We get to see new faces, new ideas. But the answer lies in doing - DOING the vision of the Guardian. Thank God that the UHJ has left open the door to individual initiative!!! The group I work with is doing that now- here in Portland and on various Native American Reservations. And the results are dramatic. Just deepening people on these two areas: the real meaning of teaching and America's spiritual destiny seems to have a tremendous liberating affect on people. The only thing *radical* about it is that we dispel the Kitab-i-hearsay and strip some many of those overworked passages that everyone loves to quote at every deepening, feast, summer school etc. We present these deepenings with an eye to tearing away veils. Giving people the tools to help them do this. Helping them see the Big Picture and letting them find their part in it. But all that trouble I mentioned in my last post? All that stemmed from a few people that manipulated both a community and the members of the LSA *from* that community to accuse me, and a few others from our group of the most terrible *crimes* - without any proof. Of course after we pointed out to them that they really had no proof they realized there was no way to *do* anything, other than a tongue lashing of sorts. But the letter they wrote about me, where they had written in stone events that they themselves had *never* witnessed and had only the testimony of two emotionally unbalanced people who I might add have hastily left the country - the investigation that never including interviewing the dozens of people who know my very very well - my thoughts, etc and could have completely torn apart this testimony - all this because they have never wanted to hear what was being said. Fortunately the other parties that rec. the letter, the Aux. brd. etc., have pretty much dismissed it. We have the blessing and support of the Portland LSA and we are proving, via our actions, our character and our understanding of the Guardian. While it is critical to diagnose our problems so that we can correct them and move on, we also need to actually get back in the *game* so to speak. We need to see ALL of this in context of the Guardian's vision of America, because that is the only safeguard we have. We absolutely cannot go off down some liberal-democratic new ideology path in search of the Holy Grail. It will not work. Everything we need to *correct* our course can be found in the Guardian's writings about America and many of the letters from the UHJ. We need to form a critical mass and carry this out - not just talk, but do, as we are here. Our efforts, combined can begin to tear away the old mental template from the American Baha'is and replace it with the new Baha'i template. But soooo much of all this ugliness is because this community has been dead in the water for nearly fifty years. Things decay, get stinky and people turn ugly under such stagnant conditions. Time to blow a hole in the wall and clean it all out. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Graham Sorenson[SMTP:Graham@fragrant.demon.co.ukrotweiler] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 4:22 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer writes >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes >comes out. > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al #with all the attendent spams etc. > -- Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from my address. https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk ---------- From: haukness@tenet.edu[SMTP:haukness@tenet.edu] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 6:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai John B. Cornell wrote: > > Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > Dear Robert, > > I think all of us are appalled at the wild circus going on at > alt.religion.bahai. Baha'is who talk about complete freedom > learn from seeing alt.religion.bahai that reasonable control by a > group like BCCA is a blessing. > > John Allah-u-Abha Friends: I am waiting on the Baha'i scholarship freedom on Noble to sift down before I decide on jumping in or not. As Tom Hodges posted what is my inclination, that the topic is not suited for Noble and is better suited for a place like here as it is not a topic we need to air out with non-Baha'is. I see this as going back to Resurrection and Renewal, the MacEion sympathy bandwagon and talisman. The statements coming out of these 3 camps were as if written in stone, that only a few persecuted and enlightened scholars knew what true freedom is, and the Baha'i Administration and core of non-thinking blind followers thwarting freedom didn't respect free the study of concepts but got hung up on methods. I am waiting to see how this last round of who is anti and un scholarly and who is a bona-fide scholar. What I recognize is that the Baha'i Administration has a long history of surrounding itself with great scholarship, indeed represents the best of scholarship concepts and methods. There is only a rift, to those who I believe see the covenant a lot differenlty than did the Guardian. Now, there is always a lot of posts that no one can call anyone a covenant breaker. This is true, but there are, however well intentioned it may be, lot's of voices among us, I believe, who extend this to mean that we Baha'is cannot discuss the covenant. Which correlates to the current snides that have been taken the past 2 years that Adib Taherzadeh represents a case in point of non-scholarship, because he is just a follower and not independent enough in secular science, but then too, that one cannot write about what he titled his vol5 book, "The Covenant of Bahaullah," because 'no one can talk about this. The problem is, that this then means one cannot come to a conclusion that the problem sometimes, in some of this stuff, is that the Baha'i Covenant is not being taken into proper consideration in the summations bandied about. And if indeed the issue in some of the neo-Baha'i literature, voices in error because of a departure from the Sacred Writings, that it is not true scholarship, to ignore bringing the Covenant into the analysis of the discussion. Thus this is not the same or even allied with calling anyone a covenant breaker, but rather, that a paragraph or a sentence, when held up to analysis, can be found to be at variance with the Baha'i Covenant. If so, this can be important to point out. It is not just the Universal House of Justice which can discuss the nature of obedience, following, and intigrating the covenant, both when it happens and when it doesn't, it is also a topic open to all Baha'is. Thus when MacEoin does a 50/50 study of the Faith "Thge polarization of Azalis and Baha'is resulted in the rapid displacement of any serious alternative definition of Babi Orthodoxy." and "the sectarian biases of the 2 opposing groups," he fails to give us the information of why the reader should accept that the Babi's are as biased as their persecutors. and "doctrines may be reconstucted with out serious prejudice to either side of the dispute." more 50/50 suggesting both sides as equally causing the dispute, and MacEion's very casual description of the Bab "years he (no caps used) regarded himself as..." leaves us with an examlple of where, I think along with Abbas Amanat and talisman gives us this rift of dogmatic Baha'i scholarship, (my social group) and true free thinking new Baha'i scholarship. That we can see The Bab so casual like, does not impress me from a standpoint that it is something that I could never dream up, indeed, I was raised a Westerner where Rice and Weber portrayed Judas as the victem in Jesus Christ Superstar because he was the sane one, and Jesus was too radical, so I know all about scholars being cute. What I hope happens, is when we encounter each other, that we can quote what we feel is wrong and then the group of us can examine our quotes to see what indeed we have said and what indeed we have not said. Something the free thinking real scholars on talisman, from what I could see, could never do. To be revisited later. au revoir jh ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 1997 7:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: [Fwd: Re: talk.religion.bahai] Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Dear Friends: > > Once, when I was doing a search for some information related to the > Faith I came accross a list of this man's posts. Suffice it say that it > was very upsetting. I recently noted that some of his messages are > included in an anti-Baha'i web page put together by unfriendly Muslims. > It is very painful to see such hateful prejudice in our community. My > understanding is that Mr. Glaysher is a Baha'i in good standing. Does > anyone know him personally? Is he in need of some professional > counseling? My heart feels torn. I don't understand how a person in > their right mind, a lover of Baha'u'llah, can write such hurtful things. > I apologize if I am out of line. Is there a way that we can help him > heal? Am I engaging myself in gossip!? Forgive me if I am. > > Love, > Roxana > > Graham Sorenson wrote: > > > > In message <3.0.32.19970919144502.009151e0@persia.com>, Robert > > Moldenhauer writes > > >I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > >soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > >that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > >discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > >in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > >comes out. > > > > > >The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > > >created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > > >that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > > > > > Right it certainly has become what I feared.. Alt.rant.glaysher.et.al > > #with all the attendent spams etc. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from > > my address. > > https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk ---------- From: Michael R. Moum[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 1:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Ragna Jensen wrote: > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, don't bother. Baha'i Love, Mike > > Thanks, > Ragna > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > ---------- > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: J. Richard Hoff[SMTP:rhoff9@pipelinepc.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 10:43 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Reply J.Richard Hoff Thanks for the basic information. It is enlightening on this issue J.Richard Hoff ichael R. Moum wrote: > > Ragna Jensen wrote: > > > > For those of us that weren't here last time around...perhaps you can > > fill in details. Like who is Fred Glaysher? And what is CFV? > > CFV = Call For Votes. Basically, when someone proposes establishing a > new group on Usenet, talk.religion.baha'i, in this case, a CFV is issued > to see whether the group should be formed. Perhaps someone more > knowledgeable than I can fill in the details. > > Regarding Frederick Glaysher, visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of > his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, > don't bother. > > Baha'i Love, > Mike > > > > Thanks, > > Ragna > > ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. > > > > ---------- > > > > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > > comes out. > > -- > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 12:09 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Others have defined the terms here. So, I have read a good bit of what is on alt.religion.bahai. Not a pretty site but not as bad as I expected. Several Baha'is are participating regularly (Don, Chris, ...) and trying to guide some of the threads onto productive channels. 90-95% of the content is pure junk or pointless bickering that I am glad is not allowed on our moderated list. But I don't think much harm has resulted and some good has come of it. So it probably doesn't matter much whether it is approved or not. If disapproved, the alt newsgroup will continue. If talk.religion.bahai is approved, it will have wider circulation but with the same content as the alt. group and the alt. group may be abandonded (or maybe not). Tom Hodges On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > I see Fred Glaysher is proposing his newsgroup again. Last time it was > soundly defeated. However there was quite a flap over a retracted message > that urged voting against it *after* the CFV went out. If we are to > discuss voting against this group again, now is the time, while it's still > in the discussion stage, we must not discuss it after the call for votes > comes out. > > The best argument against talk.religion.bahai is the substitute group > created alt.religion.bahai, read the messages on this group and understand > that this is what the unmoderated talk.religion.bahai will be like. > > > > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 1997 6:25 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 9/20/97 1:11 AM In answer to your last message : >visit alt.religion.baha'i and read some of >his posts (if you have a strong stomach, that is). On second thought, >don't bother. Dear friends- I deleted the name of the writer referred to above for I don't wish to solicit negative feelings about him. My vote is to allow those who are on this alternative list to do what they want to do, I want no part of it. If we pay no attention to them they will lose whatever little energy they have. In thinking about all this my thoughts as always turn to the subject of purpose. What is their purpose in speaking the way they do? We know that reality consists of both what appears and and seen by our physical senses in addition to what underlies these appearances which is only observed by our spiritual powers of the intellect, faith, reason and intuition. So I say to myself, "what underlies the appearances of these words"?, in some of these negative postings on these unmoderated lists. Several reasons come to mind and none appear to be justified by any reasonable interpretation of the Writings regarding speech and the principles of consultation. I don't like thinking this way. I want to think of higher motives. So I allow mistakes, allow slips and even name-calling once in a while for we all make mistakes. But to see the same friends repeatedly using the same style of delivery, tone and sometimes abusive language tells me that there is an underlying problem in the writer. They say they want freedom of speech. Well, what about me? I need freedom too and I don't feel free to participate in conversations that are constantly bombarding my lower level sensations. It inhibits me and my heart feels hurt at these expressions of a distasteful and uncivilized nature. I think to myself, "do they really want my opinion in their search for truth and unity". If they did would they not be sensitive to my needs too? I am of theirs. How can either of us have true, open and honest freedom to express ourselves if we are reacting constantly out of our lower nature.? The Writings were given to us to free ourselves from the "satanic strength" of the lower nature and translate it into that "heavenly power" available to the soul. Why would we want to keep ourselves anchored down in the depths of the material self when it is so obvious that this will not solve our problems? Instead of criticizing moderation I praise us for having such a facility to act as a traffic cop and regulate the flow. If we really want unmoderated lists, and I believe we should have them, then lets demonstrate our spirituality and there will be no need for moferation. In the meantime until we are more developed I welcome the Moderators whom I found to be most cooperative and helpful. regards, doug ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 5:42 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: talk.religion.bahai Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the discussion. I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion group. I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the right word, being in there where the action is. So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for the Faith, please don't stop those who do. Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. Peace be to all of you, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 -- O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) For more information go to , or . ---------- From: John Bromberek[SMTP:johnb@ipa.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 2:41 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Friends, I have hesitated to weigh back in on this issue because I'm not sure I can trust myself to keep a level head, but here goes. First I will not vote on the question when the Call for Votes (CFV) is issued, nor will I discuss it with those who will want to have another knock-down-drag-out fight over it. I don't think that it concerns me. Alt.religion.bahai has indeed become what most people feared talk.religion.bahai might, only with a slightly smaller following than if it had come into being under the second name. Basically, it's a conversational sewer. (Oops! Gettin' emotional again...) What I see as the most unfortunate thing about all this is not so much the contributions of the "enemies of the Baha'is" (who feel that they are either Baha'is or friends of the Faith but just can't stand the Baha'is), or the "enemies of the Faith" (who are only doing what they think is right), or the covenant breakers, or the would-be Messiah's. I'm quite content to have all these people talk to one another, and I don't much care what they say, because they are so ill tempered and obnoxious that the general public isn't going to listen to them for very long, or give them much credence. No, the only problem I see are the few Baha'is who are staying on there and trying to "educate" these poor unfortunates, and thereby feeding them, and prolonging their rants. Yes, it is a very sad thing to see the occasional deer in the headlights phenomenon of an innocent seeker wandering into that forum, but we can help them more (if at all) with personal e-mail than trying to jump into the public fray on the newsgroup. Much care needs to be exercised even in that, though, since a lot of the participants have no regard for private communications. If you send something to them in confidence it is likely to end up copied to the newsgroup whether you want it there or not. So, my only plea is to leave them be. If they want their talk.religion.anti-bahai newsgroup, so be it. But let's see whether they can sustain any interest in it by themselves without this oppositional fertilization from other Baha'is. And, beyond that, just leave it to the Institutions. They are well aware of what's going on. John B. Fayetteville, Arkansas johnb@ipa.net ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 1997 11:40 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Thankyou Chris! You said all the things that I couldn't figure out how to say about unmoderated groups! Don't get me wrong everyone, I like soc.religion.bahai well enough but there has been more than a few times that my posts have been sent back to me because the moderaters felt they weren't conducive to the Baha'i Faith. I'm sorry but everything we deal with here in this world involves the faith. Normally the posts that the moderators have refused to put up have been with women's rights, history issues, racial issues and so forth that they thought wasn't in line with discussion the faith. And that just left me feeling very confused about the purpose of this news group. I don't post there anymore because of this. If I may say, the purpose of moderators (from my understanding) is to weed out the spamming and defamation posts. It is not the role of a moderator to send me back my posts just because they don't feel it goes along with the topic being discussed. I *feel* that it does. Shouldn't that be enough? Thoroughly frustrated, Roxanne risky@indy.net > Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > > I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the > impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the > discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about > individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the > Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of > prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the > discussion. > > I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB > (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. > At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time > I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days > there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and > insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded > to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers > withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers > which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In > fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion > group. > > I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts > and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven > where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We > cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding > school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the > critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up > with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh > world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our > beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of > satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the > right word, being in there where the action is. > > So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an > unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest > poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the > formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an > interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite > of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly > 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have > ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so > many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in > discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > > Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack > the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news > about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put > ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, > the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad > light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > > I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at > all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for > the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > > Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected > by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > > Peace be to all of you, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 > -- > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn > not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide > in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the > eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the > knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee > to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. > Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) > For more information go to , > or . > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 7:51 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 9/20/97 8:05 AM In answer to your last message : Dear friends- John makes a good point here IMO. I still wonder why it is that some people want to just say whatever comes into their mouths with no concern about anything. For example, having a discussion on infallibility is fine if it increases our understandings and appreciation for our Central Figures, etc. but why is it necessary to use ad hominum attacks, four letter words, or appeals to the baser nature? Or why is it necessary for those who feel they have some convincing evidence to make sweeping, authoritative conclusions about their evidence when in reality none of us really understands the reality of certain things, or anything for that mantter. Yet if one disagrees with these individuals who feel they are right in their conclusions then all manner of undesirable communications arise. And then they want to say that opposers are threatening their right to freedom of speech. There is a quote, and I don't have it at hand, about anyone who creates doubt in another soul. If I remember correctly this is a grave matter to say or do anything that might cause doubt in another heart. Can we really risk this kind of thing? regards, doug >Now I haven't seen research on this, it shouldn't make any difference as >to the strict definition of an un-moderated list, but my feeling, until >I see research that tells me otherwise, would be that the two above >lists would be very different, even though supposedly one can say >whatever they want to on either list. But as I have said, I don't >believe un-moderated means that one can say whatever they want to. Some >degree of integrity and truth is required where ever one is on earth. >Probably more truth and honesty required in the rural streets, and less >in the urban streets. ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:19 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is not. Nor is it's would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a perticularly pleasant place. On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. So I guess it's not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:36 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. I think I'll follow their lead. R ---------- From: rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil[SMTP:rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 1:20 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: talk.religion.bahai Excellent observation Robert. I'm right behind you. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Author: Ragna Jensen at SMTPLINK Date: 9/22/97 8:36 AM ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. I think I'll follow their lead. R ---------- From: Robert R Merriken[SMTP:rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 1:20 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: talk.religion.bahai Excellent observation Robert. I'm right behind you. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: talk.religion.bahai Author: Ragna Jensen at SMTPLINK Date: 9/22/97 8:36 AM ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. I think I'll follow their lead. R ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:11 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think > that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is logical to assume so. > It is not. > Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > pleasant place. That's what we discovered. > On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > So I guess it's > not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is bound to suffer. > I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups that affect the public image of the Faith. The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed supervision. 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our image when operated by someone out of control. We should worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a more visible newsgroup. John ---------- From: John Haukness[SMTP:haukness@tenet.edu] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 7:28 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Allah-u-Abha Friends: As I've said I am interested and like both moderated and unmoderated lists. William's comment at the end seems to be on target. Maybe we need two kinds of moderated lists. Along the lines William describes, the ones that weed out spamming and covenant breakers, (if we decide to have a list without them as I definately do, that is it is very important to me to be able to teach the faith without the company of covenant breakers). And then we can also have moderated lists where the moderators moderate to their hearts content, and maybe a list inbetween. But definately, a moderated list that minimally moderates can be very good to some of us. The price one pays for getting off topic, and repetitious and such, for some of us, is worth paying because for allowing those burdens, you also can get some gains, the biggest gain I can think of, is you don't get the rug pulled out from under you just when it get's interesting, or you really feel the need to defend and arguement and such. au revoir btw, I really like srb, this post is not aimed at them, it is aimed at my cyber surfing in general. > > Thankyou Chris! > > You said all the things that I couldn't figure out how to say about > unmoderated groups! Don't get me wrong everyone, I like soc.religion.bahai > well enough but there has been more than a few times that my posts have > been sent back to me because the moderaters felt they weren't conducive to > the Baha'i Faith. I'm sorry but everything we deal with here in this world > involves the faith. Normally the posts that the moderators have refused to > put up have been with women's rights, history issues, racial issues and so > forth that they thought wasn't in line with discussion the faith. And that > just left me feeling very confused about the purpose of this news group. I > don't post there anymore because of this. If I may say, the purpose of > moderators (from my understanding) is to weed out the spamming and > defamation posts. It is not the role of a moderator to send me back my > posts just because they don't feel it goes along with the topic being > discussed. I *feel* that it does. Shouldn't that be enough? > > Thoroughly frustrated, > Roxanne > risky@indy.net > > > Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > > > > I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the > > impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the > > discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about > > individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the > > Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of > > prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the > > discussion. > > > > I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB > > (alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. > > At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time > > I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days > > there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and > > insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded > > to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers > > withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers > > which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In > > fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion > > group. > > > > I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts > > and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven > > where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We > > cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding > > school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the > > critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up > > with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh > > world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our > > beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of > > satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the > > right word, being in there where the action is. > > > > So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an > > unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest > > poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the > > formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an > > interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite > > of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly > > 700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have > > ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so > > many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in > > discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > > > > Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack > > the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news > > about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put > > ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, > > the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad > > light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > > > > I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at > > all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for > > the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > > > > Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected > > by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > > > > Peace be to all of you, > > > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 > > -- > > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn > > not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide > > in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the > > eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the > > knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee > > to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. > > Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) > > For more information go to , > > or . > > ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 1997 8:08 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (fwd) Dear Doug, The issue I'm raising here isn't about Moderators doing their actual job, which they should be doing (i.e. weeding out defaming posts, spams, and those that are too base to let pass). What I'm concerned with and what has happened to me is that Moderators taking their jobs far beyond the firepit. Too many times they have sent me back my posts with the tag line that "It doesn't go along with the topic of discussion" or "We think this isn't appropriate to the conversation." Well hell. If I *didn't* think it mattered, then why did I bother to write it? Some people in Moderator Land need to be humbled. Roxanne risky@indy.net > Dear friends- > > John makes a good point here IMO. > > I still wonder why it is that some people want to just say whatever comes > into their mouths with no concern about anything. > > For example, having a discussion on infallibility is fine if it increases > our understandings and appreciation for our Central Figures, etc. but why > is it necessary to use ad hominum attacks, four letter words, or appeals > to the baser nature? Or why is it necessary for those who feel they have > some convincing evidence to make sweeping, authoritative conclusions > about their evidence when in reality none of us really understands the > reality of certain things, or anything for that mantter. Yet if one > disagrees with these individuals who feel they are right in their > conclusions then all manner of undesirable communications arise. And > then they want to say that opposers are threatening their right to > freedom of speech. > > There is a quote, and I don't have it at hand, about anyone who creates > doubt in another soul. If I remember correctly this is a grave matter to > say or do anything that might cause doubt in another heart. Can we > really risk this kind of thing? > > regards, > doug > > > > >Now I haven't seen research on this, it shouldn't make any difference as > >to the strict definition of an un-moderated list, but my feeling, until > >I see research that tells me otherwise, would be that the two above > >lists would be very different, even though supposedly one can say > >whatever they want to on either list. But as I have said, I don't > >believe un-moderated means that one can say whatever they want to. Some > >degree of integrity and truth is required where ever one is on earth. > >Probably more truth and honesty required in the rural streets, and less > >in the urban streets. > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 10:32 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai 9/21/97 6:41 PM In answer to your last message : Thank you John for so nicely echoing my sentiments although your descriptive phrases were a little more graphical than what I would have said and probably therefore would have more impact. I also have no objection to anyone forming any kind of group they wish and I feel no compelling urge to save any Baha'is or seekers from the kinds of damage discussions like this can do. My feeling is that no matter what we do we cannot keep a soul back from accepting His Lord. We might delay things maybe but in the end each soul that is earnestly seeking truth will find it, not because of us but more likely in spite of us. Personally I can overlook a few misgivings, miscommunications and emotional outburst that are very negative and undignified but we are talking about a continual pattern of a style of communication that makes it very difficult for anyone to investigate truth and reality. This is far more suppressive to me than what any well intentioned moderator might do to free speech, a term that I feel is highly misunderstood. Nobody on these lists can claim ignorance of acceptable and non-acceptable communication. If a person possesses a truth then there is no need for using any power but that of humility. regards, doug >Friends, > > I have hesitated to weigh back in on this issue because I'm not sure I >can trust myself to keep a level head, but here goes. > > First I will not vote on the question when the Call for Votes (CFV) is >issued, nor will I discuss it with those who will want to have another >knock-down-drag-out fight over it. I don't think that it concerns me. > > Alt.religion.bahai has indeed become what most people feared >talk.religion.bahai might, only with a slightly smaller following than if >it had come into being under the second name. Basically, it's a >conversational sewer. (Oops! Gettin' emotional again...) > > What I see as the most unfortunate thing about all this is not so much >the contributions of the "enemies of the Baha'is" (who feel that they are >either Baha'is or friends of the Faith but just can't stand the Baha'is), >or the "enemies of the Faith" (who are only doing what they think is >right), or the covenant breakers, or the would-be Messiah's. I'm quite >content to have all these people talk to one another, and I don't much care >what they say, because they are so ill tempered and obnoxious that the >general public isn't going to listen to them for very long, or give them >much credence. No, the only problem I see are the few Baha'is who are >staying on there and trying to "educate" these poor unfortunates, and >thereby feeding them, and prolonging their rants. > > Yes, it is a very sad thing to see the occasional deer in the headlights >phenomenon of an innocent seeker wandering into that forum, but we can help >them more (if at all) with personal e-mail than trying to jump into the >public fray on the newsgroup. Much care needs to be exercised even in >that, though, since a lot of the participants have no regard for private >communications. If you send something to them in confidence it is likely >to end up copied to the newsgroup whether you want it there or not. > > So, my only plea is to leave them be. If they want their >talk.religion.anti-bahai newsgroup, so be it. But let's see whether they >can sustain any interest in it by themselves without this oppositional >fertilization from other Baha'is. And, beyond that, just leave it to the >Institutions. They are well aware of what's going on. > >John B. > >Fayetteville, Arkansas >johnb@ipa.net > > > ---------- From: Rowe, Thomas[SMTP:trowe@uwsp.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 11:37 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Response to Frederic Glaysher Dear Mr. Glaysher: You wrote: >I note this morning a message, appended to the end >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I must assume from the way your post was constructed that you were referring to: > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > > First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > you to desist where that is not the case. > > Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > > We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. Query: In what way is this slander? If you did not do the act, then the accusation is libelous (you have to assume this is a printed medium). Theoretically, if harm accrues to your reputation by libel (or slander) you have legal recourse. Of course, if that was a private message directed to you by the coordinators, then by definition it cannot be libelous since you chose to make it public with your post. If the statement is true, (and I must admit from my own correspondence with you as well as reading your posts that I believe it) then also, by definition, there is no libel unless there is malicious intent. Frankly, sir, I do not understand you. When you consider the spam and tripe that gets posted on unmoderated lists, having moderation is a benefit, not a hinderence. I have several times posted to soc.rel.bahai where the moderators asked that I change something. So I did. My thoughts, only very slightly altered by context, were still published. Its not as if the moderators try to present a saccharin sweet version of Baha'i by not allowing negative posts - the only thing they control is temperate language, keeping discussion on topic, and eventually putting an end to a discussion when it becomes completely repetitious. Given that this avenue exists for non-Baha'i discussion, I fail to see any benefits to an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai, especially when you consider that an alt.religion.bahai does already exist. If that list is not as widely dispersed as is the talk... groups, well its sort of like saying I can have access to the local cable channel, but not access to the local broadcast channel to air my views. I have no false illusions that this message will cause you to reconsider your position. Nevertheless, I yield to the impulse to ask you to examine your own actions and words in as neutral a fashion as possible to determine if, just perhaps, all the negativity you feel directed at you is at least partly a function of your own actions and words. Please do not repost this on alt.religion.bahai. Thanks. Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu ************************************************* He is a true Baha'i who strives, by day and by night to progress and advance along the path of human endeavor. Abdu'l-Baha ************************************************ https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/bahai.htm (Pictures) ---------- From: Azzizz[SMTP:DrAzzizz@netgazer.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 12:39 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Friends, I personally do not care to have email from Mr. Glaysher or his colleagues in my mail box. Must we have this discussion here? To what end? All previous discussions with these people start off okay but quickly degenerate into hate-filled, frothing spume. Perhaps, these folks can discuss this with the National Spiritual Assembly of the country in which they reside, or, better yet, a directive could be obtained from the World Center. This would prevent a lot of bickering and provide an answer to these problems -- one which everyone bound to The Covenant will be happy to obey. Just a Suggestion, Azzizz ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 3:04 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 1) I'd like to add my two cents' worth on the talk.religion.bahai (TRB) discussion. For those of you who don't know me, I've been a contributor to both soc.religion.bahai (SRB) and alt.religion.bahai (ARB) -- SRB for approximately 3 years, ARB since its inception earlier this year. I won't deny that ARB can be a very wild place. It's true. The discussions there aren't always conducted in accordance with Baha'i ideals. There is more contention and strife than one would like. Threads crossposted from irrelevant newsgroups are frustrating, as are the cases of spamming that pop up. And yes, Covenant breakers do post occasionally. But given all of that, there are hopeful signs in ARB. As Chris Manvell pointed out, the Covenant breakers' postings have been routinely ignored (in fact, I've set up a filter on my news reader to block them from ever showing up on my system). Many participants try and conduct themselves according to Baha'i principles. Their examples stand out amidst the noise. They respond to attacks on the Faith in a courteous manner. They try to move the discussions away from name-calling and pointless bickering. Anchored in the Covenant, they withstand the attacks hurled against them (though they refrain from responding to posts from Covenant breakers). And the attackers have, for now, fled. Whenever I post there, I do so knowing that there are lurkers out there, who may be reading these posts but staying out of the discussion. I'm writing for their benefit as much as, if not more than, the benefit of the person to whom I'm responding. Sometimes, the discussion will get to a point where to continue it would be pointless. I have broken off several discussions that have reached that point. (continued in part 2) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 3:04 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Continued from part 1: Usenet voting process --------------------- I can sympathize with those of you who feel that TRB should be voted down because, being unmoderated and thus wide-open, its existence would harm the good name of the Faith. But according to the voting guidelines on Big 8 newsgroups (as I understand them), NO votes should be cast only on technical grounds (i.e., the group is poorly named, it's placed in the wrong hierarchy, there are problems with the charter, and so on). A dislike of the subject matter is not, in and of itself, a good reason to vote NO on a proposal. If one has no intention of reading the newsgroup, one should either vote ABSTAIN or refrain from voting at all. Also, if one does not have access to Usenet, then, IMHO, he/she should not participate in a Usenet vote. This process is showing some signs of weakness, as there is no means of enforcing the reasons for voting a particular way. It has become common for controversial proposals to be affected by politically motivated votes. Some cases in point: newsgroup proposals for soc.culture.kashmir (these may not be the exact newsgroup names, BTW) and rec.music.white-power. There's no mechanism to stop someone from voting NO because he/she doesn't like the subject. So how does this apply to TRB? Can TRB be defended? I believe it can, on the basis of improved propagation by going into a Big 8 hierarchy. There's also the argument of having a spillover group for discussions that are related to the Faith but stray too far from the SRB charter (a point brought up here on B-D). Would its defeat stop discussions about the Faith from taking place on other newsgroups? No, it wouldn't. Would its defeat prevent Covenant breakers from posting? No, it wouldn't (and they can be ignored in any case). Are there legitimate objections to TRB? From a newsgroup creation standpoint (technical considerations), I don't see any, IMHO. The name is OK; traffic levels have been demonstrated via ARB. As for the censorship argument put forward in the past, I personally don't agree with it, and I don't cite it as an argument in favor of TRB. Can the wisdom of creating the group be objected to? Yes, it can be, and it has been. Can one justify a NO vote by saying the charter is objectionable, in that the group does not fall under the auspices of the BCCA? Quite possibly. I don't know how the newsgroup experts would react to this. Feel free to develop this argument and introduce it into the discussion, if you wish. I may put forward some feelers on this in the current draft RFD discussion. BTW, I have asked Fred Glaysher to include a statement in the TRB charter stating that TRB is not endorsed by any Institution of the Faith. Conclusion ---------- It's not my place to tell anyone how he/she should vote. I've just presented my understanding of the voting guidelines. The rationale for Usenet voting does conflict with the spirit of Baha'i voting, IMHO. Which should take precedence? A non-Baha'i participant in ARB has said Usenet guidelines should take precedence. Each of us must make our own decision and act accordingly. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 4:24 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to Frederic Glaysher Rowe, Thomas wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher: > > You wrote: > > >I note this morning a message, appended to the end > >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable > >procedures of UseNet interest polling. > > I must assume from the way your post was constructed that you were > referring to: > [statement from the BCCA -- snipped for space] No, I believe he meant this message: ------------------------------------ Appended message follows: ---------------------------------------- >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 From: "John B. Cornell" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may think > that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. It is logical to assume so. > It is not. > Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > pleasant place. That's what we discovered. > On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > So I guess it's > not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is bound to suffer. > I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups that affect the public image of the Faith. The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed supervision. 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our image when operated by someone out of control. We should worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a more visible newsgroup. John ------------------------------------------------ Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 4:46 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: response to Frederick Glaysher (long) Dear Frederick: Up until now I have been deleting most of the messages about the proposed talk.religion.bahai listserve due to lack of interest on my part, but today, in response to your message (cited below) I will stick my toes in the water. I'll begin by putting all my cards on the table, so to speak, and then I will address some of your points in detail. So far as I know you are a Baha'i in good standing, so in doing this I hope you will find my tone is respectful (to which you are entitled), even while being candid (to which I am entitled). I'll tell you up front that I do not like the idea of talk.religion.bahai, simply because I don't value unmoderated forums of any kind. Just as I would not enjoy going to a large meeting in an auditorium where everyone was speaking at once, I don't enjoy listening to a cachopohny of voices on unmoderated forums. I can imagine the possibility of someday changing this opinion, but so far I have not encountered any evidence to make me do so. For the record, from my viewpoint, one piece of evidence that has been consistently lacking in all the discussion about talk.religion.bahai is a clear case for the need for it. Aside from the personal desire of some individuals like yourself who want an unmoderated forum, what problem does it solve such that it should be called into being? So far I just don't get it. I did vote against alt.religion.bahai the first time and unless I see a change in the tenor of discussion on both sides, I am likely to do so again when the CFV comes out anew. I have no heavy emotions invested in this, so if the opposing view carries the day, I'll just carry on with my daily activities as usual. What will be important is that my vote will have been counted. That is sufficient for me. Mr. Rowe has already posted an ample response concerning your claim of libel by the BCCA coordinating committee. I have nothing to add to that other than my agreement with his statement. But in your message below you criticize the Coordinating Committtee for maintaining Baha'i Discuss as a private list. I fail to see your line of reasoning. Are you advocating in favor of talk.religion.bahai or in opposition to privately maintained discussion forums? Do you think one has anything to do with the other? Do you think speaking ill of Baha'i Discuss will win you support for talk.religion.bahai? Here's an analogy: you decide to give a dinner party in your home. You make up the guest list - the people who will be members of your party gathering. You guests arrive and the dinner begins. Then other folks, not invited, show up and demand a seat at your table. Do you let them in? Let's be serious here. If you want talk.religion.bahai to be approved, I encourage you to stay on topic, and not confuse matters with unrelated issues. Please also try to characterize the opinions of others correctly (as specifically urged by Shoghi Effendi in the Advent of Divine Justice, p 27). For instance, you state below that those who oppose the proposed forum are suppressing your freedom of speech and expression of religious conscience. This is most unfair. First, I don't see you having any trouble expressing your views. You seem to be managing quite nicely. Second, those who oppose your view are not opposed to your freedom of expression, they are opposed to the specific proposal of the t.r.b. forum. Also, you quote a wonderful passage at the end of your message from the Master wherein he advocates freedom of religious expression. While the quote is wonderful indeed, it is, I am pointing out, not relevant to the topic of approving the unmoderated forum. No one is challenging your right of religious expression. If the forum is never approved your rights of expression remain as intact as they are today. Here is the core of it once again for your review: "Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable." (Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197.) Third, what about the rights of expression of those who oppose your view? If they don't want the forum, what's wrong with them saying so, and discussing it out in the open? Fourth, you seem to be operating from the premise that your religious conscience and freedom of speech is entirely at risk if the unmoderated forum is not approved. It is hard to take this level of emotionalism seriosuly. In any case, do you accept no constraints on your speech? The Universal House of Justice and the Guardian and the Master, whom you cited below, have been quite clear that human rights are understood in the context of the social order, and not as absolutes apart from it. If you are unclear about this I would encourage you to read the Universal House of Justice's relatively recent statement, "Individual Rights and Freedoms." I re-read it recently following a most illuminating discussion with one of the USA NSA members. It is most helpful. Further, even _IF_ your approach to freedom of speech were entirely formulated according to Western democratic values and were not informed at all by Baha'i principles, you must surely have noticed that even the U.S. Supreme Court, for the entire duration of its existence, has never referred to free speech as an absolute, but has always placed it within the constraints of the social order. Thus, from either perspective, Western secular or the Baha'i Faith, rights are always subjected to various forms of moderation by the larger social context. My conclusion: let's not confuse the issue by making more out of the discussion than it deserves, and let's not, any of us, play the role of injured party when all that's really going on is a lively discussion. As far as your concern about Mr. Towfiq's ill-advised announcement in the past round, there are a several points to be made. First, if thats the worst thing that ever happens to you, let me suggest that you have a marvelously charmed life. I don't mean to be insensitive, but surely you're a strong enough individual to get over it. With mankind's crying need to hear of Baha'u'llah's message, surely we can all sacrifice our personal concerns for those which more directly serve the Cause of God in this Day. Think of the Master's wise counsel: "When the most important work is before us, we must sometimes let go of the important." Second, if memory serves, Mr. Towfiq apologized for his ill-informed violation of the rules. Why not forgive him and move on? Especially since he apologized (but even if he hadn't), wouldn't that be the most Baha'i-like thing to do? Also, even if you decline to forgive him, when you complain today about what he did in the past, why not also be both gracious and fair and mention that he apologized for making a mistake? That would at least give your listeners both sides of the story. My own impression: omitting this fact does not help me to feel that the unmoderated forum will be conducted with genuine civility. Hey, this is just an observation - and I'm as entitled to my interpretation as you are to yours. Third, your anger at Mr. Towfiq appears based on an assumption which is unproven, namely that if he had not made his mistake that your side would have won in the past vote. You're free to beleive that if you wish, but in my mind that claim is not proven. Fourth, you mention that no one will tell you what forums Mr. Towfiq posted to. That seems irrelevant to me. But, if you want to know so badly why not just ask Mr. Towfiq directly. And if he declines to answer, what difference does it make? If you decide to forgive him, as I am urging you to do, this information becomes even less relevant. Fifth, win, lose or draw, that chapter is over. Even if Mr. Towfiq's behavior was "heinous", "dreadful", and "blameworthy" (its hard to say this with a straight face), what has that got to do with the present? To my knowledge he has not repeated the past actions. Why not deal with things as they actually are today, rather than constantly nursing old grudges? Frederick, I will say one thing in your favor. Of the few postings I have read about the talk.religion.bahai proposal, I have not been pleased with the tone of the messages on either side of the discussion. While people are speaking honestly, there appears to be so much raw emotion on both sides, that a respectful tone of voice and moderation of language seems to have been forgotten sometimes. I hope both sides will improve as it does no one any good to continue "poisoning the well" with uncivil expressions. Far better, is seems to me, for both sides to refrain from personal remarks and to focus directly on the issue on the table - namely, the pros and cons of talk.religion.bahai as an unmoderated forum. 'Abdu'l-Baha once wrote about consultation that the "shining spark of truth cometh forth from the clash of differing opinions." Notice the Master referred to the clash of opinions and not the clash of people. And he always urged the sharing of opinions and views with the utmost kindliness and respect. Finally, Frederick, since the messages you cited below mention your unauthorized posting of messages from private forums to public usenets, I wish to state formally and for the record that you do not have my permission to post any of my messages (public or private, and past, present, or future) to any other places of any kind. If you wish to do so you may write to me privately and ask my permission. Since I am not embarrassed by what I have written, if you extend to me that simple courtesy and give me a sensible reson why its a good idea, I may well be inclined to give you my permission, but I require being asked first. I hope someday we might have a chance to meet in person. It would be nice to get to know you better over a cup of coffee. In the mean time, I wish you well in your personal affairs and in your efforts to serve the Cause of Baha'u'llah. Respectfully yours, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu At 08:43 AM 09/23/97 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite >similar to the character assassination practiced on >soc.religion.bahai. > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and >pseudo-religious reasons. > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion >listserv to support such activities. > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to >form talk.religion.bahai? > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, >the God-given right of others to express their own religious >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. > >I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais >from doing so. > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth >with openness and freedom." > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > >---------- >> From: CC Secretary >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Cc: CC Mail >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM >> >> Dear Mr Glaysher >> >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. >> >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct >> you to desist where that is not the case. >> >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. >> >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. >> >> In His service >> >> Nick Sanders >> >> >> Nicholas J A Sanders >> _______________________ >> Secretary >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee >> > > >Appended message follows: >---------------------------------------- >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org >To: "Baha'i Discuss" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 >From: "John B. Cornell" > > >Message> > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may >think >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > It is logical to assume so. > >> It is not. >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly >> pleasant place. > > That's what we discovered. > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > >> So I guess it's >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is >bound to suffer. > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed >supervision. > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our >image when operated by someone out of control. We should >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a >more visible newsgroup. > > John > > > > Edward A. Price eprice@garnet.acns.fsu.edu ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 6:44 PM To: nineteen@door.net Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; jrcole@umich.edu Subject: Re Freedom of Conscience In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Richard, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for your words on freedom of conscience. You seem to be replying to a post by Juan which I have at best only scanned. Yet, I will try to speak to the points you have raised in the new positive spirit that appears to be developing on these lists. I believe there is a quote, more than one, about people going to extremes, about the Baha'i way being a balanced one, about the Golden Mean, and the Middle Path. Baha'is are not alone in this, as those very terms above indicate. The whole focus of so very much of human endeavour from Classical philosophy to Renaissance and later Qabalah to modern psychology is the attainment of "balance", the harmony of the centre away from the extremes. I would be astonished if anyone here would advocate anarchy. Someone spoke about freedom pertaining to the animal in a post that reminded me of a story I heard from my mother. When she was a girl there was a veteran of the First World War, shell-shocked and given to drink, unbalanced by that very disturbing Conflict, and he would argue with the police that surely he was as good as a dog, and had just as much right to water fire hydrants as they did. Perhaps, such a story will underline the fact that humans can try for loftier behaviour than animals. There are many examples, some very serious, which may be provided, and draw close to unanimous agreement that complete freedom is an extreme to be avoided. However, what seems very difficult for some people to see is that there are two extremes, two ditches at the edges of balanced highway of decent existence and true civilization. This is such a significant point, and the consequences to humanity have already been so severe that we do use accurately such words as extremist and fundamentalist to indicate those who advocate such imbalance. Of course there must be respect for authority. Of course the just laws of the governments ought to be obeyed. Of course, even decisions with which one does not agree should be upheld, if this is possible. One of the requirements of getting along is that we strive to allow the community to function, even when personally we are disadvantaged or in disagreement. However, this cannot allow any community or any individual of a community to insist each member of the community follow it into the ditch. There comes a point when one's obligation to decency, civilization and the community requires one to shout out that the vehicle is headed off the road. There comes a time when authority issues a command too immoral to be accepted. It has happened. It is possible that we are able calmly to have this conversation because when the Soviet authorities ordered the interception of the vehicle of the President of the Russian Federation and his arrest, the officer receiving the order did not drive into the ditch of all orders must be obeyed. If Juan found passages in the Writings to validate this officer's action, even had he been Baha'i, well, cheers for Juan. I feel that the fundamental Baha'i principles of the independant investigation of truth and universal education, along with the fact of the Revelation intending the maturity of the species sufficient, regardless of quotes, about which there may be various understandings, to confirm the responsibility of each individual human being to live an ethical and moral life. It is not my intent to be disrespectful to anyone. And it is necessary to communicate that we must avoid equally driving into the right hand ditch as the left hand one. The position that any order soever is to be obeyed is unacceptable. Perhaps It would have worked had there been an authority truly demonstrating, not just to the satisfaction of some people holding to literalist theory, but to the vast variety of humans judging actual decisions, including the unacceptable Baha'i discrimination against women, it can avoid intolerable decisions. We would not be engaged in this consultation were that the present fact. So, clearly, you are entitled to your opinion, and you are free to speak your mind. However, I also am free to speak mine. And my observation is that the Baha'i Faith is descending down the slope of the fundamentalist ditch. I am delighted for anything Juan has said which encourages a reversal of that direction. And I fully approve of anyone respectfully being able to convince the driver that some things are so intolerable as to erase all the words in the world advising obedience. In my view, discrimination against women is one of these things, and, indeed, it may be argued that attempting to wing it with a single gender is the reason the Faith is in the ditch. My deepest appreciation and respect to you and yours. Blessed Be, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Michael R. Moum[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 1997 8:54 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Roger Reini wrote: < most of Roger's post deleted> > ---------- > > It's not my place to tell anyone how he/she should vote. I've just > presented my understanding of the voting guidelines. The rationale for > Usenet voting does conflict with the spirit of Baha'i voting, IMHO. > Which should take precedence? A non-Baha'i participant in ARB has said > Usenet guidelines should take precedence. Each of us must make our own > decision and act accordingly. > In my mind, this is the crux of the issue. Baha'i consultation requires discussing the merits, or lack of same, of an issue. Usenet guidelines, if I understand them correctly, prohibit such discussion. Which takes precendence? It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to try to get the Usenet guidelines changed to allow discussion of and voting on the merits of a proposed newsgroup, rather than restricting them to purely technical questions. This is unlikely to happen in the near future, but might be worth pursuing as a long range goal. On the particular issue of TRB, part of me says that we ought to respect the established procedures of Usenet, and part of me says that we need to apply consultation to the question of the merits of TRB. In a word, I'm undecided. Baha'i Love, Mike -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: Nicholas Sanders[SMTP:cc-consult@bcca.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:55 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: BCCA Coordinating Committee Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr Glaysher The BCCA Co-ordinating Committee acknowledges your message, as quoted below. Please note that none of the points you raise, whatever their relative merits, addresses the two urgent issues to which we drew your attention in our earlier communication. Our consideration of your concerns will require a little time but I must re-emphasise our essential observations: no matter the rights or wrongs of your arguments, it is not acceptable to repost private postings to Usenet groups nor to publish the address of a private Baha'i email list in the same fora. I shall respond further to your message as soon as possible. In His service Nick Sanders ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ In a message logged 23/09/97 14:43 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this >matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand >my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of >action. > >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite >similar to the character assassination practiced on >soc.religion.bahai. > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and >pseudo-religious reasons. > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion >listserv to support such activities. > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to >form talk.religion.bahai? > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, >the God-given right of others to express their own religious >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. > >I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais >from doing so. > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth >with openness and freedom." > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > >---------- >> From: CC Secretary >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Cc: CC Mail >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM >> >> Dear Mr Glaysher >> >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. >> >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct >> you to desist where that is not the case. >> >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. >> >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. >> >> In His service >> >> Nick Sanders >> >> >> Nicholas J A Sanders >> _______________________ >> Secretary >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee >> > > >Appended message follows: >---------------------------------------- >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org >To: "Baha'i Discuss" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 >From: "John B. Cornell" > > >Message> > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may >think >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > It is logical to assume so. > >> It is not. >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly >> pleasant place. > > That's what we discovered. > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > >> So I guess it's >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is >bound to suffer. > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed >supervision. > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our >image when operated by someone out of control. We should >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a >more visible newsgroup. > > John > > ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 4:44 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) >Roger Reini wrote: > >> It's not my place to tell anyone how he/she should vote. I've just >> presented my understanding of the voting guidelines. The rationale for >> Usenet voting does conflict with the spirit of Baha'i voting, IMHO. >> Which should take precedence? A non-Baha'i participant in ARB has said >> Usenet guidelines should take precedence. Each of us must make our own >> decision and act accordingly. >> > >In my mind, this is the crux of the issue. Baha'i consultation requires >discussing the merits, or lack of same, of an issue. Usenet guidelines, >if I understand them correctly, prohibit such discussion. Which takes >precendence? Actually, as I understand it, Usenet guidelines encourage such discussion in the period between proposing a vote and the actual Call For Votes, but prohibit it during the actual vote-taking. The two are compatible. There's been 9 months of discussion on this topic already on many groups. Voluntarily pausing further public discussion here is probably the best course of action at this point, for many reasons -- not the least of which is preventing "flame-wars" of emotional and unkind things being said in haste. Wade ---------- From: The Deezer[SMTP:dwatts@primenet.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 9:41 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr. Glaysher and others, It appears, upon reading this post, that you have misdirected your correspondence. It is obvious, from the following snips, that you intended for your audience to be the BCCA, and not Bahai-Discuss, which naturally, would be most appropriate since you were responding to their letter, and since you have additionally asked for their response, a snip of which is also contained within this post. On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, >the God-given right of others to express their own religious >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: Here is the correct address, which was contained within the letter you received from them, along with a suggestion that you forward your original correspondence to them, for their action. Unfortunately, with respect to me, your appeal has fallen on deaf ears, as I am not a member of the Coordinating Committee. >> From: CC Secretary >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Cc: CC Mail >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM >> >> Nicholas J A Sanders >> _______________________ >> Secretary >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 12:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Cheryll & Wade Schuette wrote: > > >Roger Reini wrote: > > > >> It's not my place to tell anyone how he/she should vote. I've just > >> presented my understanding of the voting guidelines. The rationale for > >> Usenet voting does conflict with the spirit of Baha'i voting, IMHO. > >> Which should take precedence? A non-Baha'i participant in ARB has said > >> Usenet guidelines should take precedence. Each of us must make our own > >> decision and act accordingly. > >> > > > >In my mind, this is the crux of the issue. Baha'i consultation requires > >discussing the merits, or lack of same, of an issue. Usenet guidelines, > >if I understand them correctly, prohibit such discussion. Which takes > >precendence? > > Actually, as I understand it, Usenet guidelines encourage such discussion > in the period between proposing a vote and the actual Call For Votes, but > prohibit it during the actual vote-taking. The two are compatible. Yes, there is widespread discussion during the formal RFD process, and this does take place before the official Call For Votes (CFV). But I think the purpose of the discussion is to discuss technical issues (such as naming), issues with the charter, and whether or not there is sufficient interest in creating a group. > There's been 9 months of discussion on this topic already on many groups. It hasn't been constant during that time, IMHO; formal discussion in news.groups has been suspended for 6 months, as the voting process requires. That 6-month period is soon to expire, so the pre-discussion has begun to ramp up. > Voluntarily pausing further public discussion here is probably the best > course of action at this point, for many reasons -- not the least of > which is preventing "flame-wars" of emotional and unkind things being > said in haste. I'm not sure I agree. No, I don't want flame-wars. But I think it is helpful to have a place for a private discussion within the Baha'i community on TRB. For one thing, the discussion can cover areas other than the alleged "censorship" on SRB, such as newsgroup traffic. When alt.* groups have demonstrated high traffic and/or staying power in the past, there have been successful votes to move them into the Big 8 hierarchy, which potentially opens them up to sites which do not carry alt.* groups. This argument strikes me as less likely to become emotional than the "censorship" one. IMHO, good arguments can be made for TRB. At the same time, good arguments can be made against it. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: Renaldo Raeheim[SMTP:rraeheim@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 3:21 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai Dear Federick (& others), Since there are other lists (i.e., , ) that exist, and that those on Bahai-Discuss or free to subscribe to, there is NO need to create another list, or to change the format of Bahai-Discuss. your brother, Renaldo Raeheim Modesto, CA A believer in the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Religion, and the Oneness of Humanity. On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:43:10 -0400 "Frederick Glaysher" writes: >I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this >matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand >my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of >action. > >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite >similar to the character assassination practiced on >soc.religion.bahai. > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and >pseudo-religious reasons. > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion >listserv to support such activities. > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to >form talk.religion.bahai? > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, >the God-given right of others to express their own religious >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. > >I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais >from doing so. > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth >with openness and freedom." > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > >---------- >> From: CC Secretary >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Cc: CC Mail >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM >> >> Dear Mr Glaysher >> >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This >behaviour >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. >> >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted >to >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them >if >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must >instruct >> you to desist where that is not the case. >> >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership >of the > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have >availed >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the >Committee >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. >> >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. >> >> In His service >> >> Nick Sanders >> >> >> Nicholas J A Sanders >> _______________________ >> Secretary >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee >> > > >Appended message follows: >---------------------------------------- >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org >To: "Baha'i Discuss" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 >From: "John B. Cornell" Address> > > >Message> > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may >think >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > It is logical to assume so. > >> It is not. >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly >> pleasant place. > > That's what we discovered. > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > >> So I guess it's >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is >bound to suffer. > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do >the >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to >comment on >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to >individuals. >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual >assemblies. >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed >supervision. > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our >image when operated by someone out of control. We should >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a >more visible newsgroup. > > John > > > ---------- From: Don R. Calkins[SMTP:drc@commonlink.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 11:48 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) On 9/24/97 at 8:44 AM, Cheryll & Wade Schuette wrote: C&WS> Usenet guidelines encourage such discussion C&WS> in the period between proposing a vote and the actual Call For C&WS> Votes, but prohibit it during the actual vote-taking. Can anyone find any documentation for such a prohibition other then in Mr. Glaysher's posts? I can't. Don C - via BulkRate 2.1 ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 7:13 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Subversion of the UseNet voting system ---------- > From: Nicholas Sanders > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: BCCA Coordinating Committee > Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:55 AM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The BCCA Co-ordinating Committee acknowledges your message, as quoted > below. Please note that none of the points you raise, whatever their > relative merits, addresses the two urgent issues to which we drew your > attention in our earlier communication. Our consideration of your > concerns will require a little time but I must re-emphasise our essential > observations: no matter the rights or wrongs of your arguments, it is not > acceptable to repost private postings to Usenet groups nor to publish the > address of a private Baha'i email list in the same fora. As I mentioned in my first message, I too share these concerns, while I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... Please address that concern as soon as possible. In the hope that you will take positive action to protect UseNet abuse from undermining the second vote on talk.religion.bahai, I will refrain from reposting other messages until I hear from you again. Let me point out that at least a dozen other messages calculating opposing the usual method of UseNet voting on talk.religion.bahai have appeared during the last two days on Bahai-Discuss. > > I shall respond further to your message as soon as possible. > > In His service > > Nick Sanders > > ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ > In a message logged 23/09/97 14:43 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this > >matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand > >my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of > >action. > > > >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an > >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and > >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and > >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the > >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only > >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, > >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning > >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end > >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable > >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > > > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, > >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite > >similar to the character assassination practiced on > >soc.religion.bahai. > > > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to > >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other > >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and > >pseudo-religious reasons. > > > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion > >listserv to support such activities. > > > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, > >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of > >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? > >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the > >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to > >form talk.religion.bahai? > > > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, > >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, > >the God-given right of others to express their own religious > >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? > >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without > >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally > >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and > >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter > >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a > >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems > >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > > > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, > >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of > >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against > >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been > >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > > > >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you > >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all > >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes > >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. > > > >I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack > >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be > >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais > >from doing so. > > > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by > >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > > > >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise > >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational > >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious > >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious > >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the > >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the > >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted > >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between > >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an > >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and > >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought > >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. > >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of > >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is > >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may > >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are > >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit > >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth > >with openness and freedom." > > > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > > > > > > >---------- > >> From: CC Secretary > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > >> Cc: CC Mail > >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss > >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM > >> > >> Dear Mr Glaysher > >> > >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > >> > >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > >> you to desist where that is not the case. > >> > >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > > > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > >> > >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. > >> > >> In His service > >> > >> Nick Sanders > >> > >> > >> Nicholas J A Sanders > >> _______________________ > >> Secretary > >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee > >> > > > > > >Appended message follows: > >---------------------------------------- > >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 > >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT > >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org > >To: "Baha'i Discuss" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 > >From: "John B. Cornell" > > > > > > >Message> > > > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may > >think > >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > > > It is logical to assume so. > > > >> It is not. > >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > >> pleasant place. > > > > That's what we discovered. > > > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not > >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an > >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of > >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > > > >> So I guess it's > >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is > >bound to suffer. > > > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. > >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not > >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. > >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups > >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy > >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with > >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group > >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. > >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed > >supervision. > > > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting > >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and > >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently > >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do > >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an > >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our > >image when operated by someone out of control. We should > >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a > >more visible newsgroup. > > > > John > > > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 7:13 AM To: BCCA CC; Bahai Discuss; Bahai Studies Subject: Subversion of the UseNet voting system ---------- > From: Nicholas Sanders > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: BCCA Coordinating Committee > Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:55 AM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The BCCA Co-ordinating Committee acknowledges your message, as quoted > below. Please note that none of the points you raise, whatever their > relative merits, addresses the two urgent issues to which we drew your > attention in our earlier communication. Our consideration of your > concerns will require a little time but I must re-emphasise our essential > observations: no matter the rights or wrongs of your arguments, it is not > acceptable to repost private postings to Usenet groups nor to publish the > address of a private Baha'i email list in the same fora. As I mentioned in my first message, I too share these concerns, while I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... Please address that concern as soon as possible. In the hope that you will take positive action to protect UseNet abuse from undermining the second vote on talk.religion.bahai, I will refrain from reposting other messages until I hear from you again. Let me point out that at least a dozen other messages calculating opposing the usual method of UseNet voting on talk.religion.bahai have appeared during the last two days on Bahai-Discuss. > > I shall respond further to your message as soon as possible. > > In His service > > Nick Sanders > > ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ > In a message logged 23/09/97 14:43 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this > >matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand > >my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of > >action. > > > >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an > >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and > >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and > >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the > >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only > >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, > >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning > >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end > >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable > >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > > > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, > >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite > >similar to the character assassination practiced on > >soc.religion.bahai. > > > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to > >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other > >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and > >pseudo-religious reasons. > > > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion > >listserv to support such activities. > > > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, > >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of > >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? > >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the > >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to > >form talk.religion.bahai? > > > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, > >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, > >the God-given right of others to express their own religious > >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? > >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without > >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally > >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and > >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter > >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a > >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems > >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > > > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, > >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of > >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against > >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been > >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > > > >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you > >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all > >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes > >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. > > > >I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack > >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be > >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais > >from doing so. > > > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by > >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > > > >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise > >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational > >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious > >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious > >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the > >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the > >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted > >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between > >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an > >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and > >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought > >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. > >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of > >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is > >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may > >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are > >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit > >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth > >with openness and freedom." > > > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > > > > > > >---------- > >> From: CC Secretary > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > >> Cc: CC Mail > >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss > >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM > >> > >> Dear Mr Glaysher > >> > >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > >> > >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > >> you to desist where that is not the case. > >> > >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > > > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > >> > >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. > >> > >> In His service > >> > >> Nick Sanders > >> > >> > >> Nicholas J A Sanders > >> _______________________ > >> Secretary > >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee > >> > > > > > >Appended message follows: > >---------------------------------------- > >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 > >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT > >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org > >To: "Baha'i Discuss" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 > >From: "John B. Cornell" > > > > > > >Message> > > > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may > >think > >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > > > It is logical to assume so. > > > >> It is not. > >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > >> pleasant place. > > > > That's what we discovered. > > > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not > >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an > >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of > >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > > > >> So I guess it's > >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is > >bound to suffer. > > > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. > >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not > >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. > >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups > >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy > >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with > >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group > >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. > >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed > >supervision. > > > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting > >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and > >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently > >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do > >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an > >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our > >image when operated by someone out of control. We should > >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a > >more visible newsgroup. > > > > John > > > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 7:13 AM To: BCCA CC; Bahai Discuss; Bahai Studies Subject: Subversion of the UseNet voting system In the Baha'i Studies List today: ---------- > From: Nicholas Sanders > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: BCCA Coordinating Committee > Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 1:55 AM > > Dear Mr Glaysher > > The BCCA Co-ordinating Committee acknowledges your message, as quoted > below. Please note that none of the points you raise, whatever their > relative merits, addresses the two urgent issues to which we drew your > attention in our earlier communication. Our consideration of your > concerns will require a little time but I must re-emphasise our essential > observations: no matter the rights or wrongs of your arguments, it is not > acceptable to repost private postings to Usenet groups nor to publish the > address of a private Baha'i email list in the same fora. As I mentioned in my first message, I too share these concerns, while I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... Please address that concern as soon as possible. In the hope that you will take positive action to protect UseNet abuse from undermining the second vote on talk.religion.bahai, I will refrain from reposting other messages until I hear from you again. Let me point out that at least a dozen other messages calculating opposing the usual method of UseNet voting on talk.religion.bahai have appeared during the last two days on Bahai-Discuss. > > I shall respond further to your message as soon as possible. > > In His service > > Nick Sanders > > ____________________ Reply Separator ____________________ > In a message logged 23/09/97 14:43 Gudhjem Time, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >I appreciate your concerns. I hope we can work together on this > >matter. Let me state first my concerns so that you understand > >my thinking and then perhaps we can agree on a course of > >action. > > > >During the first vote for talk.religion.bahai this spring, an > >individual Bahai, Mark Towfiq, posted instructions on why and > >how to vote NO on the proposal to the women's listserv and > >reportedly to two other Bahai listservs. No Bahai has had the > >honesty to reveal which listservs those were. I can only > >assume that Bahai-discuss may have been one of them, > >given the tenor of the discussion that is already beginning > >to develop it. I note this morning a message, appended to the end > >of this one, calculated to violate the usual and acceptable > >procedures of UseNet interest polling. I > > > >Further, I have been personally slandered on Bahai-discuss, > >both as an individual and as a Bahai, in a manner quite > >similar to the character assassination practiced on > >soc.religion.bahai. > > > >I also append the two installments of messages I have posted to > >alt.religion.bahai and elsewhere so that you might review the other > >messages urging Bahais to vote NO for ideological and > >pseudo-religious reasons. > > > >I don't believe it is an appropriate use of a Bahai discussion > >listserv to support such activities. > > > >As a the Coordinating Committee for Bahai-discuss, > >did you witness and permit the posting by Mark Towfiq of > >his NO vote campaign message? Did you support him? > >Do or will you support other such attempts to overwhelm the > >voting process with NO votes during this second attempt to > >form talk.religion.bahai? > > > >Please explain for me why you find it permissible, if you do, > >for Bahais to attack, in the secrecy and privacy of Bahai-discuss, > >the God-given right of others to express their own religious > >conscience and free speech and to scheme for the defeat of trb? > >You mention some Bahais want such acts to take place without > >non-Bahais seeing it. I find that statement perplexing and morally > >confused since it seems to justify the denial of many Bahais and > >non-Bahais of their right to establish a newsgroup free of the voter > >distortion that occurred last time. I believe it is your duty as a > >Coordinating Committee to expose and denounce such stratagems > >instead of asking me to allow them to continue unabated. > > > >I am baffled by your lack of concern for the headache, if you will, > >created for me and 156+ Bahais and non-Bahais by the use of > >Bahai-discuss and other listservs to marshall NO votes against > >talk.religion.bahai before the second proposal has even yet been > >presented to the group-mentors for their advice. > > > >I trust you will consult and reflect on the seriousness of what you > >are permitting Bahais to use Bahai-discuss for and counsel all > >those subscribed to your listserv to show respect for the wishes > >of others to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith. > > > >I will be happy to refrain from reposting messages that attack > >the forming of talk.religion.bahai if you can assure me it won't be > >necessary since you will not allow or support misguided Bahais > >from doing so. > > > >I ask you to read prayerfully and meditate long on this passage by > >Abdu'l-Baha before beginning your deliberations: > > > >"This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise > >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational > >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious > >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious > >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the > >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the > >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted > >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between > >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an > >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and > >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought > >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. > >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of > >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is > >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may > >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are > >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit > >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth > >with openness and freedom." > > > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > > > > > > > > >---------- > >> From: CC Secretary > >> To: Frederick Glaysher > >> Cc: CC Mail > >> Subject: Baha'i Discuss > >> Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 4:22 PM > >> > >> Dear Mr Glaysher > >> > >> The Co-ordinating Committee has been made aware that you have been > >> posting extracts from mail to Baha'i Discuss to one or more Usenet > >> groups, with the email address of the said list included. This behaviour > >> must be seen as quite unacceptable for two reasons. > >> > >> First, it is a violation of the privacy of Baha'is who have posted to > >> Discuss in the belief that their messages will only be seen by other > >> Baha'is. Naturally, there can be no objection to your reposting them if > >> you have obtained the original sender's permission but we must instruct > >> you to desist where that is not the case. > >> > >> Secondly, and even worse, you have now disclosed the address of a > >> Baha'is-only list to Net users who are not qualified by membership of the > > > >> Faith to participate. It is presently unclear whether any have availed > >> themselves of the opportunity with which you have so thoughtlessly > >> presented them but, in any case, you have also presented the Committee > >> with a completely unnnecessary and unlooked for headache. > >> > >> We trust that you will desist from this behaviour forthwith. > >> > >> In His service > >> > >> Nick Sanders > >> > >> > >> Nicholas J A Sanders > >> _______________________ > >> Secretary > >> BCCA Co-ordinating Committee > >> > > > > > >Appended message follows: > >---------------------------------------- > >>From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Mon Sep 22 13:23:32 1997 > >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > > id m0xDErq-0003rnC; Mon, 22 Sep 97 16:14 EDT > >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org > >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org > >To: "Baha'i Discuss" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >References: <3.0.32.19970922101903.00915620@persia.com> > >Mime-Version: 1.0 > >Message-Id: <3426D0FD.3FF520AA@lightspeed.net> > >Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai > >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (WinNT; I) > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:11:41 -0700 > >From: "John B. Cornell" > > > > > > >Message> > > > >Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > > >> My reason for bringing this up is that when the CFV occurs, some may > >think > >> that talk.bahai.religion is sponsored by Baha'i institutions. > > > > It is logical to assume so. > > > >> It is not. > >> Nor is its would be predecessor (alt.religion.bahai) a particularly > >> pleasant place. > > > > That's what we discovered. > > > >> On the other hand, the continual attacks on the Faith that come with > >> alt.religion.bahai don't seem to have much effect either. > > > > How do you measure harm, Robert? By whether or not > >the House of Worship is blown up? The mere fact that an > >uncontrolled newsgroup makes us appear to be a bunch of > >crazies does no harm? It doesn't help our public image! > > > >> So I guess it's > >> not the end of the world if talk.religion.bahai gets approved... > > > > Not the end of the world, but the Faith's reputation is > >bound to suffer. > > > >> I intend to vote no on "talk.religion.bahai" and urge others to do the > >> same, but I must say that the Institutions have chosen not to comment on > >> the group, so there is *no* official Baha'i position on the vote. > > > > Institutions are wise to leave individual decisions to individuals. > >Voting is the responsibility of individuals. For example, it is not > >the role of institutions to tell us whom to elect to spiritual assemblies. > >I think as Baha'is we have a responsibility to vote on newsgroups > >that affect the public image of the Faith. > > > > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy > >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with > >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group > >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. > >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed > >supervision. > > > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting > >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and > >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently > >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do > >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an > >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our > >image when operated by someone out of control. We should > >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a > >more visible newsgroup. > > > > John > > > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 8:14 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: T.R.B. discussion on news.groups FYI -- You may want to check news.groups for the news.groups guru's responses (and my replies) to the argument I set forth -- namely, whether or not lack of any mention BCCA supervision of a newsgroup in the newsgroup's charter is a justifiable reason for voting against it. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Don R. Calkins[SMTP:drc@commonlink.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 8:32 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system On 9/25/97 at 11:13 AM, Frederick Glaysher wrote: FG> I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted FG> UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... Fred - I can find no support for this claim. The first time I saw these ideas raised was by you. Can you give a URL for a FAQ or other formal statement to support your opinions? Everything I have been able to find states only that an adequate period for discussion must be allowed prior to the CFV. I can find nothing that states that no further discussion is permitted after the CFV. If your position were correct, then an individual who comes on-line coincident with the call for votes would be prohibited from learning the reasons for and against the proposal. Further, the fact that something is not explicitly authorized does not mean that it is implicitly prohibited. While this may be SOP in the Faith, it certainly is not typical of America, and is generally contrary to British and American common law. I find no support for the idea that only technical reasons can be the basis for denying a new UseNet group. While this did tend to be true prior to public access to the internet, such a policy rapidly broke down long ago. Ideological campaigning for and against some proposals has become quite popular in the last 3 years or so, some of it far more vicious than anything related to your propsosal. Such tactics have been repeatedly used against proposals for controversial UseNet groups and have included massive mis-information campaigns. In no case that I am aware of has a vote been voided on this basis. You have repeatly raised these issues on groups devoted to discussion of new groups and of the UseNet, and I have not seen any evidence of support from participants on them. So far as I can tell, the primary effect of your efforts has been to alienate many of those who might normally be considered your supporters. Don C - via BulkRate 2.1 ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 2:17 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Friends, There won't be any "private" discussion of t.r.b here since the person promoting the new newsgroup has been posting many or most posts on the subject from here to alt.religion.bahai and several other newsgroups. Tom Hodges On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Roger Reini wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree. No, I don't want flame-wars. But I think it is > helpful to have a place for a private discussion within the Baha'i > community on TRB. For one thing, the discussion can cover areas other > than the alleged "censorship" on SRB, such as newsgroup traffic. When > alt.* groups have demonstrated high traffic and/or staying power in the > past, there have been successful votes to move them into the Big 8 > hierarchy, which potentially opens them up to sites which do not carry > alt.* groups. This argument strikes me as less likely to become > emotional than the "censorship" one. > > IMHO, good arguments can be made for TRB. At the same time, good > arguments can be made against it. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ > > ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 7:53 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Dear Tom, In my opinion, all the more reason to deny someone who has so little respect for the privacy rights of others of his faith the soapbox that he is so obviously longing to mount. One thing we do not need in the Faith is demagogues. But at the same time, if he or anyone else wants to confront me and has the intestinal fortitude, let him or them come on. I'll deal with all comers. Much love to Baha'i-discuss readers, Nancy D. On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Tom Hodges writes: >Friends, >There won't be any "private" discussion of t.r.b here since the person >promoting the new newsgroup has been posting many or most posts on >the subject from here to alt.religion.bahai and several other >newsgroups. > >Tom Hodges > >On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Roger Reini wrote: > >> >> I'm not sure I agree. No, I don't want flame-wars. But I think it >is >> helpful to have a place for a private discussion within the Baha'i >> community on TRB. For one thing, the discussion can cover areas >other >> than the alleged "censorship" on SRB, such as newsgroup traffic. >When >> alt.* groups have demonstrated high traffic and/or staying power in >the >> past, there have been successful votes to move them into the Big 8 >> hierarchy, which potentially opens them up to sites which do not >carry >> alt.* groups. This argument strikes me as less likely to become >> emotional than the "censorship" one. >> >> IMHO, good arguments can be made for TRB. At the same time, good >> arguments can be made against it. >> >> Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >> https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ >> >> > > ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 11:03 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Priority; re Forthcoming UHJ Letter In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Catherine Woodgold, a non-Baha'i very close to me, who sent an e-mail message to the Universal House of Justice concerning my being advised that I may not be considered a member of the Baha'i community has received a reply from the Universal House of Justice, sent me a copy and given permission that I share this correspondence. Inasmuch as I feel it not impossible that some readers of the reply from the Universal House of Justice will derive a perception that in general fundamentalism is being defined as the Baha'i Faith and in general those who are not fundamentalists are being defined as non-Baha'is, I am first posting this note emphatically urging a restrained and balanced reading of the letter in context. Very strenuously do I suggest that this is a reference to a specific individual, one who sincerely feels it very important to his personal spiritual development to tread the pagan path exploring the benefits there to humanity. Most ardently do I call on those reading the reply from the Universal House of Justice to avoid any rash actions. Let there be no heated words directed at the Universal House of Justice, and especially let there be no further resignations from the Baha'i Faith. It has always been my position that harmony is not advanced through resignation of membership. If harmony is important to you, take the time to reflect cooly on the actual words of this message, realizing their context. In the hope of increasing the possibility of a beneficial reaction to this material, I will likely wait until tomorrow before posting it. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 6:25 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Thu Sep 25 10:55:21 1997 >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > id m0xEI2g-0003slC; Thu, 25 Sep 97 13:49 EDT >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org >To: "Baha'i Discuss" >Message-Id: <46923774.10305777@commonlink.com> >Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system >Reply-To: drc@commonlink.com >Organization: Common Link On-Line service >From: drc@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins) >Date: 25 Sep 1997 12:32:57 GMT > >On 9/25/97 at 11:13 AM, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >FG> I am more concerned with the subversion of the commonly accepted >FG> UseNet voting system by Bahais on Bahai-Discuss.... > >Fred - >I can find no support for this claim. The first time I saw these ideas >raised was by you. Can you give a URL for a FAQ or other formal statement to >support your opinions? I enclose the most widely recognized statement on UseNet voting.... ------------------------------- >From joe@sfbooks.com Thu Feb 13 14:10:52 1997 Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Canonical Reasons for Voting (it's back :-( (wasRe: Information on the upcoming CFV)) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:10:52 -0600 Posted and e-mailed. In article <01bc18a5$2f907cc0$299e34ce@rickboat>, "Rick Boatright" wrote: >What Dick tried to do >in his post was extract for the benefit of the SRB readers who either can >not (no usenet access, they get SRB via an email echo) or will not (time, >whatever) read news.groups but who have been seeing a good bit of cross >posts in SRB about the TRB proposal, just what the moderators have learned >from OUR reading of news.groups. Um, I would personally really appreciate it if you would strongly discourage people without Usenet access from voting on Usenet newsgroups... >And since none of the news.groups regulars have been willing to write a >"how news.groups people view the voting process" faq, In case I wasn't clear enough... I wrote that several months ago, based on prior posts of mine. I posted it about three times, asking for comments. Then I decided it needed another section, and a revision to remove some of the more technical reasons that (in my view) should not be used by people unfamiliar with the topic anyway, so I stopped posting it. Since then, I've been distracted by (among other things) other FAQs; and it's become steadily clearer to me that the bona fide *rules* of the voting process are a great deal more fluid and less obvious to me than I'd thought. (In looking at my summary of them in early October for participants in a debate I was in, I find that indeed I had some errors. Not reposting that part. Really wish someone from UVV would write it.) But what the heck. I might as well go through this again... So here's the "Reasons for Voting" part... just as I then posted it. Joe Bernstein CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals You have four available vote options on any given Usenet newsgroup proposal. These are YES, NO, ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. A CANCEL vote is meaningless unless you've already voted some other way (its effect then is to get rid of that vote). An ABSTAIN vote is meaningless in practical terms, but a few people cast ABSTAIN votes anyway, for various reasons. There are very few reasons to cast YES or NO votes which are recognised as legitimate. The main purpose of a Usenet newsgroup proposal vote is to determine whether there are enough Usenet users who are interested in reading the group; that's the principal reason for YES votes to exist. The subsidiary purpose of the vote is to keep bad proposals from being enacted; that's the principal reason for NO votes to exist. There are a few other reasons which are widely but not universally accepted. Nobody enforces the following rules. But if you vote YES disregarding them, you're asking system administrators worldwide to take up disk space, etc. for a group they maybe shouldn't. And if you vote NO disregarding these rules, you're asking system administrators to stifle other people's use of Usenet. Neither of these moves is in the best spirit of Usenet. Reasons for YES votes: 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. In more detail, 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. The most obvious case of this is if the proposal creates a new group that you want to read. (Similarly, if it moderates or unmoderates a group you already read, and you agree with that move.) However, there are plenty of other cases too. A proposal might create a new group, thus removing traffic you're not interested in from a busy group you *do* read, or maybe just getting rid of flamewars there. For that matter, the proposal might reduce traffic on a group that's presently too busy for you, making it possible for you to read it. The main point here is that this kind of YES vote is based on how you use Usenet. It is not based on how others use Usenet, or your opinion of them, except insofar as they affect your use of Usenet. The object is to establish that a significant number of actual Usenet readers in fact want the proposed change to happen. Otherwise, why on earth should thousands of system administrators take the trouble and spend the resources to make the change? This is the main reason for voting YES. 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. This reason is very restricted. A few people consistently vote YES to counter the "professional NO voters", presumably because they disagree with those voters' presumed opinions (see below). These people are called "Rubber Stamp" voters. A few people routinely vote YES on moderated groups, or *.misc groups, to counter similar NO voter contingents. Almost any other principle of selection for YES votes, on proposals you aren't interested in, turns into a matter of political voting, which is the ultimate Bad Thing in Usenet votes. Usenet votes are meant to measure the group's prospects for drawing the interest of readers, so as to justify the disk space the group will take up on thousands of computers; political voting for a group you *won't* use is therefore unacceptable. [This section needs some of the hand-waving about "for experienced voters only"; I now practice "political voting to counter political voting", and I'm not hypocritical enough to post an FAQ telling people flatly not to do the same. We argued a bit about this in the thread, Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax suggesting in particular that such a YES vote should never be cast without evidence of traffic, and we finally decided (or at least I did) that it was more complicated than a beginning FAQ needed.] Reasons for NO votes -- there are more of these, *but*, on most proposals, none of these actually apply...: 1) The proposal is bad for a group I expect to read in the future. 2) A NO vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. Well, OK, that's still two. But then come the details: 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). 1) b) The proposal establishes a group I would like to read, but does it in such a bad way that it's better to vote it down and try again in six months; I wouldn't find the badly established group worth reading. [I no longer trust that these are self-explanatory, and hope to flesh them out just a bit. Stealing some space from the following longer list.] 2) a) I systematically vote NO on (all groups, moderated groups, *.misc groups, etc.) for Usenet policy reasons. As applied to all groups, this is "professional NO voting", and the people who do it are called "Wet Blankets". There's around 20 of them (as opposed to around a dozen "Rubber Stamps"). The net effect of the Wet Blankets and the Rubber Stamps is that you actually need around 108 *other* YES votes to pass any proposal, because there's around 8 more NO votes than YES ones coming your way from these folks. As far as anyone knows, the Wet Blankets and Rubber Stamps vote the way they do precisely in order to affect that number. Voting NO on moderated, *.misc, or whatever groups is also a political statement about what you want Usenet to be like, a more focused one. In any event, none of these reasons is something you can do just at random. If you're going to justify your vote on Usenet policy reasons, you pretty much have to apply those same reasons to every relevant vote. 2) b) The name is bad and will thus harm Usenet namespace. This is probably the most accepted of these reasons by people familiar with the newsgroup creation process, but it comes as the biggest surprise to others who aren't familiar with it. Good names for newsgroups matter because newsgroup names are all that's available to many of the people who are considering whether they're interested in the group, whether to post to it, etc. If a group is badly named, it might fail to attract the audience it's aimed at. For example, if a group about anthropology were named soc.culture.research, it would probably not be found by a lot of anthropologists. Or it might attract the wrong audience. That same group, for example, would probably (given the nature of other soc.culture.* groups) confuse lots of people, but some people would think it was a group for researchers in general to discuss what it's like to be a researcher. Or it might attract no audience at all, but sit there taking up a name that somebody else might have a good use for. Say your misnamed soc.culture.research was a moderated group, and you rejected all those posts from researchers because they were off-topic. Well, they might have a use for that group, but you're just sitting there taking up their space. (In reality, these are just examples. The anthropology group is named sci.anthropology, as it should be; there is no soc.culture.research, and if it were proposed now, it would probably be renamed soc.subculture.research, in keeping with a recently proposed distinction.) [Note: deliberately boring example chosen to evade the misunderstanding that resulted when my example was a group on terrorism and drugs, named humanities.sinology. Improvements would be appreciated, but I think extreme and therefore fun examples will, in general, fail similarly. Maybe the example should be a group about embroidery of pictures of kittens, named humanities.sinology? Embarrassed, I also note how close this comes to sc.scientists, which I thought Mr. Arromdee was joking about when he brought it up...] [That note, like most of these, was in August. But now that soc.subculture.cyber-psychos was defeated, what next? Anyway...] 2) c) The moderators are bad and will thus create a bad newsgroup where (in namespace) a better newsgroup could have gone. It would be a real shame if, for example, a proposal for comp.databases.cics came forward with me as moderator. I've used CICS for data entry, but I wouldn't begin to know how to moderate a newsgroup about it properly. And there are lots of CICS users out there (or anyway there were a few years ago) who could do it better, and who could use the group. If the proposal with me as moderator passed, they'd have a very hard time getting rid of me, due to general Usenet policy. So they'd probably have to try to create a whole new group -- maybe comp.databases.cics.forreal? And they'd have a very hard time convincing system administrators to accept the new one on top of my bad one. [Note: first person used to guarantee that the example chosen wouldn't get mad. :-) Alternatives welcome... I'm honestly not sure, though, if first person were removed, that this paragraph would work at all wel.] 2) d) The charter is bad (see 2) c)). This reason breaks down into two very different aspects. Unmoderated groups' charters are basically statements of intent, and not much more. They should be taken seriously during debate, because during debate, many of the people who will form the new newsgroup are trying to reach a consensus about what it should be like through that discussion. But in practice, for someone voting on Usenet policy grounds, an unmoderated group's charter would have to be pretty bad to justify a NO vote. (However, it's also reasonable to say the charter is bad because the group is doomed to failure as an unmoderated group, say because it's in a part of namespace that's particularly heavily infested with spam or trolls.) Moderated groups' charters amount to an agreement between the moderators and the readers. There is currently no real way to enforce that agreement, so this is still not the best reason to worry about the charter. But the charter does give some indication of what the moderators are going to have available to them, telling them how to do their job, and if it's really badly thought out, then they're likely to have problems from the start. (It's reasonable, too, to say a charter is bad because moderation will doom the group to failure, say because of delays involved.) In any event, charters which violate even the extreme free speech beliefs prevalent on Usenet are bad. A NO vote is justified on any group whose charter encourages postings which *in and of themselves* pose persons nonconsensual risk of bodily harm and/or loss of property other than trademark rights. Examples of such a group include newsgroups for the posting of private credit card numbers, or for the posting of lists of people in various areas known to be on vacation at a given time. Newsgroups where violence is advocated are, however, *not* considered to constitute such risks. [A quick sketch, the last two sentences. The first two come from the discussion of the first draft. The exact wording owes much to Russ Allbery and especially Rosemarie Ventura, whom I've unfortunately never seen here again.] 2) e) The proponents have behaved so badly that a NO vote is an appropriate way of telling proponents not to do so in future. Some people vote NO when proponents refuse to demonstrate that there will be enough traffic (i.e., postings and/or readership) to justify the group's existence. That's probably the most common form of NO vote of this type. One reason for this type of vote is that when traffic isn't shown to exist, very often traffic never will exist, and the group is badly conceived. An excellent example is soc.culture.scientists [thanks Mr. Arromdee! Dejanews proved you right!]. Another is that refusal to provide information about traffic may be an indication of a disingenuously named group, which is being promoted for political reasons or even just as a joke. [Wording taken from Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax.] Another example would be if the proponents made an agreement in the debate about the group, but failed to live up to that agreement in the actual Call for Votes (CFV). In that case, a NO vote would amount to telling proponents in general that that isn't acceptable behaviour. A third example would be a proposal made solely for the sake of causing trouble. It's hard to tell such a proposal from one simply made by an inexperienced or annoying person, but one frequently used clue is when the proponent refuses to answer any concerns raised about the group. In that case, a NO vote is again on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour. However, NO votes for this reason run a real risk of turning into personality or (horrors) political voting. For this reason, not everyone involved with running Usenet newsgroup creation processes approves of NO votes for this reason. [This note is February 1997. I think some readers of srb may be tempted to view the trb proposal in this light, and vote NO using these grounds. It is my opinion that such a vote would be improperly cast, in that while Mr. Glaysher is rather far from my ideal proponent, he clearly believes that what he's doing is right and he certainly hasn't made any false promises. I should also note that if you vote NO on proposals whose proponents fail to demonstrate sufficient traffic, you should really do it across the board, not just on a proposal you happen to dislike... The whole document is my opinions, basically, though with the help in formulating them of some other people; so there's some more of my opinions.] -- Joe Bernstein, writer, bank consultant, and bookseller joe@sfbooks.com speaking for myself and nobody else https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 8:00 AM To: brburl@mailbag.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re Priority etc ct Bruce In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Bruce, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. You wrote: "Good grief, Michael, given those caveats, do you think it appropriate to print it? Sounds pretty scary to me." Bruce, around two weeks ago, when there was considerable discussion as to the specific reasons for the assessment by the Universal House of Justice that I could no longer be considered a member of the Baha'i community, and even someone was conducting a poll on the topic, I informed these lists of the e-mail messages which had been written to the Universal House of Justice. I stated that the response could well render such speculation unnecessary. One of these letters has now been answered, and I believe it was answered on the assumption that this answer would be shared with those engaging in such speculation. Actually, it was my intent to pre-empt a superficial perception that the reply from the Universal House of Justice is pretty scary, and to render rash responses as unlikely as I can. Let it be read carefully, calmly and cooly. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 8:02 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Thanks, Chris, for trying.... >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sun Sep 21 16:16:24 1997 >Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) > id m0xCv9G-0003sUC; Sun, 21 Sep 97 19:10 EDT >X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org >X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages > to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org >To: "Baha'i Discuss" >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Message-Id: <5ccOqAAKTZJ0EwW3@baha.demon.co.uk> >Subject: talk.religion.bahai >X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.04 >From: Chris Manvell >Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:42:34 +0100 > >Dear Friends, Allah-u-Abha. > >I am somewhat saddened at what I have been reading regarding the >impending RFD & CFV for talk.religion.bahai (TRB). During the >discussion comments have been made, both positive and negative, about >individuals and already I see the very thing that I dread amongst the >Baha'i community at large beginning to happen, namely the forming of >prejudices without those who are involved being brought into the >discussion. > >I am aware as much as the next person that there have been posts on ARB >(alt.religion.bahai) that are both misleading and unpleasant to read. >At times I have decided to give up and stop subscribing, but every time >I feel that to do that would be letting people down. In the early days >there were posts from many non-Baha'is which were both condemnatory and >insulting of our beautiful Faith. Generally these posts were responded >to with pateience and tact, to the extent that many of the attackers >withdrew after a while. There have been posts by Covenant breakers >which have, on the whole, been ignored and have come to nothing. In >fact, ARB has been exactly what one would expect of an open discussion >group. > >I am a strong supporter of soc.religion.bahai reading most of the posts >and occasionally putting my oar in, as they say. I find SRB a haven >where it is quiet and dignified. But, the world is not like that. We >cannot hide away like monks in a monestery or children in a boarding >school. We have to face the world. We have to face up to the >critisisms of the Faith that will be thrown at us. We have to put up >with the occasional Baha'i with whom we do not agree. It's a harsh >world out there and hiding away from it will not help advance our >beloved Faith. That is why I, personally, derive a degree of >satisfaction in being one of a few Baha'is who enjoy, if that is the >right word, being in there where the action is. > >So, you ask, why are we again voting for TRB when we already have an >unmoderated forum? First let me point out that this vote is an interest >poll, not a vote for an institution. If you have no interest in the >formation of this newsgroup, then don't vote. If you do have an >interest then do vote. TRB was not formed last March because, in spite >of 150+ people, many of them Baha'is, voting for its formation, nearly >700 voted against it. As a result a second best happened and we have >ARB. However, the alt. heirarchy of groups is very poorly propagated so >many of those origninal 150+ people are not able to take part in >discussions on ARB. Personally, I think that is a great shame. > >Ask yourselves, would you ban books because books can be used to attack >the Faith. Would you have newspapers censored to only show good news >about the Faith. These are important issues, and it is only when we put >ourselves in the firing line that we can prove our worth. Regretably, >the vote on the last attampt at starting TRB has shown us up in a bad >light in the eyes of both many non-Baha'is and some Baha'is. > >I am neither asking that you vote for or against or that you vote at >all. All I am saying is that if you don't want to be there fighting for >the Faith, please don't stop those who do. > >Finally, please leave personalities out of this. The Faith is protected >by none other than Baha'u'llah Himself. > >Peace be to all of you, > >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.: +44+(0)1471 822317 >-- >O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn >not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide >in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the >eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the >knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee >to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. >Set it then before thine eyes. (Baha'u'llah) >For more information go to , > or . > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 8:03 AM To: burlb@bmi.net Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: To Burl re Priority etc In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Burl, from Ottawa. Si vales, bene est. Ego valeo. (If you are well, it is well. I am well. This was the normal opening of a Classical Latin letter.) I cannot tell you how tempting it is to quote the fundamental Baha'i principles, and apply to them the decoding to which you subjected my message. I have been told on numerous occasions by those I would call fundamentalists that my prose is difficult to understand. Yet, as I have been writing in e-mail lists whose participants, especially those whom I would call fundamentalists, have the advantage of having read the prose of Shoghi Effendi, I saw no need to alter the form of my composition. Indeed, often, in my opinion, the problem has been not so much the form of what I have said, but what I have said. I believe the ability of someone to write relatively well, and by this means to express something other than fundamentalist beliefs has not been very acceptable to some people. That aside, in general I have written exactly what I mean, and my post last night was no exception. It is my feeling that some people on first reading this letter from the Universal House of Justice may interpret it in a general rather than in a specific sense, and that some possibility for a rash response exists. I completely oppose such a response, especially do I oppose the reduction in the numbers of the more open-minded members of the Baha'i Faith. I am as clear as the noon-day sun in expressing exactly what I mean. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 9:20 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Date: Sun Sep 7 08:56:01 1997 From: (Catherine Woodgold) Subject: Natural Justice To: secretariat@bwc.org Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca, To the Universal House of Justice: I want you to know that my respect for you has diminished significantly because of the manner in which you expelled Michael McKenny from the Baha'i community. Religion usually has fundamental importance in a person's psychological, emotional and social life, and expelling a person from their religion is a very serious matter. If it is to be done at all, certain principles of natural justice should be followed -- especially if the institution initiating the expulsion boldly carries the word "Justice" in its name! A person who is expelled should be informed of the reason for the expulsion. Michael was not so informed. He was given extremely vague statements about "behaviour" and "attitude" -- but since everyone exhibits some form of behaviour and attitude, these statements did nothing to explain the expulsion. He was provided with a small amount of information: that it had something to do with his correspondence. This is not sufficient to satisfy the principle of natural justice that he should be informed of the reason. You should have a finite list of written rules that Baha'is are expected to follow, and you should tell Michael which rule or rules he failed to follow which led to his expulsion, as well as which specific acts of his were considered by you to be violations of those rules. You should have warned Michael in writing that he might be expelled and told him what rules he was breaking and what he would have to do to avoid being expelled. Although Susan Tamas talked to Michael, as far as I know she didn't warn him that he might be expelled, or state rules he should begin to follow, or provide rules in writing. Since Michael has been expelled without explanation and without warning, I believe that many other Baha'is must now be afraid that they themselves might be expelled at any moment; and they have no way of knowing what they might be able to do to prevent such expulsion from happening. You should have told Michael whether his expulsion is to be in effect lifelong and if not, what he would have to do to regain his status as a member of the Baha'i community. You should also have provided more clarification about what his status is now. Can he be a Baha'i without being a member of the Baha'i community? How does his status differ from that of a Baha'i whose administrative rights have been removed? It's my understanding that the founders of the Baha'i faith did not bestow upon the Universal House of Justice the authority to expell people from the Baha'i community, and that they did not plan that anyone be expelled except for Covenant-breakers, which apparently you are not accusing Michael of being, nor has he behaved as such. It would be interesting to see if you can provide quotes from the Baha'i Writings to justify your authority to take such action. In summary: Even if, in spite of the name of your institution, you have not set up a system of "due process", there are still principles of natural justice which you should follow. You should have warned Michael, you should have explained why, you should have clarified his current and future status, and maybe you shouldn't have expelled him in the first place. (Some of these deficiencies can be corrected by providing more information to him now.) Those are the reasons why I have less respect for the Universal House of Justice than I once did. By the way, I am writing this on my own initiative; Michael made no suggestion to me to do so. Catherine Woodgold -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 9:25 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Reply from the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: From: secretariat@bwc.org ("Baha'i World Centre") Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 17:15:22 IST 24 September 1997 Ms. Catherine Woodgold Canada Dear Ms. Woodgold, We have been asked to respond to your email letter of 7 September 1997 to the Universal House of Justice, regarding its conclusion that your husband, Mr. Michael McKenny, cannot properly be regarded as a member of the Baha'i community. The House of Justice hopes that the following comments will be of assistance to you in understanding the step that was taken in Michael's case. The Baha'i Faith, as the name implies, is a religion, not a political movement. Its foundation, Baha'is believe, is the revelation of God for our day and its focal teaching is the oneness of humankind. The mission that has been laid by Baha'u'llah on those who recognize and would follow Him is the promotion of the unification of the earth's peoples in one global society guided by Divine principle. In order for the Baha'i community to discharge this responsibility, it must itself remain united. It must demonstrate to a skeptical age that human beings, in all their diversity, can learn to live and work as a single people in one global homeland. The means by which Baha'u'llah has chosen to preserve the unity of Baha'i society is the institutions established in the Covenant which He made with those who accept Him. His Writings make it indisputably clear that the spiritual and social teachings thus set forth cannot be separated from the institutional means their Author has provided for their promotion. Particularly is this true of the interpretive functions with which the Guardianship has been endowed and the ultimate decision-making power invested in the Universal House of Justice, both of which are assured of unfailing Divine guidance. One is entirely free to accept or reject the system of belief Baha'u'llah teaches. The Baha'i Faith is a religion which believes ardently in freedom of spiritual choice. No one is -- or can ever be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to have accepted. This is precisely what Michael has persisted in doing. He has made it unmistakably clear that he does not accept the nature of the authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's Covenant on either the Guardianship or the Universal House of Justice, in important areas of belief. Indeed, some of his statements give the impression that he does not accept Baha'u'llah's many statements about the nature of the authority of a Manifestation of God. Ms. Catherine Woodgold 24 September 1997 Page 2 Efforts to help Michael in overcoming his misunderstanding of these Baha'i teachings were entirely without avail. The Universal House of Justice provided him with guidance from the Writings which should have corrected a number of his misconceptions, including for this purpose a memorandum specially prepared by the Baha'i World Centre's Research Department on an issue central to his expressed concerns. A knowledgeable believer selected for the purpose did her best to assist him, through hours of discussion and a patient exchange of correspondence on these and other issues. Michael's subsequent statements made it clear that his views remained entirely unaffected by these efforts. Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion would have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not remain at this level was the result solely of his deliberate decision to continue a series of open Internet postings in which he challenged the authority of Baha'i institutions in language alternating between conventional professions of respect and contemptuous reflections on the integrity and actions of those institutions. As had been made clear during review with him by the advisor mentioned above, of the relevant passages from the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such deliberate contention is entirely unacceptable in one who claims to believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as a general rule, it would raise a question about the loyalty to the Covenant of an individual behaving in this fashion. In Michael's case, the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor has any real desire to do so. His subsequent behaviour will doubtless be read by most dispassionate observers as confirming the accuracy of this assessment. Your concern for your husband's well-being is understandable and does you much credit. Michael is not a victim of persecution. Whatever notoriety may have become associated with his situation is, like the withdrawal of his membership, entirely the result of his own actions. The House of Justice feels that you can best assist him by encouraging him to set aside the question of his former involvement in the Baha'i community and devote his energies to the other religious and humanitarian interests which engage his attention. Faithfully, Department of the Secretariat -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 9:45 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Subversion of the UseNet voting system I'm starting to hope you keep this crap up. Your posts are the clearest possible reason for voting AGAINST the talk group! And the more you post, the more overwhelmingly negative the vote is likely to be. ---------- From: Bruce Burrill[SMTP:brburl@mailbag.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 10:34 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Reply from the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: > The Baha'i Faith, as the name implies, is a religion, not a >political movement. Interesting statement from a religion that pre-eminently political. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Alethinos@aol.com[SMTP:Alethinos@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 11:12 AM To: brburl@mailbag.com; bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Reply from the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: In a message dated 97-09-26 10:38:44 EDT, brburl@mailbag.com writes: << > The Baha'i Faith, as the name implies, is a religion, not a >political movement. Interesting statement from a religion that pre-eminently political. >> I would suggest that one study the difference between politics with a little *p* and Politics... it is considerable. jim harrison Alethinos@aol.com - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Burl Barer[SMTP:burlb@bmi.net] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 2:38 PM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: To Burl re Priority etc <> ---------- From: EdvardJ@simi.is[SMTP:EdvardJ@simi.is] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 3:12 PM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Priority; re Forthcoming UHJ Letter In the Baha'i Studies List today: > In the Baha'i Studies List today: > > Michael McKenny wrote: > > >Greetings, from Ottawa. > >If you are well, it is well. > >Catherine Woodgold, a non-Baha'i very close to me, who sent an > >e-mail message to the Universal House of Justice concerning my being > >advised that I may not be considered a member of the Baha'i > >community has received a reply from the Universal House of Justice, > >sent me a copy and given permission that I share this correspondence. > > Inasmuch as I feel it not impossible that some readers of the > >reply from the Universal House of Justice will derive a perception > >that in general fundamentalism is being defined as the Baha'i Faith > >and in general those who are not fundamentalists are being defined > >as non-Baha'is, I am first posting this note emphatically urging > >a restrained and balanced reading of the letter in context. Very > >strenuously do I suggest that this is a reference to a specific > >individual, one who sincerely feels it very important to his > >personal spiritual development to tread the pagan path exploring > >the benefits there to humanity. > > Most ardently do I call on those reading the reply from the > >Universal House of Justice to avoid any rash actions. Let there be > >no heated words directed at the Universal House of Justice, and > >especially let there be no further resignations from the Baha'i > >Faith. It has always been my position that harmony is not advanced > >through resignation of membership. If harmony is important to you, > >take the time to reflect cooly on the actual words of this message, > >realizing their context. > > In the hope of increasing the possibility of a beneficial > >reaction to this material, I will likely wait until tomorrow > >before posting it. > > May this find you very well, and may that long be so. > > > > Why would anyone want to direct "heated words" at the Universal House > of Justice, let alone resign from the Faith on the basis of the > gentle, honest, fortright and respectful explanations given by the > Dept. of the Secretariat for its decision which has now have posted? > Actually, your posting of Sept. 19 to this list sufficed to convince > this observer, who had no prior knowledge or particular interest in > your situation, that you do not trust the Universal House of Justice > to manage the affairs of the Faith without your guidance. The air of > enlightened superiority with which you address the Supreme Body leaves > no doubt as to who's in the know and who's out there grovelling in the > darkness. Reading the above and other messages posted by you, I have > to tell you that I marvel at your slickness as a writer (you are one, > aren't you?). Why would anyone suspect you of wishing for anything but > the general harmony and wellfare of the Baha'is, even if you happen to > call the members of the Supreme Body tyrants, and why should anyone > doubt your benevolence and compassion for those of us who are > committed to upholding the Covenant, even if you in your outspoken > liberal way call us fundamentalists? And who in his sane mind would > think that you're intentions with posting the explanations from the > Secretariat was to cause stir and discredit the Institutions of the > Faith? > > All that aside, dear Solar Guard, may blessings be on you, and may it > infinitely be so > > Edward > - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: DEREK COCKSHUT[SMTP:derekmc@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 4:01 PM To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Fwd: Re: Reply from the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: ---- Begin Forwarded Message Thank you, Michael for posting this material. It certainly sheds some light on recent events. I'd like to comment on a couple of aspects of this letter from the Universal House of Justice and its policy implications. The Secretariat wrote: No one is -- or can ever > be -- compelled to be a Baha'i, nor does any discredit attach to > one who, having decided, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot > continue to accept the Teachings, may decide to renounce them. What > one cannot properly do is to behave in a way that undermines the > unity of the Baha'i community, by challenging the institutional > authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to > have accepted. This last sentence appears to represent what the House considers to be the bottom line of behavior they will regard completely unacceptable on the internet. What they will not accept, and what will endanger a person's standing within the Baha'i community is "challenging the institutional authority." The question which remains is specifically what behavior will be deemed "challenging" that authority. > > This is precisely what Michael has persisted in doing. He has > made it unmistakably clear that he does not accept the nature of the > authority conferred in Baha'u'llah's Covenant on either the > Guardianship or the Universal House of Justice, in important areas > of belief. Indeed, some of his statements give the impression that > he does not accept Baha'u'llah's many statements about the nature of > the authority of a Manifestation of God. This is a bit speculative, Michael, but I wonder to what extent this refers to some of the exchanges between the two of us on Irfan which immediately proceeded your expulsion? If so this would indicate that Irfan, a private list with a no-forwarding policy without consent of the posters, is being closely monitored. If you are agreeable we might "repost" some of those exchanges here, so that it would clarify what the House appears to mean by your not accepting "Baha'u'llah's many statements about the nature of the authority of a Manifestation of God." Since there are other Baha'is who have been requested to meet with members of the Institution of the Learned to discuss their "pattern of behavior on the internet" it might be useful for them to understand precisely what issues are at stake. > Had the situation continued at this level, Michael's confusion > would have remained his personal spiritual problem. That it did not > remain at this level was the result solely of his deliberate > decision to continue a series of open Internet postings in which he > challenged the authority of Baha'i institutions in language > alternating between conventional professions of respect and > contemptuous reflections on the integrity and actions of those > institutions. This implies that Baha'is are allowed to personally believe whatever they wish, but the institutions will intervene where such opinions are being expressed in a public forum especially if they impinge on the integrity of the institutions or are critical of their actions. As had been made clear during review with him by the > advisor mentioned above, of the relevant passages from the Will and > Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, such deliberate contention is entirely > unacceptable in one who claims to believe in Baha'u'llah. Indeed, as > a general rule, it would raise a question about the loyalty to the > Covenant of an individual behaving in this fashion. In Michael's > case, the Universal House of Justice reached the conclusion that he > neither understands the basic implications of Baha'i membership nor > has any real desire to do so. This maybe the most significant statement of the letter. The House clearly feels that the kind of *behavior" which Michael was engaged in could have constituted Covenant-Breaking, but did not believe he sufficiently understood the implications of the Covenant to be considered a Covenant-Breaker in his *person.* Contrary to earlier speculations which I had made, the House appears eager to signal that they are retaining their prerogative to declare other persons Covenant-Breakers who engage in similar behavior if they determine that they *do* understand the full implications of the Covenant and refuse to desist. This is the bottom line: the Universal House of Justice will not tolerate being publicly contradicted by Baha'is. Susan Maneck Berry College =================================== Dear Friends Micheal was not expelled from the Baha'i faith.The Universal House of Justice simply stated based on the correspondence and dealings with Micheal it was clear, he could not be considored a Baha'i.What is the problem with that?If Micheal can stated with all truth and honesty he accepts and is prepared to follow the 1st verse of the Kitab-Aqdas. Then I am sure the NSA in Canada will be happy to reconsidor his position.The NSA of Canada decided he should not be on their membership rolls not the Universal House of Justice. Kindest regards Derek Cockshut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 12:57 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) In article <19970925.194034.7535.5.ladyvadr@juno.com>, Nancy S Damren wrote -- >Dear Tom, > >In my opinion, all the more reason to deny someone who has so little >respect for the privacy rights of others of his faith the soapbox that he >is so obviously longing to mount. One thing we do not need in the Faith >is demagogues. > >But at the same time, if he or anyone else wants to confront me and has >the intestinal fortitude, let him or them come on. I'll deal with all >comers. > >Much love to Baha'i-discuss readers, > >Nancy D. I don't think anyone would deny that Fred was wrong to publish B-D posts to a public forum like ARB. However, it has happened and it's no use crying over spilt milk. Hopefully it won't happen again. However, Fred is only one of the many subscribers to ARB. There are several of us who have been involved in the group since the beginning (from day 2 in my case) who do our best in addressing the many issues that are brought up on the group. We are out there in a hostile environment doing our best to "keep our cool" and to show to even our most implacable opponents what it is like to be a Baha'i. I do not deny that there have been mistakes. I do not deny that on occasion the Faith could have been presented in a better light. But don't think that the lurkers are fools. It becomes apparent very quickly what is "Baha'i" and what is not and most people can see through the smokescreen. Those that cannot would probably not follow it up even if they were reading SRB or reading the many excellent Baha'i Web Sites on the Internet. So, what will be denied if Fred's proposed group is defeated is not Fred's right to start up a newsgroup but the right of all of us to get to work in a really hostile environment and show the world how Baha'is can behave when confronted with insults to Baha'u'llah, dissimulation about our beliefs and outright hatred of ourselves as individuals. There is no compulsion to enter the fray, no compulsion to read the same sort of lies that were being propagated by the mullas while the Most Exalted and the All Glorious were with us in this physical plane. Our Faith isn't just a cosy little club; this is God's Word which we are supposed to be telling to every single (and married?) person on earth. Our predecessors travelled the world to pass on the Message of God, the news of Baha'u'llah's coming. They faced untold viscissitudes, and many, ultimately, martyrdom, to pass on that Message. They were vilified, cursed and tortured and killed. Hopefully, for most of us, that era, that era of heroes, is passed (though it still exists for our beloved sisters and brothers in Iran). But the obligation they were fullfilling applies even more today -- to pass on the message of Baha'u'llah -- and we should be using every means at our disposal to do it. And if that means is an unmoderated newsgroup on Usenet, then so be it. Remember, Shoghi Effendi told us that before we can have the victory, we have to face the crisis. If you (the readers of Bahai-Discuss) feel that ARB is that crisis then get out there and turn it into a victory. Let us use an unmoderated group to show the world what are really like, that we are strong and can face up to our enemies with love in our hearts. I'm sorry to have gone on at such length but I really feel that unless we face the unpleasantness (or should I say "_until_ we face the unpleasantness"?) we will not gain the victory we are all working for. Ya Baha'u'l-Abha. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland +44+(0)1471-822317 -- Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto or or . ---------- From: Chris[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.ukspamguard] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 5:51 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss on talk.religion.bahai In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher wrote >> Why are you trying to be such a censor? Seems to me you are >> trying to do what you falsely claim the moderators of >> soc.religion.bahai do, control speech. No one dare say anything >> negative about your personal rant group without your expressed >> permission. Who appointed you imprimatur of bahai-discuss? > > >All right, perhaps you have a point.... Mine is only that others >might find it interesting and informative to observe that >talk.religion.bahai is already under attack on apparently >the same listservs that helped overwhelm it the first time.... >What's wrong with my doing that? I have reposted messages >very negative about me personally and alt.religion.bahai. I >haven't tried to suppress or distort those opinions.... Dear Fred, PLEASE DO NOT POST THIS ON ARB. A couple of points. 1. Thanks for your e-mail re putting the RFD on the Web. As soon as you considre it to be ready I will post it with directions to post any discussion onto news.groups (and ARB?). I will clear the extra text with you before pointers are put in place. OK? 2. Although I am going to be very busy over the next couple of months I shall do my best to support the campaign for TRB. Can I make a constructive suggestion. I note that the bulk of the opposition to TRB is actually opposition to yourself. I would suggest that you do not rise to the bait as that seems to exacerbate matters and increase opposition. If I can help in any way, I am more than willing. Obviously, I cannot answer for others but maybe if there is any response required, you could let me know and I will post up what I feel to be pertinent. It is, of course, completely up to you. 3. Thank-you for posting the bits from Baha'i-Discuss but do bear in mind that it is not considered correct to copy material from closed fora onto Usenet. I suspect that in the end it will do moer damage than good. You, we, have to display the height of diplomacy throughout the whole exercise otherwise it will certainly fail. Actually, I suspect it will anyway but we will pray otherwise. Best wishes, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 26, 1997 6:52 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to Frederic Glaysher In article <34281757.10356F76@wwnet.com>, Roger Reini wrote -- > The way to protect a not-well-known religion from the crazy >image presented on alt.religion.bahai is to have newsgroups with >the name "Baha'i" under supervision by some responsible group >such as the Baha'i Computer and Communication Association. >This is one reason BCCA was created, to give any needed >supervision. > > 'Abdu'l-Baha said "...not to take any step without consulting >the Spiritual Assembly,...that things may be properly ordered and >well arranged. Otherwise every person will act independently >and after his own judgment, will follow his own desire, and do >harm to the Cause." (BA, p. 21) We have seen the harm an >unsupervised newsgroup like alt.religion bahai has done to our >image when operated by someone out of control. We should >worry about this influence being increased by his obtaining a >more visible newsgroup. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the tenor of the above post (which was quoted by Roger, not written by him). There are many places where the Master's advice applies. However, there are also many places where the role of the individual takes precedence. The prime example is in the teaching of the Faith. No institution of the Baha'i Faith has the authority to come between a soul and its Creator, i.e. prevent a person teaching another about the Faith. Yet that is what goes on in ARB (and of course SRB). It is not like the teaching we do when we are alone with a friend or talking to a small group of colleagues in the staff canteen. This is teaching by example. Sure, there have been some crazy things said, but if you were to follow many of the threads on ARB you would find an undercurrent of love and sanity that moderates the sometimes wild statements made by others. Why be scared of TRB? Don't you trust in God's guiding hand? Do you feel that Baha'u'llah cannot look after His Faith? Yes, this group will be abused by some; it will be used by Covenant Breakers and those who oppose our Faith. But does that really matter? If you look at it long enough you will see the light of Baha'u'llah shining out through the obsuring dross and those who don't probably wouldn't see it even if the lamp were clean. If you are so worried, why not ask the House for guidance? Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 1997 7:49 AM To: Chris Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss on talk.religion.bahai > Dear Fred, > > PLEASE DO NOT POST THIS ON ARB. > > A couple of points. > > 1. Thanks for your e-mail re putting the RFD on the Web. As soon as > you considre it to be ready I will post it with directions to post any > discussion onto news.groups (and ARB?). I will clear the extra text > with you before pointers are put in place. OK? I appreciate your willingness to help. Thanks. > > 2. Although I am going to be very busy over the next couple of months I > shall do my best to support the campaign for TRB. Can I make a > constructive suggestion. I note that the bulk of the opposition to TRB > is actually opposition to yourself. I would suggest that you do not > rise to the bait as that seems to exacerbate matters and increase > opposition. If I can help in any way, I am more than willing. Well, the rising to bait thing is a real problem.... I often feel that since there are so few voices if I let something go by someone will see it who doesn't know any better and actually believe it.... I think I am getting better though at ignoring some things.... > > Obviously, I cannot answer for others but maybe if there is any response > required, you could let me know and I will post up what I feel to be > pertinent. It is, of course, completely up to you. I'm grateful for the offer.... Case in point: Roger Reini's query whether the BCCA's lack of control of trb would be sufficient reason to vote NO.... It seems to me that's something that needs to be confronted. Why should they control trb? They already control srb.... The whole idea of an unmoderated newsgroup would be defeated and, besides, trb is not merely for Bahai propaganda and is for non-Bahais as well.... > > 3. Thank-you for posting the bits from Baha'i-Discuss but do bear in > mind that it is not considered correct to copy material from closed fora > onto Usenet. I suspect that in the end it will do moer damage than > good. You, we, have to display the height of diplomacy throughout the > whole exercise otherwise it will certainly fail. Actually, I suspect it > will anyway but we will pray otherwise. Campaigning for NO votes on Bahai-discuss is acceptable? How about confronting that on arb and news.groups? > > Best wishes, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 1997 9:35 AM To: Chris Subject: Bahai-discuss Chris, I've just read a couple of your recent messages to Bahai-D. I want to say in private that I think you have a good sense of what it is I'm actually trying to accomplish with trb.... As I've said in the past, I'm not a covenant breaker, hater of the UHJ and the administration and so on.... I want that dynamism of the human soul to have the free rein God has given it in order to unleash its antinomies, allowing room enough to exist to bring in the masses.... Shakespeare's drama is perhaps the fullest expression of what I mean.... ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 1997 2:10 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Dear Chris: You make very good points. Our Faith is not only for the well behaved and emotionally mature, it is for EVERYBODY. The process of improving, of growing spiritually is a process that EVERYONE needs to have access to. If a forum with contents unsavory to many of us, so be it. Thank you for your work in this field. I haven't gotten on the unmoderated forum because of a lack of time. Certainly, I've read attacks by Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians on the internet and sometimes felt moved to respond. Many may say it is a waste of time, but I think that opening ones heart and speaking sincerely and respectfully, even to 'enemies', occasionally, is simply a show of respect to them as 'human beings'. Perhaps, their minds will not be touched at all, but, if we truly communicate sincerely the message of Baha'u'llah their spirits cannot but help be touched at some level. Unfortunately, negativity exists in all of us. We can look at our own posts and see it plainly. Hiding things will not make them any better. There is enough room in this vast ocean of God's grace for the worst among us. " As regards any possible distinctions, the utmost that Bahá'u'lláh says is that conditions among men vary, that some, for instance, are defective. Therefore, such souls must be educated in order that they may be brought to the degree of perfection. Some are sick and ailing; they must be treated and cared for until they are healed. Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are immature as children; they should be helped to attain maturity. But all must be loved and cherished. The child must not be disliked simply because it is a child. Nay, rather, it should be patiently educated. The sick one must not be avoided nor slighted merely because he is ailing. Nay, rather, he must be regarded with sympathy and affection and treated until he is healed. The soul that is asleep must not be looked upon with contempt but awakened and led into the light." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 434 While we all have varying capacities, it will help us all to remember 'Abdu'l-Baha's words: "So far as ye are able, ignite a candle of love in every meeting, and with tenderness rejoice and cheer ye every heart. Care for the stranger as for one of your own; show to alien souls the same loving kindness ye bestow upon your faithful friends. Should any come to blows with you, seek to be friends with him; should any stab you to the heart, be ye a healing salve unto his sores; should any taunt and mock at you, meet him with love. Should any heap his blame upon you, praise ye him; should he offer you a deadly poison, give him the choicest honey in exchange; and should he threaten your life, grant him a remedy that will heal him evermore. Should he be pain itself, be ye his medicine; should he be thorns, be ye his roses and sweet herbs. Perchance such ways and words from you will make this darksome world turn bright at last; will make this dusty earth turn heavenly, this devilish prison place become a royal palace of the Lord--so that war and strife will pass and be no more, and love and trust will pitch their tents on the summits of the world. Such is the essence of God's admonitions; such in sum are the teachings for the Dispensation of Bahá." -- `Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 34 Your Loving Sister in Faith, Roxana > > I don't think anyone would deny that Fred was wrong to publish B-D posts > to a public forum like ARB. However, it has happened and it's no use > crying over spilt milk. Hopefully it won't happen again. > > However, Fred is only one of the many subscribers to ARB. There are > several of us who have been involved in the group since the beginning > (from day 2 in my case) who do our best in addressing the many issues > that are brought up on the group. We are out there in a hostile > environment doing our best to "keep our cool" and to show to even our > most implacable opponents what it is like to be a Baha'i. I do not deny > that there have been mistakes. I do not deny that on occasion the Faith > could have been presented in a better light. But don't think that the > lurkers are fools. It becomes apparent very quickly what is "Baha'i" > and what is not and most people can see through the smokescreen. Those > that cannot would probably not follow it up even if they were reading > SRB or reading the many excellent Baha'i Web Sites on the Internet. > > So, what will be denied if Fred's proposed group is defeated is not > Fred's right to start up a newsgroup but the right of all of us to get > to work in a really hostile environment and show the world how Baha'is > can behave when confronted with insults to Baha'u'llah, dissimulation > about our beliefs and outright hatred of ourselves as individuals. > There is no compulsion to enter the fray, no compulsion to read the same > sort of lies that were being propagated by the mullas while the Most > Exalted and the All Glorious were with us in this physical plane. Our > Faith isn't just a cosy little club; this is God's Word which we are > supposed to be telling to every single (and married?) person on earth. > Our predecessors travelled the world to pass on the Message of God, the > news of Baha'u'llah's coming. They faced untold viscissitudes, and > many, ultimately, martyrdom, to pass on that Message. They were > vilified, cursed and tortured and killed. > > Hopefully, for most of us, that era, that era of heroes, is passed > (though it still exists for our beloved sisters and brothers in Iran). > But the obligation they were fullfilling applies even more today -- to > pass on the message of Baha'u'llah -- and we should be using every means > at our disposal to do it. And if that means is an unmoderated newsgroup > on Usenet, then so be it. Remember, Shoghi Effendi told us that before > we can have the victory, we have to face the crisis. If you (the > readers of Bahai-Discuss) feel that ARB is that crisis then get out > there and turn it into a victory. Let us use an unmoderated group to > show the world what are really like, that we are strong and can face up > to our enemies with love in our hearts. > > I'm sorry to have gone on at such length but I really feel that unless > we face the unpleasantness (or should I say "_until_ we face the > unpleasantness"?) we will not gain the victory we are all working for. > > Ya Baha'u'l-Abha. > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland +44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My > love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto or > or . ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 1997 6:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Thoughts on talk.religion.bahai (part 2) Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Dear Chris: > > You make very good points. Our Faith is not only for the well behaved > and emotionally mature, it is for EVERYBODY. The process of improving, > of growing spiritually is a process that EVERYONE needs to have access > to. If a forum with contents unsavory to many of us, so be it. Thank > you for your work in this field. I haven't gotten on the unmoderated > forum because of a lack of time. Certainly, I've read attacks by > Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians on the internet and sometimes felt > moved to respond. Many may say it is a waste of time, but I think that > opening ones heart and speaking sincerely and respectfully, even to > 'enemies', occasionally, is simply a show of respect to them as 'human > beings'. Perhaps, their minds will not be touched at all, but, if we > truly communicate sincerely the message of Baha'u'llah their spirits > cannot but help be touched at some level. Unfortunately, negativity > exists in all of us. We can look at our own posts and see it plainly. > Hiding things will not make them any better. There is enough room in > this vast ocean of God's grace for the worst among us. I'd like to add to this, if I may. Whenever we communicate in a newsgroup, it is a public communication. Anyone can read the note, not just the individual to whom you're replying. It's quite likely that, for every person to whom you're directing a news message, scores of others are reading it but are not participating in the group (i.e., "lurking"). Don't forget that they are also forming opinions about the Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith. Perhaps our intended recipient(s) may not be touched in some way, but a lurker could be affected. Indeed, before I declared (in March 1994), I lurked on s.r.b for nearly a year. The discussions there did affect me. They were part of my search for truth (along with reading the Writings, of course). Granted, s.r.b is a much different environment from alt.religion.bahai and the proposed t.r.b. But had either of the other groups existed then, I think I would have been able to tell who was best exemplifying the Baha'i principles. Wonderful quotes from 'Abdu'l-Baha, BTW. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 10:01 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan@umich.edu Subject: Freedom of Expression In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I would like to repeat that the best method of ensuring the least communication related to Michael McKenny is to allow me the freedom to say what I want. Then, I will be most able to conduct that very detailed examination of neo-paganism which the Universal House of Justice has now positioned me to do, and which personally has such enormous interest to me. I am completely sincere, and I am totally free of deceit. I would not be in this situation were I operating in an under-handed manner. Therefore, I am quite openly going to make something very clear. You know obedience is so deeply a part of the Baha'i Faith, that notwithstanding the enormous weight Baha'is place on the Administrative Order, this Administrative Order is considered of secondary importance, and when the fundamentalist government of Iran issued the order, the Baha'is disbanded the Administrative Order in that country. Yet, there is fundamental principle, and if the Iranians asked the Baha'is to state that they are not Baha'is, then the Baha'is refused and died rather than obey. When the Universal House of Justice declared that I am not a member of the Baha'i community, I accepted this, even to the point, on my understanding that there may not be Baha'is who are not so recognized by the Universal House of Justice, of taking the logical, for me, step of openly professing paganism. However, freedom of thought and expression is a fundamental principle. If my freedom of thought and expression in Baha'i cyberspace is not impeded, then I will be devoting a lot of my attention to other matters. Right now, what I hoped to be doing was placing a poem on a pagan list, reading a book I have taken out of the Ottawa Pagan Library, and writing a review of it, editing my magazine, etc. Yet, communications indicating that my freedom of thought and expression may be interfered with impel me to quite openly type this clarification. As I stated in my letter to the Universal House of Justice sent on March 23, 1997, I obeyed the Universal House of Justice in 1988 in its call to use the Peace Message in the process of entry by troops, and I gave a copy of this Message to almost every non- Baha'i I knew, scores of whom were invited to followup Peace Talks at my place which lasted into the early 90s. Even many who did not attend were kept informed of developments, and have continued to follow my relationship with the Baha'i Faith right up to the present. In addition, I continue to add to the number of my pagan acquaintances and friends, none of whom has very much respect for fundamentalist religion. Among all these people, so very many of them so very learned when it comes to computers, many of them fellow members of associations of writers, it will be quite easy to find those with the interest and motivation to replace me. I have always said that the validity of what I say cannot be determined on the basis of who I am, that it is the facts and the issues that are important. Yet, those of you who place such weight in ad hominems, who figure it is who a person is which renders that person's words so potent, perhaps will not consider it the most effective means of controlling Baha'i cyberspace for one person so very much wishing to turn most of his attention elsewhere to be replaced by the very non-Baha'is who received that Peace Message in 1988, by others who have met me since, and by those who now welcome me as a fellow pagan. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 10:52 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: From Fredrick Glayer Subject: Open Letter: UHJ (Universal House of Justice): talk.religion.bahai From: FG@hotmail.com Date: 1997/03/31 Message-Id: <5ho9c5$629$1@bilbo.reference.com> Newsgroups: news.groups,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human [More Headers] March 31, 1997 The Universal House of Justice of the Bahais of the World Haifa, Israel Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: After careful reflection and prayer for the past few days, I've decided that open public discussion and knowledge are more important than my own status as a Bahai. I have been a Bahai for more than twenty years, since 1976. I became a Bahai by reading almost every single Bahai book published at the time. Given my background as a Catholic and poet, I was deeply moved by the beauty and profundity of the Bahai Writings. As a young person, I spent two months travel teaching throughout Michigan with several other youthful, innocent Bahais. Like many, I have sacrificed financially to contribute to the Bahai Faith. I pioneered for a year and a half in Japan, for two years on an American Indian reservation, and have travel taught in China. The spiritual profundity of the Bahai vision, as reflected in the work of the African-American poet Robert Hayden, inspired me to study at the University of Michigan under him and to spend considerable time and labor editing his collected poems and prose for Liveright and the University of Michigan Press. I have published two essays in the Bahai magazine World Order and spent more time than I can remember at Bahai summer camps, workshops, and deepenings. Throughout all my varied Bahai experience, I have loved the Figures and Teachings of the Faith even as the conviction has grown that all information and discussion in the Bahai Faith is subtly manipulated, controlled, and distorted for the "good of the Faith." There seems to be a pervasive, rigid control of all thought, ideas, and information that calls into question the motives of the individuals in power in the Bahai Administration. As a published writer and former college and university instructor of rhetoric and literature for over ten years, I believe the whole process of "review" has become a complete farce and disgrace to the Bahai Faith and is suggestive of the worst censorship under the most repressive regimes, religious or secular, of historical experience. If one truly wishes to understand why many Bahais, both highly educated and others, leave the Bahai Faith or become "inactive" and withdraw into silence and uninvolvement with the religion, one need only to look objectively at what seems to be the oppressive and coercive methods of people in the Bahai Administration itself to find the answer. My experiencing of these same methods of censorship and distortion on soc.religion.bahai proved to be the last intolerable straw. My attempt to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Internet that no one could manipulate and censor has a long experience of Bahai tyranny in the background. The resorting to deceit and back-channel communication by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai and others naively believing they're working for the benefit of the Bahai Faith by campaigning for 691 unethical NO votes on talk.religion.bahai further proves the pervasive acceptance of disreputable tactics by Bahais in their attempt to maintain a stranglehold over all thought and discussion. Recently, more than ever, I've often recalled the words to me in private several times of Robert Hayden, the only Bahai to be appointed Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress: "Why I continue to have anything to do with the Bahai Faith, I do not know, I do not know." I myself no longer know. I suppose I hope that the oppressive, coercive methods that have come to be accepted and justified in the Bahai Administration, demonstrated for instance in the crushing of the magazine Dialogue, the incidents surrounding the Bahai Encyclopedia, the listserv Talisman I, and the continuingly crude, unreadable propoganda vehicle of the American Bahai, might yet be put aside in favor of the beautiful vision of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha for freedom of religious conscience and belief and a humane, tolerant universalism. I fear that all too often the religious totalitarianism of Baha'u'llah's fanatical homeland has seeped into every nook and cranny of His religion, smothering out the free light of the human soul and hamstringing His Administration. It was with the bitterest of feelings that I observed some time ago the Bahai exhibition, a deceitful propaganda event really, on freedom of religious conscience and belief sponsored by the National Spiritual Assembly in the rotunda of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., so far in reality from the truth was it, so misled, trusting, and uninformed were the Congressmen of my country.... If censorship is allowed in the Bahai Faith, I would like to know what passages of the Bahai Writings support it and what are the "rules," if you will, of Bahai censorship. It seems to me that censorship pervades the Bahai Faith so thoroughly that some Bahais regularly use it as a method of intimidation and silencing of anyone with an unconventional opinion by accusing the individual of being a covenant breaker. This tactic was used against me by at least three Bahais during the discussion period for talk.religion.bahai and tacitly condoned by the moderators and others. I include, at the end, a threatening, coercive email message I received on March 27, 1997, from Mr. Hoda Mahmoudi, Auxiliary Board Member for Michigan, at a crucial juncture of the discussion and voting for talk.religion.bahai and would like an explanation of his motives. I, and perhaps the rest of the world, would greatly appreciate evidence that there are not now nine ayatollahs residing in Israel on Mt Carmel. Respectfully, Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA -------- >Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:45:46 -0500 >To: FG@hotmail.com >From: Hoda Mahmoudi >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >I have been reading your e-mail postings recently. I would like to speak >with you by phone about some of your throughts and opinions regarding >matters relevant to the Baha'i Faith. As an Auxiliary Board members for >Michigan, I am always interested in issues which relate to individual >spiritual responsibility and the Baha'i Faith's principle of unity. My >phone number is 616/789-0590. > >Hope to hear from you soon. > >Hoda > > > > > >Hoda Mahmoudi, Ph.D. >Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs >Olivet College >Olivet, MI 49076 >616/749-7614 > -- Posted using Reference.COM https://www.reference.com Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog. InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:10 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: From Fredrick Glayer Subject: Bahais & Salman Rushdie: (was Re: Covenant breaking, was Re: Bahai food & happy dance converts) From: FG Date: 1997/07/22 Message-Id: <33D4A57C.647E@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.hu man [More Headers] farshad farhoumand wrote: [clip] > At least we Baha'is are decent enough to shun someone, ask Salman > Rushdie what is happening to him for writing his own mind. > Now let us see, what belief is more humane; the one that avoids you or > the one that puts a price on your head? > So, you say the Baha'is censor writers? The problem with Mr. Rushdie was > that he thought there was no censorship in Islam. Rushdie should have merely been "shunned"? As a Bahai, that's news to me.... Is that the word from Shiite Iranian Bahais on Rushdie? It had not reached me yet.... I'm not surprised.... Ergo, the problem with Bahai writers, such as the censored Dialogue writers, must also be that they thought there was no censorship in the Bahai Faith.... Take a lesson from me.... I know otherwise.... Though I await the definitive word.... I feel nothing but seething contempt for so-called "decent" Bahais like you.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: From Frederick Glaysher Subject: Bahais & Salman Rushdie: (was Re: Covenant breaking, was Re: Bahai food & happy dance converts) From: FG Date: 1997/07/22 Message-Id: <33D4A57C.647E@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.hu man [More Headers] farshad farhoumand wrote: [clip] > At least we Baha'is are decent enough to shun someone, ask Salman > Rushdie what is happening to him for writing his own mind. > Now let us see, what belief is more humane; the one that avoids you or > the one that puts a price on your head? > So, you say the Baha'is censor writers? The problem with Mr. Rushdie was > that he thought there was no censorship in Islam. Rushdie should have merely been "shunned"? As a Bahai, that's news to me.... Is that the word from Shiite Iranian Bahais on Rushdie? It had not reached me yet.... I'm not surprised.... Ergo, the problem with Bahai writers, such as the censored Dialogue writers, must also be that they thought there was no censorship in the Bahai Faith.... Take a lesson from me.... I know otherwise.... Though I await the definitive word.... I feel nothing but seething contempt for so-called "decent" Bahais like you.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:23 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: From Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: The Baha'i Faith From: FG Date: 1997/06/29 Message-Id: <33B632B9.56F2@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel [More Headers] Hallaj wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 06:52:07 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >webmaster wrote: > >> > >> [................] > >> > >> > LONG LIVE IRAN... LONG LIVE FRONTIERS OF IRAN... DOWN WITH IRAN > >> ANTAGONIST > >> > ANARCHISTS... > >> > > >> > > >> > webmaster@iranvision.com > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > Iran Culture and Information Center > >> > https://www.IranVision.com > >> > Established January 1997 > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > News - Chat - Weather - Art - Pictures - Poetry - Music - Forum - Games > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > IRAN: (old: Persia) n: Land of Aryans (nobles, pure

) > > > > > >Desperado wrote: > >> Funny how Fascism, and racism always hide behind nationalism. Yes LONG LIVE > >> IRAN, and every democratic minded Iranian who can listen to the opposing > >> ideas without resorting to violence. > > > >You've touched on exactly what's one of the major problems with the > >Bahai Faith. Although violence probably isn't usually resorted to, > >there's absolutely no tolerance among Iranian Bahais for any views > >but their own.... After all, they're Peeeersian.... No decadent > >democracy there.... > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > har dam az in bAq bari miresad > tAzeh tar az tAzeh tari miresad. > > If we suppose you are right. I mean if really Iranian Baha'is have no > tolerance for any opposing view, then what type of religion is this? > If we suppose the Baha'i faith as the latest religion which claims to > be forefront of humanitarian efforts, the religion of modern age and > so on it should have enough strength to learn it's followers to be > tolerants. But according to you it has failed when it concerns it's > founders and first followers. > > You dislike Iranians and it gets a racistic form sometimes. One > example is this. You say to be Persian is synonymous with being > intolerant. Where have you learned to think like this? In Baha'i > school? Is racism the message of your religion? >From 20 years of observing Iranian Bahais operate.... Yes, it's the same in Bahai "schools" too.... Worse, umitigated indoctrination and propaganda are force-fed in those "noble" institutions.... I long ago decided, as many Bahais have, never to take my sons anywhere near one of them.... Racism is the message implicit in the thinking and "teaching" of the Iranian Bahais.... It's inescapable to conclude otherwise, in my opinion. I myself don't feel racism against the culture itself, in a sense, but do not admire its penchant towards oppression and coercion of others.... i.e., profound lack of respect for freedom of religious conscience and individual liberty.... > > You claim Iranian Bahai's are intolerants because they are Persians. > Needless to say that this sentence of yours shows how ignorant you are > when it concerns Iran. Iran is a land with several different > ethnicities. Iranian Baha'is come from different parts of the country > and therefore not all of them are persians. But again if we suppose > you are right. I mean if being persian hinders one to be tolerant then > conclusion is that my great ethnicity (Persian) is stronger than > Baha'i faith. Thanks. Personally, I wouldn't conclude that either, having followed the news these many years since spending a year of my life studying Farsi back in 1979-1980.... > > Hallaj > > Persian and tolerant -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:27 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: From Frederic Glaysheer Subject: Re: The Baha'i Faith From: FG Date: 1997/06/29 Message-Id: <33B632B9.56F2@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel [More Headers] Hallaj wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 06:52:07 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >webmaster wrote: > >> > >> [................] > >> > >> > LONG LIVE IRAN... LONG LIVE FRONTIERS OF IRAN... DOWN WITH IRAN > >> ANTAGONIST > >> > ANARCHISTS... > >> > > >> > > >> > webmaster@iranvision.com > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > Iran Culture and Information Center > >> > https://www.IranVision.com > >> > Established January 1997 > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > News - Chat - Weather - Art - Pictures - Poetry - Music - Forum - Games > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > IRAN: (old: Persia) n: Land of Aryans (nobles, pure

) > > > > > >Desperado wrote: > >> Funny how Fascism, and racism always hide behind nationalism. Yes LONG LIVE > >> IRAN, and every democratic minded Iranian who can listen to the opposing > >> ideas without resorting to violence. > > > >You've touched on exactly what's one of the major problems with the > >Bahai Faith. Although violence probably isn't usually resorted to, > >there's absolutely no tolerance among Iranian Bahais for any views > >but their own.... After all, they're Peeeersian.... No decadent > >democracy there.... > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > har dam az in bAq bari miresad > tAzeh tar az tAzeh tari miresad. > > If we suppose you are right. I mean if really Iranian Baha'is have no > tolerance for any opposing view, then what type of religion is this? > If we suppose the Baha'i faith as the latest religion which claims to > be forefront of humanitarian efforts, the religion of modern age and > so on it should have enough strength to learn it's followers to be > tolerants. But according to you it has failed when it concerns it's > founders and first followers. > > You dislike Iranians and it gets a racistic form sometimes. One > example is this. You say to be Persian is synonymous with being > intolerant. Where have you learned to think like this? In Baha'i > school? Is racism the message of your religion? >From 20 years of observing Iranian Bahais operate.... Yes, it's the same in Bahai "schools" too.... Worse, umitigated indoctrination and propaganda are force-fed in those "noble" institutions.... I long ago decided, as many Bahais have, never to take my sons anywhere near one of them.... Racism is the message implicit in the thinking and "teaching" of the Iranian Bahais.... It's inescapable to conclude otherwise, in my opinion. I myself don't feel racism against the culture itself, in a sense, but do not admire its penchant towards oppression and coercion of others.... i.e., profound lack of respect for freedom of religious conscience and individual liberty.... > > You claim Iranian Bahai's are intolerants because they are Persians. > Needless to say that this sentence of yours shows how ignorant you are > when it concerns Iran. Iran is a land with several different > ethnicities. Iranian Baha'is come from different parts of the country > and therefore not all of them are persians. But again if we suppose > you are right. I mean if being persian hinders one to be tolerant then > conclusion is that my great ethnicity (Persian) is stronger than > Baha'i faith. Thanks. Personally, I wouldn't conclude that either, having followed the news these many years since spending a year of my life studying Farsi back in 1979-1980.... > > Hallaj > > Persian and tolerant -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:29 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Bahai-discuss VERY URGENT -- PLEASE READ FIRST In message <875367309.1511473.0@hm1.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Chris, > >I've just read a couple of your recent messages to Bahai-D. >I want to say in private that I think you have a good sense of >what it is I'm actually trying to accomplish with trb.... As I've >said in the past, I'm not a covenant breaker, hater of the UHJ >and the administration and so on.... > >I want that dynamism of the human soul to have the free rein >God has given it in order to unleash its antinomies, allowing >room enough to exist to bring in the masses.... > >Shakespeare's drama is perhaps the fullest expression of >what I mean.... Dear Frederick, Many thanks for the above message. However, I am really writing to ask you to confirm that you have nothing to do with the 5 messages just posted from "Baha'i Faith" and entitled variously "From Fred Glaysher" with sundry spelling errors. In view of the fact that they are obviously posted to discredit you as an individual and, thereby, to encourage people to vote against TRB, and, quite probably, in the hope that you will rise to the bait and further discredit yourself, I feel that, should you wish to respond yourself, you do it in as diplomatic a way as possible as they are obviously the work of an /agent provocateur/. It is my wish to respond, with severity, to these messages which are digging up the past. I have noticed a considerable change in you over the last month and I feel that to dig up material like this is quite beyond the pale. I would have phoned you over thsi incident as it is quicker than e-mail but, of course, do not have your number. All the best from a very disgruntled, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 1:11 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Friends, The Usenet messages of Fred Glaysher which were posted to Bahai-Discuss by "bahai@hotmail.com" are a matter of public record. I saw no reason to comment on them when they were originally posted, nor will I comment on them now. If I may be frank -- IMHO, I believe that "bahai@hotmail.com" should not have posted these messages to B-D. I believe that this will serve to inflame a situation that's already very controversial. What good can come of it? It's like throwing gasoline onto a fire. It's clear that much of the B-D readership feels that the proposed talk.religion.bahai would be harmful to the image of the Faith and thus should be defeated. Personally, I feel that this fear is overstated a bit, but that's beside the point for now. The point I want to make is that our actions here may very well harm the image of the Faith in the eyes of the Usenet community, and that's something we don't need. May I respectfully suggest that those who wish to protest the formation of t.r.b do so by voting ABSTAIN. These votes will show up in the results but will not affect the final result; still, they will reduce the likelihood of people voting YES merely to cancel out a block of anticipated NO votes. That way, the voting will truly reflect the interest for t.r.b, rather than reactions to the rancorous arguments and accusations which may develop. It's time for all of us to engage in some thoughtful -- and detached -- meditation on the subject. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 1997 8:10 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Dear Roger, I fail to see the logic in what you say about the voting. Let me submit the following examples to illustrate what I'm thinking: If people vote no: If people vote abstain: 150 yes votes 150 650 no votes 50 100 abstain votes 700 Result: defeat: 150 - 650 passage: 150 - 50 It is therefore illustrated that abstain votes, in enough numbers, can alter the results of the poll. (These are sample figures, by the way, selected to illustrate the point.) I recommend that everybody involved vote their conscience and that way there'll be no recriminations or "yeah - buts". Much love, Nancy D. On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:11:49 -0400 Roger Reini writes: >Friends, > >The Usenet messages of Fred Glaysher which were posted to >Bahai-Discuss >by "bahai@hotmail.com" are a matter of public record. I saw no reason >to comment on them when they were originally posted, nor will I >comment >on them now. > >If I may be frank -- > >IMHO, I believe that "bahai@hotmail.com" should not have posted these >messages to B-D. I believe that this will serve to inflame a >situation >that's already very controversial. What good can come of it? It's >like >throwing gasoline onto a fire. > >It's clear that much of the B-D readership feels that the proposed >talk.religion.bahai would be harmful to the image of the Faith and >thus >should be defeated. Personally, I feel that this fear is overstated a >bit, but that's beside the point for now. The point I want to make is >that our actions here may very well harm the image of the Faith in the >eyes of the Usenet community, and that's something we don't need. > >May I respectfully suggest that those who wish to protest the >formation >of t.r.b do so by voting ABSTAIN. These votes will show up in the >results but will not affect the final result; still, they will reduce >the likelihood of people voting YES merely to cancel out a block of >anticipated NO votes. That way, the voting will truly reflect the >interest for t.r.b, rather than reactions to the rancorous arguments >and >accusations which may develop. > >It's time for all of us to engage in some thoughtful -- and detached >-- >meditation on the subject. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:32 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Response to From Frederick Glaysher In article <19970929151200.7424.qmail@hotmail.com>, Baha'i Faith wrote -- >Subject: Bahais & Salman Rushdie: (was Re: Covenant breaking, was Dear friends, We have just been treated to several posts from a person who is not only breaking the basic rules of ettiquette, and hiding their identity behind an anonymous pseudonym, but also is breaking an injunction of the House of Justice, and behaving in a distinctly non-Baha'i manner. Quite frankly I am horrified. We all know that during the last discussion period for TRB many things were posted by many people that should never have seen the light of day (or VDU, if you prefer) but to dig them up and display them in the way that "Baha'i Faith" has done can only be described as muck-raking. It is the sort of technique used by the gutter press to discredit public figures, and to illegitimately sway public opinion, and I am very much saddenned to find it being used on a Baha'i forum. I have already requested that readers of this forum try to forget personalities during this period of discussion for TRB (a period that actually has not yet started officially as the RFD has not yet been formally posted). But if you are going to talk about personalities, let me point out that Fred never once, as far as I know, hid behind a pseudonym. The discussion on which we are embarking is as to whether there is an interest in forming a newsgroup called talk.religion.bahai (and whther there is any good technical reason why it should not be formed), not whether Fred Glaysher or any other individual has posted things in the past. Thank God that this is not an open forum as, in a way, some of the messages it carries display the Faith in a far (and more subtley) worse light than anything on ARB where, at least, the attempts to undermine our beloved Faith throw the truth into a shining light. Written in haste, so appologies for mistakes, and with my love to you all, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 6:21 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Chris, I couldn't agree more with everything you say here.... Obviously, I did not post the messages from bahai@hotmail.com, and I do believe I know how to spell my own name, by the way.... Surely, we can all do better during this discussion of talk.religion.bahai.... >Dear friends, > >We have just been treated to several posts from a person who is not only >breaking the basic rules of ettiquette, and hiding their identity behind >an anonymous pseudonym, but also is breaking an injunction of the House >of Justice, and behaving in a distinctly non-Baha'i manner. Quite >frankly I am horrified. > >We all know that during the last discussion period for TRB many things >were posted by many people that should never have seen the light of day >(or VDU, if you prefer) but to dig them up and display them in the way >that "Baha'i Faith" has done can only be described as muck-raking. It >is the sort of technique used by the gutter press to discredit public >figures, and to illegitimately sway public opinion, and I am very much >saddenned to find it being used on a Baha'i forum. > >I have already requested that readers of this forum try to forget >personalities during this period of discussion for TRB (a period that >actually has not yet started officially as the RFD has not yet been >formally posted). But if you are going to talk about personalities, let >me point out that Fred never once, as far as I know, hid behind a >pseudonym. > >The discussion on which we are embarking is as to whether there is an >interest in forming a newsgroup called talk.religion.bahai (and whther >there is any good technical reason why it should not be formed), not >whether Fred Glaysher or any other individual has posted things in the >past. Thank God that this is not an open forum as, in a way, some of >the messages it carries display the Faith in a far (and more subtley) >worse light than anything on ARB where, at least, the attempts to >undermine our beloved Faith throw the truth into a shining light. > >Written in haste, so appologies for mistakes, and with my love to you >all, > >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 >-- >NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 6:27 AM To: Chris Manvell Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss VERY URGENT -- PLEASE READ FIRST Don't worry. I'm not going to react with outrage, etc.... Yawn.... I'm not surprised, really.... Ahh, what a pity.... I think you're reading of the person's motivations is on target. Thanks for posting to bd about it. Let's move on.... as they say.... Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- > From: Chris Manvell > To: Frederick Glaysher > Subject: Bahai-discuss VERY URGENT -- PLEASE READ FIRST > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:29 PM > > In message <875367309.1511473.0@hm1.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > >Chris, > > > >I've just read a couple of your recent messages to Bahai-D. > >I want to say in private that I think you have a good sense of > >what it is I'm actually trying to accomplish with trb.... As I've > >said in the past, I'm not a covenant breaker, hater of the UHJ > >and the administration and so on.... > > > >I want that dynamism of the human soul to have the free rein > >God has given it in order to unleash its antinomies, allowing > >room enough to exist to bring in the masses.... > > > >Shakespeare's drama is perhaps the fullest expression of > >what I mean.... > > Dear Frederick, > > Many thanks for the above message. > > However, I am really writing to ask you to confirm that you have nothing > to do with the 5 messages just posted from "Baha'i Faith" > and entitled variously "From Fred Glaysher" with > sundry spelling errors. In view of the fact that they are obviously > posted to discredit you as an individual and, thereby, to encourage > people to vote against TRB, and, quite probably, in the hope that you > will rise to the bait and further discredit yourself, I feel that, > should you wish to respond yourself, you do it in as diplomatic a way as > possible as they are obviously the work of an /agent provocateur/. It > is my wish to respond, with severity, to these messages which are > digging up the past. I have noticed a considerable change in you over > the last month and I feel that to dig up material like this is quite > beyond the pale. I would have phoned you over thsi incident as it is > quicker than e-mail but, of course, do not have your number. > > All the best from a very disgruntled, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > For more info goto: > , or ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 7:30 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai I'm concerned that this morning I find Bahai-Discuss is being used for a campaign against me personally by someone pretending to be me and posting from bahai@hotmail.com. I request that your committee officially denounce this abusive activity clearly calculated to inflame passions against my person and against talk.religion.bahai, before the proper period of discussion has even begun. I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you under separate posting. I await patiently your answer to my previous communication. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 7:36 AM To: BCCA CC Cc: CC Secretary Subject: Fw: hate mail#2 Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- > From: The Kleinhenz's > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Your recent messages > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:45 AM > > Hey Fred: Cool your jets and think long and hard about what you are > saying public: > "9 ayatollahs?" "wouldn't let your sons get near (Persian > Baha'is)" If you are going to make an ass of yourself do it > privately. Your career as a Baha'i is on the line. Don't blow > it. > > John Kleinhenz > > -- > ******************************************************************* > What power can the shadowy creature claim to possess when face to > Face with Him Who is the Uncreated? > Baha'u'llah > ****************************************************************** > > ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 8:53 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Mental tests? Here's one... > I was trying to convey my wish for a test so severe it would rend the > community in two. Those who are not strong in the Faith will then leave it > and those true lovers of Baha'u'llah will be recognized and drawn together. T.r.b and a.r.b, perhaps ? Seriously, I was saddened to read your first note, as were many others. But I agree with the others that this test and difficulty, or the reaction to it, could ultimately benefit those involved. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 8:45 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Nancy S Damren wrote: > > Dear Roger, > > I fail to see the logic in what you say about the voting. The logic involves what I see are the proper reasons for voting a certain way on a Usenet Big 8 newsgroup vote, the "canonical" reasons for which were recently forwarded to B-D. > Let me submit > the following examples to illustrate what I'm thinking: > > If people vote no: If people vote abstain: > > 150 yes votes 150 > 650 no votes 50 > 100 abstain votes 700 > > Result: > defeat: 150 - 650 passage: 150 - 50 > > It is therefore illustrated that abstain votes, in enough numbers, can > alter the results of the poll. (These are sample figures, by the way, > selected to illustrate the point.) Except that, according to my understanding of the "canonical" reasons for voting, most of the No votes were cast for an improper reason. According to the "canon", if one does not have Usenet access, then one should not be participating in a Usenet vote -- period. IMHO, this could be generalized to include people who have Usenet access but don't use it. According to the "canon", these are the proper reasons for voting No (quoting from the forwarded post cited above): 1) The proposal is bad for a group I expect to read in the future. 2) A NO vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. In more detail: 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). 1) b) The proposal establishes a group I would like to read, but does it in such a bad way that it's better to vote it down and try again in six months; I wouldn't find the badly established group worth reading. 2) a) I systematically vote NO on (all groups, moderated groups, *.misc groups, etc.) for Usenet policy reasons. 2) b) The name is bad and will thus harm Usenet namespace. 2) c) The moderators are bad and will thus create a bad newsgroup where (in namespace) a better newsgroup could have gone. 2) d) The charter is bad (see 2) c)). 2) e) The proponents have behaved so badly that a NO vote is an appropriate way of telling proponents not to do so in future. (end of quotes) For better or for worse, "The image of the Faith may be harmed" is not a valid "canonical" reason. I must admit that I had some difficulty with this during the first t.r.b vote. Naturally, we want to defend the Faith against what we see as attacks. It arises from our love of Baha'u'llah. Sometimes, that can lead to rash behavior on our parts. I am by no means immune to this; I recently posted a draft FAQ to alt.religion.bahai, only to withdraw it when I realized that, by my doing this, I may spur CB's to generate their own. This may be obvious, but it should be said: the Usenet voting process is not identical to the Baha'i election process. Here's another thought. Could one also say that the rules that govern Usenet (such as there are) constitute a "government" of sorts, and that we Baha'is should follow those rules as though we were obeying a government? That's an interesting analogy. > I recommend that everybody involved vote their conscience and that way > there'll be no recriminations or "yeah - buts". > Much love, > > Nancy D. > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 9:49 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" In my opinion both threats are highly over-rated, the vast majority of the Usenet community couldn't care less if talk.religion.bahai is defeated. In all his campaigning, Mr. Glaysher only convinced 156 people to vote for his group. I could do as well or better with talk.fan.cabbage! There are good reasons for voting yes, there are good reasons for voting no, In my opinion, the reasons for voting no out number the reasons for voting yes. Again, I urge those who are going to vote to look at alt.religion.bahai, this is what you are voting for, if you like it then vote yes, if you don't then vote no, as simple as that. Don't be swayed by others opinions on how you should or shouldn't vote, as a member of the Internet community you have a vote, do not allow anyone to take that vote from you. At 01:11 PM 9/29/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: >It's clear that much of the B-D readership feels that the proposed >talk.religion.bahai would be harmful to the image of the Faith and thus >should be defeated. Personally, I feel that this fear is overstated a >bit, but that's beside the point for now. The point I want to make is >that our actions here may very well harm the image of the Faith in the >eyes of the Usenet community, and that's something we don't need. > > ---------- From: Azzizz[SMTP:DrAzzizz@netgazer.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 10:51 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to ...... I have a question or two for anyone here who might be able to provide accurate, reliable information. When and where will we vote? How will the votes be tallied? When will we have the results? Are we to believe everyone, including Glaysher will accept the vote count this time? Why is Glaysher still posting to BD? According to his own posts, all over the net, he doesn't even consider himself to be a Baha'i in good standing, so why must we continue to suffer his posts? Azzizz ---------- From: Rowe, Thomas[SMTP:trowe@uwsp.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 11:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Roger wrote (in reference to Usenet voting and rationale for votes): > 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its > readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by > introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve > of, > or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). > and > For better or for worse, "The image of the Faith may be harmed" is not > a > valid "canonical" reason. > I want to thank Roger for posting this (note - a lot of it was snipped). In regards to the latter, there is no question in my mind that the image of the Faith will be harmed by the establishment of talk.religion.bahai as a Big 8 Usenet. That makes me wonder why Mr. Glaysher wants so badly to establish it. But, as Roger points out, its not a valid reason for a no vote. OTOH, I note that the 1st paragraph does suggest a valid reason for a no vote is the removal of a moderator that you want to keep. I suspect this actually refers to the change in the charter of a newsgroup and not to the establishment of a second newsgroup. Nevertheless, if TRB was established, would that not split off some readership from SRB, and if that is the case, is it not, in essence, a change in moderation? I do not wish to be accused by Mr. Glaysher of behaving badly here and therefore am only posting the above as food for thought, not as my intention to vote no or to suggest to others that they do so. I will keep my decisions on that vote to myself and, honestly, have not yet decided how to vote. BTW, I have seen the posts from Bahai Faith@hotnews... - and noted Mr. Glaysher's suggestion that they are phony posts not from him. Given the nature of those posts (pretty annoying) and a suggestion that they are not from their reputed source, could we please ask the owners of this list to filter posts from that address (that is, not post them to the list)? If this is another person using Mr. Glaysher's name that is fraud and the person needs to be admonished. Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu ************************************************* He is a true Baha'i who strives, by day and by night to progress and advance along the path of human endeavor. Abdu'l-Baha ************************************************ https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/bahai.htm (Pictures) ---------- From: N. E. Hoyle[SMTP:nehoyle@mindlink.bc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 11:36 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Friends, In response to the Chris Manvell's post: At 07:32 30/09/97 +0100, you wrote: >In article <19970929151200.7424.qmail@hotmail.com>, Baha'i Faith > wrote -- >>Subject: Bahais & Salman Rushdie: (was Re: Covenant breaking, was > >Dear friends, > >We have just been treated to several posts from a person who is not only >breaking the basic rules of ettiquette, and hiding their identity behind >an anonymous pseudonym..... (balance snipped) I have a great deal of respect for Chris' approach to numerous discussions on this list, which reflect IMV both serious thought and the highest of Baha'i attitudes, however in this case I think he has made an incorrect assumption. My impression of the posts in question is not that someone was trying to suggest Frederick was posting under a psudonym, merely that someone was sharing (cut and pasting) posts to Baha'i Discuss that had previously been posted to the various newsgroups by Frederick himself. I find this a reasonable assumption as the tenor of these posts is identical with the tone of Mr. Glayshers post's that I have read for myself on the newsgroups. So much so in fact, that I was very surprised to learn recently that Mr. Glaysher is actually a Baha'i -- I had assumed, based upon posts he has made in the past, that he was a particularly tenacious enemy of the Faith. I do not intend this to be construed as a personal attack upon Mr. Glaysher himself, merely a response to the possible assumption by anyone that there is a plot afoot to discredit Mr. Glaysher. Warm regards to all, Norma (B.C., Canada) "The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord." from the Baha'i Writings ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 11:58 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: The forwarded messages from Frederick Glaysher There was no attempt to disquise the messages that were forwarded to Bahai-Discuss. They were retrieved from alt.religion.bahai using www.dejanews.com. The whole retrieval was posted to show date and time of his posts to that group. If you doubt that the messages were from Glaysher, I encourage you to visit DejaNews to verify those posts. I'm sure he's annoyed that his hatefilled messages are still around for others to retrieve, but none the less they are there. Do not take my work for it, visit www.dejanews.com amd verify it for yourselves. I will refrain from posting more, but it was necessary to forward these to give you a taste of what Glaysher is saying in alt.religion.bahai and what he will be saying in talk.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1:35 PM To: Azzizz; Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to ...... Frederick Glaysher is a Baha'i in goodstanding (to the best of my knowledge) and appears to deeply love the Baha'i Faith. Of course he can post to bahai-discuss! And his participation in the internet Baha'i community should warmly welcomed. Tom Hodges On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Azzizz wrote: > I have a question or two for anyone here who might be able to > provide accurate, reliable information. When and where will we > vote? How will the votes be tallied? When will we have the > results? Are we to believe everyone, including Glaysher will > accept the vote count this time? Why is Glaysher still posting > to BD? According to his own posts, all over the net, he doesn't > even consider himself to be a Baha'i in good standing, so why > must we continue to suffer his posts? > > Azzizz > > > > > ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1:35 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to ...... Frederick Glaysher is a Baha'i in goodstanding (to the best of my knowledge) and appears to deeply love the Baha'i Faith. Of course he can post to bahai-discuss! And his participation in the internet Baha'i community should warmly welcomed. Tom Hodges On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Azzizz wrote: > I have a question or two for anyone here who might be able to > provide accurate, reliable information. When and where will we > vote? How will the votes be tallied? When will we have the > results? Are we to believe everyone, including Glaysher will > accept the vote count this time? Why is Glaysher still posting > to BD? According to his own posts, all over the net, he doesn't > even consider himself to be a Baha'i in good standing, so why > must we continue to suffer his posts? > > Azzizz > > > > > ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:10 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Chris Manvell wrote: > snip, snip > I have already requested that readers of this forum try to forget > personalities during this period of discussion for TRB (a period that > actually has not yet started officially as the RFD has not yet been > formally posted). But if you are going to talk about personalities, let > me point out that Fred never once, as far as I know, hid behind a > pseudonym. Dear Friends: I must wholeheartedly agree with Chris's sentiments. While in a much earlier post I had mentioned that accidentally coming accross Mr. Glaysher's posts had personally upset me very much, to the point of losing sleep (I guess my particular cultural make up has a hard time dealing with insults directed at groups that include my best friends!), I agree that the discussion on whether to have an unmoderated forum should not be centered on a personality issue. There are all kinds of people out there on this lovely planet and, whether they know it or not, they are all our brothers and sisters and we must show them the verities of our faith by our actions and attitudes. This includes, I think, how we deal with the confused and confusing! Because this world will always have some of those. As some recent messages have stated: let's welcome our tests and thank God for them! Your Loving Sister in Faith, Roxana ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:20 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to ...... Tom Hodges wrote: > Frederick Glaysher is a Baha'i in goodstanding (to the best of > my knowledge) and appears to deeply love the Baha'i Faith. Dear Tom, Please check with the Baha'i National Center rather than going by the best of your knowledge. He announced his withdrawal from membership a few months back We can see that he deeply loves himself. Do you mean that he deeply loves the Baha'i Faith because he does so much to harm it? John ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 12:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher In article , "N. E. Hoyle" wrote -- >I have a great deal of respect for Chris' approach to numerous discussions >on this list, which reflect IMV both serious thought and the highest of >Baha'i attitudes, however in this case I think he has made an incorrect >assumption. Dear Norma, Thank-you for your compliment, though I really do not think I deserve it. >My impression of the posts in question is not that someone was trying to >suggest Frederick was posting under a psudonym, merely that someone was >sharing (cut and pasting) posts to Baha'i Discuss that had previously been >posted to the various newsgroups by Frederick himself. Sorry if I mislead you. It was almost immediately obvious that Fred was not the originator of these particular posts. After all, of all people, he should know how to spell his name! No, I hate to say it but, I feel that the person concerned was purely an agent provocateur. If my memory serves me right, Fred did write the original tests of the posts that b@h.c put up. But they were written while back and I feel that to dredge up the past like that is really unkind. I know Fred has made rash comments in the past - but then so have I and many others. >I find this a reasonable assumption as the tenor of these posts is identical >with the tone of Mr. Glayshers post's that I have read for myself on the >newsgroups. So much so in fact, that I was very surprised to learn >recently that Mr. Glaysher is actually a Baha'i -- I had assumed, based upon >posts he has made in the past, that he was a particularly tenacious enemy of >the Faith. > >I do not intend this to be construed as a personal attack upon Mr. Glaysher >himself, merely a response to the possible assumption by anyone that there >is a plot afoot to discredit Mr. Glaysher. Far from being an enemy of the Faith, Fred is very firm in his belief in, and love for, Baha'u'llah. However, he IS unhappy about certain aspects of the Faith as it is today and is very forthright in his views. This, inevitably, has caused friction in the past with those who disagree with these views (myself included, I might add). Anyway, it is not Fred's existance we are polling for here, it is the creation of a newsgroup where anyone can post about the Faith or subjects relating to it. Fred is just one of those people, Roger is another, Donald another, Jeff another, I am another, ...... Posting up "samples" like those we saw (completely out of context) is like quoting anything else out of context. Even the most innocuous comment can be misconstrued. But the worse part of it is that it is a personal attack from someone who is, presumably, a Baha'i on another Baha'i, from behind a pseudonym (one day I'll get the spelling right first time!). If we have problems (as individuals) with the behaviour of another Baha'i the only correct course is though either the NSA/LSA or through the Auxiliary Board -- certainly not on a forum like this. With love, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1:13 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to ...... In article <343111D7.9CA50A92@netgazer.net>, Azzizz wrote -- >I have a question or two for anyone here who might be able to >provide accurate, reliable information. You will vote when the CFV (call for votes) is posted on news.groups. That will be after a period of discussion following the posting af a RFD (request for discussion). A pointer to the RFD will be posted on Baha'i Discuss and elsewhere. >When and where will we >vote? In about a month or so's time. You will be told where in the CFV. >How will the votes be tallied? They are counted by an independent vote taker who will be named in the CFV. >When will we have the >results? Shortly after polling closes >Are we to believe everyone, including Glaysher will >accept the vote count this time? There is no case of of not accepting the vote. If the poll prevents the formation of TRB then anyone has the right to try again 6 months later. >Why is Glaysher still posting >to BD? Maybe he is subscribed? Maybe someone who is subscribed who has a conscience is copying the posts to him. I don't know. >According to his own posts, all over the net, he doesn't >even consider himself to be a Baha'i in good standing, so why >must we continue to suffer his posts? I have never yet read a post from Fred saying that, in fact it is very much the opposite. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. [Baha'u'llah] For more information go to , or . ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:16 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: The forwarded messages from Frederick Glaysher In article <19970930155821.5433.qmail@hotmail.com>, Baha'i Faith wrote -- >There was no attempt to disquise the messages that were forwarded to >Bahai-Discuss. They were retrieved from alt.religion.bahai using >www.dejanews.com. The whole retrieval was posted to show date and >time of his posts to that group. If you doubt that the messages were >from Glaysher, I encourage you to visit DejaNews to verify those >posts. I'm sure he's annoyed that his hatefilled messages are still >around for others to retrieve, but none the less they are there. Do >not take my work for it, visit www.dejanews.com amd verify it for >yourselves. > >I will refrain from posting more, but it was necessary to forward these >to give you a taste of what Glaysher is saying in >alt.religion.bahai and what he will be saying in talk.religion.bahai > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com There was no dispute as to whether the messages you posted were genuine. Most people here have read Fred in the past. But, look you, dredging up anyone's past, whether it be Fred's or mine or anyone elses, does no good to anyone. The last time I saw that being done (on Usenet) to someone (not a Baha'i) he went so far off the rails that we feared for his life. Before you condemn Fred, think what damage you may be doing to someone who really is, or may be, trying hard to bury a past. Anyway, how about posting some of the positive messages that have been posted. To concentrate on only the negative, and on just one individual, is not very fair (British understatement!). And to do it hiding your identity behind a pseudonym is even less fair. Why not come out into the open and declare yourself. Just an idle after-thought and nothing to do with the above, should TRB fail to be formed there is a very good possibility that more posts will be put up in the major groups like TRM. What is being posted will not be hid. Just, as I said, an idle thought. In fact the worst current thread (Madison Baha'is) actually was cross-posted to ARB from elsewhere, if I remember right. My best wishes to all of you, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life. (Baha'u'llah) For more information go to , or . ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1:51 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" In article <3.0.32.19970930084908.0090d470@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer wrote -- >In my opinion both threats are highly over-rated, the vast majority of the >Usenet community couldn't care less if talk.religion.bahai is defeated. >In all his campaigning, Mr. Glaysher only convinced 156 people to vote for >his group. I could do as well or better with talk.fan.cabbage! >There are good reasons for voting yes, there are good reasons for voting no, >In my opinion, the reasons for voting no out number the reasons for voting >yes. Actually, 156 is a lot higher than many groups. I agree that there are many reasons for voting either way, though I will not try to enumerate them so cannot say which outnumbers the other. Actually it's a bit pointless anyway, as one overwhelming reason one way could completely nullify all others. >Again, I urge those who are going to vote to look at alt.religion.bahai, this >is what you are voting for, if you like it then vote yes, if you don't then >vote no, as simple as that. Don't be swayed by others opinions on how you >should or shouldn't vote, as a member of the Internet community you have a >vote, do not allow anyone to take that vote from you. I too suggest that you try looking at ARB (though it is a bit quiet at the moment). But you must ignore the spam and cross-posting from other groups, that is all too common these days. But please look on with an open mind and bear in mind too that there are those who have managed to put over the Baha'i Message very successfully on ARB. Also bear in mind that it is the RIGHT of enemies of the Faith to talk about it and the RIGHT of the Baha'is to respond to mis-information, be it honest error or otherwise. In fact, over the months that ARB has existed there has been quite a lot of educating going on. Also bear in mind that those who are reading the group are not fools and will soon pick up on what is Baha'i and what is not. >At 01:11 PM 9/29/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: >>It's clear that much of the B-D readership feels that the proposed >>talk.religion.bahai would be harmful to the image of the Faith and thus >>should be defeated. Personally, I feel that this fear is overstated a >>bit, but that's beside the point for now. The point I want to make is >>that our actions here may very well harm the image of the Faith in the >>eyes of the Usenet community, and that's something we don't need. I agree with Roger here. Whatever may have been said (and whether you agree with it or not), the massive no vote was noted by many people and did no good to the image of the Faith. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 2:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fwd: Response to From Frederick Glaysher In message <19970930112238.28537.qmail@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Chris, would you consider posting your response to arb? I can't and >won't but think others ought to know what's being done on >bahai-d. So far, I've received two pieces of hate mail as a result of, >what word do I use, attack....? > >If you want to see them, I'll forward them to you. Dear Fred, I will think about it. I don't want to post the actual messages that went out so I will have to explain my response to them. If I get time tonight I will see what I can do -- though it may not be too good (like my morning's post) as I am going through a tired phase. (Also I have not yet looked at B-D tonight.) By the way, when DOES the RFD get posted formally? All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 1:11 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > In my opinion both threats are highly over-rated, the vast majority of the > Usenet community couldn't care less if talk.religion.bahai is defeated. In terms of the total readership of Usenet, you are correct. I should have been more specific, for when I said "Usenet community", I meant the "leadership" (if there is such a thing) of the community -- the gurus, those who administer the groups, the group creation process, etc. They could be seen as prominent persons in Usenet, and I think it would be a mistake to make them upset with us. >In all his campaigning, Mr. Glaysher only convinced 156 people to vote for > his group. I could do as well or better with talk.fan.cabbage! No, you couldn't; there is no talk.fan.* hierarchy -- not yet, anyway . Seriously, I would like to cite the results for comp.soft-sys.gis.esri, posted to news.announce.newsgroups on Sept. 29. The new group was passed by a vote of 127 to 20. Will t.r.b have sufficient interest to pass? We'll see. > There are good reasons for voting yes, there are good reasons for voting no, > In my opinion, the reasons for voting no out number the reasons for voting > yes. I'd be interested in seeing your rationale for this -- it'll enlighten the discussion. > Again, I urge those who are going to vote to look at alt.religion.bahai, this > is what you are voting for, if you like it then vote yes, if you don't then > vote no, as simple as that. Don't be swayed by others opinions on how you > should or shouldn't vote, as a member of the Internet community you have a > vote, do not allow anyone to take that vote from you. Strictly speaking, it is the Usenet community that is voting, not the Internet community. There IS a difference. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 5:09 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" At 06:51 PM 9/30/97 +0100, Chris Manvell wrote: >>Again, I urge those who are going to vote to look at alt.religion.bahai, this >>is what you are voting for, if you like it then vote yes, if you don't then >>vote no, as simple as that. Don't be swayed by others opinions on how you >>should or shouldn't vote, as a member of the Internet community you have a >>vote, do not allow anyone to take that vote from you. > >I too suggest that you try looking at ARB (though it is a bit quiet at >the moment). But you must ignore the spam and cross-posting from other >groups, that is all too common these days. But please look on with an >open mind and bear in mind too that there are those who have managed to >put over the Baha'i Message very successfully on ARB. Also bear in mind >that it is the RIGHT of enemies of the Faith to talk about it and the >RIGHT of the Baha'is to respond to mis-information, be it honest error >or otherwise. In fact, over the months that ARB has existed there has >been quite a lot of educating going on. Also bear in mind that those >who are reading the group are not fools and will soon pick up on what is >Baha'i and what is not. The question is not one of rights, there are 30000+ usenet newsgroups, including talk.religion.misc and talk.religion.newage which serve the purpose of allowing covenant breakers and others a place to spread mis-information. Why yet another forum has to be created for them is my question. The rights discussion ignores the vastness of Usenet. I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as a forum for the confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or twice in ARB and was attacked by Fredrick, I just lost all interest in the group after that. I found the constant bickering and personal attacks very disheartening, for the health of my soul I left alt.religion.bahai > >I agree with Roger here. Whatever may have been said (and whether you >agree with it or not), the massive no vote was noted by many people and >did no good to the image of the Faith. This is opinion, not fact, maybe somebody's eyebrows raise for a second or two, maybe not. Who knows? With no evidence either way it really doesn't have a bearing on the current vote. The word "massive" is deceiving, less than 700 is small by usenet standards, massive is something on the order of 20000 or so. That *would* be noticed. ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 5:15 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: [Fwd: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher] <> Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Chris Manvell wrote: > > > > snip, snip > > > I have already requested that readers of this forum try to forget > > personalities during this period of discussion for TRB (a period that > > actually has not yet started officially as the RFD has not yet been > > formally posted). But if you are going to talk about personalities, let > > me point out that Fred never once, as far as I know, hid behind a > > pseudonym. > > Dear Friends: > > I must wholeheartedly agree with Chris's sentiments. While in a much > earlier post I had mentioned that accidentally coming accross Mr. > Glaysher's posts had personally upset me very much, to the point of > losing sleep (I guess my particular cultural make up has a hard time > dealing with insults directed at groups that include my best friends!), > I agree that the discussion on whether to have an unmoderated forum > should not be centered on a personality issue. > There are all kinds of people out there on this lovely planet and, > whether they know it or not, they are all our brothers and sisters and > we must show them the verities of our faith by our actions and > attitudes. This includes, I think, how we deal with the confused and > confusing! Because this world will always have some of that. As some > recent messages have stated: let's welcome our tests and thank God for > them! > > Your Loving Sister in Faith, > > Roxana ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 6:22 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Frederick is his own worst enemy, due to misinterpreting things in the worst possible way, usually assuming that everything is an attack on him (this is supportive Fred, not an attack!) and responding vigorously. So it takes a strong stomach to post regularly on a.r.b. Stronger than I have. :-) My hat is off to Don, Chris, Roger, and others who post there in a calm and positive manner. As to how to vote, I haven't decided yet. And when I do I won't announce it. Tom Hodges >Robert Moldenhaur wrote: > I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as a forum for the > confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or twice in ARB and was > attacked by Fredrick, I just lost all interest in the group after that. I > found the constant bickering and personal attacks very disheartening, for > the health of my soul I left alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: Amanda S. Green[SMTP:asg@airmail.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 6:45 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: F. Glaysher, etc. Dear Friends: It has been a very long time since I have posted to this group but, with the current debate and personal attacks that have been going on recently, I feel the need to. Please remember when you are considering posting to this group that those who are subscribed include New Believers. What kind of example are we setting for them when such attacks as have been aimed at Mr. Glaysher and others continue to take up bandwith and disk space? The underlying principal of this wonderful Faith is unity. I recognize that this doesn't preclude discussion of ideas and even disagreement. But we cannot allow these disagreements to disintegrate into warfare. I apologize for taking up so much of your time but this string of posts has disturbed me a great deal and it reminds me of trouble on another Baha'i list earlier this year. Just my two cents worth. Amanda Green asg@iadfw.net ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 6:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: The forwarded messages from Frederick Glaysher Well, in the meantime, I'm sure we've all had enough hate and discontent to do us for a couple of centuries. But who are you? And why are you not using your name in postings to us? Nancy Damren On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:58:19 PDT "Baha'i Faith" writes: >There was no attempt to disquise the messages that were forwarded to >Bahai-Discuss. They were retrieved from alt.religion.bahai using >www.dejanews.com. The whole retrieval was posted to show date and >time of his posts to that group. If you doubt that the messages were >from Glaysher, I encourage you to visit DejaNews to verify those >posts. I'm sure he's annoyed that his hatefilled messages are still >around for others to retrieve, but none the less they are there. Do >not take my work for it, visit www.dejanews.com amd verify it for >yourselves. > >I will refrain from posting more, but it was necessary to forward >these >to give you a taste of what Glaysher is saying in >alt.religion.bahai and what he will be saying in talk.religion.bahai > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 8:27 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: >.... less >than 700 is small by usenet standards, massive is something on the order >of 20000 or so. That *would* be noticed. Well, I rummaged the Usenet archives for lists of No votes. The archives only ran up to March, 1997 and I can't find anything more current. There are probably better sources, but I couldn't find them. I'm assuming this list is incomplete, but representative. >From 1993 to then, the list of FAILED VOTES with over 100 "NO" votes came up as follows (I did this by hand so I might have missed a few.) (This is out of 211 failed votes listed. The fewest number of "NO" votes on the defeated groups was 11.) (These were posted by Mr. Lawrence, the original USENET voting guru.). ----------------------------------------------------- List has Excel's "tabs" in it. Sorry for crummy formatting. ----------------------------------------------------- News-Group Yes-votes No-Votes -------- --- ----- rec.music.white-power 592 33033 (yeah, that's 33-thousand) soc.culture.kashmir 453 1993 soc.culture.indian.muslims 132 1492 soc.culture.azerbaijan 1732 920 rec.sport.shooting.coaching 114 511 rec.food.cooking.books+tv 330 372 rec.food.cooking.misc 370 350 rec.food.cooking.modified-diet 350 345 rec.food.cooking.marketplace 349 340 rec.food.cooking.equipment 406 314 soc.genealogy.jewish.misc 156 286 soc.apathy 104 283 soc.genealogy.jewish.methods 166 275 rec.food.spicy+hot 442 273 talk.religion.islam 425 248 rec.food.bread 474 246 soc.culture.sindhi 348 197 misc.fitness.weights.misc 82 139 rec.games.go.misc 86 126 misc.fitness.weights.supplements 99 123 misc.fitness.weights.bodybuilding 101 119 soc.religion.messianic 69 119 soc.culture.indonesia.religon 148 111 rec.hunting.misc 137 110 misc.fitness.weights.power+strength 117 108 talk.religion.messiah 76 104 rec.arts.drwho.misc 114 100 -------- 180 others had fewer than 100 "No" votes. Wade ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 4:38 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to ...... John B. Cornell wrote: > > Tom Hodges wrote: > > > Frederick Glaysher is a Baha'i in goodstanding (to the best of > > my knowledge) and appears to deeply love the Baha'i Faith. > > Dear Tom, > > Please check with the Baha'i National Center rather than > going by the best of your knowledge. He announced his > withdrawal from membership a few months back We can > see that he deeply loves himself. Do you mean that he deeply > loves the Baha'i Faith because he does so much to harm it? > > John I must disagree with this statement. I have never seen anything by Fred that can be even remotely considered to be a statement of withdrawal from the Faith. IMHO, I do not consider his open letter to the Universal House of Justice to be such a statement. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 4:30 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Rowe, Thomas wrote: > > Roger wrote (in reference to Usenet voting and rationale for votes): > > > 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its > > readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by > > introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve > > of, > > or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). > > > and > > > For better or for worse, "The image of the Faith may be harmed" is not > > a > > valid "canonical" reason. > > > I want to thank Roger for posting this (note - a lot of it was snipped). That is true, for I was extracting the canonical voting reasons -- not trying to repost the whole note. > In regards to the latter, there is no question in my mind that the image > of the Faith will be harmed by the establishment of talk.religion.bahai > as a Big 8 Usenet. That makes me wonder why Mr. Glaysher wants so badly > to establish it. But, as Roger points out, its not a valid reason for a > no vote. > > OTOH, I note that the 1st paragraph does suggest a valid reason for a no > vote is the removal of a moderator that you want to keep. I suspect > this actually refers to the change in the charter of a newsgroup and not > to the establishment of a second newsgroup. Nevertheless, if TRB was > established, would that not split off some readership from SRB, and if > that is the case, is it not, in essence, a change in moderation? No, I believe the sentence applies only to changes in the initially proposed moderators of a moderated newsgroup. Since TRB is not going to be moderated, I don't believe the sentence is applicable. > I do not wish to be accused by Mr. Glaysher of behaving badly here and > therefore am only posting the above as food for thought, not as my > intention to vote no or to suggest to others that they do so. I will > keep my decisions on that vote to myself and, honestly, have not yet > decided how to vote. > > BTW, I have seen the posts from Bahai Faith@hotnews... - and noted Mr. > Glaysher's suggestion that they are phony posts not from him. Given the > nature of those posts (pretty annoying) and a suggestion that they are > not from their reputed source, could we please ask the owners of this > list to filter posts from that address (that is, not post them to the > list)? If this is another person using Mr. Glaysher's name that is > fraud and the person needs to be admonished. The individual using the ID "bahai@hotmail.com" reposted notes from Fred Glaysher. I can vouch for the authenticity of the original messages. I saw them when they were originally posted. But "bahai@hotmail.com" is NOT Fred Glaysher. Incidentally, I have a question for "bahai@hotmail.com": why do you not reveal your name? Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 1:59 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: votes on trb The last time trb was proposed..I didn't vote at all. I simply saw it as a waste of my time. I still see it's a waste so once again I won't bother sticking my vote in one way or another. Much Love, Roxanne > Frederick is his own worst enemy, due to misinterpreting things in the > worst possible way, usually assuming that everything is an attack on > him (this is supportive Fred, not an attack!) and responding vigorously. > So it takes a strong stomach to post regularly on a.r.b. Stronger > than I have. :-) My hat is off to Don, Chris, Roger, and others > who post there in a calm and positive manner. > > As to how to vote, I haven't decided yet. And when I do I won't > announce it. > > Tom Hodges > > >Robert Moldenhaur wrote: > > I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as a forum for the > > confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or twice in ARB and was > > attacked by Fredrick, I just lost all interest in the group after that. I > > found the constant bickering and personal attacks very disheartening, for > > the health of my soul I left alt.religion.bahai > ---------- From: Mark van Brenk[SMTP:yahxanan@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 2:48 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb Is it just me, or does anyone else find the proposal of trb (with alt.religion.bahai and soc.religion.bahai already in existence) disunifying? At 12:59 AM 10.1.97 -0500, you wrote: >The last time trb was proposed..I didn't vote at all. I simply saw it as a >waste of my time. I still see it's a waste so once again I won't bother >sticking my vote in one way or another. > >Much Love, >Roxanne > > > >> Frederick is his own worst enemy, due to misinterpreting things in the >> worst possible way, usually assuming that everything is an attack on >> him (this is supportive Fred, not an attack!) and responding vigorously. >> So it takes a strong stomach to post regularly on a.r.b. Stronger >> than I have. :-) My hat is off to Don, Chris, Roger, and others >> who post there in a calm and positive manner. >> >> As to how to vote, I haven't decided yet. And when I do I won't >> announce it. >> >> Tom Hodges >> >> >Robert Moldenhaur wrote: >> > I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as a forum for the >> > confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or twice in ARB and was >> > attacked by Fredrick, I just lost all interest in the group after that. I >> > found the constant bickering and personal attacks very disheartening, for >> > the health of my soul I left alt.religion.bahai >> > > > ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 2:55 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Bahai-discuss attacks on talk.religion.bahai At 07:30 AM 09/30/97 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I must add that I have received two pieces of hate mail, >one of which personally threatens me. I will forward it to you >under separate posting. >Frederick Glaysher Dear Frederick: Though you and I differ on the matter of the proposed newsgroup, I want to tell you I am very sorrowful that you have received such negative, and personally targeted, email. Though men of good will can differ on matters of policy (ie, such as the proposed forum) no one can justify sending hate mail, and _certainly_ not among Baha'is. I hope Baha'u'llah will strengthen you and guide you in this difficult time. I wish you only happiness and many years of fruitful service in the Cause. Sincerely yours, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 6:50 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb Mark van Brenk wrote: >Is it just me, or does anyone else find the proposal of trb (with >alt.religion.bahai and soc.religion.bahai already in existence) disunifying? There seems to be little doubt that the proposal generates mixed responses, some quite emphatic and some quite emotional. On the other hand, to be a bit judgemental, the outcome will hardly alter the course of human history. In other words, this is yet another prototypical local issue of the type that Baha'is need to learn to deal with and consult about. If the discussion is disunifying, instead of enlightening and ultimately empowering and unifying, I'd suggest that we have an opportunity here to improve our Baha'i discussion skills. I'd also suggest that every communication has two components, one of which deals with the ostensible subject, and the other deals with the speaker's attitude towards and relationship with the listener(s). I believe that the idea of Baha'i consultation is that essentially any subject matter can be dealt with, if it is wrapped in a context of supportive love and a message that sincerely says "I'm trying to understand you, to learn from this, and to get closer to you as a human being." It's when the message context says "I hate you! Go away!" that the discussion becomes disunifying, no? Wade ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 8:31 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" Robert Moldenhauer wrote: [snips] > The question is not one of rights, there are 30000+ usenet newsgroups, > including > talk.religion.misc and talk.religion.newage which serve the purpose of > allowing > covenant breakers and others a place to spread mis-information. Why yet > another forum has to be created for them is my question. The rights > discussion ignores the vastness of Usenet. > I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as a forum for the > confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or twice in ARB and was > attacked by Fredrick, I just lost all interest in the group after that. I > found the constant bickering and personal attacks very disheartening, for > the health of my soul I left alt.religion.bahai I must disagree with the contention that t.r.b will "serve as a forum for the confrontation of covenant breakers." Whenever CB's have posted to a.r.b, in the vast majority of instances, their messages have been ignored by the participants (with the unfortunate exception of a thread now taking place on a.r.b). Speaking for myself, I avoid direct replies to messages posted by known or suspected CB's. Unfortunately, I did respond inadvertently to someone who rejected the authority of the Universal House of Justice; he had expressed the opinion that the next Manifestation would be female and would be appearing very soon, and I replied that I disagreed. It was only after posting the reply that I saw his remark about the House buried in his post. That individual is now in my newsreader's killfile. So I think it likely that the CB's will be almost completely ignored no matter where they post. Regarding the comment "I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as a forum for the confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or twice in ARB and was attacked by Fredrick....": IMHO, this comment could be construed as implying that Fred is a CB. I hope that this was merely an unfortunate juxtaposition and not an accusation. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 6:43 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb Mark van Brenk wrote: > > Is it just me, or does anyone else find the proposal of trb (with > alt.religion.bahai and soc.religion.bahai already in existence) disunifying? The way I see it, a.r.b was a stopgap measure. It was created by an individual (not a Baha'i, BTW) who got tired of the bickering about the first t.r.b vote, so he created the new group. This may also have been a reaction to the overwhelming (by Usenet voting standards) No vote. The main difference between a.r.b and t.r.b is that t.r.b, by virtue of being in a Big 8 hierarchy, would be more likely to be widely propagated and carried than a.r.b. There are sites which refuse to carry alt.* groups as a matter of policy, thus preventing anyone at such sites from ever reading a.r.b (or reading it easily, at least). In effect, what the vote would do is to move a.r.b into the talk.* hierarchy. In fairness, there are undoubtedly sites which don't carry talk.* groups either. One example is my employer, which not only doesn't carry talk.* groups but filters out most alt.* groups as well (of course, this is defensible on business grounds, as neither a.r.b nor t.r.b has a business purpose). And one can follow a.r.b via search engines like DejaNews, Reference.com or AltaVista (though it is not as convenient to follow newsgroups through search engines). Also, one could subscribe to a news server like Zippo and gain access to a.r.b that way (though I don't know if non-US users can access Zippo). And what would happen to a.r.b if t.r.b is passed? Would it simply go away? Doubtful; it's nearly impossible to kill an alt.* group. Would it still be used? Don't know. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 11:45 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" At 08:31 AM 10/1/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: An unfortunate juxtaposition on my part. Fred may or may not still be a Baha'i, but he is definitely not a covenant breaker. My reason for leaving alt.religion.bahai was because of a personal attack, I found the atmosphere unhealthy for my soul and left, and have never returned. >Regarding the comment "I see no reason to create a newgroup to serve as >a forum for the confrontation of covenant breakers. I posted once or >twice in ARB and was attacked by Fredrick....": IMHO, this comment >could be construed as implying that Fred is a CB. I hope that this was >merely an unfortunate juxtaposition and not an accusation. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > ---------- From: N. E. Hoyle[SMTP:nehoyle@mindlink.bc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 2:57 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Dear Chris, (and Friends) You are a good and loyal friend. My response to your comments, below, is, I hope, dispassionate and merely analytical. At 17:59 30/09/97 +0100, you wrote: >Dear Norma, >...Fred did write the original tests of the posts that >b@h.c put up. But they were written while back and I feel that to >dredge up the past like that is really unkind. I know Fred has made >rash comments in the past - but then so have I and many others. In all respect, "Rash comments" hardly addresses the reality of an extended, deliberate, and far-flung campaign of slander and vitriol against both individuals and more damaging, the God-given Institutions of the Faith. Even a "sin-covering-eye" has to, at times, blink. I do not see the re-poster of these messages as being "unkind". The span of the three re-postings took in a period from March to late July. They were not commented upon, merely exposed to this list, complete with time-frame. If history teaches us anything, it should be to learn from it. I have noted the very recent hiatus in such posts, but have to wonder if the change is sincere, or merely a tactical withdrawal. I would hope it is sincere, but would rather err on the side of caution. >Far from being an enemy of the Faith, Fred is very firm in his belief >in, and love for, Baha'u'llah. However, he IS unhappy about certain >aspects of the Faith as it is today and is very forthright in his views. >This, inevitably, has caused friction in the past with those who >disagree with these views (myself included, I might add). "Unhappy" is one thing. Deliberately destructive is quite another. "Forthright" in this context is, unfortunately, a euphamism for abusive. Is it possible that such actions genuinely mirror a love for Baha'u'llah? >... Anyway, it is >not Fred's existance we are polling for here, it is the creation of a >newsgroup where anyone can post about the Faith or subjects relating to >it. Fred is just one of those people, Roger is another, Donald another, >Jeff another, I am another, ...... Agreed. But if I might re-phrase... as we already have one where that criteria exists, what we will be voting for is a 'larger' newsgroup -- a bigger pond, if you will, with a larger audience, and it is Fred who is most insistant upon creating one. As it would bear the name Baha'i, with all the implications that has for the general public, I therefore have what I think is a pertinent question: What 'powers' (if any) are conferred with 'ownership' of a newsgroup? Warm regards, Norma (B.C., Canada) "The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord." from the Baha'i Writings ---------- From: Derek Cockshut[SMTP:dcockshut@usbnc.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 2:04 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: forwarded messages from Frederick Glaysher +The 54 Hour Day <> Dear Friends Frederick Glaysher does appear to be a gentleman with a rather fixed agenda and attack style. As to whether or not we need yet another Internet forum on the Faith. I would have thought it was doubtful we do.Personally I do not have enough time in the day to do all things I need to do as it is.In order to keep abreast of the Internet one has to spend about 30 hours a day online then you have 8 hours plus work time plus 8 hours sleep plus 2 hours to eat plus 1 hour leisure and oh we should do things for the Faith like daily prayer etc say 1 hour 2 hours a day teaching and another 1 hour deepening.That makes a 53 hour day and we only get 24 hours as I recall.Oh I forgot quality time with ones family say 1 hour. We need a 54 hour Day to keep up sorry Frederick no time. ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: The forwarded messages from Frederick Glaysher Author: "Baha'i Faith" at INTERNET Date: 9/30/97 8:58 AM There was no attempt to disquise the messages that were forwarded to Bahai-Discuss. They were retrieved from alt.religion.bahai using www.dejanews.com. The whole retrieval was posted to show date and time of his posts to that group. If you doubt that the messages were from Glaysher, I encourage you to visit DejaNews to verify those posts. I'm sure he's annoyed that his hatefilled messages are still around for others to retrieve, but none the less they are there. Do not take my work for it, visit www.dejanews.com amd verify it for yourselves. I will refrain from posting more, but it was necessary to forward these to give you a taste of what Glaysher is saying in alt.religion.bahai and what he will be saying in talk.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 1:02 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Fred not a Baha'i? In article <343142DC.F072CF94@lightspeed.net>, "John B. Cornell" wrote -- >Tom Hodges wrote: > >> Frederick Glaysher is a Baha'i in goodstanding (to the best of >> my knowledge) and appears to deeply love the Baha'i Faith. > >Dear Tom, > > Please check with the Baha'i National Center rather than >going by the best of your knowledge. He announced his >withdrawal from membership a few months back We can >see that he deeply loves himself. Do you mean that he deeply >loves the Baha'i Faith because he does so much to harm it? I did the next best thing, and checked with Fred himself. He assures me that rumours of his demise are much exaggerated. So how the rumour got about I do not know. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 12:58 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to "From Frederick Glayer" In article <3.0.32.19971001104527.00906c90@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer wrote -- >At 08:31 AM 10/1/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: > >An unfortunate juxtaposition on my part. Fred may or may not still be a >Baha'i, >but he is definitely not a covenant breaker. > >My reason for leaving alt.religion.bahai was because of a personal attack, I >found the atmosphere unhealthy for my soul and left, and have never returned. You were quite right to do so, in my opinion. Each of us is different and reacts differently to the sort of posts one sees on "the net." If you feel that you are being adversely affected, spiritually, then you made the right choice. As I've said before, I feel sickened by some of the material posted on ARB, but I have found, in the last six months, a strength to stand up to that material, either in responding or in just letting it go. Good grief, what one sees on ARB is nothing compared with the diatribes put out on soc.culture.iranian (not that that makes it any better). I can take attacks from non-Baha'is with equinamity -- after all, they do not KNOW the love that is there. What I find far more difficult to stomach is the hateful messages I have read from time to time on some of the closed e-mail forums. I thank God that, for instance, the old Talisman was not available to public viewing -- in many respects it left ARB standing. My love to you all, and please keep loving, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland +44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto or or . ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 6:28 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Mr. Roger Reini: a sincere and heartfelt thanks.... Mr. Reini: I have felt sincere and heartfelt gratitude for your generous words, defense, and support on Bahai-Discuss. I'm indebted to both you and Chris Manvell.... It seems to me the least I can do is say so publicly.... I remember a poet's words, "All else fades." Thank you. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 1997 9:25 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb 10/1/97 2:48 AM In answer to your last message : >Is it just me, or does anyone else find the proposal of trb (with >alt.religion.bahai and soc.religion.bahai already in existence) disunifying? Dear Mark- No I don't find the proposal disunifying but I do find the opinions of some as disunifying. We need to be responsible for our behavior rather than blaming and event or a person for our disunity. Nothing can disunify us if we act appropriately and realistically according the Writings and the Covenent. Folks can disagree without being disunified. I don't believe unity means sameness. We have differing perceptions, feelings and actions in diversity but when we argue and contend, use attack and defend type behaviors to get our own way, then it will be divisive. Some of the posters on this subject have separated themselves from me for I will not read certain responses from certain individuals merely because I note a pattern of not wanting to modify their speech even though many have complained and they are certainly not within even the broadest interpretation of spiritual principles regarding speech. To make a mistake is one thing. To inadvertently, in the heat of the moment say something is one thing. But to continually use the same style is quite another. This indicates to me that there is something else behind all this. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying I am telling everyone how they should express their conscience. I am saying that the Writings are obviously directing us to have dignity and respect for each other, appreciate each other, love each other and these attitudes should be reflective in our communications. When we use our computers to draw out the knowledge or information we need we must do it in a proper manner. To bang on the keyboard willy nilly will not give us what we need or cause the computer to function at its top efficiency. The same with us human critters and our delicate brains. If we don't treat another person properly their brain simply does not function at its fullest. In one of my science of reality deepening programs I find this excerpt relevant. ŒAbdu¹l-Baha, in his Paris talks, spoke of both joy and suffering. He said, (PT,pages 109-10) ³In this world we are influenced by two sentiments, Joy and Pain.² ³Joy gives us wings! In times of joy our strength is more vital, our intellect keener, and our understanding less clouded. We seem better able to cope with the world and to find our sphere of usefulness. But when sadness visits us we become weak, our strength leaves us, our comprehension is dim and our intelligence veiled. The actualities of life seem to elude our grasp, the eyes of our spirits fail to discover the sacred mysteries, and we become even as dead beings.² We know this is true, don¹t we! We¹ve all experienced exactly what he is talking about. But how can we avoid being unhappy, in a world as confused and unjust as ours is? How can we get around the numerous causes of our miseries? Let¹s listen to him as he goes on: ³There is no human being untouched by these two influences; but the sorrow and grief that exist come from the world of matter - the spiritual world bestows on the joy! If we suffer it is the outcome of material things, and all the trials and troubles come from this world of illusion. For instance, a merchant may lose his trade and depression ensues. A workman is dismissed and starvation stares him in the face. A farmer has a bad harvest, anxiety fills his mind. A man builds a house which is burnt to the ground and he is straightway homeless, ruined, and in despair.² But these things actually exist! Why does ŒŒAbdu¹l-Bahá speak of them as if they were illusions? Let¹s listen further; ³Today, humanity is bowed down with trouble, no one escapes: but, thank God, the remedy is at our doors. Let us turn our hearts away from the world of matter and live in the spiritual world!² PT p.109-10) The big question is how do we do this? How CAN we live in the spiritual world when we are so anchored in this earthly existence? Is what ŒŒAbdu¹l-Bahá is talking about something actually possible?- something that I myself can DO? Is there, in reality, some way by which I can avoid being weighed down with misery, and experience that joy and happiness that are so precious? Exactly what is he asking of us? This course has been designed to answer these questions. So you see, when we feel pain, suffering, in its many forms, like say getting riled up over what someone says, we lose our detachment, we diminish our intellects and run the risk of reacting in a manner that will not solve but make worse the situation. If I strike you physically it will hurt and you will jump back or attack automatically because this is the animal natures behavior pattern. And it is very successful for survival at all costs purposes. If I say something that is an attack you also will react automatically out of a preconditioning from our old world. But if we take in the Writings, experience them, change our perceptions, change our feelings and attitudes then our behavior is more in line with the Covenant. Not an easy thing to do for in this case we must exercise our will power, we must have knowledge and we must take appropriate action. All in all, I would say that it is not the stressful situations (in this case the TRB issue) that is causing the problem, it how we are reacting to it. regards, doug ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 10:37 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: On Various Points In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. I am going to try to respond to some comments and questions that have appeared on these lists or been sent to me privately. I ask your forgiveness for being unable to take the time to reply in greater detail now to all of the fascinating points which have appeared in my mailbox lately. If you feel what you read below is not a response (whether or not you agree with it) to something you've sent me, you may kindly repost privately or to any list what you'd like my reaction to. Firstly, on this issue of declaration cards, the Canadian declaration card, the most recent version I can recall, does not contain any statement of Baha'i belief. The declarant signs a statement similar, if not identical to, "I apply to be enrolled in the Baha'i Faith." I cannot recall whether it was different in 1971. However, and moving on also to the comment that all I have to do is sign the first verse of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and send that to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada, even if what I signed in 1971 were to have been identical to the card in use in the US of A, this does not resolve the issue, in my view. Auxiliary Board Member Mrs. Suzanne Tamas provided me with some quotes making it clear that literalism is not demanded of Baha'is. Yet, my perception of the existing situation is that my affixing my signature to either the American declaration card or the first verse of the Aqdas which would have been quite possible had I only now encountered this religion and understood the words, "within reason," to be clearly contained, though unwritten, as part of the statement of belief, would not be deemed acceptable, unless I was asserting complete literalist perception and agreement with those words. This, in my view, is part of the larger picture. As I view it, my spiritual path since I gave up my fling with Canadian nationalism when I was in high school, has been directed at how I may best aid humanity to attain to global peace and understanding. This has not altered in all the years and through the quite numerous and various conditions and periods of my life. While I perceive a current very crucial issue (how reasonably to accommodate both the authority bestowed upon the Universal House of Justice and the principles of the Baha'i Faith so that humanity and not a fundamentalist fraction of it may abide within a Faith whose raison d'etre is human harmony) for the Baha'is to resolve, the Universal House of Justice has provided me with the opportunity to explore options to the Baha'i path, seriously to assess the viability of alternatives in the event present trends continue and the Baha'i Faith fails in its purpose. I would like to express an other view to the one stating the Baha'i Faith and its Administrative Order would be irreparably flawed, or however Shoghi Effendi stated it precisely, in the absence of a Guardian. In my view, the absence of any institution able to dictate understanding authoritatively fosters human harmony by permitting the holding and the expression of various unauthoritative opinions. Actually, my understanding is that nothing else can work, and without allowing each individual freedom to think and express personal and unimposed perception unity (in diversity) of the human species is unattainable. As to the question of only the Guardian being capable of long range thinking, I believe this is not exactly a representation of reality. The distinction is that only he is perceived by literalists to have the authority adequately to impress his long range analysis upon the Universal House of Justice so that this is taken seriously and not as an interference in the issue of the authority of the Universal House of Justice. I have stated repeatedly when I was a Baha'i that I do not assert any Baha'i authority, and I certainly don't claim any now. This does not impede my ability to think in the long term. I reject any suggestion that I am unique in this regard. The Universal House of Justice ideally will be made up of individuals able spiritually to transcend the normal political temptation to focus so very much on a term by term basis, and this due to character, rather than a system which, as employed, has rendered membership on the UHJ a tenured position. Indeed, it is my long term analysis that while one possibility is that the Baha'i Faith will not succeeed unless it overcomes the attitude of literalist exclusivity currently in vogue at the highest levels, the domination in the past of large areas of the globe by imperialistic monotheistic systems equally exclusive and literalist renders it impossible for me to discount a similar triumph for the fundamentalist version of the Baha'i Faith. It is this analysis which lies behind my failed attempt to communicate effectively with the Universal House of Justice, my very strong encouragement for all those with less extreme views to resist temptations to resign from the Baha'i Faith, and my quite sincere exploration of the vast and varied world of neo-paganism. Whatever the future may bring, personally my path remains one focused on contributing, as best I may, to the achievement of the harmony of humanity. This, to answer the question how can I allow Haifa to define my religion, does not seem to me compatible with pretending to be a Baha'i in opposition to the assessment by the Universal House of Justice that I am not one. I cannot conceive how I could demonstrate the harmony of humanity by claiming to be a Baha'i heretic, when my understanding is that the Founders of the Baha'i Faith intended that heresy not exist. This does not mean that my past did not occur, nor that I need cast aspersions upon the Baha'i Faith. There is spirituality in the Baha'i Faith and enormous energy, even if some people claim not to have encountered this, and instead to have seen the opposite. Such spirituality is not restricted to the Baha'i Faith. It is a normal trait within humanity. And it is not excluded from the Baha'i Faith, even though at times and in places this may appear to be the case. So, just as the Baha'is taught me that I was not rejecting my religious roots, that I was not denying the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount or the Eightfold Path of Buddha when I became a Baha'i, similarily I accept the value of where I have been as my path now moves on from the Baha'i Faith. I am, indeed, pagan, and enjoying the thrill of flexing my paganism openly. I took a break in the writing of this to go out at dawn to stand inside a tree-ring, (5 great trees, though as a few split three feet or so from the ground, it can feel like 8, whose trunks touch at the bottom, with openings and space for someone to enter and stand inside) communing with the spirits of that place. I am steeped in the study of dreams and tarot and qabalah. These aspects of my life clearly are very much in keeping with paganism. I hope this is adequate for now. So many of your posts remain unread. Other points may be addressed later. For now, I wish you well. May the future exceed our highest hopes. Blessed Be, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 10:49 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: forwarded messages +The 54 Hour Day 10/1/97 2:04 PM In answer to your last message : Dear friends- I would concur with Derek on this. Actually I believe the Faith is giving us an opportunity in this Revelation to improve our quality. We all suffer from the quality mentality of our economic conditioning and now it may be time to improve the quality of all things, including how we spend our time and how we communicate. Being of an open mind and still considering the many opinions on this TRB issue I have yet to find a good solid argument for me to vote yes or no at this moment. regards doug > Dear Friends > > Frederick Glaysher does appear to be a gentleman with a rather fixed > agenda and attack style. As to whether or not we need yet another > Internet forum on the Faith. I would have thought it was doubtful we > do.Personally I do not have enough time in the day to do all things I > need to do as it is ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 10:50 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb 10/1/97 6:50 AM In answer to your last message : Very good thoughts I'm sure Cheryll. However bad a discussion is though, we, the readers or listeners can determine if it is going to cause us disunity. No matter how badly one says something we ought to deal with it realistically for the sake of love and unity and not be judgemental about the writer or speaker. My wife says she does not mind inappropriate phone calls of tv programs for she can hang up or swich channels. We can do this with unwanted emails too. We don't have to allow ourselves to become overly emotional and write in counter attack styles. When I read some of the messages concerning this ARB or TRB issue I often feel horrible, but I don't blame the writer, I blame myself for allowing myself to feel as I do and I set about correcting the situation with prayer and understanding. If it gets too rough, I simply decide not to read the messages from these individuals. regards, 'doug >I believe that the idea of Baha'i consultation is that essentially any >subject matter can be dealt with, if it is wrapped in a context of supportive >love and a message that sincerely says "I'm trying to understand you, to >learn from this, and to get closer to you as a human being." > >It's when the message context says "I hate you! Go away!" that the discussion >becomes disunifying, no? ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 10:50 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher 10/1/97 2:57 PM In answer to your last message : Dear friends- After reading a few of the first posts regarding this issue I felt I did not wish to read any more. A few subsequent ones like this one appear to offer another slant on things and I have a prevote question to ask. What is the purpose of this new list? regard, doug >Agreed. But if I might re-phrase... as we already have one where that >criteria exists, what we will be voting for is a 'larger' newsgroup -- a >bigger pond, if you will, with a larger audience, and it is Fred who is most >insistant upon creating one. As it would bear the name Baha'i, with all the >implications that has for the general public, I therefore have what I think >is a pertinent question: What 'powers' (if any) are conferred with >'ownership' of a newsgroup? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 3:42 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher >From: dmcadam >Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:50:09 -0400 > >10/1/97 2:57 PM In answer to your last message : > >Dear friends- > >After reading a few of the first posts regarding this issue I felt I did >not wish to read any more. A few subsequent ones like this one >appear to offer another slant on things and I have a prevote question >to ask. > >What is the purpose of this new list? > >regard, >doug A fair question. Since I weary of witnessing myself demonized here of late, permit me to speak for myself.... Talk.religion.bahai would be an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith for both Bahais and non-Bahais. It would exist on a major Big 8 hierarchy, allowing easy accessibility for most people on the Internet today. Since April 1, 1997, when alt.religion.bahai was created by a non-Bahai, there have been more than 2,800 messages posted to it by people of diverse and varying opinions on one aspect or another of the Bahai Faith. There have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. The purpose, as I personally conceive of it, is the conversion of the masses, which requires a medium capable of reaching them. Such a medium does not presently exist. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 4:15 PM To: 'Frederick Glaysher' Subject: RE: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Dear Mr. Glaysher, Would you please clear up one question I have? Are you a Baha'i or have you withdrawn from the Faith? Thank you, Ragna Jensen ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 12:42 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher >From: dmcadam >Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:50:09 -0400 > >10/1/97 2:57 PM In answer to your last message : > >Dear friends- > >After reading a few of the first posts regarding this issue I felt I did >not wish to read any more. A few subsequent ones like this one >appear to offer another slant on things and I have a prevote question >to ask. > >What is the purpose of this new list? > >regard, >doug A fair question. Since I weary of witnessing myself demonized here of late, permit me to speak for myself.... Talk.religion.bahai would be an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith for both Bahais and non-Bahais. It would exist on a major Big 8 hierarchy, allowing easy accessibility for most people on the Internet today. Since April 1, 1997, when alt.religion.bahai was created by a non-Bahai, there have been more than 2,800 messages posted to it by people of diverse and varying opinions on one aspect or another of the Bahai Faith. There have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. The purpose, as I personally conceive of it, is the conversion of the masses, which requires a medium capable of reaching them. Such a medium does not presently exist. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 5:18 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic <> ---------- From: Brian Roberts[SMTP:roblaw@seanet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 5:25 PM To: Baha'i Discuss; Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Thanks so much for this coherent explanation. There has been so much damning of everything and everyone going on regarding this topic that it has been very difficult to figure out anything........ Have you consulted with any of the Institutions regarding your idea? I've always found that their guidance has helped focus my plans a great deal. Warmly, Lenore > A fair question. Since I weary of witnessing myself demonized here > of late, permit me to speak for myself.... Talk.religion.bahai would be > an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith for both Bahais and > non-Bahais. It would exist on a major Big 8 hierarchy, allowing easy > accessibility for most people on the Internet today. Since April 1, > 1997, > when alt.religion.bahai was created by a non-Bahai, there have been > more than 2,800 messages posted to it by people of diverse and > varying opinions on one aspect or another of the Bahai Faith. There > have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not > have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone > demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. > > The purpose, as I personally conceive of it, is the conversion of the > masses, which requires a medium capable of reaching them. Such a > medium does not presently exist. > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 5:48 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Cc: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher When you talk of 2800 messages Fredrick, does that include the porno and sex for hire adds or the vitrolic nature of postings there? Consider what Baha'u'llah says about the true nature of liberty. "Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance. "Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness. "Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing. "Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven." (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraphs 122 - 125) Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Since April 1, > 1997, > when alt.religion.bahai was created by a non-Bahai, there have been > more than 2,800 messages posted to it by people of diverse and > varying opinions on one aspect or another of the Bahai Faith. There > have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not > have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone > demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. > > Frederick Glaysher > ---------- From: Derek Cockshut[SMTP:dcockshut@usbnc.org] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 5:20 PM To: fglaysh@hotmail.com; bahai-discuss@bcca.org Subject: Re[2]: Response to From Frederick Glaysher My dear Frederick I believe Doug is right what is the purpose of such a list?Also if you received backing for this from people. Are you prepared to examine your personal method of dealing with the rest of humanity?I have to tell you from what I have observed you are more than aggressive to all and sundry. Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Author: "Frederick Glaysher" at INTERNET Date: 10/2/97 12:42 PM >From: dmcadam >Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:50:09 -0400 > >10/1/97 2:57 PM In answer to your last message : > >Dear friends- > >After reading a few of the first posts regarding this issue I felt I did >not wish to read any more. A few subsequent ones like this one >appear to offer another slant on things and I have a prevote question >to ask. > >What is the purpose of this new list? > >regard, >doug A fair question. Since I weary of witnessing myself demonized here of late, permit me to speak for myself.... Talk.religion.bahai would be an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith for both Bahais and non-Bahais. It would exist on a major Big 8 hierarchy, allowing easy accessibility for most people on the Internet today. Since April 1, 1997, when alt.religion.bahai was created by a non-Bahai, there have been more than 2,800 messages posted to it by people of diverse and varying opinions on one aspect or another of the Bahai Faith. There have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. The purpose, as I personally conceive of it, is the conversion of the masses, which requires a medium capable of reaching them. Such a medium does not presently exist. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Harvey Morgan[SMTP:HMorgan@TSUinc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 7:54 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Friends, to expand on Lenore's thought, which I think is critical, I offer the following. IMHO, it is only when one believes for a moment that one is more wise than the Universal House of Justice and the other infallible entities in our Faith ( who, I hope NO one who is involved in this discussion, questions in the slightest) that they are at the heart of dissension. I personally never take any opinion or idea seriously unless I believe that Abdul Baha, the Guardian, and the Universal House of Justice would concur. Our Faith protects us from the majority's OPINIONS of the group. Our Faith is not trying to duplicate the political debate process. It PROTECTS us from that. Individuals who present ideas/suggestions that cause discord are likely very right OR very wrong, and all of humanity's only source today for an infallible answer on anything is to write to Universal House of Justice AFTER sharing the idea at your feast and/or in your community's letter, and, if necessary, AFTER writing to one's LSA, and, if necessary, soon, AFTER writing to one's Regional Council, and if necessary, AFTER writing to one's NSA. This is for Fred, AND any others, who contribute to ANY long debates via the Internet about ANY subject. Please, for the benefit of my hard drive, and my valuable time and others' time, who read the posts but don't bother responding much of the time, and to keep me from having to start automatically reject much more mail on this subject, and show everyone on this list how easy it is for others to do so as well, please post here any of the replies from letters that you have written from any of the institutions, praising your idea. If you haven't written this letter(s), please do so, and tell this group you are doing so. Until then, let's wait for their answer. I beg you and supplicate to God that you do this immediately, hopefully b4 another message is posted on this subject, if you have not already. I truly believe that if you love us, or, if any of those, who contribute to interminable debates, loves the rest of us, we would ask for guidance from the institutions and not be the center of any debate. There is absolutely so support within the Baha'i writings encouraging one to be the center of ANY debate. Let's have the Internet be ONE, not the only, medium to reach masses of humanity. But, I am absolutely certain, that any teaching activity that is born out of conflict will assuredly fail, in the long term, fail miserably. So, let's stop the conflict, right NOW. At a minimum, if you don't respond, in time, the debate will end. But, you can stop the debate now by showing that you are relying on guidance you requested and have/or will receive from the institutions. Then, it is up to the Baha'i community to read the guidance from our institutions, and assuredly most good intentioned individuals will no longer need to be involved in the debate, because the answer will be clear. I pray that this post has been a help to the challenge of debates via the Internet and otherwise. Perhaps, those who have taken debating classes or were raised in a contentious family, believe publicly debating an issue indefinitely is natural, but assuredly, an utter waste of time, and at the end of our lives, it is unlikely that many, if any, including God, were glad that we contributed to an debate, rather than to use the tools he has given us, our institutions, to seek answers to any questions effectively and efficiently. At 02:25 PM 10/2/97 -0700, Brian Roberts wrote: >Thanks so much for this coherent explanation. There has been so much >damning of everything and everyone going on regarding this topic that it >has been very difficult to figure out anything........ > >Have you consulted with any of the Institutions regarding your idea? I've >always found that their guidance has helped focus my plans a great deal. > >Warmly, > >Lenore > > >> A fair question. Since I weary of witnessing myself demonized here >> of late, permit me to speak for myself.... Talk.religion.bahai would be >> an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith for both Bahais and >> non-Bahais. It would exist on a major Big 8 hierarchy, allowing easy >> accessibility for most people on the Internet today. Since April 1, >> 1997, >> when alt.religion.bahai was created by a non-Bahai, there have been >> more than 2,800 messages posted to it by people of diverse and >> varying opinions on one aspect or another of the Bahai Faith. There >> have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not >> have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone >> demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. >> >> The purpose, as I personally conceive of it, is the conversion of the >> masses, which requires a medium capable of reaching them. Such a >> medium does not presently exist. >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > > Harvey Morgan Telecommunications Solutions Unlimited, Inc. 608-831-7800 608-831-4999 fax 608-831-5800 personal "...A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity... " Shoghi Effendi, March 11, 1938 ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:59 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Baha'i Discuss; Robert Moldenhauer; Baha'i Discuss Subject: Regarding t.r.b. This is in response to two seperate messages from Frederick Glaysher and Robert Moldenhauer. If you decide to read this post, please note there is a NEW proposal for action at the end as well as a question put to Frederick in the middle. I ask that you please take note of both of these. At 12:42 PM 10/02/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >The purpose, as I personally conceive of it, is the conversion of the >masses, which requires a medium capable of reaching them. Such a >medium does not presently exist. >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Frederick, this is the first thing I have heard about t.r.b. that makes sense. I note that the Internet has some powerful advantages regarding mass communication, namely its wide scope, its speed, and its very low cost of communication. The high level forum (ie Big 8 heirarchy, that is) you propose could indeed become a powerful medium for reaching the masses. The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes me think that _maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. Like you, I am not afraid of attacks on the Faith which will inevitably occur on a widely distributed forum like t.r.b. In fact, you probably know the famous quotes from the Master which declare that the enemies of the Faith have been appointed by Baha'u'llah as the "couriers of His message." Thus the true irony is that the enemies of the Faith will in the long run do much more good for getting the Faith known thant will the followers of the Cause. Such is the futility of opposing the Plan of God, as declared in the Writings. Thus in my view, it is actually an advantage to create a forum where the Faith can emerge more fully out of obscurity and become a target of the potential enemies of the Cause. My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you propose is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. ----- Robert Moldenhauer wrote this in response to your message: >2800 messages to alt.religion.bahai, sound impressive, doesn't it? Let's >look at the last 25. And you see > >14 messages talking about the formation of talk.religion.bahai > 3 attacks on the Madison LSA > 2 Spams > 2 Covenant Breaker invitations > 3 Baha'i topics With respect Robert, this mode of sampling does not reveal a clear picture of the 2800 a.r.b. messages. There are several reasons: 1) Statistically, 25 messages is a sample size of less than 1 percent (n=0.89 percent). A sample that small is unlikely to indicate much of anything concerning the remainder of the 2800 messages. According to a statistical table I have from the National Educational Association, a minimum sample size one would need for a sample of 2800 messages is about 340 for being able to make minimal claims of validity. Selecting sample size is an important aspect of discussing these matters in a valid way. 2) The sample is biased. They all have in common that they were the last 25 messages. Obviously this is probably all that you have kept on your hard drive, so I understand this is merely using the information at hand. Unfortunately though, one cannot validly generalize the proportions mentione to the remainder of the 2800 messages, since the last 25 messages could be influenced by many other factors that may or may not have been operating over the long term. For instance, you note that 14 messages were about t.r.b. (ie. 56 percent). I think you will agree that such a proportion has _not_ obtained in all the previous months of a.r.b.'s existence. Thus, the "historical event" of t.r.b. being a hot topic _right now_ has heavily influenced the current character of a.r.b.'s discussions. In research circles, this form of bias is called "historical bias". The bias comes not from a person's intention to be misleading, but rather from the manner (method) in which the sample is collected. If someone has the 2800 mesages on file a prodedure known as "content analysis" could be performed which would yield useful information, that would also be fair to all parties concerned. I am trained in this method of data analysis. If someone wished to take the initiative in providing the file, I could work with some others to go through the process formally. Then all would know the truth of a.r.b. based on reliable methods and honest reporting. In addition to the file itself, all that would be required are a small group of impartial scorers able to implement the method I would show them how to follow. Those who are already known to have a position (like myself, Robert, and Fred, and others) could also have a role to play, so that everyone would be satisfied that the "study" is being conducted fairly. In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about a.r.b. that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled by opinion or by actual data? Regards, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 6:20 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher In article <34341693.52D5@humboldt1.com>, Douglas Myers wrote -- >When you talk of 2800 messages Fredrick, does that include the porno and >sex for hire adds or the vitrolic nature of postings there? Regretably, there are a number of those, though not many compared with the bulk of the messages. All groups suffer from the first two types of posting and will continue to do so unless they are moderated. But that is not reason for preventing a group from existing. As for the vitriolic nature of some posts, yes, I agree, some have been more than vitriolic. But the fact is that there are millions of people out there who would love to see the demise of the Baha'i Faith (try soc.culture. iranian if you want to see some real vitriol) and we are going to have to face up to these attacts increasingly in places far more public that a newsgroup on usenet. You've only got to go incognito into our local church to hear open attacks on our Faith -- and the congregation believe it. I see ARB, and hopefully TRB as well, as learning grounds where those of us who wish to can counter these attacks and try to show those who are lurking in the background (probably not too many at present) how Baha'is respond to the sort of postings that we have to deal with, both from non-Baha'is and, occasionally, fellow Baha'is. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 6:33 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic In article <3.0.32.19971002161834.009266c0@persia.com>, Robert Moldenhauer wrote -- >2800 messages to alt.religion.bahai, sound impressive, doesn't it? Let's >look at the last 25. And you see > >14 messages talking about the formation of talk.religion.bahai > 3 attacks on the Madison LSA > 2 Spams > 2 Covenant Breaker invitations > 3 Baha'i topics The current posting to ARB is not typical of what has been posted in the past. Since the formation of the group there have been many threads addressing issues regarding the Baha'i Faith, especially regarding its validity and its relationship with Islam. Some of these have proved very difficult to address and I, for one, have learnt much about Islam and certain aspects my own Faith in the last six months as a result of ARB. It is through adversity that we will triumph. If individuals do not want adversity then they should not to subscribe to the group. I think it is true to say that nearly every thread in ARB has involved non-Baha'is and has kept those of us who have used the group regularly on our toes. I would also like to point out that many of the posts have been cross- posted to other newsgroups with far larger readerships than ARB, indeed many started elewhere and came to ARB. So these posts will appear whether we have TRB or not -- however, with TRB in place the Baha'is involved will be able to pick up the posts quickly and easily rather than having to plough through a morass of posts on, say, talk.religion. misc. I appreciate that you do not want to have anything to do with ARB or TRB, but is that a reason to prevent others being involved? My best wishes, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 5:57 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Note: This is a private communication. Please do not copy/forward. >A fair question. Since I weary of witnessing myself demonized here >of late, permit me to speak for myself.. Fred, you are a brilliant person, with a good heart, and noble intentions, but I just have to tell you that, IMHO, the "demonizing" is the predictable result of your choice of lingustic tools. I really think you don't appreciate, from the recipient point of view, how caustic and cutting and insulting you come across. I'm amazed anyone continues conversations with you, when they are treated that way. Of COURSE they "demonize" you -- because that's precisely how you come across to them. Duh. You are a master of all manner of communication, right? Isn't it time to just run an experiment or two to SEE if what I, and many others, keep on trying to tell you might,in fact, surprise, have some basis in reality? Why don't you pick a two week period and, for that time, remove all trace of sarcasm and insult from your postings, and just observe what the replies and responses are. SEE if your points aren't, in fact, received BETTER. I'd suggest you pick someone you trust, maybe Chriss Manvell or someone, to review your postings, because, honestly Fred, I don't think you can see the problem. It's in a blind spot for you. People keep reacting with hostility and it's baffling to you, right? Well, it's not baffling to me, cause you're basically issuing every thought with "fighting words". This is totally under your control, Fred. You can make the same points, and be recognized for your brilliance, if you can just suppress the pissy language. If you think this destroys your freedom of expression, well, ok, but then stop complaining about people's very predictable response to it and their "demonizing" of you. Sheesh. in honest and sincere desire to help Wade Schuette ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 7:16 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Response to From Frederick Glaysher >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >Would you please clear up one question I have? >Are you a Baha'i or have you withdrawn from the Faith? I've been a member of the Bahai Faith since 1976. I've certainly never said or written anything that I believe can or should be miscontrued as a withdrawal from the Bahai Faith. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 7:57 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. >The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the >need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. [clip] >My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity to test it. [clip] >In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about a.r.b. >that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by opinion or by actual data? Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > >Regards, > >Ed Price >eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 8:21 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher 10/2/97 3:42 PM In answer to your last message : Dear Fred- Thx for the prompt reply to my question. You say that there have been many positive discussions and yet most of what I have read as critics say seems to be otherwise. Also you say that there is no other place that these discussions could have taken place. Why is that? If this is to be an unmoderated discussion list is it possible to consult and draft some common sense guidelines and have the participants approve them. This is kind of like making its own rules by concensus, agreeing upon them and then abiding by them. I often do this with my science of reality study groups. I tell the students that this is their class and they need to decide upon times to meet, what rules of discussion or consultation we will follow, what will be appropriate mixes of discussion and lecture, etc. What I found was that they usually come up with the same guidelines I would have but it is different when it comes from the grass roots up instead of the usual top down approach. regards, doug >There >have been many positive discussions on many topics that could not >have been discussed anywhere else on UseNet. The traffic alone >demonstrates the need for talk.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:01 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic We've all made our points, but we are missing one key element in this discussion, what does the Universal House of Justice have to say on this matter? How can this discussion have gone on for almost a year and no one ask for it's infallable advise? We are talking about creating a group that will be to thousands of sites around the world and will contain the name Baha'i, how can we possibly talk about creating it before we've heard from the House? One doesn't even talk to a reporter on a local newspaper without consulting the LSA involved, how can we create a group that potentially goes around the world without the advise and consent of the House? At 11:33 PM 10/2/97 +0100, Chris Manvell wrote: >In article <3.0.32.19971002161834.009266c0@persia.com>, Robert >Moldenhauer wrote -- >>2800 messages to alt.religion.bahai, sound impressive, doesn't it? Let's >>look at the last 25. And you see >> >>14 messages talking about the formation of talk.religion.bahai >> 3 attacks on the Madison LSA >> 2 Spams >> 2 Covenant Breaker invitations >> 3 Baha'i topics > >The current posting to ARB is not typical of what has been posted in the >past. Since the formation of the group there have been many threads >addressing issues regarding the Baha'i Faith, especially regarding its >validity and its relationship with Islam. Some of these have proved >very difficult to address and I, for one, have learnt much about Islam >and certain aspects my own Faith in the last six months as a result of >ARB. It is through adversity that we will triumph. If individuals do >not want adversity then they should not to subscribe to the group. I >think it is true to say that nearly every thread in ARB has involved >non-Baha'is and has kept those of us who have used the group regularly >on our toes. > >I would also like to point out that many of the posts have been cross- >posted to other newsgroups with far larger readerships than ARB, indeed >many started elewhere and came to ARB. So these posts will appear >whether we have TRB or not -- however, with TRB in place the Baha'is >involved will be able to pick up the posts quickly and easily rather >than having to plough through a morass of posts on, say, talk.religion. >misc. > >I appreciate that you do not want to have anything to do with ARB or >TRB, but is that a reason to prevent others being involved? > >My best wishes, > >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 >-- >NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:06 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Can we ask you to share with us the response to your letter that was recently forwarded to Bahai-Discuss? At 04:16 AM 10/3/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Dear Mr. Glaysher, >> >>Would you please clear up one question I have? >>Are you a Baha'i or have you withdrawn from the Faith? > >I've been a member of the Bahai Faith since 1976. I've certainly never >said or written anything that I believe can or should be miscontrued as >a withdrawal from the Bahai Faith. > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:06 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Can we ask you to share with us the response to your letter that was recently forwarded to Bahai-Discuss? At 04:16 AM 10/3/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Dear Mr. Glaysher, >> >>Would you please clear up one question I have? >>Are you a Baha'i or have you withdrawn from the Faith? > >I've been a member of the Bahai Faith since 1976. I've certainly never >said or written anything that I believe can or should be miscontrued as >a withdrawal from the Bahai Faith. > >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:15 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. The Universal House of Justice should have been consulted before the group was suggested. How can a Baha'i vote for the creation of such a group, that, if you are right, will have a global impact, without advise from the House. Soc.religion.bahai was created only *after* the House approved of the idea and gave us the go ahead. Why weren't they consulted about talk.religion.bahai? How can a Baha'i approve of such a group without the House's infallable guidance? There is no legitimate way we as Baha's can go forward with talk.religion.bahai until we have advise from the Universal House of Justice. This is the bottom line Fred, get the House's approval and you'll have 900 yes votes, without it you'll have 900 no votes... At 04:57 AM 10/3/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >>The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the >>need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes >me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. > >Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... >The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet >guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. > > >[clip] > >>My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose >is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. > >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity >to test it. > >[clip] > >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about >a.r.b. >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by >opinion or by actual data? > >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed Price >>eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:15 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. The Universal House of Justice should have been consulted before the group was suggested. How can a Baha'i vote for the creation of such a group, that, if you are right, will have a global impact, without advise from the House. Soc.religion.bahai was created only *after* the House approved of the idea and gave us the go ahead. Why weren't they consulted about talk.religion.bahai? How can a Baha'i approve of such a group without the House's infallable guidance? There is no legitimate way we as Baha's can go forward with talk.religion.bahai until we have advise from the Universal House of Justice. This is the bottom line Fred, get the House's approval and you'll have 900 yes votes, without it you'll have 900 no votes... At 04:57 AM 10/3/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >>The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the >>need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes >me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. > >Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... >The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet >guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. > > >[clip] > >>My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose >is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. > >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity >to test it. > >[clip] > >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about >a.r.b. >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by >opinion or by actual data? > >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed Price >>eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:10 AM To: fglaysh Subject: bahai@hotmail.com <> <> <> <> <> Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:10 AM To: fglaysh Subject: bahai@hotmail.com <> <> <> <> <> Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:12 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: To Fred Fred, I know this is asking a lot, but can you postpone the vote on talk.religion.bahai until after we hear from the Universal House of Justice? A lot has been said and argued here and there and we haven't been able to resolve this amongst ourselves. Let's stop the arguing, put aside the past, and compose a letter. Thanks, and peace ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:18 AM To: fglaysh Subject: bahai@hotmail.com messages <> <> <> <> <> These messages, all written by me, were reposted by someone with the intent of inflaming passions on Bahai-Discuss against me and talk.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:18 AM To: fglaysh Subject: bahai@hotmail.com messages <> <> <> <> <> These messages, all written by me, were reposted by someone with the intent of inflaming passions on Bahai-Discuss against me and talk.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:15 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb > The last time trb was proposed..I didn't vote at all. I simply saw it as > a waste of my time. I still see it's a waste so once again I won't bother > sticking my vote in one way or another. Fine; your call! But just remember that _whatever_ the outcome, if you don't vote, you have no grounds for complaining later. ---------- From: Richard C. Detweiler[SMTP:rdetweil@primenet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:11 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic (fwd) > > We've all made our points, but we are missing one key element in this > discussion, > what does the Universal House of Justice have to say on this matter? How > can this discussion have gone on for almost a year and no one ask for it's > infallable advise? Invalid assumption. The Councellors in America are well aware of the situation. The moderators of srb as well as others brought these issues to them and the Universal House of Justice must have been made aware of what is going on at least informally because at one point the moderators were told the issue of the Internet was going on the agenda of a meeting of the Councellors in the Holy Land. Perhaps since I stopped moderating, there have been more communications. When I was still moderating we did get a response from the Councellors about what to do about CB'ers attempting to post. They basically said we sometimes have to do things which will make us unpopular but that is that. On the specific issue of an unmoderated list, as far as I know nothing has been said. I personally think that silence is intentional. Until I see something that says otherwise, I will personally believe that this whole issue has been left to us to figure out. Voting for a Usenet newsgroup is completely out of the hands of any Baha'i institution anyway. IMO, there is nothing constructive to be gained by opposition to this proposal. There is no way to come off looking like anything other than people who can't handle diversity of opinion and have a penchant for censorship. Both of which are categorically opposed in the Writings. Moderation of speech, yes. Censorship of ideas - no. > > We are talking about creating a group that will be to thousands of sites > around the world and will contain the name Baha'i, how can we possibly talk > about creating it before we've heard from the House? The House has no jurisdiction over this. What if a non-Baha'i were the proponent? Would that be different? In my opinion, the House is wise in not involving itself in something that in the end it can't control. > > One doesn't even talk to a reporter on a local newspaper without consulting > the LSA involved, how can we create a group that potentially goes around > the world without the advise and consent of the House? WE aren't creating it. A Baha'i is the proponent, yes but it could just as easily not be. In the end, where has he violated the Covenant in any meaningful way? What law of the Faith has he violated which would call for the intervention of the House? Partisan politics? Nope, he's doing this all by himself. Broke the Covenant? Don't see how. You might accuse him of immoderate speech but what sanctions are there in the Faith for that? None that I am aware of. If there were, I'd be in front of the House for a post I sent earlier this week don't you think? :-) Once again, I don't know of any way the House could get involved to a meaningful extent which would add anything positive to this whole process. In their May 1994 letter they said we must all be more tolerant of each other and that the Faith is not so weak that it can't withstand the mistakes of the friends. I think we need to let this go, vote your conscience if you feel like you should vote and then let the chips fall where they may. My opinion only, Dick D. ---------- From: Richard C. Detweiler[SMTP:rdetweil@primenet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:20 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: To Fred (fwd) > Fred, > > I know this is asking a lot, but can you postpone the vote on > talk.religion.bahai until after we hear from the Universal House of > Justice? A lot has been said and argued here and there and we haven't been > able to resolve this amongst ourselves. > > Let's stop the arguing, put aside the past, and compose a letter. > > Thanks, and peace Robert, With all due respect, I don't think this will work. In the end this is not a Baha'i issue. Do you realize that with the libertarian bent of many of the Internet gurus there are many who seeing this would take up the trb proposal and run with it? Just like someone - NOT A BAHA'I - created alt.religion.bahai to show those silly-censor-loving-religious-fanatics what free speech and the internet were all about. Why fight it? I don't see what we are gaining here. In the end such a dispute only makes us look petty and fanatic. And if we look petty and fanatic enough, the Internet folks will make sure there IS a group. Chalk it up to a lesson in Unity in Diversity and let it go. IMO, Dick D. ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:29 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > what does the Universal House of Justice have to say on this matter? How > can this discussion have gone on for almost a year and no one ask for it's > infallable advise? > > We are talking about creating a group that will be to thousands of sites > around the world and will contain the name Baha'i, how can we possibly talk > about creating it before we've heard from the House? > > One doesn't even talk to a reporter on a local newspaper without consulting > the LSA involved, how can we create a group that potentially goes around > the world without the advise and consent of the House? Dear Robert, You have an important point there! In Shoghi Effendi's second letter to the West, he emphasized "the Master's express desire that nothing whatever should be given to the public by any individual among the friends, unless fully considered and approved by the Spiritual Assembly in his locality; and if this...is a matter that pertains to the general interest of the Cause in that land, then it is incumbent upon the Spiritual Assembly to submit it to the consideration and approval of the national body representing all the various local assemblies." (BA, p. 23) One purpose of the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association is to supervise Baha'i activity in cyberspace for the NSA of the U.S. and for the Universal House of Justice. It does this very well in soc.religion.bahai and in a number of mailing lists. If there is a need for talk.religion.bahai, why not propose that it be operated by BCCA? John ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:37 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Thoughts on t.r.b, Usenet discussions Harvey Morgan has raised some good questions in his post. They can be distilled to these: How should Baha'is conduct themselves in public discussion groups (Usenet newsgroups, Web-based discussion areas, etc.) on the Net? Should the friends engage in discussions/debates on unmoderated groups? Should unmoderated groups devoted to the Faith be created and/or used? How should we respond to opposition on the Net? IMHO, we have some guidance from our Institutions on how to conduct ourselves in general (don't become argumentative, don't tangle with CB's, etc.), and I'd say most of us have followed this guidance in our online discussions. Goodness knows we haven't been perfect in this, but we haven't done too badly. I am aware of two letters from the Universal House of Justice on e-mail discussions, but I know of no specific guidance on public group discussions. Perhaps it is time to seek such guidance. And would it not make sense to seek such guidance directly from the House, due to the international nature of the Net? I plan to begin work on such a letter. It would be strictly from myself, representing only myself. There is no reason that others could not write similar letters. Should the proposal for t.r.b be withdrawn until such guidance is received? Harvey implies that it should be. I am reserving judgment on this for now. The withdrawal can only be done by the group proponent(s). In this case, there is only one official proponent, and that is Fred Glaysher. So he must be the one to withdraw it. But he should not be pressured into doing so, for I fear that would cause more problems. ----------------- Having said all this, I must point out that the newsgroup creation processes (one for Big 8 groups, one for alt.* groups, etc.) do not preclude t.r.b, or any other group with "bahai" in it, from being proposed, created and used by non-Baha'is. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: Graham Sorenson[SMTP:graham@fragrant.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 9:47 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. In message <19971003115702.4569.qmail@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher writes > > >>The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the >>need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes >me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. > >Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... >The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet >guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. > > IF there were 2,800 messages on the Faith then I, for one, Would be EXTREMELY happy. However so many of these 2,800 messages are spam, porn offers, Covenent breaker messages, off topic posts, crossposts and comments onTRB. Very few are constructive discussions on the Baha'i Faith, whether for or against. >[clip] > >>My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose >is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. > >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity >to test it. > See above for a comment on this so called number. >[clip] > >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about >a.r.b. >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by >opinion or by actual data? > >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed Price >>eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com -- Cre@tions Design https://www.acemake.com/creations https://www.acemake.com https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk etc ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:56 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > We've all made our points, but we are missing one key element in this > discussion, > what does the Universal House of Justice have to say on this matter? How > can this discussion have gone on for almost a year and no one ask for it's > infallable advise? > > We are talking about creating a group that will be to thousands of sites > around the world and will contain the name Baha'i, how can we possibly talk > about creating it before we've heard from the House? > > One doesn't even talk to a reporter on a local newspaper without consulting > the LSA involved, how can we create a group that potentially goes around > the world without the advise and consent of the House? I've addressed this in another post -- briefly, I plan to begin work on a letter from myself asking for guidance on several issues about public discussion on the Net, one of those issues being the wisdom of unmoderated groups devoted to the Faith. This raises an interesting point: when soc.religion.bahai was created, had the proponents asked for the guidance of the House? I was not on the Net then, nor was I a Baha'i, so I do not know. Perhaps some of the "oldtimers" might know. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:13 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Hot Potato The discussion involving t.r.b has been especially active this morning (it's noon ET on the 3rd as I type this). I write a message and send it to the list, only to find that some of my questions have been answered in letters I received after posting the note. It's almost too hard to keep up! There are good points on both sides of the issue. It's almost like in the cartoons where Bugs Bunny drops an order for something in the mail, only to have the postman drop off the package immediately . Based on this, I'm not sure that I will draft a letter to the House at this time. In the meantime, barring the withdrawal of any t.r.b proposal, I say that we should follow "canonical" Usenet voting principles... and say a few Remover of Difficulties while we're at it . Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Richard C. Detweiler[SMTP:rdetweil@primenet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:29 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic > Dear Robert, > > You have an important point there! In Shoghi Effendi's second > letter to the West, he emphasized "the Master's express desire that > nothing whatever should be given to the public by any individual > among the friends, unless fully considered and approved by the > Spiritual Assembly in his locality; and if this...is a matter that pertains > to the general interest of the Cause in that land, then it is incumbent > upon the Spiritual Assembly to submit it to the consideration and > approval of the national body representing all the various local > assemblies." (BA, p. 23) > > One purpose of the Baha'i Computer and Communications > Association is to supervise Baha'i activity in cyberspace for the > NSA of the U.S. and for the Universal House of Justice. It does > this very well in soc.religion.bahai and in a number of mailing lists. > If there is a need for talk.religion.bahai, why not propose that it > be operated by BCCA? Disclaimer: Unless things have changed in the last several months there is an important distinction that needs to be made. While the soc.religion.bahai moderators use BCCA machines to do their work, there is no connection between those moderators and the BCCA except for technical, computer related issues. No member of the moderating team sits on the BCCA board and BCCA is not consulted on what is and is not posted to s.r.b. The moderators of s.r.b. are individuals whose sole task is to weigh submitted postings against the s.r.b. charter and accept or reject them given those criteria. There is no involvement by the BCCA in that process. Also, while the BCCA renders valuable service to the friends by facilitating and sponsoring several activities on the Internet both public and for Baha'is only, the BCCA is not an Institution of the Faith nor does it have any claim over the actions of individual Baha'is in cyberspace that I am aware of. Remeber friend, when it comes to Usenet and most everything else in cyberspace, there is no central controlling authority whatsoever. Newsgroups are not "operated" or "run" by anything other than volunteers who give their individual time to make it all work. They are created and controlled on a computer by computer basis by the sysops and admins at those sites. The friends must get over the idea that any Institution of the Faith or any other single organization can control anything about Usenet. It just is not the nature of the beast. Dick D. ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:30 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic (fwd) At 09:11 AM 10/3/97 -0600, Richard C. Detweiler wrote: One should never assume anything about what the House is thinking, when the House has chosen not to decide an issue they've said so, publicly. The only thing silence means is that no one has bothered to ask. It seems clear to me, we have a divided opinion amongst Baha'is, we can choose to continue to bloody our noses or we can ask the house to settle it, one way or the other. No more guesses, no more what ifs, just a devinely guided answer, yes, no or no opinion. >On the specific issue of an unmoderated list, as far as I know nothing has >been said. I personally think that silence is intentional. Until I see >something that says otherwise, I will personally believe that this whole >issue has been left to us to figure out. Voting for a Usenet newsgroup >is completely out of the hands of any Baha'i institution anyway. > Again, what is wrong with asking the House for a decision? What is the purpose of having devine guidance if we don't ask for it in difficult times? ---------- From: Richard C. Detweiler[SMTP:rdetweil@primenet.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 1:12 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Asking the House I replied to Robert's question about what is wrong with asking the House a question. I replied privately without cc'ing the list and then deleted his message. >From the standpoint of your rights as a Baha'i, I don't see anything wrong with asking the House. Having already been through these issues with the guidance of the Institutions, I feel there has been an answer. Of course anyone can ask a question of the House at anytime. Times change and the specific question of an unmoderated group has not been specifically addressed by the House, so ask away. But really, what on earth can the House do about Usenet? And you didn't address the question - what if the proponent was not a Baha'i or if they were a Covenant breaker? You see, if your goal is to never have a newsgroup devoted to unmoderated discussion of the Baha'i Faith, you will lose in the end. There is simply no way for it to not to come up for a vote if there are individuals (and there are) who are adamant about it. And voting it down like last time is winning the battle but losing the war IMO. Let it go. alt.religion.bahai is a reality and the world has not come to an end. In fact, the participation of such steadfast souls as Roger, Chris and Donald has helped contrast the Baha'i spirit with a quickly deteriorating level of social discourse. As always I say vote your conscience but don't campaign and don't worry. ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 1:12 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > > >Would you please clear up one question I have? > >Are you a Baha'i or have you withdrawn from the Faith? > > I've been a member of the Bahai Faith since 1976. I've certainly never > said or written anything that I believe can or should be miscontrued as > a withdrawal from the Bahai Faith. > > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com Dear Frederick and everyone: Do you think that perhaps there is a lot of miscommunication going on? I've found that when I'm on committees and other people give summaries of what went on or even decisions made, I'm surprised to find that often their words do not reflect my understanding very closely. If this is the case, we should figure out the basic points of everybodies stand and communicate them clearly in summary form. BTW, I was lurking on alt.religion.bahai and noticed the suggestion to have an alternative name for the proposed higher profile unmoderated group. Has it been discussed on Bahai-discuss? Your Sister in Faith, Roxana ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 1:03 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic In article <34350F73.50682D50@lightspeed.net>, "John B. Cornell" wrote -- > One purpose of the Baha'i Computer and Communications >Association is to supervise Baha'i activity in cyberspace for the >NSA of the U.S. and for the Universal House of Justice. It does >this very well in soc.religion.bahai and in a number of mailing lists. >If there is a need for talk.religion.bahai, why not propose that it >be operated by BCCA? 1. Actually, I did suggest, albeit somewhat tongue in cheek, to one individual that if he or she was unhappy about TRB they contact the Universal House of Justice for guidance. Maybe someone should. 2. Are we to shut down all the Baha'i owned web site on the internet if they have not had specific approval of the House or the BCCA? 3. One of the reasons for TRB (or ARB) is that it IS uncontrolled. Fred is not the only person who feels that SRB is "censored" even though I have to admit that I, persoanlly, do not agree with him. But I do have to admit that I find the Baha'i Faith, as practiced in the "West" (which is really "north"), does appear to be a cosy little club (tm) and I do wonder how some of my fellow believers are going to react when the opposition comes. Here on Skye we have been attacked openly in the local newspaper and, regularly, from the pulpit. No harm in getting in a bit of practice before real opposition starts. :-) Mind you, it does help having such a loving community. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:35 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Response to From Frederick Glaysher As my time zone is ahead of Fred's I'd like to jump in and answer your points and questions as I see them. This is, of course, my own biassed view and not that of anyone else. In article <199710031216.IAA16884@mx01.together.net>, dmcadam wrote -- >You say that there have been many positive discussions and yet most of >what I have read as critics say seems to be otherwise. Positive and negative are very subjective appellations. During the last six months I have felt often that the few Baha'is posting to ARB have mostly been fighting a rearguard battle against some pretty aggressive and, in some cases, knowledgable opponents. The immediate appearance of the discussions on ARB is one of negativity in the sense that the Baha'is have had to put up with some well argued attacks on the Faith and have generally had to be on the defensive, both against non-Baha'is, CBs, forgers (the Madison thread has, I am convinced, carried many forged messages and is widely cross-posted, though some of us have tried limiting the cross-posts a bit) and, occasionally, fellow Baha'is who jump in, put up a post and then disappear again. However this has also lead to some of us becoming more firm in our Faith as struggle with our limited knowledge to anwer the attacks and correct the errors that others have posted. So, yes, there have been a few threads that were generally positive to any on-looker but the real positive threads have been with the polite and knowledgeable opponents. >Also you say that >there is no other place that these discussions could have taken place. >Why is that? The simple answer is that, yes, there are other places where all of these threads could take place. The two obvious ones are talk.religion. misc and another is soc.culture.iranian. Many of the posts on ARB have, in fact, been cross-posted to those sites -- with very interesting results, if you could take the heat. But, SCI is not there to discuss the Baha'i Faith except where it impinged upon Iranian culture. Thology, for instance is well off topic. TRM, of course, could handle pretty well everything that has been posted to ARB. However, TRB is such a mish-mash of posts that it really is not suitable for sensible discussion. Post up something about the Faith and you are quite likely to do no more than start a flame war. At least, by keeping discussion in ARB alone one is mostly dealing with people who have sought out the site, for whatever reason. Personally, I have no particular with to get involved in TRM ever again. It was far more frustrating and depressing than ARB has ever been. >If this is to be an unmoderated discussion list is it possible to consult >and draft some common sense guidelines and have the participants approve >them. Certainly you could try. That is partly what the RFD is about. MAny unmoderated groups have FAQs which gether by consultation. There was an attempt to create one for ARB but it has been withdrawn. However, in the end, if some fanatic decides to flood the site with pornographic binaries, there is not much you can do abnout it other to post to his ISP nd request they take action against the person involved. Some do, some don't. There is no defence against spamming and velveta. There is no defence against unsolicited adverts. Every unmoderated site has those problems and those who live in Usenet cyberspace are well aware of the problem so, from the ARBists point of view, it is not really a problem for the Faith. >This is kind of like making its own rules by concensus, agreeing >upon them and then abiding by them. I often do this with my science of >reality study groups. I tell the students that this is their class and >they need to decide upon times to meet, what rules of discussion or >consultation we will follow, what will be appropriate mixes of discussion >and lecture, etc. What I found was that they usually come up with the >same guidelines I would have but it is different when it comes from the >grass roots up instead of the usual top down approach. It sounds as if you have a pretty mature lot of students. You are absolutely right that it is better coming from the grass-roots (after all that is much like our Faith) but the comparing of the two systems is not really valid. Thanks for showing an interest, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 12:43 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: votes on trb In article <199710010559.AAA21587@indy2.indy.net>, William Rieske wrote -- >The last time trb was proposed..I didn't vote at all. I simply saw it as a >waste of my time. I still see it's a waste so once again I won't bother >sticking my vote in one way or another. Dear Roxanne, That is how it should be. If you have no interest one way or the other and never intend looking at the group then don't vote. There is no compulsion. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 4:05 PM To: 'SManeck@berry.edu' Cc: talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Susan and Friends, You know, outside of some wild accusations Juan Cole made about me, this message is as close to being flamed on a Baha'i list as I've ever been. Interesting. I believe there are some grave misunderstandings here. I'll attempt to clarify my points, but I believe I'll have to duck out of this if my participation serves no purpose other than heightening friction and dissention. > From: Susan Maneck [SMTP:smaneck@berry.edu] > Do you realize that in demanding such details you are asking us to do > the very thing which the House just made abundantly clear in their > letter to Michael's wife that they will not tolerate? > Quite frankly, I don't believe I've asked you to do anything contrary to what has been written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice. Perhaps we don't understand the word "data" to mean the same thing in this context. So, let me restate the point: No one disputes whether or not Baha'u'llah actually wrote the words in question. I know of no such case where the Universal House of Justice has had any dispute with any academic over whether or not a particular text constitutes a portion of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. That _data_ is just too well documented to be open to much controversy. Once we move beyond the recitation of those words, and begin to ascertain what those words mean or apply what appears to be an obvious meaning to some other text, we are _interpreting_ the data. We are attempting to make it fit within a model or framework that carries with it certain assumptions. > > Indeed, the flap on Talisman 1 and Michael's excommunication all > have > > one thing in common: individuals attempting to define Baha'i belief > and > > practice (i.e. the ability of women to serve on the Universal House > of > > Justice) by approaching the basic meaning of Baha'u'llah's writings > not > > through the lens of authoritative interpretation but through the > lens of > > individual interpretation animated by the fundamental assumptions > and > > methods of western academia. > > I don't think you really understand what are the fundamental > assumptions and methods of western academia. But chiefly it is this, > that text can best be understood in the context in which it is > written. Is there really something wrong with this? > The only thing that can be wrong with this is the extent to which this assumption is incompatible with the basic assumptions that come along with one's belief that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for today. I could elucidate on this thought, but the extent to which I've been deemed to not understand the assumptions of western academia, I fear, renders any thoughts I could offer in this regard to be more a source of strife than increased understanding. I will, however, state that I believe the heart of this whole issue is the extent to which these different sets of assumptions are viewed, by academics and the Universal House of Justice, to be compatible with each other. > The question which has yet to be adequately > addressed is if, as I have suggested, authoritative interpretations > consists of Writings applying the Writings to the present > situation, what happens when there is no longer a living Interpreter? > I don't believe you can answer this question in isolation, i.e. without considering how the interpretative functions of the Guardianship work in conjunction with the legislative authority and the authority to elucidate upon matters which are obscure both of which rest in the hands of the Universal House of Justice. However, when considering how these functions interact, it becomes clear that what happens is the behavior of a Universal House of Justice that judiciously avoids being the entity that defines Baha'i belief and practice on any matter that's clearly covered in the text. One has to go through some pretty convoluted semantic gymnastics in order to reach the conclusion that the service of women on the Universal House of Justice is permissible before the appearance of the next Manifestation of God. So much so, that any such effort amounts to a disregard of clear texts in order to achieve a result that seems, in our time and from our point of view, to be desireable. In one of the letters on the Guardianship (27 May, 1966?), the Universal House of Justice writes eloquently about this very issue of disregarding clear text in order to achieve a result that seems desireable or necessary given where we stand. At the time, they were writing about people's desire to find some way to have a Guardian, but I believe the same concepts apply to present desires to find some way to allow women to serve on the Universal House of Justice. > > Scholl, Cole and others chose to acknowledge that they no longer > believe > > that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for today. > > Hang on, Rick, now you are distorting what happened. You > make it sound like they never *really* believed and finally decided > to admit it. > Truth is I don't know whether they ever really believed or not, and I generally try very hard to avoid making any statement about things of which I have no knowledge. I thought I'd done a fairly good job of that, but you obviously disagree. So, how would you state it? Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 6:49 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Consulting the House of Justice On a matter such as this, The House of Justice doens't have jurisdiction. Usenet is a public foram..not strictly a Baha'i foram. The voting for t.r.b is made public to the whole world. Non-Bahai's and Baha'is vote on it. It is not strictly a Baha'i voting process. Regarding a.r.b, which was created by a non-bahai, The House definitely didn't have any jurisdiction there either. It would be illigical for the House ot put their foot in the door for this one because this isn't their jurisdiction and for them to attempt it would be a bad idea I think. Having a religious istitution try to have authority over Usenet..would definitely not go well with the Internet world. Regards, Roxanne > We've all made our points, but we are missing one key element in this > discussion, > what does the Universal House of Justice have to say on this matter? How > can this discussion have gone on for almost a year and no one ask for it's > infallable advise? > > We are talking about creating a group that will be to thousands of sites > around the world and will contain the name Baha'i, how can we possibly talk > about creating it before we've heard from the House? > > One doesn't even talk to a reporter on a local newspaper without consulting > the LSA involved, how can we create a group that potentially goes around > the world without the advise and consent of the House? > > At 11:33 PM 10/2/97 +0100, Chris Manvell wrote: > >In article <3.0.32.19971002161834.009266c0@persia.com>, Robert > >Moldenhauer wrote -- > >>2800 messages to alt.religion.bahai, sound impressive, doesn't it? Let's > >>look at the last 25. And you see > >> > >>14 messages talking about the formation of talk.religion.bahai > >> 3 attacks on the Madison LSA > >> 2 Spams > >> 2 Covenant Breaker invitations > >> 3 Baha'i topics > > > >The current posting to ARB is not typical of what has been posted in the > >past. Since the formation of the group there have been many threads > >addressing issues regarding the Baha'i Faith, especially regarding its > >validity and its relationship with Islam. Some of these have proved > >very difficult to address and I, for one, have learnt much about Islam > >and certain aspects my own Faith in the last six months as a result of > >ARB. It is through adversity that we will triumph. If individuals do > >not want adversity then they should not to subscribe to the group. I > >think it is true to say that nearly every thread in ARB has involved > >non-Baha'is and has kept those of us who have used the group regularly > >on our toes. > > > >I would also like to point out that many of the posts have been cross- > >posted to other newsgroups with far larger readerships than ARB, indeed > >many started elewhere and came to ARB. So these posts will appear > >whether we have TRB or not -- however, with TRB in place the Baha'is > >involved will be able to pick up the posts quickly and easily rather > >than having to plough through a morass of posts on, say, talk.religion. > >misc. > > > >I appreciate that you do not want to have anything to do with ARB or > >TRB, but is that a reason to prevent others being involved? > > > >My best wishes, > > > >Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > >-- > >NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become > >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that > >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] > >For more info goto: > >, or > > > ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 6:57 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) Hey, Don't assume to speak for the rest of us. I don't think the House should have to be consulted about this. Their jurisdiction doesn't extend over the Internet. They do not have to be consulted about it. Obviously with soc.religion.bahai..somebody took the time to seek their advice, but they didn't *have* to do that. Personally speaking, if we all waited for the HOuse to decide over every single matter of our lives, we'd be waiting for a very long time. NOr do I for one minute think that I have to sit around and wait for the HOuse to decide on an issue such as this before I do some sort of action. Personally, I think Baha'is depend too much on the House of Justice. They cannot be there for everything that crosses our path. You can act without the House, just use some common sense. Regards, Roxanne The Universal House of Justice should have been consulted before the group > was suggested. How can a Baha'i vote for the creation of such a group, > that, if you are right, will have a global impact, without advise from the > House. > > Soc.religion.bahai was created only *after* the House approved of the idea > and gave us the go ahead. Why weren't they consulted about > talk.religion.bahai? How can a Baha'i approve of such a group without the > House's infallable guidance? > > There is no legitimate way we as Baha's can go forward with > talk.religion.bahai until we have advise from the Universal House of Justice. > > This is the bottom line Fred, get the House's approval and you'll have 900 > yes votes, without it you'll have 900 no votes... > > At 04:57 AM 10/3/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > >>The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the > >>need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes > >me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. > > > >Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... > >The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet > >guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, > >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming > >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" > >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason > >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do > >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. > > > > > >[clip] > > > >>My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the > >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is > >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, > >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum > >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose > >is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. > > > >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one > >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an > >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human > >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity > >to test it. > > > >[clip] > > > >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about > >a.r.b. > >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by > >opinion or by actual data? > > > >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, > >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for > >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls > >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, > >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an > >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on > >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > > > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >>Ed Price > >>eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > > > > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > > > ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 6:32 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Response to From Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[ >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >Would you please clear up one question I have? >Are you a Baha'i or have you withdrawn from the Faith? I've been a member of the Bahai Faith since 1976. I've certainly never said or written anything that I believe can or should be miscontrued as a withdrawal from the Bahai Faith. Frederick Glaysher ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. Allah'u'abha Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your reply to my question as to your status as a Baha'i. Ragna ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 10:03 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice William Rieske wrote: > On a matter such as this, The House of Justice doens't have jurisdiction. > Usenet is a public foram..not strictly a Baha'i foram. Dear Roxanne, If you want to give Baha'i talks on a local radio station, don't you need to clear with your local Spiritual Assembly? Isn't radio as much a public forum as Usenet? Would you tell your local Assembly it has no jurisdiction over what you say about the Faith on radio? Isn't the purpose of supervision to protect the Faith? And isn't it the function of an NSA to protect the Faith nationally? Would you say, then, that the Faith does not need to be protected internationally? John ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:23 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; eprice@mailer.fsu.edu; bahai-discuss@bcca.org Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. Dear Frederick: In response to your points today... At 04:57 AM 10/03/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >The UseNet system of interest polling, >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. Of course you are welcome to your view, but don't you think it is quite a leap to cast a "no" vote as one of "subversion?" Wow. The only way to be a good guy in this situation is to agree with you. That's amazing. You're views are obviously strongly held and quite emotional. I can understand that (up to a point), but I hope you also realize I'm actually trying to listen to you, and actually asking questions that could potentially lead to a more Baha'i-like mode of consultation. In other words, if you would please be more responsive to the _actual_ questions being asked, instead of simply reasserting views you stated earlier, you might actualy have a chance to change some people's minds. I wrote this to you last nioght: >>My question [about t.r.b.] remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose >>is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. And you replied: >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity >to test it. If I understand what you just wrote, according to this formulation free will is not available to us right now, since the forum has not yet been created and it is the only way for free will to be exercised. This is startling news!! Once again, and with respect, I'm trying to find out how an unmoderated forum _may possibly_ not become the chaotic cachopony of random voices over which I expressed concern. You seem to know alot about this subject, and you are advocating strongly for this forum, so I'm asking you to tell me how things will work out so that my concerns can be satisfied. Maybe they can't be satisfied and if that's the case then please just say so. If they can be satisfied, I surely would like to know. If you can answer my question responsively and directly you may be able to convince me (and perhaps others), which is the goal I thought you had (for all of us). I wrote this: >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about a.r.b. >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >>by >opinion or by actual data? And you replied: >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. Frederick, unfortunately this misses the point. Robert M. offered a recent sample of the last 25 messages on a.r.b. as illustration that a.r.b. is mostly about spamming and other not useful stuff (in his view). While I don't know if that claim is correct or not, last night I spoke up in _your defense_ when I stated that the method of sampling he used does not produce a statistically reliable picture of a.r.b. In that other message I explained the two main reasons why this is so and cited evidence to demonstrate my point. In addition, I offered a strategy, called "content analysis", in which I am trained, so that real and objective information about the _content_ of the 2800 messages can be identified. According to you the fact that 2800 messages of any kind have appeared on a.r.b. is sufficent justification to form t.r.b. Please don't take this the wrong way, but so far as anyone knows you could have generated all 2800 by yourself. Or they could consist mostly of advertising and porno messages. Or they could consist of endless attacks on the Faith or the Institutions. OR they could consist of thoughtful, interesting, informative, and enlightening discussions about the Baha'i Faith. You are claiming that the quantity is enough, but Robert M. is asserting that the content matters also. While I disagreed with his method of sampling from a.r.b. I _strongly_ agree with the idea that the content of a.r.b. does matter. In my view, Robert is quite right to indicate that content does matter. (I also think Robert is right to point out the the Universal House of Justice should be consulted. I hope he, or someone, has already sent the letter. They can, if they wish, leave the matter up to the Baha'is or they can give a ruling. Then we'd all know what is the right way to go.) I offered the "content analysis" strategy so that all might be satisfied in knowing what the actual content really has been. Even with a full content analysis, and favorable results, I am not sure that "proves" the need for t.r.b., but at least it would give people the solid data they need to make their own determinations as to the importance of the content on a.r.b. As to your final point that the issue is that people don't trust s.r.b., well this is a new allegation to me. According to this, it is the "unworthiness" of the s.r.b. that justifies the creation of t.r.b. This feels like shifting sand to me. Every time someone says something, there is another allegation waiting in the wings. Frankly Frederick, this doesn't feel like Baha'i consultation at all. Won't you please answer the questions that are being posed directly and responsively, staying on the topic? I honestly don't have the energy to keep trying to engage you. I have more than enough going on in my life without trying to do a content analysis of a.r.b. I personally would rather not do it, but if it helps this discussion move to a more factual orientation, I'm willing to help. I'm quite tired at this point with this topic, so please don't expect me to offer again. I urge you to be cautious, however. What to do? Do you ignore it? Do you answer straight up? Do you reject the oportunity to go with the facts? Lots of people are reading this. Votes may be decided based on how you handle this situation. Do you have an archive file of the 2800 messages on a.r.b.? Does it exist? So what's it going to be? Real data, with real answers and accountability. Or more opinions flying hither and yon. Or just silence. I await a responsive response. With my best wishes, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 03, 1997 11:23 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. Dear Frederick: In response to your points today... At 04:57 AM 10/03/97 PDT, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >The UseNet system of interest polling, >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. Of course you are welcome to your view, but don't you think it is quite a leap to cast a "no" vote as one of "subversion?" Wow. The only way to be a good guy in this situation is to agree with you. That's amazing. You're views are obviously strongly held and quite emotional. I can understand that (up to a point), but I hope you also realize I'm actually trying to listen to you, and actually asking questions that could potentially lead to a more Baha'i-like mode of consultation. In other words, if you would please be more responsive to the _actual_ questions being asked, instead of simply reasserting views you stated earlier, you might actualy have a chance to change some people's minds. I wrote this to you last nioght: >>My question [about t.r.b.] remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose >>is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. And you replied: >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity >to test it. If I understand what you just wrote, according to this formulation free will is not available to us right now, since the forum has not yet been created and it is the only way for free will to be exercised. This is startling news!! Once again, and with respect, I'm trying to find out how an unmoderated forum _may possibly_ not become the chaotic cachopony of random voices over which I expressed concern. You seem to know alot about this subject, and you are advocating strongly for this forum, so I'm asking you to tell me how things will work out so that my concerns can be satisfied. Maybe they can't be satisfied and if that's the case then please just say so. If they can be satisfied, I surely would like to know. If you can answer my question responsively and directly you may be able to convince me (and perhaps others), which is the goal I thought you had (for all of us). I wrote this: >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about a.r.b. >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >>by >opinion or by actual data? And you replied: >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. Frederick, unfortunately this misses the point. Robert M. offered a recent sample of the last 25 messages on a.r.b. as illustration that a.r.b. is mostly about spamming and other not useful stuff (in his view). While I don't know if that claim is correct or not, last night I spoke up in _your defense_ when I stated that the method of sampling he used does not produce a statistically reliable picture of a.r.b. In that other message I explained the two main reasons why this is so and cited evidence to demonstrate my point. In addition, I offered a strategy, called "content analysis", in which I am trained, so that real and objective information about the _content_ of the 2800 messages can be identified. According to you the fact that 2800 messages of any kind have appeared on a.r.b. is sufficent justification to form t.r.b. Please don't take this the wrong way, but so far as anyone knows you could have generated all 2800 by yourself. Or they could consist mostly of advertising and porno messages. Or they could consist of endless attacks on the Faith or the Institutions. OR they could consist of thoughtful, interesting, informative, and enlightening discussions about the Baha'i Faith. You are claiming that the quantity is enough, but Robert M. is asserting that the content matters also. While I disagreed with his method of sampling from a.r.b. I _strongly_ agree with the idea that the content of a.r.b. does matter. In my view, Robert is quite right to indicate that content does matter. (I also think Robert is right to point out the the Universal House of Justice should be consulted. I hope he, or someone, has already sent the letter. They can, if they wish, leave the matter up to the Baha'is or they can give a ruling. Then we'd all know what is the right way to go.) I offered the "content analysis" strategy so that all might be satisfied in knowing what the actual content really has been. Even with a full content analysis, and favorable results, I am not sure that "proves" the need for t.r.b., but at least it would give people the solid data they need to make their own determinations as to the importance of the content on a.r.b. As to your final point that the issue is that people don't trust s.r.b., well this is a new allegation to me. According to this, it is the "unworthiness" of the s.r.b. that justifies the creation of t.r.b. This feels like shifting sand to me. Every time someone says something, there is another allegation waiting in the wings. Frankly Frederick, this doesn't feel like Baha'i consultation at all. Won't you please answer the questions that are being posed directly and responsively, staying on the topic? I honestly don't have the energy to keep trying to engage you. I have more than enough going on in my life without trying to do a content analysis of a.r.b. I personally would rather not do it, but if it helps this discussion move to a more factual orientation, I'm willing to help. I'm quite tired at this point with this topic, so please don't expect me to offer again. I urge you to be cautious, however. What to do? Do you ignore it? Do you answer straight up? Do you reject the oportunity to go with the facts? Lots of people are reading this. Votes may be decided based on how you handle this situation. Do you have an archive file of the 2800 messages on a.r.b.? Does it exist? So what's it going to be? Real data, with real answers and accountability. Or more opinions flying hither and yon. Or just silence. I await a responsive response. With my best wishes, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Graham Sorenson[SMTP:Graham@fragrant.demon.co.ukrotweiler] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:53 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) In message <199710032257.RAA28457@indy2.indy.net>, William Rieske writes >Hey, >Don't assume to speak for the rest of us. >I don't think the House should have to be consulted about this. Their >jurisdiction doesn't extend over the Internet. They do not have to be >consulted about it. But how we, as Baha'is, interact with the USENET world is within the the jurisdiction of the House? -- Graham Sorenson Baha'i Faith Web pages, lots of them, can be found at:- https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html https://www.bahai.org --- https://www.bcca.org/~glittle https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt --- https://www.netlink.com.au/~maryam https://www.onecountry.org --- https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:20 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice (fwd) I think the two situations are different here. Usenet is a foram that is created by votes. Those votes are by all manners of different people. Essentially the poeple voting for a newsgroup are the ones creating it. In a situation like this, I don't think the UHJ has any jurisdiction, wehre USenet is more or less owned and operated by the public spectrum. A radio show is a different matter I feel. Personally, I don't think any Baha'i institution has any jurisdiction over my private self. They cannot tell me how I should act or what I should say or what I should do for that matter. Oh they can give guidance wehn suited, but they don't have that kind of authority over me. Only I have that over me, and my only supervisor is God. I was at a home arts show today and saw a cross-stitch panal board with the quote "Behave towards men as if God was watching, and Speak to men as if God heard." Believe me, that's enuf to keep me in straights :). Regards, Roxanne > Dear Roxanne, > > If you want to give Baha'i talks on a local radio station, > don't you need to clear with your local Spiritual Assembly? > Isn't radio as much a public forum as Usenet? Would you > tell your local Assembly it has no jurisdiction over what you > say about the Faith on radio? Isn't the purpose of supervision > to protect the Faith? And isn't it the function of an NSA to > protect the Faith nationally? > > Would you say, then, that the Faith does not need to be > protected internationally? > > John > > > > ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:27 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) I don't believe so Graham. The House can give us advice on how to interact with the Internet world, but they *can't* tell ushow to act. Ultimately, that's between you and your own soul. Regards, Roxanne > > In message <199710032257.RAA28457@indy2.indy.net>, William Rieske > writes > >Hey, > >Don't assume to speak for the rest of us. > >I don't think the House should have to be consulted about this. Their > >jurisdiction doesn't extend over the Internet. They do not have to be > >consulted about it. > > But how we, as Baha'is, interact with the USENET world is within the the > jurisdiction of the House? > > > -- > Graham Sorenson > Baha'i Faith Web pages, lots of them, can be found at:- > https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html > https://www.bahai.org --- https://www.bcca.org/~glittle > https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt --- https://www.netlink.com.au/~maryam > https://www.onecountry.org --- https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled > ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:48 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) In article <8TS7pCA3ndN0Ew2R@fragrant.demon.co.uk>, Graham Sorenson wrote -- >In message <199710032257.RAA28457@indy2.indy.net>, William Rieske > writes >>Hey, >>Don't assume to speak for the rest of us. >>I don't think the House should have to be consulted about this. Their >>jurisdiction doesn't extend over the Internet. They do not have to be >>consulted about it. > >But how we, as Baha'is, interact with the USENET world is within the the >jurisdiction of the House? Was there not a statement from the Universal House of Justice about how to post on e-mail fora? I would suggest that that would apply equally to newsgroups. (Can someone find it and post it here?) I think the real issue here is that we would be posting to a public group with the word "bahai" in its title. Many of us have posted hundreds or thousands of messages on the net and never once consulted on them. Some have posted on ARB, again without consultation with others. Granted, all of us will have at some time or another have made incorrect statements, just as we probably have during our teaching of others. Ususally these have been corrected politely by another, or even by the original poster, with an apology. If the administration were to have to approve every one of these responses, then we would have to give up on posting to newsgroups -- the threads move too fast. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Larry Andre & Salma Rahman[SMTP:Andrah@citechco.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 1:52 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Regarding T.R.B Dear Friends: While I too have long since wearied of this thread, I wanted to communicate a few thoughts for consideration before the subject is closed. Who has the right to participate in the vote? I have had enough exposure to usenet to know that only usenet users have any business voting on a usenet issue. By some interpretations of the admittedly loosely formulated usenet rules of procedure, only alt.religion.bahai users should vote on their discussion group's elevation to talk.religion.bahai. I once observed a farcical presidential election where the ruling party paid citizens of another country living just over the border to cross over and vote. Border precincts returned vote tallies showing that 300% of the adult population voted for the incumbent president. For those who are not usenet users to participate in the vote sends an unintended, and false, message that our Faith believes that the ends justify the means. Won't the creation of this group, which uses the name "Baha'i," imply that it is sponsored by an institution of the Faith? Not at all. Does anyone imagine that the discussion group devoted to discussing the actions of the U.S. federal government (real and imagined) is sponsored by the U.S. federal government? Usenet discussion groups are named for the topic discussed. No sponsorship is assumed by those at all familiar with usenet. Shouldn't we postpone the vote until the Universal House of Justice expresses a view on the subject? I believe that our supreme authority has already instructed Baha'is how to conduct themselves in public internet forums. All Baha'is must strive to live up to those instructions, in my opinion. The House has not expressed a view about how non-Baha'is should conduct themselves. I personally doubt that the House will do so. Doesn't the likelihood that unfavorable postings will be made to a more highly visible discussion group mean that we should oppose the creation of such a group? Not necessarily. Besides the issue of voter fraud alluded to above, there is the issue of just how much damage hostile postings can do. Not much, I suspect. Look at it this way: If a major bookstore chain were to announce an intention to open a Baha'i books section in all its stores, but would include both favorable and hostile titles, should the Baha'is strive to prevent the chain from opening such Baha'i book sections? Rather, I think we would rejoice at the increased exposure and feel confident that in the end the truth will stand and the false will fall away. During the Roman persecutions, the state spread disinformation that Christians ate human flesh and drank human blood during their religious ceremonies (a twisted reference to the Eucharist). Despite this, the Christian message spread like wildfire and in the end that same state made Christianity the state religion. Doesn't acceding to the "anything goes," libertarian ethos of the usenet community mean that we are neglecting the Baha'i teachings on maintaining a balance between freedom and responsibility? No, we are not acceding to anything. We are recognizing a cultural reality. We must uphold our teachings while at the same time respecting the mores of a "foreign culture." Maturity, moderation, tolerance, civility and mutual respect are not the dominant characteristics of usenet discourse. But this community is young. We are called upon, I believe, to help elevate it as it matures. We need to play honorably by the existing rules, show respect (though not blind acceptance) of the existing culture, and contribute to raising standards over time by observing our own values. How can we stand to see porn adverts and other such spam on a group that contains the name "Baha'i?" Only a moderated list avoids this. It is indeed painful. But no one with any familiarity of usenet will associate the Faith with such garbage. Spam is unfortunately common to all usenet groups, no matter how obscure or technical. Again, as the forum matures, this too will pass. We are getting in on the ground floor. There are rats and cockroaches on that floor. But we want to be part of the renovation team, quietly adding our influence such that eventually the vermin will be exterminated (metaphorically speaking). Due to usenet culture, a moderated list will never have the same exposure as an unmoderated one. The most painful thing I have ever heard someone say about our dearly loved Faith is "what's that, I've never heard of it?" Regards to all, and sorry for the length of this post. Larry Andre Dhaka, Bangladesh Andrah@citechco.net ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 7:53 AM To: eprice@mailer.fsu Cc: FG@hotmailer.com; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Usenet Newsgroups In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Ed and Frederick, from Ottawa. Many thanks for your remarks on the creation of Usenet newsgroups. I believe the issue according to Usenet is quite simple. A YES vote ought to be cast by those persons who are really going to participate in the group. A NO vote ought to be cast only by those people, likely only Usenet administrators, who have technical objections to the creation of a group. It is contrary to the spirit of the system either to vote yes if you are not going to participate or to vote no simply to prevent discussion. I hope this has clarified the issue. Fare very Well, Michael p.s. I am not on Baha'i discuss. Feel free to forward these remarks thither. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 9:25 AM To: 'bn872@freenet.carleton.ca'; eprice@mailer.fsu Cc: FG@hotmailer.com; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Usenet Newsgroups In the Baha'i Studies List today: > From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca [SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] > I believe the issue according to Usenet is quite simple. > A YES vote ought to be cast by those persons who are > really going to participate in the group. > A NO vote ought to be cast only by those people, likely > only Usenet administrators, who have technical objections to > the creation of a group. > Those are loose guidelines, and not universally agreed upon among active members of the USENET community. If you don't believe me, head over to news.groups for about a week or two. > It is contrary to the spirit of the system either to vote > yes if you are not going to participate or to vote no simply to > prevent discussion. > Actually, the spirit of the system is for people to vote their conscience, and the standard for voting need not be limited to whether or not one personally intends to use the group or whether or not one has some technical objection to the formation of the group. It would not be contrary to USENET guidelines if, for example, I thought that the existence of a particular newsgroup could bring harm to some part of the community and voted against the formation of such a newsgroup. Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:22 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice Best beloveds, I cannot see that the Universal House does not have jurisdiction. They do. Over the entire Baha'i world. Much love, Nancy D. On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 19:03:09 -0700 "John B. Cornell" writes: >William Rieske wrote: > >> On a matter such as this, The House of Justice doens't have >jurisdiction. >> Usenet is a public foram..not strictly a Baha'i foram. > >Dear Roxanne, > > If you want to give Baha'i talks on a local radio station, >don't you need to clear with your local Spiritual Assembly? >Isn't radio as much a public forum as Usenet? Would you >tell your local Assembly it has no jurisdiction over what you >say about the Faith on radio? Isn't the purpose of supervision >to protect the Faith? And isn't it the function of an NSA to >protect the Faith nationally? > > Would you say, then, that the Faith does not need to be >protected internationally? > > John > > > > > ---------- From: Ragna Jensen[SMTP:ragna@asis.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:39 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) ---------- From: Chris Manvell Was there not a statement from the Universal House of Justice about how to post on e-mail fora? I would suggest that that would apply equally to newsgroups. (Can someone find it and post it here?) ................................................. Reply separator .................................................. THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE BAHÁ'Í WORLD CENTRE Department of the Secretariat 18 February 1996 Dear Bahá'í Friend, The Universal House of Justice received your email of 2 December 1995, and has instructed us to send you the following replies to the questions you raise. The House of Justice notes that you have been disturbed by some of the postings made to the email discussion group of which you have recently been a member. Email discussion groups are a new phenomenon; they can provide immense benefits for communication between people and for the teaching of the Faith, but, as you have seen, they can also give rise to far-reaching problems. The use of email requires an adjustment of perception. In the past, discussions among Bahá'ís would take place orally among groups of friends in private, or at summer schools and other Bahá'í events, or in letters between individuals. Inevitably, many erroneous statements were made; not all comments were as temperate as they should have been; many statements were misunderstood by those who heard them. After all, not all Bahá'ís have a profound knowledge of the teachings, and it is clear that even academic eminence is no guarantee of a correct understanding of the Revelation of God. Before email such extravagances had a limited range and were of an ephemeral nature. Now, the same kind of discussion is spread among a hundred or more people, who often do not know one another, is in a form more durable than speech, and can be disseminated to a vast readership at the touch of a button. A new level of self-discipline, therefore, is needed by those who take part. Such discussions among Bahá'ís call for self-restraint and purity of motive as well as cordiality, frankness and openness. The central, unifying element of the Faith is the Covenant. This is the institution which guarantees that the Faith and its teachings will remain true to the Revelation brought by Bahá'u'lláh and expounded by His divinely guided Interpreters. It is the one agency which can protect the Faith against the distortion and disruption to which all previous Revelations have been subjected by the efforts -- whether well-intentioned or not -- of the self-opinionated and ambitious among their followers to force the Cause of God into patterns which they personally favoured. Thus, if any participant in an email discussion feels that a view put forward appears to contradict or undermine the provisions of the Covenant, he should be free to say so, explaining candidly and courteously why he feels as he does. The person who made the initial statement will then be able to re-evaluate his opinion and, if he still believes it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the Covenant. The participants in such a discussion should avoid disputation and, if they are unable to resolve an issue, they should refer the point to the Universal House of Justice since, in accordance with the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá, "By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved..." and it has the authority to decide upon " all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book." In this way the Covenant can illuminate and temper the discourse and make it fruitful. (Excerpt from a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer dated 18 February 1996 about E-Mail-discussion groups) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 9:00 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice If this practice were to be strictly enforced, then we Baha'is could not engage in Usenet discussions about the Faith, period. For EVERY message would need to be approved by a committee of one's National Spiritual Assembly. The moderation of s.r.b does NOT constitute such approval, for the moderators are not constituted as a committee of any Assembly. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) John B. Cornell wrote: > > William Rieske wrote: > > > On a matter such as this, The House of Justice doens't have jurisdiction. > > Usenet is a public foram..not strictly a Baha'i foram. > > Dear Roxanne, > > If you want to give Baha'i talks on a local radio station, > don't you need to clear with your local Spiritual Assembly? > Isn't radio as much a public forum as Usenet? Would you > tell your local Assembly it has no jurisdiction over what you > say about the Faith on radio? Isn't the purpose of supervision > to protect the Faith? And isn't it the function of an NSA to > protect the Faith nationally? > > Would you say, then, that the Faith does not need to be > protected internationally? > > John ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:13 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) Best beloveds, Regarding consulting the Universal house of Justice, as my Jewish friends would say, "Vould it hoit?" Much love, Nancy d. On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 06:53:59 +0100 Graham Sorenson writes: >In message <199710032257.RAA28457@indy2.indy.net>, William Rieske > writes >>Hey, >>Don't assume to speak for the rest of us. >>I don't think the House should have to be consulted about this. Their >>jurisdiction doesn't extend over the Internet. They do not have to be >>consulted about it. > >But how we, as Baha'is, interact with the USENET world is within the >the >jurisdiction of the House? > > >-- >Graham Sorenson >Baha'i Faith Web pages, lots of them, can be found at:- >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html >https://www.bahai.org --- https://www.bcca.org/~glittle >https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt --- https://www.netlink.com.au/~maryam >https://www.onecountry.org --- >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled > ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:36 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Letter from the House on e-mail (May 1995) I see that somebody has already posted an extract from one of the messages of the House regarding e-mail. Here is the other message (I believe it to be complete and accurate): ----------------------------------- >From the Department of the Secretariat, Baha'i World Centre, to an individual believer, 19 May 1995: Dear Baha'i Friend, The Universal House of Justice has consulted on your email message of 4 April 1995 concerning the character of some of the postings on Baha'i subjects in electronic discussion groups, and has asked us to convey to you the following. Your concerns, in the context in which you have described them in the second paragraph of your message, are legitimate for a Baha'i, and you should not hesitate to express them, as you wish, in a manner that is intended to illumine the exchange of ideas in any discussion in which you may participate. The opportunity which electronic communication technology provides for more speedy and thorough consultation among the friends is highly significant. Without doubt, it represents another manifestation of a development eagerly anticipated by the Guardian when he foresaw the creation of "a mechanism of world intercommunication ... embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity". As you well appreciate, the extent to which such technology advances the work of the Faith depends, of course, on the manner in which it is used. As a medium for Baha'is to exchange views, it imposes on participants the same requirements of moderation, candour, and courtesy as would be the case in any other discussion. Likewise, those involved should avoid belittling the views of one another. In this regard, the House of Justice has noted your understandable repugnance at an apparent temptation to use misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals", which divide the Baha'i community. To the extent that this divisive habit of mind may persist in the Baha'i community, it is obviously a carry-over from non-Baha'i society and a manifestation of an immature conception of life. If Baha'is were to persist in this mode of thinking, it would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour, as has so conspicuously been the case with societies of the past. Most important of all, as with any exploration by Baha'is of the beliefs and practices of their Faith, electronic discussion will serve the interests of the Cause and its members only as it is conducted within the framework of the Baha'i Teachings and the truths they enshrine. To attempt to discuss the cause of God apart from or with disdain for the authoritative guidance inherent in these Teachings would clearly be a logical contradiction. To take the first point mentioned in your letter, it is obvious that seeking to impose limits on the universality of the authority of God's Manifestation would lead to the frustration of serious scholarly work and generate disharmony within an effort whose success depends precisely upon a spirit of unity and mutual trust. The standard is the one made clear by Baha'u'llah Himself: The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatsoever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. With regard to the harmony of science and religion, the Writings of the Central Figures and the commentaries of the Guardian make abundantly clear that the task of humanity, including the Baha'i community that serves as the "leaven" within it, is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence. The nature and scope of such a civilization are still beyond anything the present generation can conceive. The prosecution of this vast enterprise will depend on a progressive interaction between the truths and principles of religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a natural and inescapable feature of the process of exploring reality. It also requires us not to limit science to any particular school of thought or methodological approach postulated in the course of its development. The challenge facing Baha'i thinkers is to provide responsible leadership in this endeavour, since it is they who have both the priceless insights of the Revelation and the advantages conferred by scientific investigation. The ease and relative impersonality of the electronic medium require in some ways an even higher level of self-discipline than is the case in situations where a spirit of unity is reinforced by the opportunity for direct personal contact and social interaction. In the pursuit of such a spirit of unity, Baha'is will, without doubt, wish to assist the consultative processes by sharing and discussing relevant Baha'i texts. This will itself have the further effect of drawing attention back to the framework of Baha'i belief. The House of Justice assures you of its prayers in the Holy Shrines on your behalf that the abundant confirmations of Baha'u'llah may ever sustain you. With loving Baha'i greetings, Department of the Secretariat ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:33 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice Here's how I see it: The Internet and Usenet are public entities (for lack of a better term), not affiliated with the Faith in any way. They were created by non-Baha'is (either mostly or entirely). Therefore, the House would not have jurisdiction over them. Of course, the House DOES have jurisdiction over the Baha'i community. IMHO, it is within their jurisdiction to regulate how the friends conduct themselves. Since online discussion is not specifically mentioned in the Writings, then it would certainly be in their jurisdiction to regulate how we conduct ourselves online. If the House were to rule that public messages on the Faith (in newsgroups or Web-based forums (fora?)) must be submitted for review in the same manner as other publications, then we would have to obey this ruling. In a practical sense, this would end public discussion about the Faith. Similarly, the House could rule that discussions about the Faith should take place only in moderated groups. Or it could specify how the friends should create new newsgroups. To use the hot issue of the moment: it could say that it is not proper for a Baha'i to be the formal proponent of t.r.b. But it could not forbid a non-Baha'i from being the proponent. We DO have guidance on how to conduct ourselves in general, and nearly all of it is applicable to public online communication. Just some thoughts... Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) PS: I do have the two messages from the House on e-mail. Since the file is 25K in size, I am somewhat reluctant to post it here unless the moderators say it's OK. Nancy S Damren wrote: > > Best beloveds, > > I cannot see that the Universal House does not have jurisdiction. They > do. Over the entire Baha'i world. > > Much love, > > Nancy D. > > On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 19:03:09 -0700 "John B. Cornell" > writes: > >William Rieske wrote: > > > >> On a matter such as this, The House of Justice doens't have > >jurisdiction. > >> Usenet is a public foram..not strictly a Baha'i foram. > > > >Dear Roxanne, > > > > If you want to give Baha'i talks on a local radio station, > >don't you need to clear with your local Spiritual Assembly? > >Isn't radio as much a public forum as Usenet? Would you > >tell your local Assembly it has no jurisdiction over what you > >say about the Faith on radio? Isn't the purpose of supervision > >to protect the Faith? And isn't it the function of an NSA to > >protect the Faith nationally? > > > > Would you say, then, that the Faith does not need to be > >protected internationally? > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Gata@aol.com[SMTP:Gata@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:46 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) <> Here is a letter from the World Centre. In it there are specific guidelines on how to act, i.e.: "As a medium for Baha'is to exchange views, it imposes on participants the same requirements of moderation, candour, and courtesy as would be the case in any other discussion. Likewise, those involved should avoid belittling the views of one another." Warm regards to all. Shirley Macias (gata@aol.com) ********* >From the Department of the Secretariat, Baha'i World Centre, to an individual believer, 19 May 1995: Dear Baha'i Friend, The Universal House of Justice has consulted on your email message of 4 April 1995 concerning the character of some of the postings on Baha'i subjects in electronic discussion groups, and has asked us to convey to you the following. Your concerns, in the context in which you have described them in the second paragraph of your message, are legitimate for a Baha'i, and you should not hesitate to express them, as you wish, in a manner that is intended to illumine the exchange of ideas in any discussion in which you may participate. The opportunity which electronic communication technology provides for more speedy and thorough consultation among the friends is highly significant. Without doubt, it represents another manifestation of a development eagerly anticipated by the Guardian when he foresaw the creation of "a mechanism of world intercommunication ... embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity". As you well appreciate, the extent to which such technology advances the work of the Faith depends, of course, on the manner in which it is used. As a medium for Baha'is to exchange views, it imposes on participants the same requirements of moderation, candour, and courtesy as would be the case in any other discussion. Likewise, those involved should avoid belittling the views of one another. In this regard, the House of Justice has noted your understandable repugnance at an apparent temptation to use misleading and invidious labels like "traditionalists" and "liberals", which divide the Baha'i community. To the extent that this divisive habit of mind may persist in the Baha'i community, it is obviously a carry-over from non-Baha'i society and a manifestation of an immature conception of life. If Baha'is were to persist in this mode of thinking, it would bring to naught even the most worthwhile intellectual endeavour, as has so conspicuously been the case with societies of the past. Most important of all, as with any exploration by Baha'is of the beliefs and practices of their Faith, electronic discussion will serve the interests of the Cause and its members only as it is conducted within the framework of the Baha'i Teachings and the truths they enshrine. To attempt to discuss the Cause of God apart from or with disdain for the authoritative guidance inherent in these Teachings would clearly be a logical contradiction. To take the first point mentioned in your letter, it is obvious that seeking to impose limits on the universality of the authority of God's Manifestation would lead to the frustration of serious scholarly work and generate disharmony within an effort whose success depends precisely upon a spirit of unity and mutual trust. The standard is the one made clear by Baha'u'llah Himself: The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatsoever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. With regard to the harmony of science and religion, the Writings of the Central Figures and the commentaries of the Guardian make abundantly clear that the task of humanity, including the Baha'i community that serves as the "leaven" within it, is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence. The nature and scope of such a civilization are still beyond anything the present generation can conceive. The prosecution of this vast enterprise will depend on a progressive interaction between the truths and principles of religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a natural and inescapable feature of the process of exploring reality. It also requires us not to limit science to any particular school of thought or methodological approach postulated in the course of its development. The challenge facing Baha'i thinkers is to provide responsible leadership in this endeavour, since it is they who have both the priceless insights of the Revelation and the advantages conferred by scientific investigation. The ease and relative impersonality of the electronic medium require in some ways an even higher level of self-discipline than is the case in situations where a spirit of unity is reinforced by the opportunity for direct personal contact and social interaction. In the pursuit of such a spirit of unity, Baha'is will, without doubt, wish to assist the consultative processes by sharing and discussing relevant Baha'i texts. This will itself have the further effect of drawing attention back to the framework of Baha'i belief. The House of Justice assures you of its prayers in the Holy Shrines on your behalf that the abundant confirmations of Baha'u'llah may ever sustain you. With loving Baha'i greetings, Department of the Secretariat ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 12:40 PM To: Race Unity Subject: fwd: liberation theology in south africa ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:45:01 EDT Send reply to: The Global Ethic Project From: Leonard Swidler Organization: TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Subject: eni-full ENI-97-0461 (fwd) fyi, Len +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ GLOBAL DIALOGUE INSTITUTE JOURNAL OF ECUMENICAL STUDIES -- CENTER FOR GLOBAL STUDIES Religion Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122 Tel: 215-204-7251 (off.); 477-1080 (home); FAX: 477-5928 or 204-4569 WEB: https://blue.temple.edu/~dialogue Leonard Swidler, Prof. of Catholic Thought & Interreligious Dialogue +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:23:22 +0100 From: ENI Subject: eni-full ENI-97-0461 Reply-To: eni-full@info.wcc-coe.org ------------------------ Start of message from list: eni-full ----> Ecumenical News International ENI News Service 2 October 1997 S. Africa's liberation theologians told to confess to sin of violence ENI-97-0461 By Noel Bruyns East London, South Africa, 1 October (ENI)--The South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) has launched a vigorous attack on liberation theology, calling on priests who supported it to confess to the nation's Truth and Reconciliation Commission that they condoned violence for political purposes during the struggle against apartheid. The remarks, in the editorial of the latest issue of Frontiers and Freedom, the SAIRR's quarterly journal, were made by it's chief executive, John Kane-Berman. The editorial stated: "During this period of conflict [under apartheid], religious leaders launched at least three initiatives designed to advance the cause of liberation through violence rather than reconciliation." The magazine states that in July 1989, 539 South African theologians issued a tract, The Road to Damascus: Kairos and Conversion, "in which they said the only true Christians were those who adopted liberation theology. On their definition, Pope John Paul II, who played a major role in bringing about the collapse of communism without resorting to liberation theology, would be a heretic." Kane-Berman also attacked the Kairos Document initiative, signed by 150 clergy and theologians from 22 denominations in 1985. This document argued that conflict and struggle would have to intensify "because there is no other way to remove the injustice and oppression", Kane-Berman claimed. It dismissed black moderates as "collaborators" and argued that activities such as "throwing stones, burning cars and buildings, and sometimes killing 'collaborators' ought not to be called 'violence' at all". Not content with using "semantics to condone murder and mob rule", the SAIRR editorial continued, Kairos went on to argue that it would be "totally unchristian to plead for reconciliation and peace before the present injustice has been removed". "Two years later, in May 1987, a meeting in Lusaka of the Programme to Combat Racism of the World Council of Churches decided that the nature of the South African regime 'compels the [liberation] movements to the use of force along with other means to end oppression'. In his editorial, Kane-Berman said that "those priests who gave their blessing to the use of violence are conspicuous by their absence from the list of people and institutions the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been probing, or is planning to probe". However, Albert Nolan, a leading South African liberation theologian and author, told ENI: "John Kane-Berman does not appear to have the faintest idea of what the theology of liberation is about. And judging by the way he misquotes the Kairos Document, the Road to Damascus and the 1987 Lusaka Statement, he does not understand what he has read." Liberation theology did not have a specific point of view about violence but, like most Christians, subscribed to the common Christian tradition that force was permitted in cases of self-defence, especially against a tyrannical government. "Kane-Berman's problem seems to be that he still does not think that apartheid was a tyranny and that self-defence was needed," Nolan said. "Does he really wish to blame the victims of apartheid - crushed, savagely tortured, mercilessly humiliated - for kicking back in self-defence? Jesus' saying about turning the other cheek was an ideal to strive for personally, and could not be imposed on other people," Nolan said. "Jesus did not tell the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery that she should just turn the other cheek and allow herself to be stoned to death," he added. Liberation theology had opposed the very thing with which the Truth Commission was concerned - gross human rights violations, Nolan said. "All that the Kairos Document did in its promotion of human rights was to include the victim's right to self-defence." (The South African Institute of Race Relations describes itself as a liberal research organisation. Founded in 1929, it states that it has consistently opposed racial discrimination and promoted the establishment of a non-racial society in South Africa. The institute describes itself as an independent organisation with no party political affiliation or South African government funding. It also states that its membership ranges across the political spectrum including companies, churches, embassies, universities, libraries, newspapers, and individuals.) John Newbury, spokesman for the World Council of Churches, told ENI that the WCC "never endorsed the use of violence in southern Africa. Through its Programme to Combat Racism, the WCC sought to hasten the day when the violence of racism and colonialism would end. "The Lusaka statement from which John Kane-Berman quotes needs to be read in context. The full sentence shows that the members of the consultation did not endorse the use of violence, but understood the pressures which drove others reluctantly to embrace it as a way of freeing themselves from the oppression of apartheid. The complete sentence reads: 'While remaining committed to peaceful change, we recognise the nature of the South African regime, which wages war against its own inhabitants and neighbours, compels the movements to the use of force along with other means to end oppression.' "The Lusaka Statement came from a consultation organised by the WCC. The statement did not state WCC policy; only the [WCC's] central committee and assembly can do this. However, the 1988 central committee meeting in Hanover considered the Lusaka Statement important enough to commend it to the churches for study and action." [884 words] All articles (c) Ecumenical News International Reproduction permitted only by media subscribers and provided ENI is acknowledged as the source. Ecumenical News International Tel: (41-22) 791 6087/6515 Fax: (41-22) 798 1346 E-Mail: eni@wcc-coe.org PO Box 2100 150 route de Ferney CH-1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland ------------------------ End of message from list: eni-full ----> ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:14 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. (fwd) Dear Roxanne, May I offer these views for your consideration? > Hey, > Don't assume to speak for the rest of us. > I don't think the House should have to be consulted about this. Their > jurisdiction doesn't extend over the Internet. They do not have to be > consulted about it. Obviously with soc.religion.bahai..somebody took the > time to seek their advice, but they didn't *have* to do that. The House of Justice has jurisdiction over everything that involves the Faith of Baha'u'llah. Please consider this: "The eighth Ishraq "This passage, now written by the Pen of Glory, is accounted as part of the Most Holy Book: The men of God's House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people. They, in truth, are the Trustees of God among His servants and the daysprings of authority in His countries. "O people of God! That which traineth the world is Justice, for it is upheld by two pillars, reward and punishment. These two pillars are the sources of life to the world. Inasmuch as for each day there is a new problem and for every problem an expedient solution, such affairs should be referred to the House of Justice that the members thereof may act according to the needs and requirements of the time. They that, for the sake of God, arise to serve His Cause, are the recipients of divine inspiration from the unseen Kingdom. It is incumbent upon all to be obedient unto them. All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according to that which God hath revealed in His Book." (Baha'u'llah, "Tablets of Baha'u'llah", pp. 128 - 129) When studying this passage please meditate in your heart concerning first sentence. "This passage, now written by the Pen of Glory, is accounted as part of the Most Holy Book:" What is this Most Holy Book? We sometimes forget because in our day to day conversation we don't usually call it by this translation of the title. We refer to it as the "Aqdas" or "Kitab-i-Aqdas". As the "Aqdas" is a book of laws the English translation of the title is considered by some to be Book of Laws but is really the "Most Holy Book" This alone should warn us that the eighth Ishraq is vitally important to us. > Personally speaking, if we all waited for the HOuse to decide over every > single matter of our lives, we'd be waiting for a very long time. > NOr do I for one minute think that I have to sit around and wait for the > HOuse to decide on an issue such as this before I do some sort of action. The House of Justice wants the individual believer to act on their own initiative. But that initiative is in the area of our personal teaching of the Faith not setting up an instrument which by its very nature has the possibility of being read by anyone in the world with Internet access. I cannot begin publishing a magazine about the Faith or a "Baha'i" newspaper devoted to publishing the views and opinions of individual believers without the prior approval of the Administrative Order of the Faith, be it local, national, or international. I see no difference between these examples and starting a discussion group on Usenet. > Personally, I think Baha'is depend too much on the House of Justice. They > cannot be there for everything that crosses our path. You can act without > the House, just use some common sense. This brings two thought to mind. First, how do we define "common sense"? Consider this: "IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD, THE EXALTED, THE MOST HIGH. "No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. . . Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world, that haply ye may attain that station which God hath destined for you and enter thus the tabernacle which, according to the dispensations of Providence, hath been raised in the firmament of the Bayan. "THE essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly --- their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. They should put their trust in God, and, holding fast unto Him, follow in His way. Then will they be made worthy of the effulgent glories of the sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and become the recipients of a grace that is infinite and unseen, inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets." (Baha'u'llah, "Kitab-i-Iqan", pp. 3 - 4) Let us define "common sense". According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913, common sense is: (a) "The complement of those cognitions or convictions which we receive from nature, which all men possess in common, and by which they test the truth of knowledge and the morality of actions." (b) "The faculty of first principles." These two are the philosophical significations. © "Such ordinary complement of intelligence, that, if a person be deficient therein, he is accounted mad or foolish." (d) When the substantive is emphasized: "Native practical intelligence, natural prudence, mother wit, tact in behavior, acuteness in the observation of character, in contrast to habits of acquired learning or of speculation." This is all well and good but it does seem to be judged by the standards of men and not the standards of God. I will take my lead from the "Kitab-i-Iqan". I must cease to ". . . regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding . . . of God and His Prophets." How can one depend to much on the authority of God? For that is what the House of Justice is by the simple fact that the House of Justice is an integral part of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. This Covenant and its Administrative Order are unique in all the history of the world. "It should be noted in this connection that this Administrative Order is fundamentally different from anything that any Prophet has previously established, inasmuch as Baha'u'llah has Himself revealed its principles, established its institutions, appointed the person to interpret His Word and conferred the necessary authority on the body designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances. Therein lies the secret of its strength, its fundamental distinction, and the guarantee against disintegration and schism. Nowhere in the sacred scriptures of any of the world's religious systems, nor even in the writings of the Inaugurator of the Babi Dispensation, do we find any provisions establishing a covenant or providing for an administrative order that can compare in scope and authority with those that lie at the very basis of the Baha'i Dispensation." (Shoghi Effendi, "The World Order of Baha'u'llah", p. 145) This Administrative Order is a gem of inestimable value. How do we relate to it? In a very real sense that depends on what we see; a rock, a semi-precious stone, or a brilliant gem. Every once in a while I reread and ponder on this insightful summation of the Faith and Administrative Order that Shoghi Effendi closes the "Dispensation Letter" with: "Let no one, while this System is still in its infancy, misconceive its character, belittle its significance or misrepresent its purpose. The bedrock on which this Administrative Order is founded is God's immutable Purpose for mankind in this day. The Source from which it derives its inspiration is no one less than Baha'u'llah Himself. Its shield and defender are the embattled hosts of the Abha Kingdom. Its seed is the blood of no less than twenty thousand martyrs who have offered up their lives that it may be born and flourish. The axis round which its institutions revolve are the authentic provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Its guiding principles are the truths which He Who is the unerring Interpreter of the teachings of our Faith has so clearly enunciated in His public addresses throughout the West. The laws that govern its operation and limit its functions are those which have been expressly ordained in the Kitab-I-Aqdas. The seat round which its spiritual, its humanitarian and administrative activities will cluster are the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar and its Dependencies. The pillars that sustain its authority and buttress its structure are the twin institutions of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice. The central, the underlying aim which animates it is the establishment of the New World Order as adumbrated by Baha'u'llah. The methods it employs, the standard it inculcates, incline it to neither East nor West, neither Jew nor Gentile, neither rich nor poor, neither white nor colored. Its watchword is the unification of the human race; its standard the "Most Great Peace"; its consummation the advent of that golden millennium--the Day when the kingdoms of this world shall have become the Kingdom of God Himself, the Kingdom of Baha'u'llah." (Shoghi Effendi, "The World Order of Baha'u'llah", pp. 156 -157) > Regards, > Roxanne Allah'u'Abha, Douglas Myers ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 5:56 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Asking the House 10/3/97 1:12 PM In answer to your last message : >Let it go. alt.religion.bahai is a reality and the world has not come to >an end. In fact, the participation of such steadfast souls as Roger, Chris >and Donald has helped contrast the Baha'i spirit with a quickly deteriorating >level of social discourse. > >As always I say vote your conscience but don't campaign and don't worry. > Hi Richard- I appreciated you reasoning and explanations of the Usenet issue. What I feel the House can do is confirm us as to how we should be communicating with other souls. This information is already in the Writings but I believe it helps when we gain the confirmations from just connecting to the House of Justice. While I agree with you that it seems that there is nothing the House can do about this Usenet issue, I also cannot second guess what God will offer in terms of guidance for us all. So to me it is best to just go ahead and write to the House and explain our problem. And while a agree that we are going to have even more extreme tests to enjoy for our growth I also see the difference in actually creating tests for ourselves instead of just allowing God to test us as He sees best for our growth. In other words I see no valid reason to just go out and seek these arguments. It is my experience that there is no intellectual argument that will change anyones minds about their conflicts with the Faith of Baha'u'llah. Yes, we should calmly and in a detached manner give forth a valid argument that offers the proofs of His Message and His Reality but at the same time I feel we need to realize that the soul, independent of the body and mind, can sense the truth and react accordingly. Somehow I seem to recall something about seeking out receptive souls and I don't find too many receptive souls on some of these unmoderated Lists. However I also believe that any action is good action if we learn from it. Anyone who is sincerely feeling they are helping lurkers or seekers on these Lists then by all means go for it. I feel that any soul has the right to start up a discussion list, make their own rules etc. and more power to them. We should not interfere with this process. However all we can do is vote and the discussions of the past are just one of the ways in which voters can make an informed vote. What may only be the most positive result is that lurkers on these groups, others who are sincerely interested in seeking, will be in seeing that Baha'is act differently with oppression and attacks. In our Writings we are given guidelines on effective and realistic communications between souls. I see no reason why publishing these guidelines and asking for agreement and cooperation with them should be a problem for anyone. If someone does not wish to agree or abide by these guidelines then they are not interested in love and unity, just want to "let it all hang out" and communicate in ways that are not beneficial to effective unveiling of truth and reality. No matter what we do in life, there are always rules to help moderate extremes. Facing and dealing intelligently with the "powers-that-be" is always going to be a test for us until we learn the meaning of cooperation. It is from the explanations and clarity of opinions like yours, Chris, et al that have helped me see the TRB or ARB in a new light but I still don't feel ready to cast a vote either way. I'm working at it for I feel it a responsibility to be of service whenever possible. regards, doug PO Box 561 Waitsfield VT 05673 phone: 802-496-6883 email: dmcadam@togethernet.com ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 5:56 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic 10/3/97 11:56 AM In answer to your last message : >I've addressed this in another post -- briefly, I plan to begin work on >a letter from myself asking for guidance on several issues about public >discussion on the Net, one of those issues being the wisdom of >unmoderated groups devoted to the Faith. Wonderful idea Roger and I do hope you will share the reply. We need all the guidance we can get. regards, doug ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 6:30 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? Roger Reini wrote in article <343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > I urge extreme caution on this, because one should not post messages > from non-public mailing lists onto public newsgroups without the > permission of the message authors. > > However, I can verify that what Fred says is basically correct. There > have been scores of messages posted to the mailing list which have > expressed opposition to talk.religion.bahai. By the standards of the > Usenet voting process, this opposition is basically "political" in > nature, since it does not involve the technical merits of the proposal. I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, for improper political/religious reasons then.... > > There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a > traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and > large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere > belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in > the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated > arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the > teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the > Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it > would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > undermine its institutions, etc. None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the above, and so do Bahais.... > > Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according > to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for > voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > not to let this clash become acrimonious. I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: “This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth with openness and freedom.” Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Guy Macon wrote in article > > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... > > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, FG@hotmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, > > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from > > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called > > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming > > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the > > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. > > > > > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those messages? > > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who doubts > > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. > > > > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to forward > > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of > > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss attacking > > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one file in > > order > > to attach it easily for forwarding too. > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 6:33 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Canonical Reasons for Voting on Usenet newsgroup proposals Joe Bernstein CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals You have four available vote options on any given Usenet newsgroup proposal. These are YES, NO, ABSTAIN, and CANCEL. A CANCEL vote is meaningless unless you've already voted some other way (its effect then is to get rid of that vote). An ABSTAIN vote is meaningless in practical terms, but a few people cast ABSTAIN votes anyway, for various reasons. There are very few reasons to cast YES or NO votes which are recognised as legitimate. The main purpose of a Usenet newsgroup proposal vote is to determine whether there are enough Usenet users who are interested in reading the group; that's the principal reason for YES votes to exist. The subsidiary purpose of the vote is to keep bad proposals from being enacted; that's the principal reason for NO votes to exist. There are a few other reasons which are widely but not universally accepted. Nobody enforces the following rules. But if you vote YES disregarding them, you're asking system administrators worldwide to take up disk space, etc. for a group they maybe shouldn't. And if you vote NO disregarding these rules, you're asking system administrators to stifle other people's use of Usenet. Neither of these moves is in the best spirit of Usenet. Reasons for YES votes: 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. In more detail, 1) The proposal is good for a group I expect to read in the future. The most obvious case of this is if the proposal creates a new group that you want to read. (Similarly, if it moderates or unmoderates a group you already read, and you agree with that move.) However, there are plenty of other cases too. A proposal might create a new group, thus removing traffic you're not interested in from a busy group you *do* read, or maybe just getting rid of flamewars there. For that matter, the proposal might reduce traffic on a group that's presently too busy for you, making it possible for you to read it. The main point here is that this kind of YES vote is based on how you use Usenet. It is not based on how others use Usenet, or your opinion of them, except insofar as they affect your use of Usenet. The object is to establish that a significant number of actual Usenet readers in fact want the proposed change to happen. Otherwise, why on earth should thousands of system administrators take the trouble and spend the resources to make the change? This is the main reason for voting YES. 2) A YES vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. This reason is very restricted. A few people consistently vote YES to counter the "professional NO voters", presumably because they disagree with those voters' presumed opinions (see below). These people are called "Rubber Stamp" voters. A few people routinely vote YES on moderated groups, or *.misc groups, to counter similar NO voter contingents. Almost any other principle of selection for YES votes, on proposals you aren't interested in, turns into a matter of political voting, which is the ultimate Bad Thing in Usenet votes. Usenet votes are meant to measure the group's prospects for drawing the interest of readers, so as to justify the disk space the group will take up on thousands of computers; political voting for a group you *won't* use is therefore unacceptable. [This section needs some of the hand-waving about "for experienced voters only"; I now practice "political voting to counter political voting", and I'm not hypocritical enough to post an FAQ telling people flatly not to do the same. We argued a bit about this in the thread, Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax suggesting in particular that such a YES vote should never be cast without evidence of traffic, and we finally decided (or at least I did) that it was more complicated than a beginning FAQ needed.] Reasons for NO votes -- there are more of these, *but*, on most proposals, none of these actually apply...: 1) The proposal is bad for a group I expect to read in the future. 2) A NO vote is good on Usenet policy grounds. Well, OK, that's still two. But then come the details: 1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). 1) b) The proposal establishes a group I would like to read, but does it in such a bad way that it's better to vote it down and try again in six months; I wouldn't find the badly established group worth reading. [I no longer trust that these are self-explanatory, and hope to flesh them out just a bit. Stealing some space from the following longer list.] 2) a) I systematically vote NO on (all groups, moderated groups, *.misc groups, etc.) for Usenet policy reasons. As applied to all groups, this is "professional NO voting", and the people who do it are called "Wet Blankets". There's around 20 of them (as opposed to around a dozen "Rubber Stamps"). The net effect of the Wet Blankets and the Rubber Stamps is that you actually need around 108 *other* YES votes to pass any proposal, because there's around 8 more NO votes than YES ones coming your way from these folks. As far as anyone knows, the Wet Blankets and Rubber Stamps vote the way they do precisely in order to affect that number. Voting NO on moderated, *.misc, or whatever groups is also a political statement about what you want Usenet to be like, a more focused one. In any event, none of these reasons is something you can do just at random. If you're going to justify your vote on Usenet policy reasons, you pretty much have to apply those same reasons to every relevant vote. 2) b) The name is bad and will thus harm Usenet namespace. This is probably the most accepted of these reasons by people familiar with the newsgroup creation process, but it comes as the biggest surprise to others who aren't familiar with it. Good names for newsgroups matter because newsgroup names are all that's available to many of the people who are considering whether they're interested in the group, whether to post to it, etc. If a group is badly named, it might fail to attract the audience it's aimed at. For example, if a group about anthropology were named soc.culture.research, it would probably not be found by a lot of anthropologists. Or it might attract the wrong audience. That same group, for example, would probably (given the nature of other soc.culture.* groups) confuse lots of people, but some people would think it was a group for researchers in general to discuss what it's like to be a researcher. Or it might attract no audience at all, but sit there taking up a name that somebody else might have a good use for. Say your misnamed soc.culture.research was a moderated group, and you rejected all those posts from researchers because they were off-topic. Well, they might have a use for that group, but you're just sitting there taking up their space. (In reality, these are just examples. The anthropology group is named sci.anthropology, as it should be; there is no soc.culture.research, and if it were proposed now, it would probably be renamed soc.subculture.research, in keeping with a recently proposed distinction.) [Note: deliberately boring example chosen to evade the misunderstanding that resulted when my example was a group on terrorism and drugs, named humanities.sinology. Improvements would be appreciated, but I think extreme and therefore fun examples will, in general, fail similarly. Maybe the example should be a group about embroidery of pictures of kittens, named humanities.sinology? Embarrassed, I also note how close this comes to sc.scientists, which I thought Mr. Arromdee was joking about when he brought it up...] [That note, like most of these, was in August. But now that soc.subculture.cyber-psychos was defeated, what next? Anyway...] 2) c) The moderators are bad and will thus create a bad newsgroup where (in namespace) a better newsgroup could have gone. It would be a real shame if, for example, a proposal for comp.databases.cics came forward with me as moderator. I've used CICS for data entry, but I wouldn't begin to know how to moderate a newsgroup about it properly. And there are lots of CICS users out there (or anyway there were a few years ago) who could do it better, and who could use the group. If the proposal with me as moderator passed, they'd have a very hard time getting rid of me, due to general Usenet policy. So they'd probably have to try to create a whole new group -- maybe comp.databases.cics.forreal? And they'd have a very hard time convincing system administrators to accept the new one on top of my bad one. [Note: first person used to guarantee that the example chosen wouldn't get mad. :-) Alternatives welcome... I'm honestly not sure, though, if first person were removed, that this paragraph would work at all wel.] 2) d) The charter is bad (see 2) c)). This reason breaks down into two very different aspects. Unmoderated groups' charters are basically statements of intent, and not much more. They should be taken seriously during debate, because during debate, many of the people who will form the new newsgroup are trying to reach a consensus about what it should be like through that discussion. But in practice, for someone voting on Usenet policy grounds, an unmoderated group's charter would have to be pretty bad to justify a NO vote. (However, it's also reasonable to say the charter is bad because the group is doomed to failure as an unmoderated group, say because it's in a part of namespace that's particularly heavily infested with spam or trolls.) Moderated groups' charters amount to an agreement between the moderators and the readers. There is currently no real way to enforce that agreement, so this is still not the best reason to worry about the charter. But the charter does give some indication of what the moderators are going to have available to them, telling them how to do their job, and if it's really badly thought out, then they're likely to have problems from the start. (It's reasonable, too, to say a charter is bad because moderation will doom the group to failure, say because of delays involved.) In any event, charters which violate even the extreme free speech beliefs prevalent on Usenet are bad. A NO vote is justified on any group whose charter encourages postings which *in and of themselves* pose persons nonconsensual risk of bodily harm and/or loss of property other than trademark rights. Examples of such a group include newsgroups for the posting of private credit card numbers, or for the posting of lists of people in various areas known to be on vacation at a given time. Newsgroups where violence is advocated are, however, *not* considered to constitute such risks. [A quick sketch, the last two sentences. The first two come from the discussion of the first draft. The exact wording owes much to Russ Allbery and especially Rosemarie Ventura, whom I've unfortunately never seen here again.] 2) e) The proponents have behaved so badly that a NO vote is an appropriate way of telling proponents not to do so in future. Some people vote NO when proponents refuse to demonstrate that there will be enough traffic (i.e., postings and/or readership) to justify the group's existence. That's probably the most common form of NO vote of this type. One reason for this type of vote is that when traffic isn't shown to exist, very often traffic never will exist, and the group is badly conceived. An excellent example is soc.culture.scientists [thanks Mr. Arromdee! Dejanews proved you right!]. Another is that refusal to provide information about traffic may be an indication of a disingenuously named group, which is being promoted for political reasons or even just as a joke. [Wording taken from Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax.] Another example would be if the proponents made an agreement in the debate about the group, but failed to live up to that agreement in the actual Call for Votes (CFV). In that case, a NO vote would amount to telling proponents in general that that isn't acceptable behaviour. A third example would be a proposal made solely for the sake of causing trouble. It's hard to tell such a proposal from one simply made by an inexperienced or annoying person, but one frequently used clue is when the proponent refuses to answer any concerns raised about the group. In that case, a NO vote is again on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour. However, NO votes for this reason run a real risk of turning into personality or (horrors) political voting. For this reason, not everyone involved with running Usenet newsgroup creation processes approves of NO votes for this reason. [This note is February 1997. I think some readers of srb may be tempted to view the trb proposal in this light, and vote NO using these grounds. It is my opinion that such a vote would be improperly cast, in that while Mr. Glaysher is rather far from my ideal proponent, he clearly believes that what he's doing is right and he certainly hasn't made any false promises. I should also note that if you vote NO on proposals whose proponents fail to demonstrate sufficient traffic, you should really do it across the board, not just on a proposal you happen to dislike... The whole document is my opinions, basically, though with the help in formulating them of some other people; so there's some more of my opinions.] -- Joe Bernstein, writer, bank consultant, and bookseller joe@sfbooks.com speaking for myself and nobody else https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/ ---------- From: William Rieske[SMTP:risky@indy.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 8:54 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice > If the House were to rule that public messages on the Faith (in > newsgroups or Web-based forums (fora?)) must be submitted for review in > the same manner as other publications, then we would have to obey this > ruling. In a practical sense, this would end public discussion about > the Faith. If the House ever decided to do this, I would have to seriously question their decision. This is Censorship/intended censorship and Censorship of ideas and speach has no support in the writings. Moderation is what is explained in the Writings, not censorship. I do not believe it is the place of the HOuse of Justice to force regulations of speech and actions onto us. The Writings say that how we speak, act, etc is up to us individiually to regulate through self-discipline, prayer, and steadfastness to the Covenant. I seriously doubt the House would ever decide something like this, specificially for these reasons. If the state of the Faith and our institutions ever came down do this, it's time for a new Messenger and time for me leave. :) This post is intended with kindness and love, and i would not appreciate flames about it just because I think differently then you do. Much Love and kind regards, Roxanne ---------- From: Azzizz[SMTP:DrAzzizz@netgazer.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 9:45 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: International Exposure on the Web Dear Friends, My work puts me in contact with various N.G.O.'s supporting human rights and refugees around the world. Yesterday I was told that the Iranian government monitors web activity of many minority groups operating outside Iran. Those involved seemed to assume this includes Baha'i activity. I must say, when something so precious as the life blood of our Baha'i brothers and sisters in Iran is at stake, it makes inharmonious bickering even more painful to witness. Please, everyone, realize that you are the chosen! You, the Global Baha'i Community, are the one's who can change things. Lives and souls are in your hands. Aren't there more important, more productive things to discuss beyond personal political opinions over freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and censorship may not be covered in the Holy Writings, but the obligation to serve, teach and uplift mankind is. Let's get back to discussing matters that can make a difference -- like making known that there is a loving tenacious Global Baha'i Community operating outside of the oppression of places like Iran, Afghanistan and China, willing to work toward the spiritual rights and freedoms of every embodied soul on earth! It's an idea. Azzizz ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 8:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? {in response to Fred G.'s latest note) Let's be VERY careful here. IMHO, tossing around words and phrases like "censorship", "fundamentalist fanatics" and "derision" cannot serve but to inflame an already heated discussion. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 8:14 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Alt.religion.bahai - actually no traffic I had said in a subsequent note that I was going to hold off on drafting the message, but I've now changed my mind on that. I am drafting a note right now. The note itself will be quite short, but there will be a lengthy background attachment, including an explanation of the "canonical" Usenet voting process as explained by an expert in the process. I'll advise everyone on what develops -- Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) dmcadam wrote: > > 10/3/97 11:56 AM In answer to your last message : > > >I've addressed this in another post -- briefly, I plan to begin work on > >a letter from myself asking for guidance on several issues about public > >discussion on the Net, one of those issues being the wisdom of > >unmoderated groups devoted to the Faith. > > Wonderful idea Roger and I do hope you will share the reply. We need all > the guidance we can get. > > regards, > doug ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:33 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Consulting the House of Justice (fwd) William Rieske wrote: > Personally, I don't think any > Baha'i institution has any jurisdiction over my private self. They cannot > tell me how I should act or what I should say or what I should do for that > matter. Oh they can give guidance wehn suited, but they don't have that > kind of authority over me. Only I have that over me, and my only > supervisor is God. Dear Roxanne, You are absolutely correct so far as your own personal decisions are concerned. Shoghi Effendi wrote that "at the very root of the Cause lies the principle of the undoubted right of the individual to self-expression, his freedom to declare his conscience and set forth his views." (BA, p. 63) We believe in "...a world commonwealth...in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded." (Shoghi Effendi, WOB, p. 203) However, so long as hostile people and governments torture and kill Baha'is when provoked, we need to have protection from misrepresenting the Cause and from provoking such enemies. Isn't this why 'Abdu'l-Baha required us to get approval of spiritual assemblies for anything that is given to the public? Shoghi Effendi wrote, "If certain instructions of the Master are particularly emphasized and scrupulously adhered to, let us be sure that they are but provisional measures designed to guard and protect the Cause in its present state of infancy and growth until the day when this tender and precious plant shall have sufficiently grown to be able to withstand the unwisdom of its friends and the attacks of its enemies." (BA, p. 63) John ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:40 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: talk.religion.badi? > From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on > how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse > than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, > for improper political/religious reasons then.... > This whole notion that people voted against the creation of talk.religion.bahai for "improper political/religious reasons" is based upon the very faulty premise that there exist some form of "canonical" reasons for voting for or against the formation of a particular newsgroup. In reality, the rules that are listed as "canonical" are rules of thumb that are presented whenver a vote is taken, and everyone has the full right to vote solely according to the dictates of their conscience. But, don't take my word for it. Go ask around in news.groups. Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut ---------- From: Glenn A. Peirce[SMTP:seeker@comsource.net] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:03 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re:the Web and our discussions Azzizz wrote: >Dear Friends, >Yesterday I was told that the Iranian government monitors web activity of many minority groups operating outside Iran. Those involved seemed to assume this includes Baha'i activity. >I must say, when something so precious as the life blood of our Baha'i brothers and sisters in Iran is at stake, it makes inharmonious bickering even more painful to witness. >Aren't there more important, more productive things to discuss beyond personal political opinions over freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and censorship may not be covered in the Holy Writings, but the obligation to serve, teach and uplift mankind is. Let's get back to discussing matters that can make a difference -- like making known that there is a loving tenacious Global Baha'i Community operating outside of the oppression of places like Iran, Afghanistan and China, willing to work toward the spiritual rights and freedoms of every embodied soul on earth! ***My Response*** Allah'u'Abha, Friends. For the past week I have managed to hit delete on the majority of the posts encircling the entire issue that has taken the center stage of this forum. However, I read Azzizz' post a few minutes ago, and feel a need to respond. First, I wish to explicitly state that I agree with Azzizz when he says that there are more important things to discuss...but right now, I am not sure of exactly what those more important things are. You see, Baha'i-Discuss is a closed forum (supposedly) which means that what is said here, stays here. In that respect, there are no Iranian government officials monitoring what we say. They ARE monitoring web pages and news groups. As such, this aspect of concern for the subject matter that may come up in Baha'i-Discuss is fairly irrelevent. Second...this forum is for discussion of many things. And where Azzizz points out that we should not be discussing personal political opinions (a point with which I agree), I will counter that we certainly SHOULD be discussing such things as freedom of speech and censorship. Because like it or not, we do not exist in a vacuum. Now, I do not know any of the participants in the majority of the discussion, and I have skipped a great deal of the details. But I also grew up Catholic, and learned that the Church gained it world predominance by controlling the WORDS of the people...and after the words were under control, then the thoughts could be controlled as well. I am not likening the Faith to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. I am stating that if we refuse to address such things as freedom of speech and censorship...if we oppose the unmoderated airing of views regarding the Faith and issues that may come up from within AND from without...then others WILL liken the Faith to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. And THAT could potentially do more damage than any disputes we have behind closed doors. Now, before I sound like I am endorsing disunity...I also want to point out that from the airing of differing opinions and positions MUST be accompanied by the abandonment of those positions. Once there are differing views on the floor, they belong to the floor...to ALL the participants. And from the discussion of these views will come the light of unity! And it is that unified understanding of the issues--unpleasant, difficult, divisive, and many-faceted though they may be--that will carry this Faith from its infancy into maturity. Perhaps, along the way, as children the world over, we will learn far more from our mistakes than from our successes. Ya-Baha-u'l-Abha, my Friends. ***** Glenn Peirce is seeker@comsource.net "So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." --Baha'u'llah ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 1997 11:32 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Why talk.religion.bahai got personal Talk.religion.bahai got personal because it's priciple advocate made it personal. Fred, you got angry because I posted your "9 ayatollahs on Mt. Carmel" letter, you said we should ignore one letter posted six months ago. Why then do you continue to harass Mark Towfiq about one letter he posted six months ago? Are we to do as you say or do as you do? You didn't like selected abstracts from alt.religion.bahai posted to bahai-discuss, but you felt no twinge of guilt posting selected bahai-discuss messages to alt.religion.bahai. Are we do do as you say or do as you do? You've compared the moderators of soc.relgion.bahai to Nazis, yet you don't like it when someone calls your messages dripping with acid. Are we to do what you say or do what you do? You cointiually ignore netiquette, then you post one persons interpretation of netiquette and expect us to follow it. Are we to do what you say or do what you do? You've left me very confused, are we to do what you say or do what you do? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: N. E. Hoyle[SMTP:nehoyle@mindlink.bc.ca] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 12:42 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Traffic on ARB Friends, I'm confused. Could someone please enlighten me? Having just now visited Alt.Religion.Bahai, I noted a traffic count of 935 posts, yet it was stated some days ago that there were 2800 posts (which indicated a need for trb). Would the number indicated not be the total number of posts? How is such a count maintained? Does the "number of postings" count start over each month? -- and if not, what could have happened to the other missing posts? Warm regards, Norma (B.C., Canada) "The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord." from the Baha'i Writings ---------- From: Graham Sorenson[SMTP:Graham@fragrant.demon.co.ukrotweiler] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 5:16 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? In message , Frederick Glaysher writes >Roger Reini wrote in article ><343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >> I urge extreme caution on this, because one should not post messages >> from non-public mailing lists onto public newsgroups without the >> permission of the message authors. >> >> However, I can verify that what Fred says is basically correct. There >> have been scores of messages posted to the mailing list which have >> expressed opposition to talk.religion.bahai. By the standards of the >> Usenet voting process, this opposition is basically "political" in >> nature, since it does not involve the technical merits of the proposal. > >I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on >how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse >than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, >for improper political/religious reasons then.... Absolute Drivel! > >> >> There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a >> traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and >> large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere >> belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in >> the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated >> arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the >> teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the >> Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it >> would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to >> undermine its institutions, etc. > >None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH >Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, >have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, >and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the >above, and so do Bahais.... Which is Very Relevant because it has been shown that ARB is very much a pit of dross as most unmoderated newsgroups have become. > >> >> Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according >> to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for >> voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > >It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS >FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to >soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, >ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago >and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > Who is Joe Bernstein to say how people should and shouldn't vote.. Who elected him as the be all and end all of newsgroup voting??? >> >> What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects >> of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, >> which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care >> not to let this clash become acrimonious. > >I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between >fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the >consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of >speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose >talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: I think it is quite correct. Because as you say " >The Bahai Writings respect freedom of >speech and the individual's conscience. But you forget to say that the Baha'i Ideal of Free Speech also asks for responsibility in that free speech. > >This is a goodly temple and congregation, for--praise >be to God!--this is a house of worship [Central Congregational >Church in Brooklyn on 16 June 1912] wherein conscientious >opinion has free sway. Every religion and every religious >aspiration may be freely voiced and expressed here. Just as in the >world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the >world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted >individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between >modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an >autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and >development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought >and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. >It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of >conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is >to say, when every man according to his own idealization may >give expression to his beliefs--development and growth are >inevitable. Therefore, this is a blessed church because its pulpit >is open to every religion, the ideals of which may be set forth >with openness and freedom. > >Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > -- Graham Sorenson For Personal E-mail Remove the "Rotweiler" Spam Guard Dog from my address. https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk ---------- From: Graham Sorenson[SMTP:Graham@fragrant.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 5:20 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Traffic on ARB In message , "N. E. Hoyle" writes >Friends, > >I'm confused. Could someone please enlighten me? Having just now visited >Alt.Religion.Bahai, I noted a traffic count of 935 posts, yet it was stated >some days ago that there were 2800 posts (which indicated a need for trb). >Would the number indicated not be the total number of posts? How is such a >count maintained? Does the "number of postings" count start over each >month? -- and if not, what could have happened to the other missing posts? > >Warm regards, >Norma (B.C., Canada) It does not count the posts that have a line in the header stating x- archive=no or some such line. this makes messages not archived. -- Graham Sorenson Baha'i Faith Web pages, lots of them, can be found at:- https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html https://www.bahai.org --- https://www.bcca.org/~glittle https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt --- https://www.netlink.com.au/~maryam https://www.onecountry.org --- https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 7:32 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Bahai-Discuss@BCCA.org Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? Fred Glaysher wrote: >Roger Reini wrote in article ><343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >> Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according >> to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for >> voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > >It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS >FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to >soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, >ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago >and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... OK, well, then, "Point of information" as Robert's Rules would say. Fred, who is Joe Bernstein and why should his opinion carry any more weight than anyone else's here? You seem to think it's self-evident, and I don't see it at all. I quote two fragments from Joe's "CANONOCAL REASONS": "Nobody enforces the following rules." and "Joe Bernstein, writer, bank consultant, and bookseller joe@sfbooks.com speaking for myself and nobody else" I'm not arguing that I agree or disagree with any of his specific points, but he's not self-described as a particular authority or official representative of Usenet. He seems to say as much quite explicitly. This isn't a rhetorical question. Why do you believe Joe Bernstein is an authority on this subject? A pointer to a Usenet Administrator's Website or something would seem to be a more appropriate authority, but I'm open to further information. Fred? Wade ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 8:06 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Traffic on ARB The number you saw is (most likely) the number of messages in that newsgroup which were present in your news server at that moment. Most news servers purge their messages over time in order to free up room for new messages. The 2800 message count extends over a period of several months, a period far longer than the expiration setting on most, if not all, news servers. If memory serves, the count was generated by visiting Deja News, one of the Usenet search engines and archives. I must say that 935 is a pretty good count for your news server. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) N. E. Hoyle wrote: > > Friends, > > I'm confused. Could someone please enlighten me? Having just now visited > Alt.Religion.Bahai, I noted a traffic count of 935 posts, yet it was stated > some days ago that there were 2800 posts (which indicated a need for trb). > Would the number indicated not be the total number of posts? How is such a > count maintained? Does the "number of postings" count start over each > month? -- and if not, what could have happened to the other missing posts? > > Warm regards, > Norma (B.C., Canada) > > > "The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love > and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend > together in the making of a perfect chord." > from the Baha'i Writings ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:00 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. 10/3/97 11:23 PM In answer to your last message : >In addition, I offered a strategy, called "content analysis", in which I am >trained, so that real and objective information about the _content_ of the >2800 messages can be identified. According to you the fact that 2800 >messages of any kind have appeared on a.r.b. is sufficent justification to >form t.r.b. Please don't take this the wrong way, but so far as anyone knows >you could have generated all 2800 by yourself. Or they could consist mostly >of advertising and porno messages. Or they could consist of endless attacks >on the Faith or the Institutions. > Dear friends- I feel Ed is being very fair here and offering a service of his skills. Why not comply Fred and give him the information needed? I, for one, do not feel like voting at all until I am sure of the facts. regards, doug >OR they could consist of thoughtful, interesting, informative, and >enlightening discussions about the Baha'i Faith. > >You are claiming that the quantity is enough, but Robert M. is asserting >that the content matters also. While I disagreed with his method of >sampling from a.r.b. I _strongly_ agree with the idea that the content of >a.r.b. does matter. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:16 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re Usenet Newsgroups ---------- > From: McKenny Michael > To: eprice@mailer.fsu > Cc: FG@hotmailer.com; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Usenet Newsgroups > Date: Saturday, October 04, 1997 7:53 AM > > In the Baha'i Studies List today: > > Greetings, Ed and Frederick, from Ottawa. > Many thanks for your remarks on the creation of Usenet > newsgroups. > I believe the issue according to Usenet is quite simple. > A YES vote ought to be cast by those persons who are > really going to participate in the group. > A NO vote ought to be cast only by those people, likely > only Usenet administrators, who have technical objections to > the creation of a group. > It is contrary to the spirit of the system either to vote > yes if you are not going to participate or to vote no simply to > prevent discussion. What of lurkers? Many, many people have lurked on alt.religion.bahai, apparently for even long periods of time, judging from their own comments on Bahai-Discuss or Bahai-Studies. Such people are indeed using the newsgroup, for whatever reasons. Many of them, by their own witness, then plan to vote NO in order to prevent its formation yet have used it, in my opinion.... > I hope this has clarified the issue. > Fare very Well, > Michael > > > p.s. I am not on Baha'i discuss. Feel free to forward these > remarks thither. All of these observations about the proper reasons for voting were made during the first vote for talk.religion.bahai. The "Canonical Reasons for Usenet Voting" was cited many times at length by many people. 691 people still chose to subvert the Usenet voting system. The same thing appears to be happening again on Bahai-Discuss. Suggestions? > > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > - > To switch to the digested list, > send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body > - > unsubscribe bahai-st > subscribe -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:24 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Anarchy on UseNet? ---------- > From: Rick Schaut > To: Baha'i Discuss <[address clipped]> > Subject: RE: talk.religion.badi? > Date: Saturday, October 04, 1997 10:40 PM > > > From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > > I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on > > how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse > > than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, > > for improper political/religious reasons then.... > > > This whole notion that people voted against the creation of > talk.religion.bahai for "improper political/religious reasons" is based > upon the very faulty premise that there exist some form of "canonical" > reasons for voting for or against the formation of a particular > newsgroup. In reality, the rules that are listed as "canonical" are > rules of thumb that are presented whenver a vote is taken, and everyone > has the full right to vote solely according to the dictates of their > conscience. Supposedly Bahais believe in law and order and observing democratic process.... Such beliefs, in my opinion, ought to be backed up with deeds, not words and subversion of the commonly accepted guidelines for newsgroup formation.... > > But, don't take my word for it. Go ask around in news.groups. Such political voting is widely condemned by most thoughtful people on news.groups and elsewhere. Many realize there must be a fair system allowing 100+ people who wish to discuss any topic the opportunity to do so despite opponents who wish to prevent them. Loosely democratic principles. What else could UseNet operate on? There are a few anarchists, as in every other realm of human experience. > > > Warmest Regards, > Rick Schaut -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Rowe, Thomas[SMTP:trowe@uwsp.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 11:12 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Why talk.religion.bahai got personal Original message deleted: To whomever you are: Why do you hide behind a pseudonym? Fess up - your tactic of blasting away at Fred Glaysher behind anonymity is no different, perhaps even worse, than backbiting. If you are not afraid and are truly interested in promoting Baha'i ideals through word and action, then let the rest of us know who you are. If not, then perhaps you should not be posting to a Baha'i discussion list. Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu ************************************************* He is a true Baha'i who strives, by day and by night to progress and advance along the path of human endeavor. Abdu'l-Baha ************************************************ https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/bahai.htm (Pictures) ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 12:06 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Traffic on ARB How many posts you see on a newsgroup depends on how you access it. Some servers keep a queue of as little 30-60 posts/newsgroup in their storage so if you visit thru one of these, thats the most you will ever see. So 935 may be just the number of posts your NNTP (usenet) Server keeps for a.r.b. The 2800 may have been taken from a web site that archives all newsgroups (except those marked for "no archiving"). Tom Hodges On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, N. E. Hoyle wrote: > Friends, > > I'm confused. Could someone please enlighten me? Having just now visited > Alt.Religion.Bahai, I noted a traffic count of 935 posts, yet it was stated > some days ago that there were 2800 posts (which indicated a need for trb). > Would the number indicated not be the total number of posts? How is such a > count maintained? Does the "number of postings" count start over each > month? -- and if not, what could have happened to the other missing posts? > > Warm regards, > Norma (B.C., Canada) > > > > > "The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love > and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend > together in the making of a perfect chord." > from the Baha'i Writings > > ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 12:08 PM To: 'Frederick Glaysher'; Bahai Studies; Bahai Discuss Subject: RE: Anarchy on UseNet? In the Baha'i Studies List today: > From: FG [SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > > From: Rick Schaut > > In reality, the rules that are listed as "canonical" are > > rules of thumb that are presented whenver a vote is taken, and > everyone > > has the full right to vote solely according to the dictates of their > > conscience. > > Supposedly Bahais believe in law and order and observing > democratic process.... Such beliefs, in my opinion, ought to be > backed up with deeds, not words and subversion of the commonly > accepted guidelines for newsgroup formation.... > If I am unable to vote my conscience, than it's entirely facetious to call this a "democratic" process. Moreover, to repeatedly insist that I cannot vote my conscience is more a subversion of the democratic process than my vote can ever be. And, the basic fact remains. The commonly accepted guidelines do not preclude one from voting one's conscience on the formation of any newsgroup. There are a number of folks who just plain vote for or against the formation of any newsgroup, and do so for conscientious reasons that are not among the "canonical" list of reasons for voting on the formation of a newsgroup. Their votes are counted along with everyone else's votes. > > But, don't take my word for it. Go ask around in news.groups. > > Such political voting is widely condemned by most thoughtful > people on news.groups and elsewhere. > I believe this is not entirely so. What is widely condemned by most thoughtful people on news.groups, and elsewhere, is mindless voting on the creation of a newsgroup without conscientious consideration of the issues involved in the creation of that particular newsgroup. But why must we banter about our own understanding of views posted to a publicly accessible newsgroup? Why not join me in encouraging interested parties to go read news.groups and find out for themselves? Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 4:37 PM To: Talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Re Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Rich, from Ottawa. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for your comments below. It appears to me that you are urging those who do not share a particular understanding of what is a Manifestation of God to renounce Baha'u'llah. First, this suggests to me that you have the concept that there are those who see the world differently than you do. Otherwise, it would not make any sense for you to make this suggestion. Now let's consider a manner of difference of understanding that has some people believing that Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God, even though their perception of this term is not identical to yours. Indeed, as I understand it, Baha'u'llah Himself has said that it is normal and natural that some people will have different views on the issue of Who He is. This one will see Him as God and that one as a man, with a wide variety of views is between. This is because the individual members of the human species do not have identical perception and understanding. Further, Baha'u'llah, as I understand it, did not restrict the definition of Baha'i to apply only to those who had one of these viewpoints, or even one group of viewpoints. After all, the stated purpose of the Revelation of God for this age is the upliftment of humanity to that mature position where humans recognize the unity in diversity, the harmony, of the species. This may not be achieved through the replication of the kind of theological distinctions that were made by the Christians, where those who had one understanding excluded those who had another view. So, there is nothing discourteous or dishonest or whatever in those who have a varied perception of the Manifestation of God, a different group of views on the nature of Baha'u'llah, other outlooks on the application of the principles enunciated in Baha'i Scripture than yours from remaining within the Faith. After all, since the inclusion of the totality of the human species is the stated intent of God for this age, then one quite understandable interpretation of reality is that one cannot in conscience exclude oneself from membership, however great the encouragement to do so. I very much hope that you are able to understand that while you may feel that personally were you to be convinced that your current perception of the meaning of the term Manifestation of God fails to correspond to reality, then you would feel honour bound to disassociate yourself from the Baha'i Faith, that others have a completely different view of the matter, and feel honour bound to remain Baha'is. Since, as I understand it, Baha'u'llah said that one's own views do change through the course of time, then it may even be that you yourself will decide fully honourably that holding views different than those you now do on the topic of the meaning of this term Manifestation of God still permits you to remain identified with the Baha'i Revelation and the most recent of the Manifestations of God. May this find you very well, and may the future exceed our highest hopes. Blessed Be, Michael You wrote: "I hope it is now clear that, if we are at all concerned aboutthe status of our membership in the Baha'i Faith, then it's incumbent upon us to very carefully examine our basic assumptions in light of our declared belief in Baha'u'llah. This is, I believe, the sole standard by which one might be deem oneself to be a "thinking" person (note that by this standard, it's impossible to decide whether or not someone else is a "thinking" person). One has to be equally willing to search within one's heart, to question oneself as much as one questions the answers given by the Institutions of our Faith. And if, in the process of carrying out this examination of self, we find that we are unable to relinquish some assumptions that are not consonant with our stated belief in Baha'u'llah, we are bound by the standards of individual integrity to renounce our belief in Baha'u'llah." Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut END -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: NOSPAM[SMTP:mac13@cyberhighway.net*] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 5:46 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? The following is for soc.religion.bahai and is NOT for any reposting without the express permission of the author ( mac13@cyberhighway.net ). Some comments, some questions... much of previous material snipped.... R. Reini: >> There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a >> traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and >> large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere >> belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in >> the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated >> arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the >> teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the >> Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it >> would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to >> undermine its institutions, etc. F. Glaysher: >None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH >Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, >have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, >and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the >above, and so do Bahais.... D. McDonnell: Why is such irrelevant? How is a "traffic anaylsis" irrelevant to indicate a need, a pattern, a potential that a particular newsgroup might be able to serve a need? You state that these people you mention feel they were censored... what is the definition of censor? They can feel that way: that does not mean that such is a fact. If one engages in intemperate, abusive, aggressive language that attacks others and that is basically attempting to indicate that all others are treading a path of error and only they have the wisdom, the insight others lack, in a moderated Newsgroup one may well be asked to rewrite --- my personal opinion is that such an action is not censorship but a request for the good manners that seem so lacking in far too much public discourse. I've read some of the discourse offered by the moderators as to what is "censored". Have you had an opportunity to review that? Apparently blatant attacks, blatant errors, blatant distortions are returned to the sender and one is asked to re-write... If one is determined to engage in puerile, in abusive, in contumacious form of address to others is it a form of censorship to require some modicum of good manners? Perhaps those who are not able, not willing to forego opprobrious and vituperative language would demand they are being censored in that personal attacks are "moderated". Have you indicated how the freedom you envision for this propsed Newsgroup would enhance, would advance anything in concrete and specific terms? Is there any statistical research to indicate that, within a certain amount of time, such an unmoderated exercise transforms an individual determined to employ abusive or intractable language or a truculent stance into a more moderate person willing to listen to another point of view without attacking another as a "fundamentalist fanatic"? Is there any pupose to be served by such a Newsgroup that has been indicated to any Institution to ensure that, within a period of time, one need not wade through intemperate posts, an inordinate amount of spam, etc.? ALSO, who is going to set up this Newsgroup? Who will have some degree of responsibility for it? Or will it simply be set up and then left to run on its own with a deluge of spam, cross-posting, etc? ********************************************* R Reini ? >> Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according >> to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for >> voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. F. Glaysher: >It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS >FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to >soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, >ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago >and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... D. McDonnell: Pardon me, but in the little bit of checking that I've been able to do, as far as I can tell, Mr. Bernstein has not implemented the program of UseNets, or done the software for implentation... nor can I discover that the item you have mentioned is any Usenet "Holy of Holies". The impression that I have, from a little checking, is that the item you mention was sent out as one person's personal suggestions, guidelines, etc. Anyone else might well offer up their own "Canonical Reasons for Voting". ******************************************* R. Reini: >> What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects >> of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, >> which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care >> not to let this clash become acrimonious. F. Glaysher: >I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between >fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the >consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of >speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose >talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: D. McDonnell: It appears, Mr. Glaysher that if one does not immediately genuflect to your position then one is a "fundamentalist fanatic". How are you able to ascertain that those with a viewpoint not to your liking fit in the box so labelled? What makes such people "fundamentalist fanatics"? What is the definition of such? Is there any such definition of such from any Local Spiritual Assembly or any National Spiritual Assembly on this planet? You've mentioned your background, your attainments, how educated you are and how often you feel that you are being reined in from what you have determined is the best thing to be done... although lacking your vast attainments, I would suppose that you have consulted with whatever your Local Spiritual Assembly is and\or your National Spiritual Assembly as to what you hope to do, the manner in which such would be approached, your manner of presenting yourself and the Faith in any public forum... would that make one a fundamental fanatic for assuming that a Baha'i would first approach the institutions if proposing what you have? Of course, the Instititutions might well state that such is not within their territory at this time. But surely, would even considering such make one a fundamental fanatic? You state that the Baha'i Writings respect freedom of speech and one's conscience. Yes, I reckon they do. However, have you mentioned anywhere the responsibilities of such liberty? One can have freedom of speech: does that mean one should yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or engage in abusive and argumentative speech? Does such mean one should employ profanity? Does such freedom of speech mean one should castigate in abusive, intemperate language all those who do not accept one's position? ****************** ********************** >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > >> >> Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >> >> >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> > >> > Guy Macon wrote in article >> > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... >> > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, >FG@hotmail.com >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, >> > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from >> > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called >> > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming >> > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the >> > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. >> > > >> > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those messages? >> > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who doubts >> > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. >> > >> > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to forward >> > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of >> > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss attacking >> > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one file in >> > order >> > to attach it easily for forwarding too. >> > >> > -- >> > Frederick Glaysher >> > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >> > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >> > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. >> > > ---------- From: N. E. Hoyle[SMTP:nehoyle@mindlink.bc.ca] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 6:51 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Final thoughts re TRB Dear Friends, Discussion on the pros and cons of the wisdom of creating TRB have ranged far and wide and it is sometimes difficult for the individual when posting, to determine where genuine consultation leaves off and their personal bias takes over. It is with that thought in mind that I hesitatingly comment on (IMV) Larry Andre's reasoned and excellent post which gave me much food for thought. I include here one brief excerpt only: >>>Doesn't the likelihood that unfavorable postings will be made to a more highly visible discussion group mean that we should oppose the creation of such a group? >>>>Not necessarily. Besides the issue of voter fraud alluded to above, there is the issue of just how much damage hostile postings can do. Not much, I suspect. Look at it this way: If a major bookstore chain were to announce an intention to open a Baha'i books section in all its stores, but would include both favorable and hostile titles, should the Baha'is strive to prevent the chain from opening such Baha'i book sections? Rather, I think we would rejoice at the increased exposure and feel confident that in the end the truth will stand and the false will fall away. During the Roman persecutions, the state spread disinformation that Christians ate human flesh and drank human blood during their religious ceremonies (a twisted reference to the Eucharist). Despite this, the Christian message spread like wildfire and in the end that same state made Christianity the state religion. <<< (End of cut and paste)..................................................... I found myself concurring with all of Larry's reasoning and perception, with one small disclaimer. I liked, and agree with his analogy of the bookstore chain, however, if a "Baha'i bookstore" began carrying and promoting titles hostile to the Faith, would we not strongly feel that was inappropriate and take steps to see that the practice did not spread across the country? Though it may be a bit of a stretch, I do think there is a parallel of sorts. The agitation felt by many at the prospect of trb rests, I believe, not upon a concern for attacks upon the Faith by the 'outside' world. Those can only ultimately benefit the Faith. It is the attacks from within that are so harmful -- and so painful. TRB *could* be a wonderful showcase for the Faith if all the Baha'is who posted there adhered to a basic principle of our Teachings -- that of common courtesy and respect for others. However, just as I wouldn't want a Baha'i bookstore to carry books villifying the Faith, I would not like to see a *world-wide* forum carrying the Baha'i name, where back-biting, inflammatory language or agressive behaviour were being reflected in the name of the Faith by its adherants. As we are all aware, occasionally misunderstandings or hurt feelings have prompted ill-considered posts here on Bahai-Discuss, but this is, if you will, a "safe house". Here, we have an opportunity to 'practice' the new paradigm of Baha'i behaviour toward each other, where our occasional slip-ups can do no damage to the Faith itself. The same is not true of a world-wide Newsgroup. There, bad behaviour on the part of Baha'is themselves (at least in the eyes of the pre-hostile, or merely curious) "puts the lie" to the Message we are all so anxious to share. I am unsure at this point, just how I will vote when the vote comes up. I would vote 'Yes' in a minute if I could be sure that those who posted there would be motivated only by a love for, and a desire to serve, Baha'u'llah. ...Perhaps, in the long run, my concern is meaningless. The Almighty can certainly sort out our petty problems, but I cannot escape the niggling feeling that it is *our* responsibility to weigh All the factors in anything that impinges so directly upon the reputation of our beloved Faith. My apologies for the length of this message. Now that I have unburdened my heart, I will slide back into the woodwork where I usually lurk. Baha'i love to all, Norma (B.C., Canada) "The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord." from the Baha'i Writings ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 7:59 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? > I ask all those people interested in newsgroup formation for advice on > how to handle this situation.... I'm at a loss.... It seems even worse > than last March when talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157 to 691, > for improper political/religious reasons then.... No, for what _you considered_ improper political reasons. There is an important difference. > > ... it would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who > > seek to undermine its institutions, etc. > None of which is relevant. Yeah, right: especially because _you're_ the main one doing the undermining! :-( > Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, have stated they felt they were > censored at one time or another by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Many of them were. And typically, it appears to have been for good and sufficient reasons-- something you chose to ignore. > Newsgroups, in the real world, and members of all religions, have to > learn to deal with all of the above, and so do Bahais.... Right. But where is it written that _you_ should be the Baha'is' primary embarrasment? The spirit of the Faith DOES NOT include the sort of crap you continually post. > ... I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago > and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... Perhaps a thinking person so universally met with derision should reflect and consider why this is so. It's so easy to overlook one's own faults. > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > > not to let this clash become acrimonious. Please note how balanced and relatively reasonable the above is, especially when contrasted with the following: > Rather, it's a clash between fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith > and those who respect the consciences of other people. Nice mouth! :-( Note the nice balanced language, like "fundamentalist fanatics!" :-( :-( > The Bahai Writings respect freedom of speech and the individual's > conscience. They certainly do. Note, however, that the passage you posted is _not_ from the Baha'i Writings but is rather a pilgrim's note, and therefore totally _unofficial_! What the Baha'i Writings _do_ say is that there are and should be restrictions and limitations on freedom lest one stray into excess: "True liberty consisteth of man's submission...." This passage has been pointed out to you _repeatedly_, but you choose to ignore it. And so long as you do, _you yourself_ are the strongest possible argument _against_ the establishment of t.r.b. All the more so given that YOUR OWN POSTS are now being quoted by anti-Baha'i Muslims on their Web sites as means for attacking the Baha'i Faith! This has also been pointed out to you already, but _you_ have ignored the posts pointing it out. You must be really, really _proud_! :-( :-( :-( So keep on running your mouth and attacking all things Baha'i that don't comprise anarchistic license. Maybe then the next vote will be 1 for and 100,000 against! And you'll have nobody to blame but your own ego. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 9:12 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Anarchy on UseNet? > There are a few anarchists, as in every other realm of human experience. And unfortunately, judging by your comments about various Baha'i administrative bodies, you are among the foremost of them. "Aytollah's in Haifa" indeed! :-( ---------- From: Edwin Humphries[SMTP:humancap@enternet.com.au] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 10:09 PM To: Baha'i Teachers Subject: Email Address Dear Friends, I am trying to get in touch with Mark Towfiq, but am getting no response from the email address I have. Can anyone help me? Best Regards, Edwin Humphries humancap@enternet.com.au Ph/Fax: Australia (02) 4233 1371 Mobile: (61) 019 698 620 SM: P. O. Box 423, Kiama, NSW, 2533, Australia ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 6:13 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Ducking out I'm afraid I am going to have to duck out for a while. I've just realised exactly how far I am behind with my other obligations. I will return when I've "cleared my desk." I WILL respond to any e-mails received and, Fred, will post the RFD when it is posted publicly. Otherwise it is a case of au revoir. Best wishes to you all, and see you soon, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Don R. Calkins[SMTP:drc@commonlink.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 3:37 AM To: richs@MICROSOFT.com Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca; eprice@mailer.fsu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; FG@hotmailer.com Subject: Re: Re: Usenet Newsgroups In the Baha'i Studies List today: Rich - > Actually, the spirit of the system is for people to vote their > conscience, and the standard for voting need not be limited to whether > or not one personally intends to use the group or whether or not one has > some technical objection to the formation of the group. This is my understanding also. I have been unable to find any formal statement that says otherwise. My attempts to find such a statement has resulted only in references to posted opinions. Three years ago when I first got on the internet, the 'technical reasons only' argument predominated, especially among those who had been on the internet prior to its 'going public'. But this rapidly lost favor, and my personal opinion is that it is not held by the vast majority of current participants. Don C - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:24 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Why I post under a psuedonym There is a simple reason I post under a psuedonym. The reason is because I saw what happened to Mark Towfiq. If I posted under my real name I would be subject to the same abuse he was subjected to. I have no intention of allowing my name to be sullied in Fred's spams. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 10:13 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: talk.religion.badi? 10/4/97 8:59 PM In answer to your last message : >Let's be VERY careful here. IMHO, tossing around words and phrases like >"censorship", "fundamentalist fanatics" and "derision" cannot serve but >to inflame an already heated discussion. Hi Roger- I agree wholeheartedly. This is entirely against the standards of communication set forthe in the Writings and advised by the House of Justice in many instances of their messages. It is this that causes the problems, not the topic or attacks on the Faith. How can any educated individual claim that speaking in this manner is appropriate for any List, is beyond me. However there may be a need to not mention anothers speech or other faults and simply show the example needed to correct the situation. regards, doug ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 10:13 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Freedom of Speech 10/3/97 7:57 AM In answer to your last message : Dear Fred- I have been a Baha'i for a long time and never felt my free will was being suppressed in any fashion on any List or any other activity that I experienced. However I don't deny that some friends may be feeling this. I don't believe the answer to this test is to run from a moderated List and form an unmoderated List although I am not opposed to anyone doing so. My feeling is that we need to change ourselves, learn from these tests and make the necessary adjustments in our speech habits that have been so thoroughly ingrained in all of us from our culture. You pride yourself on freedom and so do I but let's be honest. Are we really free when we have been so heavily conditioned by our culture to see, feel, think and react in manners not in keeping with the spiritual teachings? I don't think so. I feel we are all spiritual juvenile delinquents and we need massive doses of realistic therapy, the kind that comes from study and application of the Baha'i Revelation harmonized with science and reason. We have to admit to ourselves that constantly, day in and day out, we are not living consciously and suffer a great deal from automatic reactions to things because of our conditioning. Freedom to me is not a "let it all hang out" type of behavior. It means having the God given right to strive daily to free ourselves from ego promptings and become the true celestial beings we are in reality. So far, in my long years as a Baha'i and even before this I have never found anything that can stifle my freedom except my own choices. I write this not in rebuttal to your idea of a new List that is unmoderated but as just "another opinion" about freedom of speech. If one follows the Baha'i Teachings and learns effective, spiritual communication, one is very free and powerful for one would be in line with the Covenant. But if one keeps succumbing to ones cultural conditioning and ego prompted imaginations instead of divine guidance then one is not free and has no power. I really cannot understand why it is necessary for all these posts about starting an ARB or TRB. Why not just go do it. Put out the request for support and live by the results. There is no need, from my humble and limited perspective, but to take action and see what happens. To try to solicit votes of any kind does not seem to fit into my schema for some reason and this is holding my vote back. The only support I need and strive for is Baha'u'llah and the Supreme Concourse. Of course my humanness would like to have support and love from the friends, who wouldn't? But the bottom line is that it will be Baha'u'llah's support that make all things possible. At the moment I am having great difficulty in reading accusations or suspicions that our community or its institutions are suppressing us in any way. We can decide not to feel oppressed or suppressed if we exercise our free will. I am not the best communicator but I take time to pray and meditate, and strive to express my conscience as honestly as I can with sensitivity for the reader's heart and mind. What more rules do I need? You may think by this statement that I am supportive of your List ideas but I'm not. The purpose of the proposed list would have to be something else beside wanting an open forum because we are suppressed. I don't feel we are so this is not a valid reason for me. However, don't dismay my friend for as more opinions are coming forth and you and Chris explain more clearly about this issue it becomes more palitable to me. I'm just not sure at the moment. regards, doug > >>The 2800 messages on a.r.b., in itself, does not justify to me the >>need for t.r.b., but I'll admit its an interesting statistic. It makes >me >think that_maybe_ there is reason to consider t.r.b. > >Talk.religion.bahai would not be merely for Bahais but for everyone.... >The over 2,800 posted messages IS the best argument, under UseNet >guidelines, for its creation. The UseNet system of interest polling, >notice not voting, should prevail if not undermined by an overwhelming >onslaught of NO votes that ignore the legitimate, "governmental" >regulations operative on UseNet today. There is no valid reason >whatsoever for voting against talk.religion.bahai. In my opinion, to do >so would violate the Bahai teaching prohibiting subversion. > > >[clip] > >>My question remains one of organizarion, however, regarding the >>unmoderated status of the forum. As I wrote to you once before it is >>the cachopony of disorganized voices that concerns me. Therefore, >>could you please explain to me either how the unmoderated forum >>actually works or how the unmoderated nature of the forum you >propose >is actually an asset at this time. I really would like to know. > >Soc.religion.bahai is moderated. One may use that newsgroup if one >wishes. 2,800 demonstrate more than sufficient interest in an >unmoderated forum to justify its formation. God has given the human >creature free will. Only an unmoderated forum provides the opportunity >to test it. > >[clip] > >>In short, if the file exists, we can have objective answers about >a.r.b. >>that everyone could trust. So do we want our jugements to be ruled >by >opinion or by actual data? > >Let's not evade the real issue. Many people, Bahais and non-Bahais, >do not trust soc.religion.bahai. That is why the demand for >talk.religion.bahai has arisen from the deep, inner regions of the souls >of many people.... The only valid data is that over 2,800 messages, >and search www.dejanews.com for yourself, demonstrate there is an >unsually high level of interest in forming an unmoderated newsgroup on >the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > >> >>Regards, >> >>Ed Price >>eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: M. Ranjbar[SMTP:mrranjba@expert.cc.purdue.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 1:15 PM To: Michael Furst Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Michael Furst wrote: > Same comment. Discussing things together does not mean the same thing > as forcing others to agree. Most people are capable, > given the opportunity, of thinking for themselves and making their own > judgements. That's a basic element of consultation, isn't it? > Again, let me re-iterate that I have no problem when an individual or group of people want to discuss an issue. This is good. My problem arises when I observe levels of pressure at a group level being exerted to coerce others into conforming with the group belief. I define pressure as being forms of intimidation or name-calling, or labelling. An example of name calling would be one person labelling another as prejudiced, without citing proof in a clear manner. Proof, mind you, that is acceptable to all sides of the discussion. To cite what I perceived as a form of pressure from you, I will use your own characterization of the House which I found to be rude. You said ..'what the House wants are people who leap and obey'...Not those who think for theirselves. [Please correct me if I am wrong at any point]. In doing so, you characterized to me that people who obey the House, who look to it for un-erring guidance, these people do not think for theirselves. I found this to be demeaning and rude towards any person who would indeed look on the House as a source of un-erring guidance, as a representation of God's will to man. This is how I view the House. To insinuate that I don't think for myself is one of the greatest insults you could throw my way. Whether you intend this or not, it is what you said. Your previous post has created a very black and white situation. Either a person agrees with your position, or is a puppet who does not think for himself. Now reflect on this and consider that you are not discussing, but simply insulting those who disagree with your point. Consider that I have thought for myself enough to know that the Universal House of Justice does indeed represent God's will to man, and God's guidance to man. Therefore, I look upon it's guidance in the manner in which I would look on God's guidance. You don't need to agree with this point, But I would implore you to respect this belief. If this is a belief you want to discuss, then I would suggest doing it with a level of courteousy and respect for those who might differ in opinion. Otherwise, you're just throwing insults my way, and I don't intend to be anyones punching bag. Mike > - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: John Bromberek[SMTP:johnb@ipa.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 1:40 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Copy of letter to Universal House of Justice At 09:40 AM 10/6/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: > ...You have probably heard about a proposal earlier this year to > create an unmoderated newsgroup (a public discussion group on the > Internet) called talk.religion.bahai. The proposal was soundly > defeated, but now, after the required six-month waiting period > has ended, it is being proposed again (or it soon will be). > >This subject is a very controversial one in the Baha'i community.... Greetings Roger, I've been disconnected from bahai-discuss for about nine days so I've probably missed a lot of stuff on this subject (so, I guess being disconnected was not entirely bad - despite minor withdrawal symptoms). And, as I've stated before I don't care whether t.r.b is passed or not, nor will I vote on the question, nor will I participate in the newsgroup if it is formed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that and CFV should probably not be posted to any of the Baha'i discussion lists with the possible exception of bahai-faith - being as that list is just an extension of the s.r.b newsgroup. If a person does not use the newsgoups and would not come across the CFV in the normal course of reading, then the matter is not one that concerns them. [Hey, it's just an opinion.] Anyway, I think that you may have answered your own question in asking it. You state (as quoted above) that the "proposal was soundly defeated", and that "This subject is a very controversial one in the Baha'i community..." Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about the process, we do have some conventions within the Faith, and the majority of people who participated in the vote were probably Baha'is. To wit: we avoid embroiling ourselves in needless controversies; and if a unanimous decision cannot be had we abide by the decision of the majority vote. I don't think that this procedure need only be confined to the "Institutions", it seems to me like a reasonable general principle. If a few Baha'is insist on continuing despite the feelings of the majority (and never-mind which side is misguided), leave them to themselves. John B. Fayetteville, Arkansas johnb@ipa.net ---------- From: Richard C. Detweiler[SMTP:rdetweil@primenet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 2:12 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Copy of letter to Universal House of Justice [Roger's letter to the House snipped] Look's good to me. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 2:49 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) Roger Reini wrote in article <3438D423.401@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Roger Reini wrote in article > > <343543DF.33D8@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... > > [snips for space] > > > > Someone on Bahai-Discuss wrote: > > > There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a > > > traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and > > > large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere > > > belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in > > > the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated > > > arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the > > > teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the > > > Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it > > > would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > > > undermine its institutions, etc. > > > > fglaysher wrote: > > None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH > > Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, > > have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by > > the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, > > and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the > > above, and so do Bahais.... > Roger Reini wrote: > Let us set aside the issue of censorship for now, for there are other > newsgroups available for posting articles one believes have been > unjustly censored. One of those forums is alt.religion.bahai. > > Now, one may argue that a.r.b is not that well-propagated, that the > forthcoming talk.religion.bahai proposal will lead to a better > propagated group. That's a reasonable argument, one I urge us to > discuss fully. Given the traffic of over 3,000 messages to alt.religion.bahai in 6 months, there's undeniably an interest among users of UseNet for talk.religion.bahai. The problem is that many Bahais give precedence to their fears even to the point of knowingly violating the commonly accepted conventions of UseNet voting. It seems to me such an attitude violates too very basic beliefs articulated in the Bahai Writings about honesty, justice, fairness, respect, etc.... All the basic virtues that supposedly mean something to Bahais, speaking as a Bahai.... If all that doesn't constitute close-minded intolerance and fanaticism I don't what does and I'm at a loss for words to describe what's been happening on Bahai-Discuss in other terms.... People are being rigid and dogmatic and just saying to hell with UseNet injunctions not to vote for political or religious reasons.... > > > > > > > Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according > > > to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for > > > voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > > > > It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS > > FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to > > soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, > > ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago > > and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > > The voting process does have its difficulties, as the news.groups > regulars can certainly attest to. And this is why I have increasingly come to feel there should be a system where the group-mentors and the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers can consult and override, based on precedent and custom, common law, if you will, egregious breaches of the usual voting practices. Again, I feel Bahais are undermining the international "governmental" system of UseNet and that that is contradictory to the Bahai teachings to obey and follow the established government.... > > > > > > > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects > > > of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, > > > which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care > > > not to let this clash become acrimonious. > > > > I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between > > fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the > > consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of > > speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose > > talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: > > What I said above was merely my opinion. Personally, I would not > categorize those who oppose the t.r.b proposal as "fundamentalist > fanatics". The term "fundamentalist fanatic" is an emotionally charged > term, one which threatens to divert this discussion into unproductive > bickering. That's something none of us need. Yes, it is emotionally charged. As you know from reading what's been on Bahai-Discuss, not only for me. To avoid mere bickering I've tried and am trying seriously to discuss the principles that should influence voting on a UseNet proposal. I hope more moderate and sensible voices will begin to be heard on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. > > I'm beginning to question whether or not t.r.b can ever be a successful > proposal because of the breaking down of the voting process. Would > Usenet 2 have an enforceable voting system? (I haven't been following > the Usenet 2 discussions -- if anyone can point me to documents > describing Usenet 2, that'd be fine). It's important to realize why and who is breaking down the voting process. UseNet II is a dream and a phantasm at this point, if it's ever established.... A pratical answer does not lie in that direction for this vote on talk.religion.bahai. Bahais need to recognize that voting NO constitutes not an expression of their conscience but a denial of it to others.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 3:03 PM To: 'bn872@freenet.carleton.ca'; Talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: RE: Re Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, Michael. I've remove Irfan and h-bahai from the distribution of this message as I'm not a subscriber to either of these lists. Members of those lists, however, are free to forward my remarks if they choose. > From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca [SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] > It appears to me that you are urging those who do not share > a particular understanding of what is a Manifestation of God to > renounce Baha'u'llah. > That would be incorrect. To hold an understanding of the concept of a Manifestation of God that is not consonant with Baha'u'llah's own claims about such a station, as interpreted by `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, is tantamount to a repudiation of Baha'u'llah. This is not _my_ claim, it is Shoghi Effendi's claim: "I feel it incumbent upon me, by virtue of the obligations and responsibilities which as Guardian of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh I am called upon to discharge, to lay special stress, at a time when the light of publicity is being increasingly focussed upon us, upon certain truths which lie at the basis of our Faith and the integrity of which it is our first duty to safeguard." (World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 99) Among those passages, Shoghi Effendi describes a number of beliefs which "should never be obscured and the integrity of which no one of its followers should allow to be compromised." Of another such verity, Shoghi Effendi states, "We would assuredly be failing in our duty to the Faith we profess and would be violating one of its basic and sacred principles if in our words or by our conduct we hesitate to recognize the implications of this root principle of Bahá'í belief, or refuse to uphold unreservedly its integrity and demonstrate its truth." It should be abundantly clear from the above passages that there _do_ exist certain standards of belief that the Universal House of Justice must uncompromisingly uphold. I should state that I do not wish to define where these boundaries lie. For me to do so whould constitute a usurpation of an authority I do not posess. `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi were granted the authority to define these boundaries, and I believe their definitions are rather clear. I could quote them at length, but a reading of Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i-Ahd, the Tablet of the Branch, the Master's Will and Testament and the explanations of Shoghi Effendi in The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah should provide ample statements of these basic beliefs that those who wish to call themselves "Baha'i" must uphold. > Further, Baha'u'llah, as I understand it, did not restrict the > definition of Baha'i to apply only to those who had one of these > viewpoints, or even one group of viewpoints. > I believe a reading of the above references should be sufficient to dispell this claim. > After all, the stated > purpose of the Revelation of God for this age is the upliftment of > humanity to that mature position where humans recognize the unity in > diversity, the harmony, of the species. This may not be achieved > through the replication of the kind of theological distinctions that > were made by the Christians, where those who had one understanding > excluded those who had another view. > If this be the case, if the Baha'i Faith is to achieve unity through embracing any number of incompatible views regarding certain fundamental truths that Baha'is must uphold, then why did Baha'u'llah appoint a successor and confer upon that successor, in unequivocal terms, the _exclusive_ authority to interpret His Writings? If there should be no boundaries of belief outside which the followers of Baha'u'llah must not stray, then the appointment of such a successor would be completely unnecessary. Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: NOSPAM[SMTP:mac13@cyberhighway.net*] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 3:13 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) The following is for soc.religion.bahai and is NOT for any reposting without the express permission of the author ( mac13@cyberhighway.net ). Some comments, some questions... much of previous material snipped.... R. Reini: >> There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a >> traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by and >> large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a sincere >> belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i Faith in >> the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote heated >> arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the >> teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of the >> Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that it >> would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to >> undermine its institutions, etc. F. Glaysher: >None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH >Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, >have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by >the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, >and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the >above, and so do Bahais.... D. McDonnell: Why is such irrelevant? How is a "traffic anaylsis" irrelevant to indicate a need, a pattern, a potential that a particular newsgroup might be able to serve a need? You state that these people you mention feel they were censored... what is the definition of censor? They can feel that way: that does not mean that such is a fact. If one engages in intemperate, abusive, aggressive language that attacks others and that is basically attempting to indicate that all others are treading a path of error and only they have the wisdom, the insight others lack, in a moderated Newsgroup one may well be asked to rewrite --- my personal opinion is that such an action is not censorship but a request for the good manners that seem so lacking in far too much public discourse. I've read some of the discourse offered by the moderators as to what is "censored". Have you had an opportunity to review that? Apparently blatant attacks, blatant errors, blatant distortions are returned to the sender and one is asked to re-write... If one is determined to engage in puerile, in abusive, in contumacious form of address to others is it a form of censorship to require some modicum of good manners? Perhaps those who are not able, not willing to forego opprobrious and vituperative language would demand they are being censored in that personal attacks are "moderated". Have you indicated how the freedom you envision for this propsed Newsgroup would enhance, would advance anything in concrete and specific terms? Is there any statistical research to indicate that, within a certain amount of time, such an unmoderated exercise transforms an individual determined to employ abusive or intractable language or a truculent stance into a more moderate person willing to listen to another point of view without attacking another as a "fundamentalist fanatic"? Is there any pupose to be served by such a Newsgroup that has been indicated to any Institution to ensure that, within a period of time, one need not wade through intemperate posts, an inordinate amount of spam, etc.? ALSO, who is going to set up this Newsgroup? Who will have some degree of responsibility for it? Or will it simply be set up and then left to run on its own with a deluge of spam, cross-posting, etc? ********************************************* R Reini ? >> Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, according >> to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones for >> voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. F. Glaysher: >It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS >FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to >soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, >ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago >and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... D. McDonnell: Pardon me, but in the little bit of checking that I've been able to do, as far as I can tell, Mr. Bernstein has not implemented the program of UseNets, or done the software for implentation... nor can I discover that the item you have mentioned is any Usenet "Holy of Holies". The impression that I have, from a little checking, is that the item you mention was sent out as one person's personal suggestions, guidelines, etc. Anyone else might well offer up their own "Canonical Reasons for Voting". ******************************************* R. Reini: >> What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian aspects >> of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i culture, >> which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great care >> not to let this clash become acrimonious. F. Glaysher: >I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash between >fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the >consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of >speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose >talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: D. McDonnell: It appears, Mr. Glaysher that if one does not immediately genuflect to your position then one is a "fundamentalist fanatic". How are you able to ascertain that those with a viewpoint not to your liking fit in the box so labelled? What makes such people "fundamentalist fanatics"? What is the definition of such? Is there any such definition of such from any Local Spiritual Assembly or any National Spiritual Assembly on this planet? You've mentioned your background, your attainments, how educated you are and how often you feel that you are being reined in from what you have determined is the best thing to be done... although lacking your vast attainments, I would suppose that you have consulted with whatever your Local Spiritual Assembly is and\or your National Spiritual Assembly as to what you hope to do, the manner in which such would be approached, your manner of presenting yourself and the Faith in any public forum... would that make one a fundamental fanatic for assuming that a Baha'i would first approach the institutions if proposing what you have? Of course, the Instititutions might well state that such is not within their territory at this time. But surely, would even considering such make one a fundamental fanatic? You state that the Baha'i Writings respect freedom of speech and one's conscience. Yes, I reckon they do. However, have you mentioned anywhere the responsibilities of such liberty? One can have freedom of speech: does that mean one should yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or engage in abusive and argumentative speech? Does such mean one should employ profanity? Does such freedom of speech mean one should castigate in abusive, intemperate language all those who do not accept one's position? ****************** ********************** >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. > > >> >> Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >> >> >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> > >> > Guy Macon wrote in article >> > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... >> > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, >FG@hotmail.com >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, >> > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from >> > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called >> > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming >> > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the >> > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. >> > > >> > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those messages? >> > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who doubts >> > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. >> > >> > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to forward >> > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of >> > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss attacking >> > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one file in >> > order >> > to attach it easily for forwarding too. >> > >> > -- >> > Frederick Glaysher >> > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >> > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >> > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. >> > > ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 3:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Background to letter to House Roger Reini wrote: e > s.r.b was created in 1992, while a.r.b was > created in early 1997 (by a non-Baha'i, by the way) as a reaction to the > defeat of the first talk.religion.bahai (t.r.b) proposal. Dear Roger, Would you please tell us the name of the non-Baha'i who created a.r.b.? We were all under the impression that it was created by Frederick Glaysher. Thank you! John ---------- From: JEREMIAH D BULLFROG[SMTP:GYZA42F@prodigy.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:23 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re:Why I post under a psuedonym To "Baha'i Faith": Gee, you are afraid someone will sully your 'real' name? So you pick the Greatest Name as a psuedonym? Wait a minute buster! I and all those like me will defend you to the death, but don't hide behind a false name! Come on out and join the rest of us in this race for the finish line that is the next 2 and 1/2 years! Let us be forthright and confident. Let us ignore the slings and arrows of outrageous people. Not that Fred is outrageous. Baha'u'llah has commanded us to love one another. Not necessarilly to live with one another. As Martin Luther King Jr. said to a tremulous liberal in San Francisco, "I want to be your brother, not your brother-in-law." So, let us leave our disguises and come out into the sunshine! That's where we will find the people. sincerely JD Bullfrog << Start of Forwarded message via Prodigy Mail >> From: "Baha'i Faith" Subject: Why I post under a psuedonym Date: 10/06 Time: 09:55 AM Return-Path: Received: from bcca.org (bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) by pimaia1y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA47178; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:56:31 -0400 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xIDA6-0003rsC; Mon, 6 Oct 97 09:25 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" X-Originating-Ip: [168.236.6.53] Message-Id: <19971006132453.20379.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Why I post under a psuedonym Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 06:24:53 PDT From: "Baha'i Faith" There is a simple reason I post under a psuedonym. The reason is because I saw what happened to Mark Towfiq. If I posted under my real name I would be subject to the same abuse he was subjected to. I have no intention of allowing my name to be sullied in Fred's spams. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com << End of Forwarded message >> ____ What power can the shadowy creature claim to possess when face to Face with Him Who is the Uncreated? Baha'u'llah ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 4:29 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) At 02:49 PM 10/6/97 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: How many of the messages are on topic? Unmoderated newsgroups get lots of off topic posts. Someone suggested looking at dejanews, I looked there and it seems that the majority of the messages have little or nothing to do with the Baha'i Faith. How does a newsgroup consisting largely of off-topic cross-posts justify it's exisitance? >Given the traffic of over 3,000 messages to alt.religion.bahai in 6 months, >there's undeniably an interest among users of UseNet for >talk.religion.bahai. There are no conventions on voting, everyone is free to vote their consience. This constant insinuation that those who don't agree with you, who vote differently from the way you vote are dishonest or unfair is bothersome. Good people vote Yes, equally good people vote No. There is no need for name calling or intimidation. If there's one truism about UseNet "regulations" it's that if you have two internet gurus talking there will be at least four opinions on "regulations." Frankly, your insistance that everyone must follow Mr. Bernstein's rules is silly in the extreme. I doubt that even Mr. Berstein expects anyone to pay much attention to these "rules." >The problem is that many Bahais give precedence to their fears even to the >point of knowingly violating the commonly accepted conventions of UseNet >voting. It seems to me such an attitude violates too very basic beliefs >articulated in the Bahai Writings about honesty, justice, fairness, >respect, >etc.... All the basic virtues that supposedly mean something to Bahais, >speaking as a Bahai.... If all that doesn't constitute close-minded >intolerance >and fanaticism I don't what does and I'm at a loss for words to describe >what's been happening on Bahai-Discuss in other terms.... People are >being rigid and dogmatic and just saying to hell with UseNet injunctions >not to vote for political or religious reasons.... > You suggestion is scarey. You want to create Big Brothers that can determine whether a person casting his/her vote was right in doing so? This must have played well with the generally anarchist "gurus!" >And this is why I have increasingly come to feel there should be a >system where the group-mentors and the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers >can consult and override, based on precedent and custom, common >law, if you will, egregious breaches of the usual voting practices. Again, >I feel Bahais are undermining the international "governmental" system >of UseNet and that that is contradictory to the Bahai teachings to obey >and follow the established government.... Try to understand this, UseNet has no government, the creators of Usenet established basic rules. 100 yes votes, less than 1/3 no. That's it. They didn't presume to tell people HOW to vote, in fact, they would have been appalled that someone was trying to do so. >Yes, it is emotionally charged. As you know from reading what's been >on Bahai-Discuss, not only for me. To avoid mere bickering I've tried and >am trying seriously to discuss the principles that should influence voting >on a UseNet proposal. I hope more moderate and sensible voices will >begin to be heard on Bahai-Discuss and elsewhere. Start by accepting that voting No on a newsgroup is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. That no one has the right to dictate who votes yes and who votes no, or why they vote or don't vote. Then we can dicuss the advantages/distavantages of your newsgroup without threats and name calling. ---------- From: M. Ranjbar[SMTP:mrranjba@expert.cc.purdue.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:05 PM To: McKenny Michael Cc: Talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: Re: Re Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, McKenny Michael wrote: > yours. Indeed, as I understand it, Baha'u'llah Himself has said that > it is normal and natural that some people will have different views > on the issue of Who He is. This one will see Him as God and that one > as a man, with a wide variety of views is between. This is because > the individual members of the human species do not have identical > perception and understanding. > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > In languages there is variation of interpretation of what particular words and phrases mean. In the english language there is a wide lattitude and variation of it's application. People of all nationalities from around the world have contributed to it's diverse, and somewhat redundant/repetative nature. There are multiple ways of describing the same object in this language. And clearly there are several camps of thought on how english 'ought to be defined'. Webster tried to define this language, and did a fair job..but still there is room for interpretation. In just about any discipline there is room for arguement and variation. Including _defining the manifestation of God_. Yet we see that in just about every discipline/field be it engineering, english or religion there must be some common agreements before that field may emerge and function to serve man. For example, all thermodynamic scientists from whatever field will agree that the entropy of the universe is always increasing. When they disagree with this point, they are 1) ridiculed 2) questioned 3) if they can't support their point with a profound level of evidence, they are kicked out. In like manner, an individual may tout that he has re-interpreted english, created a better english say...let's call it esperanto.....but if no one speaks that language.. If no group takes it on. He can argue till he's blue in the face about how mugh better his idea and language is..He's still can't even talk to his neighbor. This brings us to the Manifestation of God. Yes within the Faith there is room for interpretation of His nature..but there are some clear common points that must be agreed upon, otherwise one might define a manifestation of God as any individual born. Clearly being born is an act of God's will, God made us...therefore we are all Manifestations of God :-). The absurdity and confusion that would result would leave the word meaningless and pointless. As a result, we must posses a common fundamental understanding of what a Manifestation of God means in order for this phrase to have any significance to anyone. M. R. Ranjbar - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:21 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re:Why I post under a psuedonym What I said is I don't want Fred to harass me in the same mannner as he has been harassing Mark Towfiq. If I post under my real name and if t.r.b loses I do not wish to be the next target of Mr. Glaysher's harassment. This is a work account, I am afraid of what Fred might do if he knew who I am. Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:23:29, -0500 From: GYZA42F@prodigy.com ( JEREMIAH D BULLFROG) To "Baha'i Faith": Gee, you are afraid someone will sully your 'real' name? So you pick the Greatest Name as a psuedonym? Wait a minute buster! I and all those like me will defend you to the death, but don't hide behind a false name! Come on out and join the rest of us in this race for the finish line that is the next 2 and 1/2 years! Let us be forthright and confident. Let us ignore the slings and arrows of outrageous people. Not that Fred is outrageous. Baha'u'llah has commanded us to love one another. Not necessarilly to live with one another. As Martin Luther King Jr. said to a tremulous liberal in San Francisco, "I want to be your brother, not your brother-in-law." So, let us leave our disguises and come out into the sunshine! That's where we will find the people. sincerely JD Bullfrog << Start of Forwarded message via Prodigy Mail >> From: "Baha'i Faith" Subject: Why I post under a psuedonym Date: 10/06 Time: 09:55 AM Return-Path: Received: from bcca.org (bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) by pimaia1y.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA47178; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:56:31 -0400 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xIDA6-0003rsC; Mon, 6 Oct 97 09:25 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" X-Originating-Ip: [168.236.6.53] Message-Id: <19971006132453.20379.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Why I post under a psuedonym Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 06:24:53 PDT From: "Baha'i Faith" There is a simple reason I post under a psuedonym. The reason is because I saw what happened to Mark Towfiq. If I posted under my real name I would be subject to the same abuse he was subjected to. I have no intention of allowing my name to be sullied in Fred's spams. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com << End of Forwarded message >> ____ What power can the shadowy creature claim to possess when face to Face with Him Who is the Uncreated? Baha'u'llah ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 6:02 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Who created a.r.b, was Re: Background to letter to House I have just found that Jonathan Grobe (grobe@netins.net) was the individual who created alt.religion.bahai on April 3, 1997. Here is an excerpt from his message: ----------------- For your newsgroups file: alt.religion.bahai Bahai faith. The vote for the unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai has just failed 157:691 But given that there were 157 Yes votes I believe there is sufficient interest for an alt.* group. As discussed in alt.config ----------------- The complete message can be found in DejaNews by searching the old archive. You can search on Grobe's name. John B. Cornell wrote: > Would you please tell us the name of the non-Baha'i > who created a.r.b.? We were all under the impression > that it was created by Frederick Glaysher. Thank you! ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 6:46 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: My posting of my letter to the House It has been brought to my attention that the Universal House of Justice may not approve of individuals posting their correspondence to the House on Internet discussion lists. I have not seen this anywhere, so I don't know if it is true or not. I have, however, sent a note to the World Center apologizing if I indeed have acted against the wishes of the House. This is an additional reason to keep the post private and not make it publicly available. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:31 PM To: JoySafari@aol.com Cc: fdbetts@mindspring.com; talisman@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Self-Expression vs. Misrepresenting the Cause In the Baha'i Studies List today: JoySafari@aol.com wrote: > I am having an awful time reconciling this "public" part. Is this _private_ > email list supposed to be "public" like when you are walking down the street? > Or is this _private_ email list supposed to be "public" like in sitting in > a restaurant talking to your friends and you should just be sure to not raise > your voice too loudly. Dear Marcella, Wouldn't you say that any list open to the public is public? Talisman and Baha'i Studies List are open to anyone who wishes to subscribe. Therefore, since non-Baha'is read everything we post on them, wouldn't that make them public? > And if this _private_ email list is "public" then why can people get kicked > off the list by doing nothing wrong "Baha'i-wise," yet some people get kicked > out of the Faith but did nothing wrong "list-wise." Nothing is private unless it is restricted to a certain, limited audience. A 19-Day Feast is private, being limited to Baha'is. Since non-Baha'is own Talisman, being "kicked off the list" is done by non-Baha'i owners and has nothing to do with being "kicked out of the Faith." Juan Cole and Joshua Greenbaum have given detailed explanations for expelling several people. > Are we public? Are we private? Who is we? Do you mean are we public when we post on lists open to the public? > And too, if I talk to a non-Baha'i friend about these same > taboo topics am I running a risk getting kicked out of the > Faith? Or should I just make sure that I don't type these taboos. What topics are taboo topics? On Talisman, repeated unrestrained insults are taboo and grounds for removal from the list. Do you know of any other taboos for Talisman? For the Baha'i Faith, it is taboo for you to say you are the Second Guardian and we should follow you and ditch the Universal House of Justice. Have you heard of any other taboos? Thank you for asking questions so we can try to answer! John - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Mac, (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on soc.religion.bahai and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, which seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could easily conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he says it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to provoke argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. MUch love and greetings to all, Nancy Damren ladyvadr@juno.com On Mon, 6 Oct 97 15:13 EDT mac13@cyberhighway.net* (NOSPAM) writes: > >The following is for soc.religion.bahai and is NOT for any >reposting >without the express permission of the author ( mac13@cyberhighway.net >). > >Some comments, some questions... much of previous material >snipped.... >R. Reini: >>> There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a >>> traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by >and >>> large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a >sincere >>> belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i >Faith in >>> the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote >heated >>> arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the >>> teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of >the >>> Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that >it >>> would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to >>> undermine its institutions, etc. > >F. Glaysher: >>None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH >>Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, >>have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by >>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, >>and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the >>above, and so do Bahais.... > >D. McDonnell: >Why is such irrelevant? >How is a "traffic anaylsis" irrelevant to indicate a need, a >pattern, a >potential that a particular newsgroup might be able to serve a need? > >You state that these people you mention feel they were censored... >what is >the definition of censor? They can feel that way: that does not >mean that >such is a fact. > >If one engages in intemperate, abusive, aggressive language that >attacks >others and that is basically attempting to indicate that all others >are >treading a path of error and only they have the wisdom, the insight >others >lack, in a moderated Newsgroup one may well be asked to rewrite --- >my >personal opinion is that such an action is not censorship but a >request for >the good manners that seem so lacking in far too much public >discourse. > >I've read some of the discourse offered by the moderators as to what >is >"censored". Have you had an opportunity to review that? > >Apparently blatant attacks, blatant errors, blatant distortions are >returned >to the sender and one is asked to re-write... If one is determined to >engage in puerile, in abusive, in contumacious form of address to >others is >it a form of censorship to require some modicum of good manners? >Perhaps those who are not able, not willing to forego opprobrious and >vituperative language would demand they are being censored in that >personal >attacks are "moderated". > >Have you indicated how the freedom you envision for this propsed >Newsgroup >would enhance, would advance anything in concrete and specific terms? > >Is there any statistical research to indicate that, within a certain >amount >of time, such an unmoderated exercise transforms an individual >determined to >employ abusive or intractable language or a truculent stance into a >more >moderate person willing to listen to another point of view without >attacking >another as a "fundamentalist fanatic"? Is there any pupose to be >served >by such a Newsgroup that has been indicated to any Institution to >ensure >that, within a period of time, one need not wade through intemperate >posts, >an inordinate amount of spam, etc.? > >ALSO, who is going to set up this Newsgroup? >Who will have some degree of responsibility for it? >Or will it simply be set up and then left to run on its own with a >deluge of >spam, cross-posting, etc? > > ********************************************* >R Reini ? >>> Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, >according >>> to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones >for >>> voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > >F. Glaysher: >>It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS >>FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to >>soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, >>ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago >>and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > >D. McDonnell: >Pardon me, but in the little bit of checking that I've been able to >do, as >far as I can tell, Mr. Bernstein has not implemented the program of >UseNets, >or done the software for implentation... nor can I discover that the >item >you have mentioned is any Usenet "Holy of Holies". The impression >that I >have, from a little checking, is that the item you mention was sent >out as >one person's personal suggestions, guidelines, etc. Anyone else >might >well offer up their own "Canonical Reasons for Voting". > ******************************************* >R. Reini: >>> What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian >aspects >>> of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i >culture, >>> which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great >care >>> not to let this clash become acrimonious. > >F. Glaysher: >>I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash >between >>fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the >>consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of >>speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose >>talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: > >D. McDonnell: >It appears, Mr. Glaysher that if one does not immediately genuflect to >your >position then one is a "fundamentalist fanatic". > >How are you able to ascertain that those with a viewpoint not to your >liking >fit in the box so labelled? What makes such people "fundamentalist >fanatics"? What is the definition of such? Is there any such >definition >of such from any Local Spiritual Assembly or any National Spiritual >Assembly >on this planet? > >You've mentioned your background, your attainments, how educated you >are and >how often you feel that you are being reined in from what you have >determined is the best thing to be done... although lacking your vast >attainments, I would suppose that you have consulted with whatever >your >Local Spiritual Assembly is and\or your National Spiritual Assembly as >to >what you hope to do, the manner in which such would be approached, >your >manner of presenting yourself and the Faith in any public forum... >would >that make one a fundamental fanatic for assuming that a Baha'i would >first >approach the institutions if proposing what you have? > >Of course, the Instititutions might well state that such is not within >their >territory at this time. But surely, would even considering such make >one a >fundamental fanatic? > >You state that the Baha'i Writings respect freedom of speech and one's >conscience. >Yes, I reckon they do. >However, have you mentioned anywhere the responsibilities of such >liberty? >One can have freedom of speech: does that mean one should yell >"Fire" in >a crowded theater or engage in abusive and argumentative speech? >Does such >mean one should employ profanity? Does such freedom of speech mean >one >should castigate in abusive, intemperate language all those who do not >accept one's position? >****************** >********************** >>Frederick Glaysher >>UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >>Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >>www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. >> >> >>> >>> Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >>> >>> >>> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> > >>> > Guy Macon wrote in article >>> > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... >>> > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, >>FG@hotmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, >>> > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from >>> > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called >>> > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming >>> > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the >>> > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. >>> > > >>> > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those >messages? >>> > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who >doubts >>> > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. >>> > >>> > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to >forward >>> > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of >>> > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss >attacking >>> > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one >file in >>> > order >>> > to attach it easily for forwarding too. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Frederick Glaysher >>> > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >>> > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >>> > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. >>> >> >> > > ---------- From: Kashminder Singh[SMTP:kash@pc.jaring.my] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 8:56 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Regarding t.r.b. & Usenet Dear friends, Allow me to add 2 points to the consultation on this subject. 1. In my understanding, the proponents of t.r.b. use the argument that it would not be in line with common Usenet ettiquette to vote no simply because we are not comfortable with the idea of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Faith. Or that we believe that such a group would be in disagreement of our Teachings. I believe this argument needs to be re-examined. In many ways, the Internet in the beginnings and especially so the Usenets could be compared to the Wild West of the USA a long time ago. It was a lawless kind of place, a frontier of new developments.Obviously, it attracted the rebels at heart and similar persons that found such places exciting. The rules then would have be just the kind that they liked - almost none. But times have changed. The frontier of yesterday is the almost matured territory of today. We all are a part of the Internet family and we can change the way it operates. It's already happenning and we can help the process along. With so many new people coming on everyday, rule-less operations have and is giving way to more conventional laws. We have the right to have a say in anything that is going to use the name of the Faith and we should have the moral courage to exercise it. This would be a way of bringing positive change ultimately. And if you still want to follow the so-caled usenet ettiquette, try this .. 2. Based on Joe Bernstein's CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals a good reason to say no would be his reason No 1 >1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its >readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by >introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, >or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). I would be concerned that the newsgroups I read would be affected by a new group and I will then have to follow yet another newsgroup on a subject of interest to me. A good enough reason, I say, to say no to reading yet more postings daily. With best intentions Kashminder Singh Kuala Lumpur Malaysia ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:46 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) Frederick Glaysher wrote: [...] > The problem is that many Bahais give precedence to their fears even to the > point of knowingly violating the commonly accepted conventions of UseNet > voting. [...] If all that doesn't constitute close-minded intolerance > and fanaticism I don't what does and I'm at a loss for words to describe > what's been happening on Bahai-Discuss in other terms.... People are > being rigid and dogmatic and just saying to hell with UseNet injunctions > not to vote for political or religious reasons.... When did open-minded investigation and freedom of action become "closed-minded intolerance and fanaticism"? There ARE no "commonly accepted conventions of UseNet voting," so it's kind of hard to violate them, let alone to do so in a knowing, willing, close-minded, intolerant, rigid, dogmatic, political, religious way. You keep referring to Joe Bernstein's personal opinions as if they were some sort of agreed upon set of guidelines or laws. They're not. Joe Bernstein's "News.groups - a Survival Guide" can be found at https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html and is interesting reading. It appears, however, that despite much heated debate, and much promise of revised guidelines for the last four years, the the closest thing there is to official guidelines is the piece written by David C. Lawrence and others, found among other places at: https://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/guidelines.faq which begins: >>Archive-name: usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1 >>Original-author: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) >>Comment: enhanced & edited until 5/93 by spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) >> Last-change: 31 Jan 1997 by newgroups-request@isc.org (David C Lawrence) >> >> GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION >> >> REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION: >> >> These are guidelines that have been generally agreed upon across >> Usenet as appropriate for following in the creating of new newsgroups >> in the "standard" Usenet newsgroup hierarchy. Those guidelines DO assert that they are "generally agreed upon across Usenet", but, they most certainly do NOT constrain reasons for "Yes" or "No" votes. In fact, reasons for voting are not mentioned at all. It seems there is no "commonly accepted convention" on this issue. In fact, there seems to be great DISagreement about this issue. Perhaps one can fall back on Bertrand Russell and rules of logical positivism here: "When experts disagree, one cannot be sure of ANY opinion." What other models do we have to reason from here? In most public voting, one is not grilled on one's REASONS for voting, nor, except in a police state, forced to reveal it, so it's unusual to even discuss reasons for a yes or no vote. Usually people just, you know, vote. Sometimes not only is the REASON secret, but the WAY they voted is secret, to avoid intimidation or retaliation, and this is affirmed as a GOOD thing for a democracy to have. Maybe Usenet votes should be secret. True, in other postings, David Lawrence PERSONALLY objects to the existence of "No" votes and wishes them abolished, but those are PERSONAL opinions, NOT "generally accepted" rules or guidelines. There's a big difference. You quote Joe Bernstein, so ok, let's look more closely. I've cut out a lot to focus on how "generally accepted" these reasons are, which is the crux of the matter: Quoting from your 9/26/97 post, Joe Bernstein says of his "CANONICAL REASONS" >> I wrote that several months ago, based on prior posts of mine. I posted >> it about three times, asking for comments. >> Then I decided it needed another section, and a revision ... so I stopped >> posting it. >> Since then, I've been distracted by (among other things) other FAQs; and >> it's become steadily clearer to me that the bona fide *rules* of the >> voting process are a great deal more fluid and less obvious to me than I'd >> thought. (In looking at my summary of them in early October for >> participants in a debate I was in, I find that indeed I had some errors. >> Not reposting that part. Really wish someone from UVV would write it.) >> >> But what the heck. I might as well go through this again... So here's >> the "Reasons for Voting" part... just as I then posted it. >> >> CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals >> ... >> The main purpose of a Usenet newsgroup proposal vote is to >> determine whether there are enough Usenet users who are interested in >> reading the group; that's the principal reason for YES votes to exist. >> >> The subsidiary purpose of the vote is to keep bad proposals from being >> enacted; that's the principal reason for NO votes to exist. ... >> >> Nobody enforces the following rules. [...] >> >> The whole document is my opinions, basically, though with the help >> in formulating them of some other people. ... >> >> Joe Bernstein Sorry, but all I can find there is opinions, which the author says are personal opinions on a non-obvious subject that he's in the process of rewriting and removing the errors. These aren't even fixed, final opinions -- they're "fluid", changing, rough-draft opinions. When, someday, through much discussion, a concensus is reached and accepted and formally archived so that people have unambiguous notice of the rules, then they can take on a stronger role in guidance. But we're not there, unless I've missed a document. I'm open to further information if I've missed something. Back to your implicit question: > If all that doesn't constitute close-minded intolerance > and fanaticism I don't what does and I'm at a loss for words to describe > what's been happening on Bahai-Discuss in other terms.. How about these terms: "Open-minded, honest, diligent investigation of the facts does not support any one course of action clearly. People disagree on what rules or guidelines should apply, who should vote, how they should vote, when they should vote, and, in some cases, what we're voting on in the first place. People are trying to figure it out." Wade Schuette ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:54 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Why I post under a psuedonym 10/6/97 9:24 AM In answer to your last message : Actually my friend, if you really think about it, it is a blessing to be criticized and attacked. When the Faith is attacked we can be sure of good things around the corner, likewise with an individual. The soul is indestructable and will last forever. regards, doug >There is a simple reason I post under a psuedonym. The reason is >because I saw what happened to Mark Towfiq. If I posted under my real >name I would be subject to the same abuse he was subjected to. I have >no intention of allowing my name to be sullied in Fred's spams. > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: Gavin E. Reed[SMTP:gavinreed@compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 2:57 AM To: (unknown); Jackson Armstrong-Ingram Subject: re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: > > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:22:46 -0500 (EST) > From: Jackson Armstrong-Ingram > Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice > > > To my (quoted by Susan) statement: > > but perhaps the House, by adhering to principle in its communications with > > the believers, refrains from giving "direct orders", since, in a community > > of belief, "guidance" from an infallible source is the moral equivalent of > > an direct order, except that it allows the individual to retain the option > > of obeying or not (belief -- and behavior which is conditional upon belief > > -- is always an individual choice and never properly subject to coercion). R. jackson Armstrong-Ingram responded: > I think this is a highly problematic idea as Shoghi Effendi stated > specifically that when he gave advice that was exactly what it was and > individuals were free to follow it or not as they chose; one was only > obliged to do what he said if he made it a direct instruction on the basis > that it was necessary to do such and such for the good of the faith. The > description above does not in real terms give the recipient of 'advice' > the option of taking the advice or not, but the option of taking the > advice and being a faithful Baha'i or not taking the advice and not being > a faithful Baha'i whether that is operationalized in a moral or > administratively literal sense. I would be pleased to receive a reference to the statement of Shoghi Effendi referred to above. I seem to recall seeing something to that effect myself, but I've been unable to locate it in order to study it in context. So this response is made absent that potentially important information. In the course of my search, I did notice something I hadn't previously noticed. A great deal of the Guardian's guidance is presented as "advice". Now, this may or may not mean that such guidance is "optional", but I'm inclined to think that if a believer asks advice from a Divinely guided source, there is a fairly strong implied requirement to heed that advice, even if one does not agree with it, UNLESS the Divinely-guided source makes it clear that the decision is a purely personal matter and/or up to the individual to determine (as Shoghi Effendi often did). The House of Justice appears not only to be following this pattern, but also encouraging the National and Local Spiritual Assemblies (and, presumably Regional Councils) to do so as well. This is, in my view, an important lesson, which, for those of us immersed in an individualistic culture, is not only hard to learn, it's hard to even comprehend it's value (I don't claim any advantage here, either -- just sharing some thoughts). If the Institutions cling to traditional leadership styles which manifest "dictatorial authority" and "arbitrary power" -- which, in my view would characterize a guidance phrased as a direct order -- what will distinguish them from any other form of institutional leadership? Would it really be healthy for Baha'i institutions to reinforce the dysfunctional tendency in our culture to be pushed to the point of ultimatum before we back down (or, God forbid, dig in our heels)? Why are we sometimes so invested in our own egos that a clear statement of principle, accompanied by loving advice is not enough for us? It appears that the judgment of the House of Justice is that if such guidance isn't adequate, neither is the faith of the (former) Baha'i. This doesn't at all appear punitive to me (let alone arbitrary or oppressive), merely very matter-of-fact. It doesn't take too many steps back to see who is playing games and who isn't. One of the characteristics which will ultimately distinguish Baha'i communities from the other religious and secular attempts at social organization is the *relationship* between the Baha'i administrative institutions and the body of believers, characterized by humble fellowship, frank and loving consultation, trust and reciprocity. It appears all of us have some transforming to do in order to manifest this revolutionary relationship to an extent that the masses of humankind will be attracted. As I said before, the nature of religious belief is that we always have the option to ignore whatever commandments, admonitions, exhortations, advice or suggestions which might come our way. At some point, however, ignoring this guidance will define us as a non-believer (if not someone who systematically opposes the Faith). As recent events indicate, one "exit" point appears to be a persistence in regarding the Writings in ways opposed to the ways elicidated by the House of Justice. This should be neither shocking nor disturbing. It is eminently logical and totally defensible in the context of a faith-based community which is blessed with an authoritative and infallible means of resolving differences. This feature of the Baha'i Faith is the ONE thing which will ultimately enable the humanity to unite. For those who claim allegiance to Baha'u'llah, taking conscious issue with anything given to us by the House of Justice only demonstrates a profound misapprehension of the nature of His "unique" and "wondrous System - the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed." So, as we determine whether or not to follow *any* of the "behavioral parameters" articulated in the Baha'i Writings and/or generated by the Baha'i administration, the option to comply or not *is* always there *in real terms*, as I see it. It's just that the stakes can be very high. Warm regards, Gavin Reed - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 6:39 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Presenting only half of the picture > > It would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > > undermine its institutions, etc. > None of which is relevant. This from the individual whose posts are being quoted on anti-Baha'i Muslim Web sites, please note! :-( > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian > > aspects of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent > > Baha'i culture, which stresses unity and promotes consultation. > > We must take great care not to let this clash become acrimonious. > I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash > between fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who > respect the consciences of other people. Excellent example of the exact sort of acrimonious extremist name-calling he mentioned. :-( > The Bahai Writings respect freedom of speech and the individual's > conscience. Selective reference. You continue to ignore the clear passages (which have been repeatedly brought to your attention, please note) that explicitly endorse limitations of freedom and condemn attempts to make the Faith a plaything of one's own desires. Yes, the Faith respects conscience, etc.. But it also endorses reasonable limits on freedom and condemns extremism. Unfortunately, some people seem to want to ignore this fact and pretend that it doesn't exist. ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 6:39 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Presenting only half of the picture > > It would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to > > undermine its institutions, etc. > None of which is relevant. This from the individual whose posts are being quoted on anti-Baha'i Muslim Web sites, please note! :-( > > What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian > > aspects of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent > > Baha'i culture, which stresses unity and promotes consultation. > > We must take great care not to let this clash become acrimonious. > I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash > between fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who > respect the consciences of other people. Excellent example of the exact sort of acrimonious extremist name-calling he mentioned. :-( > The Bahai Writings respect freedom of speech and the individual's > conscience. Selective reference. You continue to ignore the clear passages (which have been repeatedly brought to your attention, please note) that explicitly endorse limitations of freedom and condemn attempts to make the Faith a plaything of one's own desires. Yes, the Faith respects conscience, etc.. But it also endorses reasonable limits on freedom and condemns extremism. Unfortunately, some people seem to want to ignore this fact and pretend that it doesn't exist. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:27 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Background to letter to House ------- > From: Roger Reini > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Background to letter to House > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 5:48 PM > > Unfortunately, I've forgotten who this person is. An individual using a > pseudonym recently posted on news.groups saying he was the one who > created it, but I have no way to know that for sure. Jonathan Grobe, a group-mentor at Duke, created alt.religion.bahai. I believe you're mistaken about his using a pseudonym. I don't recall seeing any post by him on news.groups to that effect. > > DejaNews might have the announcement archived -- I'll look. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > John B. Cornell wrote: > > > > Roger Reini wrote: e > > > > > s.r.b was created in 1992, while a.r.b was > > > created in early 1997 (by a non-Baha'i, by the way) as a reaction to the > > > defeat of the first talk.religion.bahai (t.r.b) proposal. > > > > Dear Roger, > > > > Would you please tell us the name of the non-Baha'i > > who created a.r.b.? We were all under the impression > > that it was created by Frederick Glaysher. Thank you! > > > > John > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:36 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: NOTICE: talk.religion.bahai A frequent poster to alt.religion.bahai has sent a message to the Universal House of Justice, the highest administrative institution of the Bahai Faith in Haifa, Israel, regarding the second proposal and vote on talk.religion.bahai. At this time, it is not clear whether or how this development will influence the proposal and UseNet vote. Although the message has also been posted on Bahai-Discuss, a private Bahai list, he has requested that it not be reposted to any newsgroup. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:55 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) >I feel Baha'is are undermining the international "governmental" system >of UseNet and that it is contradictory to the Baha'i teachings to obey >and follow the established government. Doublespeak. The quotation marks above indicate that even you are aware that it is _not_ a government! >And this is why I have increasingly come to feel there should >be a system where the group-mentors and the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers >can consult and override, based on precedent and custom, common >law, if you will, egregious breaches of the usual voting practices. Funny how the vote is eminently proper if it goes your way, and an "egregious breach" if it doesn't. :-( ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:53 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... ---------- > From: Nancy S Damren > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM > > Dear Mac, > > (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on soc.religion.bahai > and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) > > That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would > appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's > going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, > myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's > language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, which > seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. > > Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could easily > conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he says > it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real > objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to provoke > argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. > > For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the > subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. > > MUch love and greetings to all, > > Nancy Damren > ladyvadr@juno.com Threatening hatemail follows: ---------------- > From: Nancy S Damren > To: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages from > you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, 1997. > > I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and > inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send word > that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of > Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing in > such a fashion. > > Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, regardless > of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith has > cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many others. > > You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I must > request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in the > future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will > result in notification of both my email service and yours of your email > abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. > > You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from an > Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. This > threat is real. > > Nancy Damren ---------- From: Michael Furst[SMTP:mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 11:44 PM To: M. Ranjbar Cc: irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice <> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:13 AM To: Robert Moldenhauer Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet (was Re: talk.religion.badi?) Please do not email me directly. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:28 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Afshin's Islam site Sent to Afshin at :https://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/index.htm I ask you to remove any and all messages that appear to have been written by me from your website. There are statements in at least one such message that I do not recognize as my own. I further request that no messages that I write for publication elsewhere appear on your website. While I support your right to state your opinions on the Bahai Faith, I do not support the use of my messages written and posted elsewhere originally for other purposes. Please confirm their removal by emailing me at FG@hotmail.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:20 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Why I post under a psuedonym Given the choice between receiving attacks and receiving "spam", I think I'd take the attacks. At least I could attempt to teach, or at least set the record straight. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) dmcadam wrote: > > 10/6/97 9:24 AM In answer to your last message : > > Actually my friend, if you really think about it, it is a blessing to be > criticized and attacked. When the Faith is attacked we can be sure of > good things around the corner, likewise with an individual. The soul is > indestructable and will last forever. > > regards, > doug > > >There is a simple reason I post under a psuedonym. The reason is > >because I saw what happened to Mark Towfiq. If I posted under my real > >name I would be subject to the same abuse he was subjected to. I have > >no intention of allowing my name to be sullied in Fred's spams. > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > > ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 7:14 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Regarding t.r.b. & Usenet Kashminder Singh wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Allow me to add 2 points to the consultation on this subject. > > 1. In my understanding, the proponents of t.r.b. use the argument that it > would not be in line with common Usenet ettiquette to vote no simply > because we are not comfortable with the idea of an unmoderated newsgroup on > the Faith. Or that we believe that such a group would be in disagreement of > our Teachings. > > I believe this argument needs to be re-examined. In many ways, the Internet > in the beginnings and especially so the Usenets could be compared to the > Wild West of the USA a long time ago. It was a lawless kind of place, a > frontier of new developments.Obviously, it attracted the rebels at heart > and similar persons that found such places exciting. The rules then would > have be just the kind that they liked - almost none. > > But times have changed. The frontier of yesterday is the almost matured > territory of today. We all are a part of the Internet family and we can > change the way it operates. It's already happenning and we can help the > process along. With so many new people coming on everyday, rule-less > operations have and is giving way to more conventional laws. It hasn't happened in the newsgroup creation process yet -- but there is work being done in that area. > We have the right to have a say in anything that is going to use the name > of the Faith and we should have the moral courage to exercise it. This > would be a way of bringing positive change ultimately. I forsee some difficulties with the news.groupies (those who hang out on news.groups) on this, especially with individuals who do not use Usenet. IMHO, it's premature to force change along in this way, for I feel it will cause clashes and ill will. Let's see what happens. Perhaps some of us (especially those of us who are news administrators [which I am not, BTW]) could become news.groups regulars or become involved in the evolution of the newsgroup creation and administration system. That way, we could begin to suggest a more consultative approach to the whole process. But I digress.... > And if you still want to follow the so-caled usenet ettiquette, try this .. > > 2. Based on Joe Bernstein's > > CANONICAL REASONS FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals > > a good reason to say no would be his reason No 1 > > >1) a) The proposal will harm a group I already read, by dividing its > >readership or some such (usually involves proposals for splits), or by > >introducing a moderator I disapprove of or eliminating one I approve of, > >or simply by changing the charter (especially to or from moderation). > > I would be concerned that the newsgroups I read would be affected by a new > group and I will then have to follow yet another newsgroup on a subject of > interest to me. In the case of s.r.b, it is currently thriving, IMHO. The creation of a.r.b does not appear to have harmed it in any way. And I don't think that t.r.b would hurt it, either. In the case of a.r.b, you may have a good point. Ideally, I would prefer to see a.r.b go away if t.r.b were created. If it didn't, then my attention span would be divided between the two groups (not counting s.r.b). Heck, now that I'm participating in B-D, my time's already divided so many ways... ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:54 AM To: fglaysh@hotmail.com Cc: Bahai-Discuss@BCCA.Org Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Mr. Glaysher, As you well know, I did no such thing as to present myself as "holy saint'. Nor did I send you any kind of "hatemail, full of half-truths and distortions". I said in my original letter to you that I would notify both your email service and mine of your email abuse. I meant to keep that promise. You asked for it. I am now taking that step. Sincerely, - NSDamren On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:53:43 -0400 "Frederick Glaysher" writes: >Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append >a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and >distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion >I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving >her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee >of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, >they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... > >---------- >> From: Nancy S Damren >> To: Baha'i Discuss >> Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) >> Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM >> >> Dear Mac, >> >> (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on >soc.religion.bahai >> and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) >> >> That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would >> appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's >> going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, >> myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's >> language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, >which >> seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. >> >> Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could >easily >> conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he >says >> it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real >> objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to >provoke >> argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. >> >> For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the >> subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. >> >> MUch love and greetings to all, >> >> Nancy Damren >> ladyvadr@juno.com > > >Threatening hatemail follows: >---------------- >> From: Nancy S Damren >> To: FG@hotmail.com >> Subject: >> Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM >> >> Dear Mr. Glaysher, >> >> I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages >from >> you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, >1997. >> >> I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and >> inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send >word >> that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of >> Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing >in >> such a fashion. >> >> Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, >regardless >> of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith >has >> cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many >others. >> >> You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I >must >> request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in >the >> future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will >> result in notification of both my email service and yours of your >email >> abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. >> >> You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from >an >> Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. >This >> threat is real. >> >> Nancy Damren > ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:54 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Please cross-post to soc.religion.bahai Best beloveds, Would someone who subscribes to soc.religion.bahai please post the enclosed for me? I can't get through to the sender. Thanks muchly, Nancy D. ============================================================== Dear Mac, (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on soc.religion.bahai and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, which seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could easily conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he says it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to provoke argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. MUch love and greetings to all, Nancy Damren ladyvadr@juno.com On Mon, 6 Oct 97 15:13 EDT mac13@cyberhighway.net* (NOSPAM) writes: > >The following is for soc.religion.bahai and is NOT for any >reposting >without the express permission of the author ( mac13@cyberhighway.net >). > >Some comments, some questions... much of previous material >snipped.... >R. Reini: >>> There have been some valid technical points raised, such as "does a >>> traffic analysis prove the need for an unmoderated group?" But by >and >>> large, those who are opposing the proposal do so because of a >sincere >>> belief that such a newsgroup would harm the image of the Baha'i >Faith in >>> the eyes of the online public -- that such a group would promote >heated >>> arguments and petty bickering (both strongly discouraged in the >>> teachings of the Faith, BTW), that it would besmirch the name of >the >>> Faith to have spam (especially porno spam) flooding the group, that >it >>> would give a forum to enemies of the Faith and those who seek to >>> undermine its institutions, etc. > >F. Glaysher: >>None of which is relevant. It's an umoderated newsgroup for BOTH >>Bahais and non-Bahais. Many non-Bahais, and not only Muslims, >>have stated they felt they were censored at one time or another by >>the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. Newsgroups, in the real world, >>and members of all religions, have to learn to deal with all of the >>above, and so do Bahais.... > >D. McDonnell: >Why is such irrelevant? >How is a "traffic anaylsis" irrelevant to indicate a need, a >pattern, a >potential that a particular newsgroup might be able to serve a need? > >You state that these people you mention feel they were censored... >what is >the definition of censor? They can feel that way: that does not >mean that >such is a fact. > >If one engages in intemperate, abusive, aggressive language that >attacks >others and that is basically attempting to indicate that all others >are >treading a path of error and only they have the wisdom, the insight >others >lack, in a moderated Newsgroup one may well be asked to rewrite --- >my >personal opinion is that such an action is not censorship but a >request for >the good manners that seem so lacking in far too much public >discourse. > >I've read some of the discourse offered by the moderators as to what >is >"censored". Have you had an opportunity to review that? > >Apparently blatant attacks, blatant errors, blatant distortions are >returned >to the sender and one is asked to re-write... If one is determined to >engage in puerile, in abusive, in contumacious form of address to >others is >it a form of censorship to require some modicum of good manners? >Perhaps those who are not able, not willing to forego opprobrious and >vituperative language would demand they are being censored in that >personal >attacks are "moderated". > >Have you indicated how the freedom you envision for this propsed >Newsgroup >would enhance, would advance anything in concrete and specific terms? > >Is there any statistical research to indicate that, within a certain >amount >of time, such an unmoderated exercise transforms an individual >determined to >employ abusive or intractable language or a truculent stance into a >more >moderate person willing to listen to another point of view without >attacking >another as a "fundamentalist fanatic"? Is there any pupose to be >served >by such a Newsgroup that has been indicated to any Institution to >ensure >that, within a period of time, one need not wade through intemperate >posts, >an inordinate amount of spam, etc.? > >ALSO, who is going to set up this Newsgroup? >Who will have some degree of responsibility for it? >Or will it simply be set up and then left to run on its own with a >deluge of >spam, cross-posting, etc? > > ********************************************* >R Reini ? >>> Several participants, including myself, have pointed out that, >according >>> to the canonical voting guidelines, these reasons are not good ones >for >>> voting No. I fear that this message is being lost, however. > >F. Glaysher: >>It was lost last time too. Joe Bernstein's "CANONICAL REASONS >>FOR VOTING on Usenet newsgroup proposals" was posted to >>soc.religion.bahai during the previous vote and Bahais, by and large, >>ignored it. I posted it to the listserv Bahai-Discuss a few days ago >>and the result has been, quite frankly, for many, derision.... > >D. McDonnell: >Pardon me, but in the little bit of checking that I've been able to >do, as >far as I can tell, Mr. Bernstein has not implemented the program of >UseNets, >or done the software for implentation... nor can I discover that the >item >you have mentioned is any Usenet "Holy of Holies". The impression >that I >have, from a little checking, is that the item you mention was sent >out as >one person's personal suggestions, guidelines, etc. Anyone else >might >well offer up their own "Canonical Reasons for Voting". > ******************************************* >R. Reini: >>> What we have is a big-time culture clash between the libertarian >aspects >>> of Usenet (and the Internet in general) and the nascent Baha'i >culture, >>> which stresses unity and promotes consultation. We must take great >care >>> not to let this clash become acrimonious. > >F. Glaysher: >>I don't believe the above analysis is correct. Rather, it's a clash >between >>fundamentalist fanatics in the Bahai Faith and those who respect the >>consciences of other people. The Bahai Writings respect freedom of >>speech and the individual's conscience. The extremists who oppose >>talk.religion.bahai ignore the following passage by Abdu'l-Baha: > >D. McDonnell: >It appears, Mr. Glaysher that if one does not immediately genuflect to >your >position then one is a "fundamentalist fanatic". > >How are you able to ascertain that those with a viewpoint not to your >liking >fit in the box so labelled? What makes such people "fundamentalist >fanatics"? What is the definition of such? Is there any such >definition >of such from any Local Spiritual Assembly or any National Spiritual >Assembly >on this planet? > >You've mentioned your background, your attainments, how educated you >are and >how often you feel that you are being reined in from what you have >determined is the best thing to be done... although lacking your vast >attainments, I would suppose that you have consulted with whatever >your >Local Spiritual Assembly is and\or your National Spiritual Assembly as >to >what you hope to do, the manner in which such would be approached, >your >manner of presenting yourself and the Faith in any public forum... >would >that make one a fundamental fanatic for assuming that a Baha'i would >first >approach the institutions if proposing what you have? > >Of course, the Instititutions might well state that such is not within >their >territory at this time. But surely, would even considering such make >one a >fundamental fanatic? > >You state that the Baha'i Writings respect freedom of speech and one's >conscience. >Yes, I reckon they do. >However, have you mentioned anywhere the responsibilities of such >liberty? >One can have freedom of speech: does that mean one should yell >"Fire" in >a crowded theater or engage in abusive and argumentative speech? >Does such >mean one should employ profanity? Does such freedom of speech mean >one >should castigate in abusive, intemperate language all those who do not >accept one's position? >****************** >********************** >>Frederick Glaysher >>UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >>Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >>www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. >> >> >>> >>> Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >>> >>> >>> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>> > >>> > Guy Macon wrote in article >>> > <6125i1$9q8$13@news01.deltanet.com>... >>> > > In article <01bccf21$5ee3f780$762ab3c7@glaysher>, >>FG@hotmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >The person hiding behind this blind email address, >>> > > >bahai@hotmail.com, has been reposting messages from >>> > > >as far back as several months ago to a listserv called >>> > > >Bahai-Discuss with the clear intention of inflaming >>> > > >opposition and animosity against me and against the >>> > > >proposed talk.religion.bahai. >>> > > >>> > > Fred, are you or someone else saving every one of those >messages? >>> > > It is important that you be able to offer to let anyone who >doubts >>> > > you see them all. If you haven't been saving them, start now. >>> > >>> > I have saved everyone of his messages and would be happy to >forward >>> > copies to anyone interested in seeing them. I have copies of >>> > approximately 150 other messages posted to Bahai-Discuss >attacking >>> > talk.religion.bahai and would be willing to put them all in one >file in >>> > order >>> > to attach it easily for forwarding too. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Frederick Glaysher >>> > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >>> > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on >>> > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. >>> >> >> > > --UAAAA23664.876214646/r2.boston.juno.com-- --------- End forwarded message ---------- ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:54 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Mr. Glaysher, As you well know, I did no such thing as to present myself as "holy saint'. Nor did I send you any kind of "hatemail, full of half-truths and distortions". I said in my original letter to you that I would notify both your email service and mine of your email abuse. I meant to keep that promise. You asked for it. I am now taking that step. Sincerely, - NSDamren On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:53:43 -0400 "Frederick Glaysher" writes: >Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append >a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and >distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion >I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving >her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee >of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, >they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... > >---------- >> From: Nancy S Damren >> To: Baha'i Discuss >> Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) >> Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM >> >> Dear Mac, >> >> (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on >soc.religion.bahai >> and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) >> >> That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would >> appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's >> going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, >> myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's >> language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, >which >> seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. >> >> Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could >easily >> conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he >says >> it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real >> objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to >provoke >> argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. >> >> For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the >> subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. >> >> MUch love and greetings to all, >> >> Nancy Damren >> ladyvadr@juno.com > > >Threatening hatemail follows: >---------------- >> From: Nancy S Damren >> To: FG@hotmail.com >> Subject: >> Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM >> >> Dear Mr. Glaysher, >> >> I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages >from >> you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, >1997. >> >> I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and >> inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send >word >> that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of >> Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing >in >> such a fashion. >> >> Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, >regardless >> of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith >has >> cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many >others. >> >> You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I >must >> request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in >the >> future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will >> result in notification of both my email service and yours of your >email >> abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. >> >> You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from >an >> Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. >This >> threat is real. >> >> Nancy Damren > ---------- From: Baha'i Faith[SMTP:bahai@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:40 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Afshin's Islam site Fred, I found the article you wrote using DejaNews and compared it to the one on Afshin's site. Looks like he got your comments right... Mr. Glaysher's article of July 1st follows: ----- Subject: Re: Propoganda? From: FG Date: 1997/07/01 Message-Id: <33B8E5A6.311B@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel [More Headers] faryar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we suppose you are right. I mean if really Iranian Baha'is have no > > > > tolerance for any opposing view, then what type of religion is this? > > > > If we suppose the Baha'i faith as the latest religion which claims to > > > > be forefront of humanitarian efforts, the religion of modern age and > > > > so on it should have enough strength to learn it's followers to be > > > > tolerants. But according to you it has failed when it concerns it's > > > > founders and first followers. > > > > > > > > You dislike Iranians and it gets a racistic form sometimes. One > > > > example is this. You say to be Persian is synonymous with being > > > > intolerant. Where have you learned to think like this? In Baha'i > > > > school? Is racism the message of your religion? > > > > > > From 20 years of observing Iranian Bahais operate.... Yes, it's > > > the same in Bahai "schools" too.... Worse, umitigated > > > indoctrination and propaganda are force-fed in those "noble" > > > institutions.... I long ago decided, as many Bahais have, never > > > to take my sons anywhere near one of them.... Racism is the > > > message implicit in the thinking and "teaching" of the Iranian > > > Bahais.... It's inescapable to conclude otherwise, in my > > > opinion. I myself don't feel racism against the culture itself, > > > in a sense, but do not admire its penchant towards oppression > > > and coercion of others.... i.e., profound lack of respect for > > > freedom of religious conscience and individual liberty.... > > > > > > > > > > > You claim Iranian Bahai's are intolerants because they are Persians. > > > > Needless to say that this sentence of yours shows how ignorant you are > > > > when it concerns Iran. Iran is a land with several different > > > > ethnicities. Iranian Baha'is come from different parts of the country > > > > and therefore not all of them are persians. But again if we suppose > > > > you are right. I mean if being persian hinders one to be tolerant then > > > > conclusion is that my great ethnicity (Persian) is stronger than > > > > Baha'i faith. Thanks. > > > > > > Personally, I wouldn't conclude that either, having followed the news > > > these many years since spending a year of my life studying Farsi back > > > in 1979-1980.... > > > > > > > > > > > Hallaj > > > > > > > > Persian and tolerant > > > > > > -- > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher; > > > > Did it ever occur to you that Iranian Bahais are intolerable of > > opposition and discussions against Bahaism because they are "Bahais" and > > not because they are "Iranian"? I mean a simple examination of posting by > > Bahais (none-Iranian) and Non-Bahai Iranians revealed to me that Iranians > > in general are open minded and very tolerant people. On SCI for instance, > > with exception of few, most Iranians have responded in a tolerable and > > clever fassion to postings full of hatred and nonesense against Iranians. > > On the other hand when I look at Bahai postings, Iranina and none > > Iranian, I come to a conclusion that they are intolerable of any > > criticism in general, if not impolite and rude at times. > > > > Take Mr. Afrashteh's postings for instance. He is an Iranian, whose site > > examines Bahai claims in a fair and polite fassion. He has given an > > enlightning prespective regarding Bahai faith and history in his site. > > While similra sites of Bahais are usually leaflet-like propaganda. Mr. > > Afrashteh's responses to insults and labellings against him on SCI by > > Bahais has been commendable, while Bahais (of Iranian and none Iranian > > origin) have used every method including threats, death wishes, insults > > and labelling to rid of him. Mr. Afrashteh is an Iranian, as obvious by > > the name. > > > > Now tell me this. Is it not that the intollerance by Iranian-Bahais is > > result of their Bahai side and not Iranian side? After all it was mainly > > non-Iranian and Iranian Bahais who stood against a free unmoderated Bahai > > newsgroup, not "Iranians" right? > > > > It is easy to point a finger at others, and Iranians in particular and > > blame all your problems on them. The facts is, that Bahaism, is a cult > > with failed ideas and it stems from itself and not from Iran. > > > > Simply not true... > Bahais have in general have tried to answer all the nonsensical accuasations thrown at them in a > diginfied way...In comparison with the traditional bigoted attitude of some whom the very mention of > Bahai brings out the worst in their nature....they have been rather patient, but firm in their > response. It seems to me Bahais, especially Iranians, have been very bigoted in their attitudes towards Western culture and are no better really than the worst bigots you refer to.... > > There are exceptions of those whose names we see as regulars, who profess to be Bahais or ex > Bahais.. > Lets start with the The Ex... > One partcular gentleman who wrote in one email that as he said had been a Bahai for over 20 years > and believed the principles of the Bahai faith and ; at their center the elimination of all > prejudice; this gentleman is found bad mouthing Iranian Bahais calling them revolting and so on.... I've been a member of the Bahai Faith for over twenty-one years, and I find most Iranian Bahais of my acquaitance revolting.... oppressive.... narrow-minded.... racist.... bigoted.... intolerant.... parasitical on a culture to which they owe everything and have no respect for.... > Is the name Bahai, Moslem or Iranian a name and should we not judge by action and deeds rather than > a name....? I'm judging by many, many actions I've WITNESSED with my own eyes.... > The question is, is this gentleman and his actions or those he criticises outside the bounds of > Bahai teachings? > Why has he dicarded his belief in elimination of prejudice etc etc and chosen to go against the very > thing he believed for all those years? could it be a badly hurt ego, just because a majority voted > not to have their sacred beliefs to be discussed in an unprotected and a potential cesspool of forum > where nothing is sacred. Oh! Apparently I am he! We meet at last!!! > Another well known poet on SCI, calls himself a Bahai , but unfortunately is very selective as to > what he believes in its principles, especially when it comes to Islam. The writer has endured his > unkind attacks when reminding him that Bahais revere and respect Islam. In stead of your casting aspersions, can you be honest enough to use the people's name involved? > > The webmaster @ iranvision likes to call Mr afrashteh and the content of their opposition fair, > These gentleman also try to fish from muddy waters, by trying cause division; when the very basis of > their spirit and action is to spread "propoganda" in the true sense of the word, and divert others > from investigating the Bahai faith from the souce. For example: > They expect a "seeker" to go to them for the "truth"....not unlike expecting the seeker at the time > of Islam to go to the crusaders who had come to fight the "Infidel" Muslims. > Even the information contained in their site is fraught with repeated cliches written by badly > informed writers at the beginning of the century... > How many times have you seen people not know the difference between The Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul > baha?.....You have heard my favourite...Calling Abdul baha a British agent in Iran...at a time when > when he was only 6 years old. One write even called him a Russian spy. > How many time have you heard that Bahais were made by the British? > name one respected author or publication that holds that view to day? > > They criticise Us for "propoganda type material" on the Web. > Just what is propoganda...? > in my view, propaganda is the publcation or broadcast of material based on a lie and a desire to > mislead the public to further a political or personal cause. Exactly the definition that fits soc.religion.bahai at times.... > The Nazis were masters of propoganda... And so are some Bahais.... > Hitler and Goebels (the Nazi info minisdter) through propaganda led the Gerrman nation and nearly > destroyed the world, at the same time exterminated 6 million jews by calling them impure,(Najjess) > and subhuman. > How close is the resemblance between Nazi tactics and present day theocracy in Iran, as far as the > Bahai arte concerned? > I ask which part of the Bahai teachings do they find to be "propoganda."..and what is their ultimate > aim? > Do the Bahais want to conquer the world? and how? > Do they speak against any one? > Are they promoting any living idol or personality, that can benefit from fame, wealth and notoriety? Let's not be naive and callow.... > > Since Bahais do not have any one partcular leader or paid clergy, just who has something to lose by > the Bahai faith gaining ground in people's hearts? The Bahai faith does have a de facto clergy, one that gets paid as much or more than some Christian clergy.... Many Bahais don't realize this.... > Do they have any political aspirations? What was the exhibition in the Rotunda of the US Capitol about a few years ago if not political aspiration? Let's not be children.... > Just what do they have to benefit from by the spread of their message? The usual: money, power, control, influence.... The things human beings have always lied, cheated, deceived, fought over.... > who benefits from the spread of their Message? Mostly Iranian Bahais.... > and how? They get to use ignorant, idealistic Americans and others in inumerable ways.... Bring their relatives over.... etc.... > > Faryar -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 12:48 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Fred, Thats not hate mail. She is just asking you to stop sending personal email and making clear the consequences if you don't. You are only hurting yourself by these posts that no one else will see as you do. Tom On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append > a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and > distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion > I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving > her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee > of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, > they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... > > ---------- > > From: Nancy S Damren > > To: Baha'i Discuss > > Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) > > Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM > > > > Dear Mac, > > > > (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on soc.religion.bahai > > and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) > > > > That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would > > appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's > > going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, > > myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's > > language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, which > > seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. > > > > Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could easily > > conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he says > > it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real > > objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to provoke > > argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. > > > > For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the > > subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. > > > > MUch love and greetings to all, > > > > Nancy Damren > > ladyvadr@juno.com > > > Threatening hatemail follows: > ---------------- > > From: Nancy S Damren > > To: FG@hotmail.com > > Subject: > > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM > > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > > > I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages from > > you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, 1997. > > > > I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and > > inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send word > > that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of > > Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing in > > such a fashion. > > > > Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, regardless > > of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith has > > cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many others. > > > > You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I must > > request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in the > > future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will > > result in notification of both my email service and yours of your email > > abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. > > > > You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from an > > Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. This > > threat is real. > > > > Nancy Damren > ---------- From: The Deezer[SMTP:dwatts@primenet.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 1:16 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Where are we now in the trb mire? Allah'u'abha dear friends, I have remained fairly still throughout the discourse on the proposal of trb and the reaction resulting therefrom. As everyone here who subscribes to this forum is a Baha'i, we are held to standards with respect to consultation, and inasmuch as the discussion here should be likened to it, those principles should be adhered to. In that vein, I believe the point has clearly reached, and indeed surpassed "conflict, hatred and antagonism," and where we are then directed to "immediately postpone discussion of the subject, until wranglings, disputations, and loud talk vanish, and a propitious time is at hand." Mr. Glaysher, you have proven to be your own worst enemy, and the likely outcome on the eventual vote of trb will probably be an indication of that. I don't think I will find myself without company when I say that any further discussion of this matter that does not engage the principles of Baha'i consultation will be fruitless, and at this juncture, I don't think any more can be said on the topic that would be enlightening, either by Mr. Glaysher or in response to him. Now, as each of us is tempted to respond to anything further on the subject, ask yourself if you are rising to the conduct of a Baha'i before you send anything, and whether or not you are moving closer to spiritual growth or harm. Warm Baha'i regards, Dee {`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`} { Blessed is the man that hath turned his face } { towards God, and walked steadfastly in His } { love, until his soul hath winged its flight } { unto God. } { Baha'u'llah } `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~` Dee Watts https://www.primenet.com/~dwatts ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 1:19 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Afshin's Islam site Thank you, Fredereck! for taking this step. I do hope that Afshin responds appropriately. Warm Baha'i Greetings, Roxana Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Sent to Afshin at :https://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/index.htm > > I ask you to remove any and all messages that appear to have been > written by me from your website. There are statements in at least > one such message that I do not recognize as my own. > > I further request that no messages that I write for publication > elsewhere appear on your website. While I support your right > to state your opinions on the Bahai Faith, I do not support the use > of my messages written and posted elsewhere originally for other > purposes. > > Please confirm their removal by emailing me at > FG@hotmail.com > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Ask your ISP to add it; also available on > www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. ---------- From: Roxana Morgan[SMTP:roxanamorgan11@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 2:13 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Frederick: Nancy seemed really mad at your posts; have you not written things in the heat of the moment? She wrote: 'Prosecution!' I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be quite a ridiculous threat- not thought out at all! It's unfortunate that we sometimes react in this manner. Perhaps, as the Writings advise us, we should let bygones be bygones. And please don't feel picked on by me, the silly pseudonym person has received a little lecture this morning as well. Your Baha'i Sister, Roxana Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append > a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and > distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion > I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving > her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee > of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, > they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... > > snipped for space considerations< ---------- From: Michael Furst[SMTP:mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:13 PM To: Stephen R. Friberg Cc: M. Ranjbar; irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: At 10:04 PM 10/7/97 +0900, Stephen R. Friberg wrote: > >I must admit that this sounds a little overboard to me. It does >give the impression that you are promoting "blind" obedience. > What I was saying is that this is what was being asked of us, not what I think is the best way to do things. Any intelligent person can not help but continue to think about what they don't understand. At the end of the day, unquestioning obedience is not much different than blind obedience, I'm afraid. Warm regards, Mike (Furst) "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, its too dark to read." -Groucho Marx ================================================ Michael Furst, Ph.D. Mitsui Professor of Business School of International Business Management University of International Business & Economics Beijing, China ================================================ - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 8:18 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Where are we now in the trb mire? 10/7/97 1:16 PM In answer to your last message : >Now, as each of us is tempted to respond to anything further on the >subject, ask yourself if you are rising to the conduct of a Baha'i before >you send anything, and whether or not you are moving closer to spiritual >growth or harm. This is a good reminder Dee. My theory is to never respond to negativity. If we do we just give it more energy. regards, doug ---------- From: robert b stauffer[SMTP:white-wolf-arts@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 12:38 PM To: friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp Cc: mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn; mrranjba@expert.cc.purdue.edu; irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Allow me to interject a few words. >From the Constitution of the UHJ, we learn they are willing and duty bound "......... to deliberate and decide upon all problems which have caused difference; to elucidate questions that are obscure; to safeguard the personal rights, freedom and initiative of individuals; and to give attention to the preservation of human honour, to the development of countries and the stability of states...... Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that "unquestioned obedience" to the UHJ would include within its meaning the right of an individual to question Baha'i issues, problems, and other controversial matters "that are obscure" and present them before the UHJ for decision and answer. We may presume that questions that are not obscure are less important and the UHJ, in such cases, would simply refere the questioner to the appropriate Quote or Institution for answer. Furthermore, as an indication of the UHJ's willingness and duty to respond to the questioning Baha'is and Baha'i coumminities,their Constitution clearly allows appeals to be presented which, at its discretion, it may choose to adjudicate. In the Constitution of the UHJ we read: "Any Baha'i may appeal from a decision of his National Spiritual Assembly to the Universal House of Justice which shall determine whether it shall take jurisdiction of the matter or leave it within the final jurisdiction of the National Spiritual Assembly." Again, the UHJ welcomes issues and honors the individual with the right to bring issues, questions and problems to its attention. So, it is fair to say, that the terminology "unquestioning obedience" quoted from the writings of Shoghi Effendi does not in any way mean individuals may not or should not raise questions on issues confronting the Baha'is. The UHJ Constitution welcomes questions. What "unquestioning obedience" does imply is accepting the decision arrived at by the UHJ once those issues have been presented in fullness and answered completely by the Supreme Institution. Rob S. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Gavin E. Reed[SMTP:gavinreed@compuserve.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 1997 3:11 PM To: [unknown]; Maneck,Susan Subject: Re: Message to the Universal House of Justice In the Baha'i Studies List today: Susan Maneck wrote: [Quoting me]: > I > > don't think there were any "consequences" in Michael's case which he > > himself could not have predicted, given the position he chose to take. [Susan's response]: > That simply isn't true, Gavin. What the House did took us all by > surprise. It was a surprise because, as far as we could tell, it was > unprecedented. My guess is that Michael expected some kind of > warning to be given before any action was taken. He and the rest of > us were taken aback that that didn't happen. Speculations as to why > this happened ran wild until his wife received the letter from the > House. All right, I wasn't very clear. Certainly there were consequences of various sorts in Michael's case, including the reaction of the "peanut gallery". My intent was to suggest that the nature of Michael's oft-stated position were such that it should have not been surprising to anyone, including Michael, that someone who intractably takes such a position is "defining him/herself out" of membership in the Baha'i community. The only unusual aspect of this, in my view, is that the House of Justice apparently determined that, in Michael's case, he really didn't "get" the Baha'i Faith in a way which would justify his being expelled from the Cause as a Covenant-breaker, and, instead the House asked the Canadian NSA to remove him from their roles (which was the appropriate administrative protocol, since that's whose roster Michael's name was on), and notify him of this action. It seems obvious to me that Michael was intentionally baiting the House of Justice for some time, leading up to his posted letter to the House. On at least one occasion he stated that he was assuming his position (about all points of view being acceptable as manifestations of unity in diversity) was validated because the House hadn't censured him yet. This action of deliberately and persistently "pushing the envelope" of acceptable behavior appears to betray a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature and spirit of the Covenant. It hardly seems in keeping with the spirit of humility and submission before the Lord of the Age to be systematically engaged in seeing what one can get away with. The Covenant is often characterized as a contract, and in a simplistic sense, this is true, but when we start treating this Divine "contract" legalistically, (where we construe our own obligations very narrowly, and the other party's obligations very broadly, in order to increase our own advantage), we are really missing the point of it, aren't we? It is for God to test His creatures, and not the other way around. The Covenant exists only for our benefit, providing we align ourselves with it appropriately. Of course we can ask questions to increase our understanding or resolve our perplexities. Responding to such needs is one of the functions of the House of Justice, clearly stipulated in the Master's Will and Testament. But when we cross the line from questioning for understanding to questioning the *wisdom* or *appropriateness* of the authoritative position of the Center of the Cause, we have violated at least the spirit of our responsibility to the Covenant, and we ought not to be surprised if we find ourselves relieved of the contract altogether. Warm regards, Gavin Reed - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Pre-installed User[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 12:12 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Allah-u-Abha Friends: It has been awhile since I have received a response accusing me as Mr. Glaysher did to ladyvadr but I suppose my luck is about to end as after ignoring this thread for a month I am about to jump in. Whether it is paranoia, immaturity or whatever there reaches a point where one has to ask for false statements to cease. Mr. Glaysher, your posts continue to skirt the borders of slandering others. And I have found that you have no interest in dialogue only with being right. I welcome the other Baha'is who want to use this opportunity to argue free speech, but I do not think the attack upon Nancy by Mr. Glaysher is an isolated incident, and it should no longer be permitted. I hope someone raises this issue with the National Spiritual Assembly. au revoir, jh > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > As you well know, I did no such thing as to present myself as "holy > saint'. Nor did I send you any kind of "hatemail, full of half-truths > and distortions". I said in my original letter to you that I would > notify both your email service and mine of your email abuse. I meant to > keep that promise. You asked for it. I am now taking that step. > > Sincerely, > > - NSDamren > > On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:53:43 -0400 "Frederick Glaysher" > writes: > >Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append > >a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and > >distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion > >I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon receiving > >her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating Committee > >of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, > >they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... > > > >---------- > >> From: Nancy S Damren > >> To: Baha'i Discuss > >> Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) > >> Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM > >> > >> Dear Mac, > >> > >> (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on > >soc.religion.bahai > >> and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) > >> > >> That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It would > >> appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to what's > >> going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of people, > >> myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. Glaysher's > >> language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, > >which > >> seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. > >> > >> Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one could > >easily > >> conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what he > >says > >> it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's real > >> objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to > >provoke > >> argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. > >> > >> For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of the > >> subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. > >> > >> MUch love and greetings to all, > >> > >> Nancy Damren > >> ladyvadr@juno.com > > > > > >Threatening hatemail follows: > >---------------- > >> From: Nancy S Damren > >> To: FG@hotmail.com > >> Subject: > >> Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM > >> > >> Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >> > >> I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages > >from > >> you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September 29, > >1997. > >> > >> I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate and > >> inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send > >word > >> that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House of > >> Justice, an institution of God that you have no business addressing > >in > >> such a fashion. > >> > >> Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, > >regardless > >> of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith > >has > >> cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many > >others. > >> > >> You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, I > >must > >> request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in > >the > >> future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - will > >> result in notification of both my email service and yours of your > >email > >> abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. > >> > >> You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter from > >an > >> Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat here. > >This > >> threat is real. > >> > >> Nancy Damren > > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 12:23 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Final thoughts re TRB 10/7/97 4:16 PM In answer to your last message : >Although we are promised attacks, we are told not to provoke >them. In his second letter to the West, Shoghi Effendi wrote that >we "must abstain from all provocative language that may impede >the effect of what true and continued kindness can produce." >(BA, p. 19) Dear John- Yes, I know and for sure we must be careful. Yet, no matter what we might say there is always someone who feels provoked or threatened in some way and they misunderstand any message as criticism or attack of some kind. Witness some of the responses to the TRB issue. I read many of these messages and wonder why a certain reader has become so upset as to leave behind all etiquette entirely. regards, Doug ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 6:52 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) FWIW -- here is an excerpt from a note from Fred G. posted to alt.religion.bahai on Oct. 7: "I wash my hands of posting or trying to defend talk.religion.bahai over there anymore...." The article ID is news:01bcd365$22c31860$7c2ab3c7@glaysher Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 11:06 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear John, Thanks for the support. I am currently filing Mr. Glaysher's comments for further action by both his email service and my own. I recommend that others do likewise as corroborative proof of what he has been saying. Much love, Nancy D. On Tue, 07 Oct 1997 16:12:42 +0000 Pre-installed User writes: >Allah-u-Abha Friends: It has been awhile since I have received a >response accusing me as Mr. Glaysher did to ladyvadr but I suppose my >luck is about to end as after ignoring this thread for a month I am >about to jump in. Whether it is paranoia, immaturity or whatever there >reaches a point where one has to ask for false statements to cease. >Mr. >Glaysher, your posts continue to skirt the borders of slandering >others. >And I have found that you have no interest in dialogue only with being >right. > >I welcome the other Baha'is who want to use this opportunity to argue >free speech, but I do not think the attack upon Nancy by Mr. Glaysher >is >an isolated incident, and it should no longer be permitted. I hope >someone raises this issue with the National Spiritual Assembly. au >revoir, jh >> >> Dear Mr. Glaysher, >> >> As you well know, I did no such thing as to present myself as "holy >> saint'. Nor did I send you any kind of "hatemail, full of >half-truths >> and distortions". I said in my original letter to you that I would >> notify both your email service and mine of your email abuse. I >meant to >> keep that promise. You asked for it. I am now taking that step. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> - NSDamren >> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:53:43 -0400 "Frederick Glaysher" >> writes: >> >Since ladyvadr presents herself here as a holy saint, I append >> >a copy of her threatening hatemail to me, full of half-truths and >> >distortions.... A message typical of the kind of "Bahai" discussion >> >I have observed on Bahai-Discuss.... I might add that upon >receiving >> >her hatemail I immediately requested that the Coordinating >Committee >> >of the BCCA do something. More than a week later, as far as I know, >> >they're apparently still "consulting" about it.... >> > >> >---------- >> >> From: Nancy S Damren >> >> To: Baha'i Discuss >> >> Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) >> >> Date: Monday, October 06, 1997 7:43 PM >> >> >> >> Dear Mac, >> >> >> >> (I hereby authorize this posting for cross-posting on >> >soc.religion.bahai >> >> and invite responses from any subscribers to that list. - NSD) >> >> >> >> That's for the recap of what seems to be going on in SRB. It >would >> >> appear to me that what's going on there is pretty parallel to >what's >> >> going on here in Baha'i-Discuss. I believe that a number of >people, >> >> myself included, were turned off rather promptly by Mr. >Glaysher's >> >> language, which I consider to be intemperate, and his hostility, >> >which >> >> seems to me to be designed to provoke a negative response. >> >> >> >> Assuming for the sake of the argument that that is true, one >could >> >easily >> >> conclude that Mr. Glaysher's real intent is the opposite of what >he >> >says >> >> it is. This conclusion leads me to suspect that Mr. Glaysher's >real >> >> objective is not to get adoption of TRB, as he states, but to >> >provoke >> >> argument, on which he appears to me to thrive. >> >> >> >> For the record, I was neutral on the subject at the beginning of >the >> >> subject, but was turned off, as I stated above. >> >> >> >> MUch love and greetings to all, >> >> >> >> Nancy Damren >> >> ladyvadr@juno.com >> > >> > >> >Threatening hatemail follows: >> >---------------- >> >> From: Nancy S Damren >> >> To: FG@hotmail.com >> >> Subject: >> >> Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 2:35 PM >> >> >> >> Dear Mr. Glaysher, >> >> >> >> I have had the dubious privilege of receiving four email messages >> >from >> >> you in the same retrieval, that of Monday afternoon, September >29, >> >1997. >> >> >> >> I have already reacted in earlier postings to your intemperate >and >> >> inflammatory language. That reaction was negative. Now you send >> >word >> >> that your impertinence has been inflicted on the Universal House >of >> >> Justice, an institution of God that you have no business >addressing >> >in >> >> such a fashion. >> >> >> >> Your emphasis on your own selfish desire to do as you please, >> >regardless >> >> of the consequences, rather than acting for the good of the Faith >> >has >> >> cost you all respect in my eyes and, no doubt, in those of many >> >others. >> >> >> >> You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. Accordingly, >I >> >must >> >> request you to omit my email address from all of your postings in >> >the >> >> future. Further bombardment - for I can call it nothing less - >will >> >> result in notification of both my email service and yours of your >> >email >> >> abuse. If that doesn't work, then perhaps prosecution will. >> >> >> >> You saw a threat in a perfectly innocent and concerned letter >from >> >an >> >> Auxiliary Board member where there was none. Fine the threat >here. >> >This >> >> threat is real. >> >> >> >> Nancy Damren >> > > > > ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 11:06 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Best beloveds, Hmm. This is probably because a bunch of us (I hope) here are salting away his messages as potential evidence. I'm going to keep my eyes peeled. If I don't hear any more in a month, I'll consider the matter closed. Does that sound reasonable to everybody? Much love, Nancy D. On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 06:52:03 -0400 Roger Reini writes: >FWIW -- here is an excerpt from a note from Fred G. posted to >alt.religion.bahai on Oct. 7: > >"I wash my hands of posting or trying to defend talk.religion.bahai >over there anymore...." > >The article ID is news:01bcd365$22c31860$7c2ab3c7@glaysher > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 1:59 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) In article <19971009.230443.7535.14.ladyvadr@juno.com>, Nancy S Damren wrote -- >Best beloveds, > >Hmm. This is probably because a bunch of us (I hope) here are salting >away his messages as potential evidence. I'm going to keep my eyes >peeled. If I don't hear any more in a month, I'll consider the matter >closed. Does that sound reasonable to everybody? Just a short note -- I am still working like mad on other business: Dear All, Please, whatever your opinions of Fred, or others, remember that TRB is not Fred's newsgroup; it is for all of us. So please do not let your opinions of one person affect your feelings towards TRB. Love to you all, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 7:43 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Chris Manvell wrote: > Please, whatever your opinions of Fred, or others, remember that TRB is > not Fred's newsgroup; it is for all of us. Dear Chris, What do you mean it is for all of us? If it were for all of us, wouldn't it be under the supervision of a Baha'i institution or group such as BCCA? Isn't it your understanding that Fred wants such a newsgroup to be under his complete and exclusive control, for him to use for his own personal purposes? John ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 10, 1997 10:12 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Regardless of what Fred may or may not want, an unmoderated usenet group is under nobody's control - except possibly for the people who choose to post to it and engage the other posters in discussion. It just is. :-) Sort like a divine being. Tom Hodges On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, John B. Cornell wrote: > Chris Manvell wrote: > > > Please, whatever your opinions of Fred, or others, remember that TRB is > > not Fred's newsgroup; it is for all of us. > > Dear Chris, > > What do you mean it is for all of us? If it were for > all of us, wouldn't it be under the supervision of a Baha'i > institution or group such as BCCA? Isn't it your > understanding that Fred wants such a newsgroup to be > under his complete and exclusive control, for him to use > for his own personal purposes? > > John > > > ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 2:33 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) In article <343EBD9F.D196480B@lightspeed.net>, "John B. Cornell" wrote -- >Chris Manvell wrote: > >> Please, whatever your opinions of Fred, or others, remember that TRB is >> not Fred's newsgroup; it is for all of us. > >Dear Chris, > > What do you mean it is for all of us? If it were for >all of us, wouldn't it be under the supervision of a Baha'i >institution or group such as BCCA? Isn't it your >understanding that Fred wants such a newsgroup to be >under his complete and exclusive control, for him to use >for his own personal purposes? I don't want to get dragged back into a long discussion but will respond to your query. Newsgroups are either moderated or not. Those that are moderated use uunet as an intermediary to pass all messages onto the moderators who then decide whther the message is within the charter of the group and, if so, post it. On unmoderated groups there is absolutely no control by any individual. Granted it is possible, for those with technical know- how, to cancel posts and it is possible for an individual to swamp a group with multimegabyte repeated posts. However, that person would not last long before their ISP did something about it. But, NO INDIVIDUAL OWNS A GROUP -- not even the proponent. So when I say the group belongs to all of us I mean ALL of us, all those who are able to access it through Usenet or via the web through sites like DejaNews -- even to those who chose not to post to it, in a way. It is not Joe's site, or Roger's site or Fred's site any more. The fact that Fred is the proponent and is doing this so that he, personally, can post unmoderated will be only a very small part of the story. Love to you all, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] For more info goto: , or ---------- From: Keith James[SMTP:kjames@vision.net.au] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 6:02 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) My understanding is that TRB was to be an open unmoderated list. That means that no one has control, not even Fred. It means anyone could post and follow the postings, including fanatical muslims, borne again Christians, Hari Krisna, Atheists, Baha'is, and Covenant Breakers. It means both pro-Baha'i and anti-Baha'i postings would appear on the same list. It would be a very testing medium for many Baha'is, but as in any such medium there would be the opportunity to attract seekers to the Cause or innoculate them against the Faith. When it was last proposed it was quashed, and, as predicted by one of the members of Bahai-Discuss, another news group was formed alt.religion.bahai, with all the characteristics of TRB except the wider coverage of news readers. If the Faith is to grow massively, then it is inevidable that such a news group would eventually be formed. At some stage the number of postings to the alt.religion.bahai would justify the extension of that news group and it would become a de facto TRB. It is now possible that opposing formation of this news group could in fact impede the progress of the Cause. I would like to see just how many pro-votes there are and allow it to form. If it turns out to be a place of dissention, then only the steadfast Baha'is will stick with it and it will eventually drop out. It could in fact be a very effective teaching tool, demonstrating the qualities and virtues of Baha'is. Keith James, kjames@vision.net.au ---------- > From: John B. Cornell > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) > Date: Saturday, 11 October 1997 10:43 > > Chris Manvell wrote: > > > Please, whatever your opinions of Fred, or others, remember that TRB is > > not Fred's newsgroup; it is for all of us. > > Dear Chris, > > What do you mean it is for all of us? If it were for > all of us, wouldn't it be under the supervision of a Baha'i > institution or group such as BCCA? Isn't it your > understanding that Fred wants such a newsgroup to be > under his complete and exclusive control, for him to use > for his own personal purposes? > > John > > ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 7:15 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Tom Hodges wrote: > > Regardless of what Fred may or may not want, an unmoderated usenet > group is under nobody's control - except possibly for the people who > choose to post to it and engage the other posters in discussion. It > just is. :-) Sort like a divine being. "Sort of" is right! The discussions there don't quite have the ring of Divine Revelation . As for John's comment: > > > > What do you mean it is for all of us? If it were for > > all of us, wouldn't it be under the supervision of a Baha'i > > institution or group such as BCCA? Isn't it your > > understanding that Fred wants such a newsgroup to be > > under his complete and exclusive control, for him to use > > for his own personal purposes? To my understanding, soc.religion.bahai is NOT under the supervision of the BCCA. The moderators act on their own, though they have consulted with the Counselors when necessary, as when the charter for s.r.b was revised to prohibit Covenant breaker material. Fred has proposed t.r.b as an unmoderated newsgroup, under no one's control. Actually, the formal RFD has yet to be published; I'm not sure why this is. Must be a backlog. To get the most out of an unmoderated group, the participants have to be mature and responsible. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Rick Schaut[SMTP:richs@MICROSOFT.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 12:03 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: RE: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Keith and Friends, > From: Keith James [SMTP:kjames@vision.net.au] > I would like to see just how many pro-votes there are and allow [TRB] > to form. If it turns out to be a place of dissention, then only the > steadfast > Baha'is will stick with it and it will eventually drop out. It could > in > fact be a very effective teaching tool, demonstrating the qualities > and > virtues of Baha'is. > This doesn't quite capture the possibilities for talk.religion.bahai. First, let's understand that what happens in unmoderated USENET is multiple asynchronous discussions. Unlike a moderated newsgroup, a post to an unmoderated newsgroup, for all practical purposes, is either a part of a discussion or an invitation to join a discussion. Secondly, the texts regarding successorship within the Faith are so clear that anyone who would choose to become a Covenant breaker can only be motivated by a desire to cause dissension and strife. To engage such a person in any form of discussion, whether it be in one's home or in a USENET newsgroup, is to allow them an opportunity to spread that dissension and strife. When someone's sole desire is to pick a fight, it's best to simply walk away no matter how hard that person hits you the first time. So, my fear regarding any unmoderated newsgroup bearing the name "Baha'i" is that it could become a forum for Covenant breakers where any attempt I make to respond to their claims is, itself, a violation of the very principles I am sowrn, as a Baha'i, to uphold. This, I don't wish to be put in the position of having to choose between violating some very core principles of the Baha'i Faith regarding dissension and unity, and allowing the horrid reasoning of Covenant breakers to stand uncontested. I would submit that it was this very reason that TRB was voted down six months ago. The issue was raised then, and the proponents of the newsgroup swept it asside by repeated insistence on the binding nature of what are, in reality, only rough guidelines regarding voting for or against the formation of USENET newsgroups. Even now, we see a lot of talk about "subversion" of democratic principles and the "breakdown" of USENET, but still no proponent of talk.religion.bahai has deigned to address this issue in terms that are satisfying for Baha'is. It is swept aside, and, until such time as someone wishes to address the issue of Covenant breakers, the proposed formation of talk.religion.bahai will get voted down again. Warmest Regards, Rick Schaut ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 1997 9:21 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Ed, First things first: I love you dearly for saying what you did. I am not at present angry with Mr. Glaysher in any way and my actions, as denoted by my comments, are for defensive purposes, primarily, so that no one can attack me and so that whatever Assembly has jurisdiction or the House can take action based on corroborated evidence. And that is all I'm asking of anyone else: that they corroborate the postings that I collected. God knows I've been alone long enough to defend myself without asking for help. As for forgiving him, certainly, I can do that. But would it be in his best interests for me to do so? There are a number of possible causes here for his actions, which I am told have been repeated on other lists. It has occurred to me that he is crying out for help and I would indeed answer that cry IF I could be sure that that was what it was. HIS REACTION to my comments, which you have quoted, was to say, in so many words, that it was useless to proceed on this list. That indicates to me that his postings were not a cry for help. He was given fair warning that I would take action if he continued to post to me. He continued to do so when all he had to do was stop. Therefore, I took the action I had promised and made the comments that concern you. Seeing that I would and did take the next step, he backed down. As I have said in another posting, as far as I'm concerned, it's over. I propose merely to keep my eyes open for another month. If he wants to post peaceably, I don't have a problem with it. If he wants to negotiate with me politely, I'll listen politely and negotiate in good faith. But I wish to remind all who read this posting of the length of time that he kept this list stirred up like a nest of hornets and of the numbers of people who felt it necessary to state and then defend their views. Not to mention the numbers of people he has insulted. I am by no means the only person who needs to be able to forgive. And what the Institutions do about the whole situation is not for me to say. I'll take my cues from them. This situation is big-time serious. I am not saying that you're asking a lot of me, Ed. You're not. And especially if the Institutions can let it go, so can I. Much love, Nancy D. On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:09:12 -0400 (EDT) Ed Price writes: >Dear Nancy: > >I'm going to suggest something very difficult. I hope you will accept this >from me in the genuine spirit in which I intend it. My comments concern >this statement which you recently made... > >At 11:06 PM 10/09/97 EDT, Nancy S Damren wrote: >>Dear John, >> >>Thanks for the support. I am currently filing Mr. Glaysher's comments >>for further action by both his email service and my own. I recommend >>that others do likewise as corroborative proof of what he has been >>saying. >> >>Much love, >> >>Nancy D. > >I'm going to suggest that rather than going forward with your action against >Frederick Glaysher, that you offer him forgiveness. There is no doubt that >his behavior has been very hurtful to you, all of us have seen it. The >issue is not whether he deserves it or not. But neither is the issue >whether or not you have to carry out what you said you would do. Rather, >I'm struck by the deep sadness of the image of Baha'is taking punitive >actions against other Baha'is. > >Is there action that could be taken within the Faith? Could the two of you >work out your differences privately, or perhaps with mediation of some kind? > >Is it necessary to enlist the action of other Baha'is in this effort? That >is what is really prompting me to write to you at this point. I consider it >your private business if you and Frederick are involved in a dispute. I >would never think of interfering in the slightest way, except for the fact >that in the message above you urge other Baha'i to pursue the same ends. >When you start trying to get other Baha'is to take action against Frederick >in the same manner as what you are doing I am left wondering what is the >difference between you and him... I am left wondering about the harm this >causes to the Faith, particularly by the spectacle of Baha'is fighting with >one another - not even privately, but in a very public way... I am left >wondering about the safety of the Covenant. > >Please, I know what I've said is emotionally "very hot", and that you might >wonder about my own motives or get angry at me. My aim is NOT to be >hurtful, but to be helpful not just to you but to all of us. I hope dearly >that this is coming through. > >I recognize it is hard to know when to respond based on justice and and when >to respond based on mercy. All I can say is that the Writings teach us that >collectively our Spiritual Assemblies administer justice, but that >individually we are to follow the principle of mercy and forgiveness. I >also acknowledge that there is nothing in the Writings that says we have to >willingly accept being victims when people do us wrong, and that generally >we are encouraged to speak up in our defense and the defense of others when >there is lawful recourse available. For instance, are there avenues of >action or recourse which can take place WITHIN the Faith? (Perhaps with >LSAs or the National Assembly, or the Auxiliary Bd. Members or even the >Continental Counselors or the Universal House of Justice, etc.) Is action >against Frederick truly required in the first place? > >Its a tough call. > >There is little doubt that you feel the victim in this case. Many of us >might agree with that view. But have you examined all the possible ways to >respond in this particular set of circumstances? Do you really want other >Baha'is to act against Frederick also? Are you sure you're making the best >choices right now? Is this the most constructive use of your time and your >energies in these 'four most critical years' of our lives? > >Well, I've probably said far too much already. I hope you'll look upon me >with a forgiving eye, but also with understanding since I've tried to >explain my motivations in writing this letter. > >Let me just close with this wonderful passage from 'Abdu'l-Baha that may >help you reach a decision about what to do next: > >"Act in accordance with the counsels of the Lord: that is, rise up in such >wise, and with such qualities, as to endow the body of this world with a >living soul, and to bring this young child, humanity, to the stage of >adulthood. So far as ye are able, ignite a candle of love in every meeting, >and with tenderness rejoice and cheer ye every heart. Care for the stranger >as for one of your own; show to alien souls the same loving kindness ye >bestow upon your faithful friends. Should any come to blows with you, seek >to be friends with him; should any stab you to the heart, be ye a healing >salve unto his sores; should any taunt and mock at you, meet him with love. >Should any heap his blame upon you, praise ye him; should he offer you a >deadly poison, give him the choicest honey in exchange; and should he >threaten your life, grant him a remedy that will heal him evermore. Should >he be pain itself, be ye his medicine; should he be thorns, be ye his roses >and sweet herbs. Perchance such ways and words from you will make this >darksome world turn bright at last; will make this dusty earth turn >heavenly, this devilish prison place become a royal palace of the Lord - so >that war and strife will pass and be no more, and love and trust will pitch >their tents on the summits of the world. Such is the essence of God's >admonitions; such in sum are the teachings for the Dispensation of Baha." >(Selections from the Writngs of `Abdu'l-Baha, page 34) > >With best wishes and Baha'i love, > > >Ed Price >eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > >PS I am sending this to you privately out of respect for you, but if >you do >change your mind I hope you will advise the forum of the change and >also to >particularly retract the statement you made above encouraging others >to also >take action. I urge you not to take too long in deciding, however, >since >some Baha'is on the forum may actually take your advice, thus >nullifying the >potential benefit of a retraction coming too late. However, since the >decision in this matter is yours alone, I will not refer to this >letter >publicly unless you do. > I will post the quote from the Master by itself, just for the fun >of it >since its so beautiful. > > > > >Ed Price >eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 1:32 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) At 09:21 PM 10/11/97 EDT, Nancy S Damren wrote: >>As for forgiving him, certainly, I can do that. But would it be in his >best interests for me to do so? There are a number of possible causes >here for his actions, which I am told have been repeated on other lists. >It has occurred to me that he is crying out for help and I would indeed >answer that cry IF I could be sure that that was what it was. Dear Nancy, As you are well aware, I posted my comments to you privately out of my desire to show respect for you. Since you have posted both my message and your reply to the Baha'i Discuss forum, our discussion is now out in the open. That's fine, but I really don't want to interfere with your decision making processes. I've said what I wanted to say, the rest is up to you. As for the above, the answer to your question is much simpler than you might think. The act of forgiveness is mostly for you and not for him. Sure its for him, but not primarily. In my understanding, the real consequence of forgiveness is two-fold. First, it breaks a negative cycle of behavior between people and replaces it with a positive one. Thus the impact of forgiveness is an act of service which is aimed at making the world a more heavenly place. Here is that quote from the Master again: "Act in accordance with the counsels of the Lord: that is, rise up in such wise, and with such qualities, as to endow the body of this world with a living soul, and to bring this young child, humanity, to the stage of adulthood. So far as ye are able, ignite a candle of love in every meeting, and with tenderness rejoice and cheer ye every heart. Care for the stranger as for one of your own; show to alien souls the same loving kindness ye bestow upon your faithful friends. Should any come to blows with you, seek to be friends with him; should any stab you to the heart, be ye a healing salve unto his sores; should any taunt and mock at you, meet him with love. Should any heap his blame upon you, praise ye him; should he offer you a deadly poison, give him the choicest honey in exchange; and should he threaten your life, grant him a remedy that will heal him evermore. Should he be pain itself, be ye his medicine; should he be thorns, be ye his roses and sweet herbs. Perchance such ways and words from you will make this darksome world turn bright at last; will make this dusty earth turn heavenly, this devilish prison place become a royal palace of the Lord - so that war and strife will pass and be no more, and love and trust will pitch their tents on the summits of the world. Such is the essence of God's admonitions; such in sum are the teachings for the Dispensation of Baha." (Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 34) Notice especially these words: "Perchance such ways and words from you will make this darksome world turn bright at last; will make this dusty earth turn heavenly, this devilish prison place become a royal palace of the Lord - so that war and strife will pass and be no more, and love and trust will pitch their tents on the summits of the world." This kind of action then is for the sake of the world, for the sake of everyone, for the sake of God. The person you are forgiving seems a relatively small bystander in this drama. Not even mentioned in the passage. We constantly focus on the individuals, but the Master is calling us to see the larger cause and effect relationships involved in spiritual law. Second, the most direct beneficiary in the act of forgiveness is yourself. It elevates you spiritually and makes you into a more powerful example of Baha'u'llah's Teachings. It cleanses your heart of any remnants of anger, judgementalism, feelings of victimhood, defensiveness and so forth. Thus, the first "darksome world" that is transformed is your own inner world, in your own heart and soul. Most of all, by attracting spiritual confirmations and leaving the person who huts you to the care of God, you become better suited for teaching the Cause. Over the long term, and over many acts of forgiveness, you will find yourself both happier and being more effective and attractive as a teacher of the Faith. Fianlly, your interest in determining if he is crying out for help is certainly a valid point. And perhaps with a more forgiving approach you might be able to actually find out if that is the case by stimulating a different set of responses from him. I also see your point about defending yourself, since I don't think the Faith intends to make us into willing victims when such an outcome is rationally avoidable. But even if the person who offends you, and hurts you, remains hard as stone that is no reason you have to. If he opens up, and in your judgement becomes "helpable", that is a wonderful bonus, but if he doesn't you surely can continue energetically on your own spiritual pathway. Well, I'm saying too much again. I hope this is helpful. With Baha'i love, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 11:27 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Fred has been quietly lately here, wisely in my opinion. This will come up again when the call for votes (CFV) comes out. Perhaps we should let it die down for a bit. My last thought is that a.r.b. hasn't been that bad. Appears that no harm has been done and possibly something positive. Tom Hodges On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Roger Reini wrote: > IMHO, it's not accurate to say that any newsgroup is headed by anybody. > One COULD say that the moderators of moderated groups are the newsgroup > heads, perhaps, but when a group is unmoderated, there is no moderator, > and thus nobody that heads it. > > Once the newsgroup is created, the proponent does not have any role in > how it's run, unless he/she is a moderator. > > Somebody on news.groups suggested that I or someone else become a > co-proponent of t.r.b. Hm -- I'm not sure I want to go that far. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > > Pre-installed User wrote: > > > > Allah-u-Abha Friends: I am still looking for an un-moderated group to > > join, but one headed by someone else than the one being discussed. Does > > anyone know of any other unmoderated group out there, that is headed by > > an objective and impartial person??? Thanks. john haukness > > ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 3:30 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Ed (and Fred, if he's still listening in), I posted your original message and my reply to the forum so that Fred would know that I am not talking about him behind his back. I am not angry with Fred and would like to have a reasonably amicable relationship with him if he can do that. And if he would like to talk to me, I'll listen politely. FRED, would you please post your e-mail address so that we can continue this? Much love to all, Nancy D. On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:32:44 -0400 (EDT) Ed Price writes: >At 09:21 PM 10/11/97 EDT, Nancy S Damren wrote: >>>As for forgiving him, certainly, I can do that. But would it be in >his >>best interests for me to do so? There are a number of possible >causes >>here for his actions, which I am told have been repeated on other >lists. >>It has occurred to me that he is crying out for help and I would >indeed >>answer that cry IF I could be sure that that was what it was. > >Dear Nancy, > >As you are well aware, I posted my comments to you privately out of my >desire to show respect for you. Since you have posted both my message >and >your reply to the Baha'i Discuss forum, our discussion is now out in >the >open. That's fine, but I really don't want to interfere with your >decision >making processes. I've said what I wanted to say, the rest is up to >you. > >As for the above, the answer to your question is much simpler than you >might >think. The act of forgiveness is mostly for you and not for him. >Sure its >for him, but not primarily. In my understanding, the real consequence >of >forgiveness is two-fold. > >First, it breaks a negative cycle of behavior between people and >replaces it >with a positive one. Thus the impact of forgiveness is an act of >service >which is aimed at making the world a more heavenly place. > >Here is that quote from the Master again: > >"Act in accordance with the counsels of the Lord: that is, rise up in >such >wise, and with such qualities, as to endow the body of this world with >a >living soul, and to bring this young child, humanity, to the stage of >adulthood. So far as ye are able, ignite a candle of love in every >meeting, >and with tenderness rejoice and cheer ye every heart. Care for the >stranger >as for one of your own; show to alien souls the same loving kindness >ye >bestow upon your faithful friends. Should any come to blows with you, >seek >to be friends with him; should any stab you to the heart, be ye a >healing >salve unto his sores; should any taunt and mock at you, meet him with >love. >Should any heap his blame upon you, praise ye him; should he offer you >a >deadly poison, give him the choicest honey in exchange; and should he >threaten your life, grant him a remedy that will heal him evermore. >Should >he be pain itself, be ye his medicine; should he be thorns, be ye his >roses >and sweet herbs. Perchance such ways and words from you will make >this >darksome world turn bright at last; will make this dusty earth turn >heavenly, this devilish prison place become a royal palace of the Lord >- so >that war and strife will pass and be no more, and love and trust will >pitch >their tents on the summits of the world. Such is the essence of God's >admonitions; such in sum are the teachings for the Dispensation of >Baha." >(Selections ... `Abdu'l-Baha, page 34) > >Notice especially these words: > >"Perchance such ways and words from you will make this darksome world >turn >bright at last; will make this dusty earth turn heavenly, this >devilish >prison place become a royal palace of the Lord - so that war and >strife will >pass and be no more, and love and trust will pitch their tents on the >summits of the world." > >This kind of action then is for the sake of the world, for the sake of >everyone, for the sake of God. The person you are forgiving seems a >relatively small bystander in this drama. Not even mentioned in the >passage. We constantly focus on the individuals, but the Master is >calling >us to see the larger cause and effect relationships involved in >spiritual law. > >Second, the most direct beneficiary in the act of forgiveness is >yourself. >It elevates you spiritually and makes you into a more powerful example >of >Baha'u'llah's Teachings. It cleanses your heart of any remnants of >anger, >judgementalism, feelings of victimhood, defensiveness and so forth. >Thus, >the first "darksome world" that is transformed is your own inner >world, in >your own heart and soul. Most of all, by attracting spiritual >confirmations >and leaving the person who huts you to the care of God, you become >better >suited for teaching the Cause. Over the long term, and over many acts >of >forgiveness, you will find yourself both happier and being more >effective >and attractive as a teacher of the Faith. > >Fianlly, your interest in determining if he is crying out for help is >certainly a valid point. And perhaps with a more forgiving approach >you >might be able to actually find out if that is the case by stimulating >a >different set of responses from him. I also see your point about >defending >yourself, since I don't think the Faith intends to make us into >willing >victims when such an outcome is rationally avoidable. But even if the >person who offends you, and hurts you, remains hard as stone that is >no >reason you have to. If he opens up, and in your judgement becomes >"helpable", that is a wonderful bonus, but if he doesn't you surely >can >continue energetically on your own spiritual pathway. > >Well, I'm saying too much again. I hope this is helpful. > >With Baha'i love, > > >Ed Price >eprice@mailer.fsu.edu > > ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 10:49 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Dear Doug, I am perfectly willing to forgive Fred. I just want us to talk about it, that's all. Much love, Nancy D. On Mon, 13 Oct 97 09:12:59 -0400 dmcadam writes: >10/12/97 1:32 AM In answer to the recent message : > >>First, it breaks a negative cycle of behavior between people and >replaces it >>with a positive one. Thus the impact of forgiveness is an act of >service >>which is aimed at making the world a more heavenly place. > >Dear Ed and Nancy- > >I have not really been following this thread closely but I really >appreciate the gist of Ed's thoughts along with the appropriate >quotes. > >Forgiving someone does not necessarily mean that you are approving >their >behavior and running the risk of reinforcing it. I believe it means >what >Ed is saying in that it frees our hearts to allow the Holy Spirit to >heal >the parties and the issue. Pretty hard for the Holy Spirit >(unconditional love for reality?) to flow thru a vessel that has >negative >feelings. IMHO I also believe that this forgiveness needs to be >intoned. > >regards, >doug > >O MY FRIEND IN WORD! >Hast thou ever heard that friend and foe should abide in one heart? >Cast out then the stranger, that the Friend may enter His home. >HW. Persian #26 > ---------- From: Mark Towfiq[SMTP:towfiq@401kforum.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 11:49 AM To: Baha'i Announce Subject: TEMPORARY delay in delivery of BCCA lists Dear friends, Yesterday at some time, BCCA.Org became "hidden" from other computers on the Internet. This is a temporary problem which should be fixed by tomorrow (Thursday) morning, US Eastern Time. In the meantime, ALL email sent to BCCA lists has NOT, I repeat NOT, been lost! It is still there waiting to be delivered. This means that it is probably not a good idea to send messages like "Are the lists down? I'm not receiving anything" or "Here is my message again; I did not receive it the first time". ALL backed-up mail should start arriving tomorrow. My apologies to everyone for this occurence; we're still trying to figure out exactly what happened. Regards Mark ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 12:37 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) Best beloveds, That's why I want to talk to Fred. Much love, Nancy D. On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 17:51:44 +0000 Pre-installed User writes: >Allah-u-Abha Friends: I realize that as Baha'is we always are to as >much >as we can forgive. But I see another issue. People can take advantage >of >our forgiveness and escalate the attacking attitude. Sometimes one has >to be strong, and even rebuff serious discourtesy or making arrogant >inferences, speaking totally out of context and such imo. au revoir jh >> >> Dear Doug, >> >> I am perfectly willing to forgive Fred. I just want us to talk >about it, >> that's all. >> >> Much love, >> >> Nancy D. >> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 97 09:12:59 -0400 dmcadam >writes: >> >10/12/97 1:32 AM In answer to the recent message : >> > >> >>First, it breaks a negative cycle of behavior between people and >> >replaces it >> >>with a positive one. Thus the impact of forgiveness is an act of >> >service >> >>which is aimed at making the world a more heavenly place. >> > >> >Dear Ed and Nancy- >> > >> >I have not really been following this thread closely but I really >> >appreciate the gist of Ed's thoughts along with the appropriate >> >quotes. >> > >> >Forgiving someone does not necessarily mean that you are approving >> >their >> >behavior and running the risk of reinforcing it. I believe it >means >> >what >> >Ed is saying in that it frees our hearts to allow the Holy Spirit >to >> >heal >> >the parties and the issue. Pretty hard for the Holy Spirit >> >(unconditional love for reality?) to flow thru a vessel that has >> >negative >> >feelings. IMHO I also believe that this forgiveness needs to be >> >intoned. >> > >> >regards, >> >doug >> > >> >O MY FRIEND IN WORD! >> >Hast thou ever heard that friend and foe should abide in one heart? >> >Cast out then the stranger, that the Friend may enter His home. >> >HW. Persian #26 >> > > > > ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 1997 6:08 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) At 12:37 AM 10/15/97 EDT, Nancy S Damren wrote: >Best beloveds, > >That's why I want to talk to Fred. > >Much love, > >Nancy D. > Just a reminder. Fairness dictates that the other party also has a responsibility in any dispute. In this case, I think Nancy has certainly conveyed her willingness to engage, so if the other party doesn't want to do that, there is not alot more she can do other than think good thoughts and offer prayers. For what its worth. Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 7:12 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) 10/13/97 1:51 PM In answer to the recent message : >Allah-u-Abha Friends: I realize that as Baha'is we always are to as much >as we can forgive. But I see another issue. People can take advantage of >our forgiveness and escalate the attacking attitude. Sometimes one has >to be strong, and even rebuff serious discourtesy or making arrogant >inferences, speaking totally out of context and such imo. au revoir jh As I understand it we are blessed if we are attacked. I would thank my attacker. I recall having a very fundamentalist person get angry with me because I said I was a Baha'i. His face contorted and reddened and he issued all manner of derogatory things and I said goodbye and turned to walk out when he struck me from behind and I rolled down a flight of stairs an out into the front lawn. He came to the door with a menacing look upon his face and I shouted the Greatest Name and thanked him. He was dumbfounded and it gave me time to remove myself. Now this was an extreme situation but in smaller matters I do feel that we need to counteract bad behavior in a loving way but firm way so at to make the misbehaving person responsible. Most of the time I feel it is wise to do nothing and afterwards issue an intoned forgiveness and prayer for the attacker. After all there is nothing to defend, is there? Our bodies might hurt but the spirit is eternal. Yes, I realize this sounds easy and it is not. Somehow I recall that we are not to defend ourselves but we should defend our families and friends. And yes, sometimes, when we counter an attack with a smile and a forgiving or understanding attitude it will make the attacker even madder. But we certainly can't point out his faults. By being detached I believe we can come up with some counter communication that will end the situation for the best, but if we are in any way afraid or upset, it will trigger defensiveness. Attack and defend attitudes and behavior is the animal way. We Baha'is need to find that way of peace and harmony. Sometimes I am good at this, sometimes I fail, but I'm sure Baha'u'llah is working through all this and no real harm can befall me or the other soul. When you think about it, it is a terrrible punishment for the other person to attack a Baha'i, God forgive them. regards, doug ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 7:10 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai In article <344D2AB7.66B03756@lightspeed.net>, "John B. Cornell" wrote -- > Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, > which exists specifically for discussion of the Bahai Faith, > is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, > and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. > > Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need >an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever >side of the freeway we want to? I disagree with your analogy here. An unmoderated newsgroup is not a highway, where anarchy can kill. A better comparison could be the difference between a debate and a general conversation in the works canteen (though, because people can hide behind pseudonyms, the conversation can get somewhat heated). I have sunscribed to SRB for a couple of years now and have derived great pleasure from it. But it presents no challenges (well, very few). It is a sheltered world. But that's not what the real world is about. The real world contains those who hate religion, those who hate Baha'is, those who could not care less whether they hurt you or not. The real world contains drug addicts and muggers. It contains those who have given up hope. It also, of course, contains all the opposites of the above and all those between the two extremes. But it is the people I listed that need the Faith most. It is the haters of this world that need the healing power of the Message of Baha'u'llah. I don't know about the US but here in the UK there are successful teaching projects bringing in housing estate children and transforming their lives. So, OK, that is not Usenet. But there are those out there who cannot converse in the ways required by the charter of SRB. Are they to be deprived of access to Baha'is? ARB is OK in its own way but only has limited access. TRB would open up a new world of people who need to hear about Baha'u'llah. Who are we do stand in the way? Or are we like the woman in Burnley who said to Derek Cockshut, "So you're the sort of people they're letting into the Faith these days!" and try to maintain our middle class image? > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the > Bahai 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. > > Doesn't experience show that in an unmoderated forum, >people do whatever they want to do? Isn't "Also discouraged" >simply a list of all the things that happened on a grand scale on >alt.religion.bahai? Most of these things HAVE happened on ARB but not nearly as much as I expected (and have seen on some other groups). There is a limited comeback in most cases and people DO have their accounts terminated because of what they post. If you don't have that clause in the RFD then you have no comeback at all. As for saying that they happened on a "grand scale", I disagree -- that is unless you see less that 10 or so posts being on a grand scale. I can recall: No personal messages, no large ASCII graphics, no binaries, no special format files, one pornographic picture (maybe you could include that in the binary heading), some spam and a few commercial posts. But, I would argue that they do not in any way invalidate the group as they are very obviously NOT what the group is about and nearly everyone who uses Usenet knows that they are a fact of life. > Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars > in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and > threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to > irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are > encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive > crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard > netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this > newsgroup. > > We can be suspended from moderated lists for flamewars, >but what is there to prevent flamewars on unmoderated lists? >How can crossposting be discouraged on a new list when it >was such a prominent feature on alt.religion.bahai? Flamewars require at least two people to keep them going. As long as the Baha'is behave like Baha'is there is no problem. In fact, there have been many attempts by others to start flame wars and the Baha'i response has, _almost always_, been exemplary. There is a certain pleasure to be gained by responding to these attacks with kindness, not to mention the deepening it can catalyse and the confirmations it can bring. As for cross-posting, well, you are right. But is is not difficult to set follow-ups and reduce it to manageable proportions. I have done this on other lists with a degree of success that amazed me. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Harvey Morgan[SMTP:HMorgan@TSUinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 8:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Why is it that you are proceeding with this issue while refusing to inform of us whether you inquired of the Universal House of Justice as to its appropriateness? And, why is it that you ignored my plea to do so ? At 03:59 PM 10/21/97 -0400, you wrote: >The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second >proposal of talk.religion.bahai has been posted to >news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai >and a few other newsgroups or lists. Interested people can >also find the RFD on the webpage given below. >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on >news.announce.newgroups or at > > > Harvey Morgan Telecommunications Solutions Unlimited, Inc. 608-831-7800 608-831-4999 fax 608-831-5800 personal "...A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity... " Shoghi Effendi, March 11, 1938 ---------- From: Harvey Morgan[SMTP:HMorgan@TSUinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 9:06 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Why is it that you are proceeding with this issue while refusing to inform us whether you inquired of the Universal House of Justice as to its appropriateness? And, why is it that you ignored my plea to do so ? At 03:59 PM 10/21/97 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second >proposal of talk.religion.bahai has been posted to >news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai >and a few other newsgroups or lists. Interested people can >also find the RFD on the webpage given below. >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai >The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on >news.announce.newgroups or at > > > Harvey Morgan Telecommunications Solutions Unlimited, Inc. 608-831-7800 608-831-4999 fax 608-831-5800 personal "...A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvelous swiftness and perfect regularity... " Shoghi Effendi, March 11, 1938 ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:52 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Allah-u-Abha Friends: I may have been the first person to consult and press for an unmoderated group-Bahai-teachers 3 and two years ago but have not joined the current group, as I have had several negative exchanges with writers from that list who cross post here, so negative that as much as I would like to see if an um-moderated list would suit my teaching style, I haven't had the inclination to ever vist this one in question. I still wish there was an alternative un-moderated list run by an objective Baha'i who didn't have an anti-Baha'i Administration agenda. Now, I realize that what I am looking for might just be an illusion, because regardless of if a Baha'i who is deeply obedient to the Institutions or a Baha'i who challenges the Institutions all the time start a list, the end result is the same, as the originator of the list has no control over an un-moderated list, for me it still makes a difference. Maybe a person with an immature agenda can get into the list some way and delete the really healthy messages, or maybe can reqruet attacts against the faith. I am not so sure there isn't a difference, and besides that, for me it is the principal of the thing. If John Cornell would start an un-moderated list, (very unlikely from his post) I would join it today. Seems ironic, the originator of having an unmoderated list, is still left waiting. Some day. Or maybe, in time I'll break down and try this list I am right now, very concerned with as taking the energy out of me. au revoir john, and I'm not going to get into the voting. > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second > proposal of talk.religion.bahai ... can be found on > news.announce.newgroups or at > > > Here we find the following: > > Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, > which exists specifically for discussion of the Bahai Faith, > is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, > and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. > > Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need > an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever > side of the freeway we want to? > > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the > Bahai 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. > > Doesn't experience show that in an unmoderated forum, > people do whatever they want to do? Isn't "Also discouraged" > simply a list of all the things that happened on a grand scale on > alt.religion.bahai? > > Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars > in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and > threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to > irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are > encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive > crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard > netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this > newsgroup. > > We can be suspended from moderated lists for flamewars, > but what is there to prevent flamewars on unmoderated lists? > How can crossposting be discouraged on a new list when it > was such a prominent feature on alt.religion.bahai? > > John C. ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 10:39 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai I basically agree with Chris's points, and I'd like to add a few things to this: John B. Cornell wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second > > proposal of talk.religion.bahai ... can be found on > > news.announce.newgroups or at > > Here we find the following: > > Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, > which exists specifically for discussion of the Bahai Faith, > is moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, > and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. > > Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need > an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever > side of the freeway we want to? I'm curious -- do you feel this way about newsgroups in general, or just about newsgroups devoted to the Faith? That could spark an interesting discussion about whether groups in general should be moderated -- a discussion that doesn't belong on B-D, though. > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the > Bahai 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. > > Doesn't experience show that in an unmoderated forum, > people do whatever they want to do? Isn't "Also discouraged" > simply a list of all the things that happened on a grand scale on > alt.religion.bahai? As Chris pointed out, there have been junk postings on a.r.b. Personally, I've seen worse on other newsgroups. And I'm fortunate to use a news server that's able to filter out a lot of spam and outrageously crossposted articles. > Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars > in this newsgroup, but to focus instead on articles and > threads written in more moderate terms. Crossposting to > irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are > encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive > crossposting. Readers are asked to observe standard > netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this > newsgroup. > > We can be suspended from moderated lists for flamewars, > but what is there to prevent flamewars on unmoderated lists? > How can crossposting be discouraged on a new list when it > was such a prominent feature on alt.religion.bahai? Judicious crossposting is OK, IMHO, as long as it's on topic. If it gets very excessive, then it'll be fair game for the spam cancellers. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 11:18 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai haukness, john wrote: > I still wish there was an alternative un-moderated list run by an > objective Baha'i who didn't have an anti-Baha'i Administration agenda. Dear John, There is an unmoderated list run by an objective Baha'i. It is called Baha'i Studies List, and it is unmoderated because its founder never has time to read what anyone posts there. At first, we kept asking him to enforce the rules, until we found out he never had time to do so. Didn't this list fail for the very reason that it was unmoderated? Without protection of rules, people just gave up and left. > Now, I realize that what I am looking for might just be > an illusion, . . . as the originator of the list has no control > over an un-moderated list, for me it still makes a difference. > If John Cornell would start an un-moderated list, (very > unlikely from his post) I would join it today. Thank you so much for your compliment, but you hit the nail on the head when you said the originator has no control. Doesn't our Faith teach that people get along better when we agree on some rules? Shouldn't we agree on some rules when the name "Baha'i" is used? Or do you think it's better to have no rules and to say "anything goes"? John C. ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 1:36 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear John and John, This post is to expand on John Cornell's comments on the Baha'i Studies List. I have been a subscriber to said list for over two years. It has had its ups and downs as most lists do but as John C. notes the owner has apparently abandoned the list to the fates of whim and fancy. Why do I stay on it? Perhaps just to see how far lunacy can go. It's to bad because it used to be an interesting list. As far as I am concerned if the name Baha'i is associated with an e-mail list, Usnet group, or anythng else it *must* me moderated or it will deteriorate to the lowest common denominator. Not a pretty sight in today's world. For those who want to take on all commers on the terms of the world, I humbly suggest you do it on the lists and groups of the world. These unmoderated lists and groups are of the old world order so when people enter they have old world trash stuck to their feet despite their best intentions. It's hard enough to keep our carpets clean when asking those who enter to wipe their feet on the door mat. If you want to go into a house where no one wipes their feet go to a different house and not one with the name Baha'i attached. Douglas Myers ______________________________________________________ John B. Cornell wrote: > > haukness, john wrote: > > > I still wish there was an alternative un-moderated list run by an > > objective Baha'i who didn't have an anti-Baha'i Administration agenda. > > Dear John, > > There is an unmoderated list run by an objective Baha'i. > It is called Baha'i Studies List, and it is unmoderated because its > founder never has time to read what anyone posts there. At first, > we kept asking him to enforce the rules, until we found out he > never had time to do so. Didn't this list fail for the very reason > that it was unmoderated? Without protection of rules, people > just gave up and left. > > > Now, I realize that what I am looking for might just be > > an illusion, . . . as the originator of the list has no control > > over an un-moderated list, for me it still makes a difference. > > If John Cornell would start an un-moderated list, (very > > unlikely from his post) I would join it today. > > Thank you so much for your compliment, but you hit the > nail on the head when you said the originator has no control. > Doesn't our Faith teach that people get along better when > we agree on some rules? Shouldn't we agree on some rules > when the name "Baha'i" is used? Or do you think it's better > to have no rules and to say "anything goes"? > > John C. ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 10:39 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Douglas Myers wrote: > > Dear John and John, > > This post is to expand on John Cornell's comments on the Baha'i Studies > List. I have been a subscriber to said list for over two years. It has > had its ups and downs as most lists do but as John C. notes the owner > has apparently abandoned the list to the fates of whim and fancy. Why > do I stay on it? Perhaps just to see how far lunacy can go. It's to > bad because it used to be an interesting list. I've never subscribed to that list, so I can't comment on it. But I will comment on the next statement: > As far as I am concerned > if the name Baha'i is associated with an e-mail list, Usnet group, or > anythng else it *must* me moderated or it will deteriorate to the lowest > common denominator. Not a pretty sight in today's world. Unfortunately, there is no way to enforce this on Usenet, meaning the entire newsgroup hierarchy. That's already been demonstrated with the creation of alt.religion.bahai, which was created by a non-Baha'i in response to the first vote on talk.religion.bahai. It would be possible to block the creation of unmoderated newsgroups devoted to the Faith in the Big 8 hierarchies, of which talk.* is one. This would be via the voting process. Personally, I believe that such an attempt would violate the spirit of the Big 8 newsgroup creation process. As I see it, when a newsgroup is voted upon, the underlying questions being asked are: 1) is there sufficient interest in this newsgroup to justify creating it, and 2) are there any problems with the name of the group, its placement in the hierarchy, its charter, its moderators (if applicable), etc. The question which is NOT being asked is "is the creation of this newsgroup a good idea or a wise idea?". Several months ago, there was a proposal for a newsgroup called rec.music.white-power. As you can infer from the title, its purpose was to discuss skinhead music. Personally, I find the topic very offensive and reprehensible, as do all of you. There is no way I would ever read such a group. Therefore, in the spirit of the creation process, I didn't vote on the proposal. However, thousands of people who felt the same way did vote, and they voted NO. While it is gratifying to see such a rejection of racism, I still believe that the spirit of the creation process was violated. The vast majority of voters would, in all likelihood, never have read the newsgroup, so they should have stayed out of the voting. This was a case of what is referred to as "political voting". IMHO, a massive NO vote on t.r.b (if/when it goes to a formal vote) would also be a case of "political voting", which would violate the spirit of the newsgroup creation process. Now I'll be honest and admit that the Big 8 newsgroup creation process is not completely compatible with the Baha'i teachings on consultation. But we should realize that the reverse is true, too: the teachings on consultation are not completely compatible with the Big 8 newsgroup creation process. In this situation, we're on their turf. I believe this obliges us to participate by their rules. If we disapprove of the rules, then we should leave and not participate in the process. If we want a newsgroup creation process which does ask the question "is the creation of this newsgroup a good idea or a wise idea?", then I feel we'd need to create a new top-level hierarchy, which would allow groups to be created in any way we wished. This would allow for a true consultative process. I don't think such a process will be forthcoming on the Big 8 hierarchy anytime soon. > For those who want to take on all commers on the terms of the world, I > humbly suggest you do it on the lists and groups of the world. These > unmoderated lists and groups are of the old world order so when people > enter they have old world trash stuck to their feet despite their best > intentions. It's hard enough to keep our carpets clean when asking > those who enter to wipe their feet on the door mat. If you want to go > into a house where no one wipes their feet go to a different house and > not one with the name Baha'i attached. One can live in the world and yet not be of the world. As Chris Manvell and I have observed in the past, it is possible to conduct oneself in open newsgroups in accord with the Baha'i teachings. And people will notice this. > Douglas Myers FYI, you may recall that I recently wrote to the Universal House of Justice inquiring about unmoderated newsgroups. As of today, I have not received an answer. I am not expecting a reply anytime soon, as I'm sure the House has more pressing issues to consider. Perhaps we do, too, as the discussions about declaration cards and other topics continue.... Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 12:03 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote: > > Douglas Myers wrote: > I've never subscribed to that list, so I can't comment on it. But I > will comment on the next statement: > > > As far as I am concerned > > if the name Baha'i is associated with an e-mail list, Usnet group, or > > anythng else it *must* be moderated or it will deteriorate to the lowest > > common denominator. Not a pretty sight in today's world. > > Unfortunately, there is no way to enforce this on Usenet, meaning the > entire newsgroup hierarchy. > That's already been demonstrated with the creation of > alt.religion.bahai, which was created by a non-Baha'i in response to the > first vote on talk.religion.bahai. You are correct Roger, that is why an unmoderated Baha'i group should be limited to as low a newsgroup hierrarchy as possible. If it can be kept out of the Big 8 all the better. > It would be possible to block the creation of unmoderated newsgroups > devoted to the Faith in the Big 8 hierarchies, of which talk.* is one. > This would be via the voting process. Personally, I believe that such > an attempt would violate the spirit of the Big 8 newsgroup creation > process. As I see it, when a newsgroup is voted upon, the underlying > questions being asked are: 1) is there sufficient interest in this > newsgroup to justify creating it, and 2) are there any problems with the > name of the group, its placement in the hierarchy, its charter, its > moderators (if applicable), etc. The question which is NOT being asked > is "is the creation of this newsgroup a good idea or a wise idea?". I read #2 more broadly than you do Roger. To me "any problems with the name of the group" does include using Baha'i on an unmoderated list. Baha'i is the essence of moderation and unmoderated newsgroups are intemperate, therefore an improper use of the name Baha'i. > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) Douglas Myers ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 12:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Is that list done thru AOL? He also started an Poetry & Arts list thru AOL and then disappeared. We recently got AOL to designate some new listowners so now that list is under active management. If the Baha'i Studies list was also set up thru AOL, then I will put you in touch with a lists management person at AOL to fix the situation. Tom Hodges On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Douglas Myers wrote: > Dear John and John, > > This post is to expand on John Cornell's comments on the Baha'i Studies > List. I have been a subscriber to said list for over two years. It has > had its ups and downs as most lists do but as John C. notes the owner > has apparently abandoned the list to the fates of whim and fancy. Why > do I stay on it? Perhaps just to see how far lunacy can go. It's to > bad because it used to be an interesting list. As far as I am concerned > if the name Baha'i is associated with an e-mail list, Usnet group, or > anythng else it *must* me moderated or it will deteriorate to the lowest > common denominator. Not a pretty sight in today's world. > > For those who want to take on all commers on the terms of the world, I > humbly suggest you do it on the lists and groups of the world. These > unmoderated lists and groups are of the old world order so when people > enter they have old world trash stuck to their feet despite their best > intentions. It's hard enough to keep our carpets clean when asking > those who enter to wipe their feet on the door mat. If you want to go > into a house where no one wipes their feet go to a different house and > not one with the name Baha'i attached. > > Douglas Myers > ______________________________________________________ > > John B. Cornell wrote: > > > > haukness, john wrote: > > > > > I still wish there was an alternative un-moderated list run by an > > > objective Baha'i who didn't have an anti-Baha'i Administration agenda. > > > > Dear John, > > > > There is an unmoderated list run by an objective Baha'i. > > It is called Baha'i Studies List, and it is unmoderated because its > > founder never has time to read what anyone posts there. At first, > > we kept asking him to enforce the rules, until we found out he > > never had time to do so. Didn't this list fail for the very reason > > that it was unmoderated? Without protection of rules, people > > just gave up and left. > > > > > Now, I realize that what I am looking for might just be > > > an illusion, . . . as the originator of the list has no control > > > over an un-moderated list, for me it still makes a difference. > > > If John Cornell would start an un-moderated list, (very > > > unlikely from his post) I would join it today. > > > > Thank you so much for your compliment, but you hit the > > nail on the head when you said the originator has no control. > > Doesn't our Faith teach that people get along better when > > we agree on some rules? Shouldn't we agree on some rules > > when the name "Baha'i" is used? Or do you think it's better > > to have no rules and to say "anything goes"? > > > > John C. > ---------- From: John MacCord[SMTP:jmaccord@comet.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 12:29 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: *.religion.bahai Dear Friends; I'm doing a piece on Netscape Collabra for the LSA project and need some information concerning the three Baha'i oriented newsgroups -- alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai, and talk.religion.bahai. I seem to remember that alt. was formed by those who did like the moderated nature of soc.religion.bahai. But until I searched for Baha'i last night I didn't even know talk. existed. Those of you on Discuss please reply directly as I can't do this project and follow the Discussions and, so, have unsubscribed to Discuss. Allah'u'abha John -- John MacCord Charlottesville, Virginia USA https://www.comet.net/personal/john/ ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 4:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Tom, Thank you for the offer to assist but the Baha'i Studies list is through the Community College in Kansas where he teaches and not AOL. I had heard about some list he set up on AOL changing hands because he was AOL (Absent Without Leave) ;-} If you ever want to hear about Buddhism and Paganism Baha'i Studies is the place for you as these subjects take up well over half the space of the list and are driven be non-Baha'is, of course! Thank you for your offer to help Tom. Douglas Myers ________________________________________ Tom Hodges wrote: > > Is that list done thru AOL? He also started an Poetry & Arts list > thru AOL and then disappeared. We recently got AOL to designate > some new listowners so now that list is under active management. > > If the Baha'i Studies list was also set up thru AOL, then I will > put you in touch with a lists management person at AOL to fix the > situation. > > Tom Hodges > > On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Douglas Myers wrote: > > > Dear John and John, > > > > This post is to expand on John Cornell's comments on the Baha'i Studies > > List. I have been a subscriber to said list for over two years. It has > > had its ups and downs as most lists do but as John C. notes the owner > > has apparently abandoned the list to the fates of whim and fancy. Why > > do I stay on it? Perhaps just to see how far lunacy can go. It's to > > bad because it used to be an interesting list. As far as I am concerned > > if the name Baha'i is associated with an e-mail list, Usnet group, or > > anythng else it *must* me moderated or it will deteriorate to the lowest > > common denominator. Not a pretty sight in today's world. ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 1:59 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Allah-u-Abha Friends: As I have posted several times, I don't think that there is anything goes in cyberland. I believe their are societal norms, cultural norms, and civic norms that govern writers even in cyber land and that certain actions by a writer will get that writer in trouble. I won't get repetitious and post my long list of examples, but slander and plagerism would be two common areas I think that would get one in trouble on any list, moderated or un moderated. What I would envision, Roger has already been describing, is that the writers on an un moderated list work it out themselves. Thus anti-social writers, or offensive or malicious writers would be ignored, maybe even shunned. Now I don't think this would go smooth, or be error free, but I believe that it wouldn't have to be the opposite of error free, that is anything goes, I believe that the group could build some limited, but acceptable level of unity and moderation of speech. Now Roger has given me information that the person who sets up the list doesn't matter. But for me it is the principal of the thing, so if John Cornell or Roger R set up the list, I know of their high standard, and I would join that list. But if someone comes along who has a habit of taking things out of context, writing false conclusions about the Baha'i Instituions, wants to set up either a moderated or unmoderated list, I would be slow to join that list, because I would be skeptical that the list was set up to serve the list servers hidden agenda. Now in an un-moderated list, would this matter. Well can a list owner reqruit writers to the list, writers opposed to the Institutions, can a list owner get in an block posts without telling anyone? Or would this be impossible. au revoir john haukness > > haukness, john wrote: > > > I still wish there was an alternative un-moderated list run by an > > objective Baha'i who didn't have an anti-Baha'i Administration agenda. > > Dear John, > > There is an unmoderated list run by an objective Baha'i. > It is called Baha'i Studies List, and it is unmoderated because its > founder never has time to read what anyone posts there. At first, > we kept asking him to enforce the rules, until we found out he > never had time to do so. Didn't this list fail for the very reason > that it was unmoderated? Without protection of rules, people > just gave up and left. > > > Now, I realize that what I am looking for might just be > > an illusion, . . . as the originator of the list has no control > > over an un-moderated list, for me it still makes a difference. > > If John Cornell would start an un-moderated list, (very > > unlikely from his post) I would join it today. > > Thank you so much for your compliment, but you hit the > nail on the head when you said the originator has no control. > Doesn't our Faith teach that people get along better when > we agree on some rules? Shouldn't we agree on some rules > when the name "Baha'i" is used? Or do you think it's better > to have no rules and to say "anything goes"? > > John C. ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai I had tried to join Mark Foster's list over a year ago on several occasions, my request was not honored and I never got on the list. I think the list was moderated to a degree. au revoir john h > > Dear John and John, > > This post is to expand on John Cornell's comments on the Baha'i Studies > List. I have been a subscriber to said list for over two years. It has > had its ups and downs as most lists do but as John C. notes the owner > has apparently abandoned the list to the fates of whim and fancy. Why > do I stay on it? Perhaps just to see how far lunacy can go. It's to > bad because it used to be an interesting list. As far as I am concerned > if the name Baha'i is associated with an e-mail list, Usnet group, or > anythng else it *must* me moderated or it will deteriorate to the lowest > common denominator. Not a pretty sight in today's world. > > For those who want to take on all commers on the terms of the world, I > humbly suggest you do it on the lists and groups of the world. These > unmoderated lists and groups are of the old world order so when people > enter they have old world trash stuck to their feet despite their best > intentions. It's hard enough to keep our carpets clean when asking > those who enter to wipe their feet on the door mat. If you want to go > into a house where no one wipes their feet go to a different house and > not one with the name Baha'i attached. > > Douglas Myers > ______________________________________________________ > > John B. Cornell wrote: > > > > haukness, john wrote: > > > > > I still wish there was an alternative un-moderated list run by an > > > objective Baha'i who didn't have an anti-Baha'i Administration agenda. > > > > Dear John, > > > > There is an unmoderated list run by an objective Baha'i. > > It is called Baha'i Studies List, and it is unmoderated because its > > founder never has time to read what anyone posts there. At first, > > we kept asking him to enforce the rules, until we found out he > > never had time to do so. Didn't this list fail for the very reason > > that it was unmoderated? Without protection of rules, people > > just gave up and left. > > > > > Now, I realize that what I am looking for might just be > > > an illusion, . . . as the originator of the list has no control > > > over an un-moderated list, for me it still makes a difference. > > > If John Cornell would start an un-moderated list, (very > > > unlikely from his post) I would join it today. > > > > Thank you so much for your compliment, but you hit the > > nail on the head when you said the originator has no control. > > Doesn't our Faith teach that people get along better when > > we agree on some rules? Shouldn't we agree on some rules > > when the name "Baha'i" is used? Or do you think it's better > > to have no rules and to say "anything goes"? > > > > John C. ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:37 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Allah-u-Abha Friends: I want to again thank Roger and others for the information about the big 8 and how groups are run. I think that others have probably also run into what I have on search engines, I can't remembber without going to my swbell search engines yahoo, infoseek, lycos and others but when I type in Baha'i some of those come back blank, and I think only one search engine get's me 400 hits and another 4,000 hits, so it seems to me that even if Noble and Bahai-Faith are in the big 8 they still are ignored by most of the search engines, so we are still pretty obscure out there. au revoir john haukness ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 8:53 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Douglas Myers wrote: > > Roger Reini wrote: [snips] > > It would be possible to block the creation of unmoderated newsgroups > > devoted to the Faith in the Big 8 hierarchies, of which talk.* is one. > > This would be via the voting process. Personally, I believe that such > > an attempt would violate the spirit of the Big 8 newsgroup creation > > process. As I see it, when a newsgroup is voted upon, the underlying > > questions being asked are: 1) is there sufficient interest in this > > newsgroup to justify creating it, and 2) are there any problems with the > > name of the group, its placement in the hierarchy, its charter, its > > moderators (if applicable), etc. The question which is NOT being asked > > is "is the creation of this newsgroup a good idea or a wise idea?". > > I read #2 more broadly than you do Roger. To me "any problems with the > name of the group" does include using Baha'i on an unmoderated list. > Baha'i is the essence of moderation and unmoderated newsgroups are > intemperate, therefore an improper use of the name Baha'i. I asked a similar question on news.groups a month back. I asked whether it would be considered proper to object to t.r.b because it was not under the supervision of the BCCA. The news.groups experts said no, it would not be considered proper. Now my argument was based on a faulty premise, that soc.religion.bahai was under BCCA supervision (it wasn't and isn't). But one could ask the related question 'is the charter objectionable because it is not moderated?' However, by mutual agreement, talk.* groups CANNOT be moderated. So there is no way that t.r.b can be moderated. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:thodges@tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 12:25 AM To: Baha'i Youth Subject: Re: Fw: mail failed, returning to sender Let me know by private email if anyone needs anything more on this. I am pretty up to date on the whole thing. Tom Hodges. thodges@tricity.wsu.edu On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > The Request For Discussion (RFD) for the second > > proposal of talk.religion.bahai has been posted to > > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.religion.bahai > > and a few other newsgroups or lists. Interested people can > > also find the RFD on the webpage given below. > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, > > news.announce.newgroups, or at > ---------- From: C Pemberton-Pigott[SMTP:NEW_DAWN@compuserve.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 3:22 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Friends Chris wrote: >> (fwd) Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need >>an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever >>side of the freeway we want to? > (Chris) I disagree with your analogy here. An unmoderated newsgroup is not a >highway, where anarchy can kill. A better comparison could be the >difference between a debate and a general conversation in the works >canteen There is no doubt that spiritual deaths can and do happen on the Information Superhighway. The evisceration of the spirit and personal pain akin to what JH describes harm people for decades and cripples their emotional lives. This is the exact intent of some of the Covenant Breakers. It is their sick desire to inflict pain. They feel no need to "win". Pain will suffice. I think if you look into Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of opposition and of Covenant Breaking you find how he describes the illnesses, their transmissability and characteristics, and describes how to minimize their negative influences. Hate, intolerance, vilification, demonification and all their running dogs are characteristics of the lowest debasment of the human spirit. It is the antithesis of good sense to provide institutional support for its manifestations without some sort mechanism for limiting the damage to society by the sick and the demented. >The real world contains drug addicts and muggers. We do not tolerate forums where they pontificate on the merits of mugging and drug taking - oh yeah we do - the Net! The net should be run according to rules similar to those used by the Guinness Book of records. For the safety of the human race, for example, they no longer entertain entries into the "Closest to the ground before opening your parachute" category. Why? Because it is manifestly dangerous and serves no useful purpose anyway. >It contains those who have given up hope. Those who seek hope would best find it in a loving and caring atmosphere. >I don't know about the US but here in the UK there are successful >teaching projects bringing in housing estate children and transforming >their lives. All that contect is moderated by the teachers who can re-direct conversations, cut them off if necessary and refuse to put up with certain behaviour as a pre-requisite to carrying on a conversation. It is a part of the teaching process that common ground is established, which implies co-moderation by the parties. This is the equivalent to two people talking back and forth to each other by email mutually agreeing to respond to each other. It is quite different to do it on a public forum. In the "canteen" example moderation is provided by the nearby public who will censor (by interjection) what goes on, evicting the speaker when it suits them. That is moderation and occurs by virtue of its public forum. >Are they to be deprived of access to Baha'is? ARB is OK in its own way but >only has limited access. Baha'is understand that anyone seeking their Lord will be guided to Him. There is no reason to suppose that anyone on the Net would not be able to find Baha'is to talk to and learn from in 30 to 45 seconds with a search engine. >Or are we like the woman in Burnley who said to Derek Cockshut, >"So you're the sort of people they're letting into the Faith these days!" >and try to maintain our middle class image? This is an emotive argument that suggests the Faith has, and seeks to retain, a "middle class" image and implicitly suggests that having an unmoderated TRB will help remove or expand it. I certainly support the idea that we are a moderate class of human beings because everything we do and support is moderated. >Flamewars require at least two people to keep them going. As long as >the Baha'is behave like Baha'is there is no problem. TRB in some descriptions sounds like a place equivalent to any street corner where someone can come up to you, heap abuse on you, chase you down the street if they choose and those who wish to frequent that neighbourhood are free to do so by choice. That is not the end of the story, though. There are those (Baha'is and/or ex-Baha'is) who have a very specific anti-LSA / NSA / Universal House of Justice agenda who merely want to have a platform "more accessible" to the multitudes from which to pursue their campaign of hate. They often label their missives "exposing" as if they were the Washington Post. If it is that "good" a story, write to the Washington Post (oh, but that is moderated by the editor). This whole (repeat) episode is so reminiscent of the "Madam and Eve" cartoon strip in South Africa where the Tokoloshes (little people who carry you off in the night when you are sleeping) are trying to convince Madam to remove the bricks from under the legs of her bed. Tokoloshes apparently can't "get you" when you put your bed up on bricks. So the Tokoloshes come night after night explaining that they are really very good creatures who would never carry off anyone into the night not to be seen again. They send polished emmisaries to tout the reformed and self-controlled behaviour of Tokoloshes and how it is no longer necessary to indulge in such brick-based behaviour. They then retire to the corner and whisper to each other, "Well, did she take out the bricks?" It is clear they have another agenda. I also enjoyed watching the "unmoderated contact" between the Martians and earthlings in _Mars Attacks_. What a yuk! Much safer to watch than the unmoderated contact between the inveterate hill tribes of the Balkans who translated their verbal barbs and intolerant shouting into action. Could it be that the hate-speech and anti-religious fanaticism mentioned by Chris will, if given more diverse exposure, lead to healing and pacification of the heart? If so, the US laws banning the posting of hate speech in the mail should be overturned, after all, they are just expressing their opinion. If so, Germany should overturn their law banning public religious-hate fanaticism so we can more easily seek out people to reform. If so, South Africa should open up forums for the racially intolerant to rant so we can engage, educate and convert them. Otherwise we would have to accept that recognition of the oneness of Mankind is the primary problem and anything that undermines it should not receive out support. Regards Crispin PS Did she take out the bricks yet? ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 11:53 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai There are only opinions, no rules, Usenet is an anarchy with only one rule, 100+ yes votes with less than 1/3 no to approve a group. That's it. No rules on why someone can cast a Yes vote, no rules on why someone can cast a No vote. All this "canonical reasons for voting No" is just electioneering, disguised as netiquette. Ultimately, a Usenet vote is like any other vote, it's up to your conscience, and my conscience tells me talk.religion.bahai is a horrible idea and should be soundly defeated. At 10:51 AM 10/23/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: >As has been pointed out, there are proper and improper reasons for >casting votes in the newsgroup process. Even though there is no way to >enforce these reasons, I feel that if/when we participate in the >process, we should follow those reasons. Failure to do so corrupts the >process. > ---------- From: Richard Harmsen[SMTP:RHARMSEN@MUSIC.FERRIS.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 2:45 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage a flamewar. What other reasons are there? And aren't these reasons sufficient not to push for an unmoderated forum? rick >C Pemberton-Pigott wrote: >> >> Dear Friends >> >> Chris wrote: >> >> (fwd) Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need >> >>an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever >> >>side of the freeway we want to? >> >> > (Chris) I disagree with your analogy here. An unmoderated newsgroup is >> not a >> >highway, where anarchy can kill. A better comparison could be the >> >difference between a debate and a general conversation in the works >> >canteen >> >> There is no doubt that spiritual deaths can and do happen on the >> Information Superhighway. The evisceration of the spirit and personal pain >> akin to what JH describes harm people for decades and cripples their >> emotional lives. This is the exact intent of some of the Covenant >> Breakers. It is their sick desire to inflict pain. They feel no need to >> "win". Pain will suffice. > >This is true. It is also true that spiritual enlightenment and rebirth >can be found -- or at least promoted -- on the Net. I found the >discussions on s.r.b in 1993 very useful in my investigations of the >Faith. > >> I think if you look into Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of opposition and of >> Covenant Breaking you find how he describes the illnesses, their >> transmissability and characteristics, and describes how to minimize their >> negative influences. Hate, intolerance, vilification, demonification and >> all their running dogs are characteristics of the lowest debasment of the >> human spirit. It is the antithesis of good sense to provide institutional >> support for its manifestations without some sort mechanism for limiting the >> damage to society by the sick and the demented. > >We should remember that CB's and others who wish to attack the Faith >have access to other newsgroups and forums (fora?) now. The creation of >t.r.b, if it happens, will not give them a forum where one never >existed. > >> >The real world contains drug addicts and muggers. >> >> We do not tolerate forums where they pontificate on the merits of mugging >> and drug taking - oh yeah we do - the Net! The net should be run according >> to rules similar to those used by the Guinness Book of records. For the >> safety of the human race, for example, they no longer entertain entries >> into the "Closest to the ground before opening your parachute" category. >> Why? Because it is manifestly dangerous and serves no useful purpose >> anyway. > >"Should be" and "is" are two very different things, as we all know. The >Net culture (such as it is) does reflect the culture of society in >general, especially Western culture at its most libertarian. Is it in >complete accordance with the teachings of the Faith? No, of course it >isn't. > >IMHO, trying to impose a culture change from outside when the existing >culture is resistant to it or not ready for it will fail. The change >must come from within. We know this already. > >While we use the Net, we Baha'is need to conduct ourselves not only >according to the teachings, but also to the standards and policies of >the Net. But what happens when they conflict? IMHO, they do not >conflict to the extent of forcing us to deny our faith. So we should >follow the Net standards and policies -- and if we can't, then we >shouldn't participate. And this includes the upcoming vote on t.r.b. > >As has been pointed out, there are proper and improper reasons for >casting votes in the newsgroup process. Even though there is no way to >enforce these reasons, I feel that if/when we participate in the >process, we should follow those reasons. Failure to do so corrupts the >process. > >I don't think I should say anything more right now, because some harsh >thoughts are coming to mind. Time to say a few Remover of Difficulties >and call on the Divine Physician. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > ---------- From: Don Calkins[SMTP:drc@commonlink.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 4:35 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai ------quoted from Robert Moldenhauer -------- There are only opinions, no rules, Usenet is an anarchy with only one rule, 100+ yes votes with less than 1/3 no to approve a group. That's it. No rules on why someone can cast a Yes vote, no rules on why someone can cast a No vote. All this "canonical reasons for voting No" is just electioneering, disguised as netiquette. ================end============= Absolutely. Every time I have confronted Frederick Glaysher on this issue he has quoted an email message from, or made reference to, someone I don't know from Adam. There has *never* been a citation from an authorized authority. It is true that the 'rules' Frederick cites were generally accepted in the very early days of UseNet, but as the average user switched from Tenured Academic to Joe Typical, the fact such ideas were never universally accepted, let alone codified, led to their being nearly totally ignored. Don C ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 4:39 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Would you be willing to share your opinions about the voting process with the regulars on news.groups? I would be interested in hearing their responses. I'll be blunt and say I do not agree with your position on Usenet and the voting process. And I'll leave it at that for now. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) Robert Moldenhauer wrote: > > There are only opinions, no rules, Usenet is an anarchy with only one rule, > 100+ > yes votes with less than 1/3 no to approve a group. That's it. No rules > on why someone can cast a Yes vote, no rules on why someone can cast a No > vote. All this "canonical reasons for voting No" is just electioneering, > disguised as netiquette. > > Ultimately, a Usenet vote is like any other vote, it's up to your > conscience, and my conscience tells me talk.religion.bahai is a horrible > idea and should be soundly defeated. > > At 10:51 AM 10/23/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: > >As has been pointed out, there are proper and improper reasons for > >casting votes in the newsgroup process. Even though there is no way to > >enforce these reasons, I feel that if/when we participate in the > >process, we should follow those reasons. Failure to do so corrupts the > >process. > > ---------- From: Richard Harmsen[SMTP:RHARMSEN@MUSIC.FERRIS.EDU] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 5:54 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: UHJ on internet (clarification) Dear Regna et al: I can see that I inadvertently introduced some confusion into the quotation of the House of Justice by quoting only parts of the statement. I did this because I took it from an unpublished manuscript that didn't have the entire text. So, in the statement requoted by Regna below, only the inner quotes represent the words of the House of Justice. The other words are mine. I apologize for this confusion, and again it was because I took it from a manuscript that quoted only those sections. I'll be more careful in future. rick >Dear Richard, > >Your posting of the House's message brings to the front the >essential points for consideration. Note They say: > >"...if a person feels that "a view put forward" is >inconsistent with Baha'i thought..." > >Here They give us the "standard" by which to judge. > >and > >"The person who made the initial statement will then be able to >re-evaluate his opinion, and, if he still believes >it to be valid, he should be able to explain why it is not >contrary to either the letter or the spirit [of the teachings]..." > >Again, apply the "standard". > >"In this most perfect Balance whatsoever the peoples and >kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its >weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it. " >(The Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 56) > >"Through His Law, Baha'u'llah gradually unveils the significance of the new >levels of knowledge and behaviour to which the peoples of the world are >being called. He embeds His precepts in a setting of spiritual commentary, >keeping ever before the mind of the reader the principle that these laws, no >matter the subject with which they deal, serve the manifold purposes of >bringing tranquillity to human society, raising the standard of human >behaviour, increasing the range of human understanding, and spiritualizing >the life of each and all. " >(Aqdas: Other Sections, page 2) > >We all are encouraged to have opinions. They should be based >on a critical thought process not just a "knee-jerk" reaction. When our >individual opinions begin to be the cause of disunity we have >the bounty of turning to the teachings of our Faith for the >definitive answers. How else are we to raise ourselves to the level >of a "New Race of Men"? > >Love to all, >Ragna >---------- > ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 4:58 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai My congratulations Richard!! Your preception of the situation is absolutly correct. To keep an orderly forum for intelligent converstaion a moderator does censor "posts that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage a flamewar." But that is the rub to some people, censorship in any form even if it means giving up civility. For all the rules Usnet supposedly has consider Robert Moldenhouer's comments posted earlier today: > There are only opinions, no rules, Usenet is an anarchy with only one rule, > 100+ > yes votes with less than 1/3 no to approve a group. That's it. No rules > on why someone can cast a Yes vote, no rules on why someone can cast a No > vote. All this "canonical reasons for voting No" is just electioneering, > disguised as netiquette. So Richard, with your thoughts, Roberts thoughts, having watched watched this debate unfold, and going to Dejanews to track t.r.b., I not only see no reason to support talk.religion.bahai, I see several to actively appose it. Allah'u'Abha, Douglas Myers ________________________________________ Richard Harmsen wrote: > > No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. > Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts > that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage > a flamewar. What other reasons are there? And aren't these > reasons sufficient not to push for an unmoderated forum? rick > > >C Pemberton-Pigott wrote: > >> > >> Dear Friends > >> > >> Chris wrote: > >> >> (fwd) Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need > >> >>an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever > >> >>side of the freeway we want to? > >> > >> > (Chris) I disagree with your analogy here. An unmoderated newsgroup is > >> not a > >> >highway, where anarchy can kill. A better comparison could be the > >> >difference between a debate and a general conversation in the works > >> >canteen > >> > >> There is no doubt that spiritual deaths can and do happen on the > >> Information Superhighway. The evisceration of the spirit and personal pain > >> akin to what JH describes harm people for decades and cripples their > >> emotional lives. This is the exact intent of some of the Covenant > >> Breakers. It is their sick desire to inflict pain. They feel no need to > >> "win". Pain will suffice. > > > >This is true. It is also true that spiritual enlightenment and rebirth > >can be found -- or at least promoted -- on the Net. I found the > >discussions on s.r.b in 1993 very useful in my investigations of the > >Faith. > > > >> I think if you look into Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of opposition and of > >> Covenant Breaking you find how he describes the illnesses, their > >> transmissability and characteristics, and describes how to minimize their > >> negative influences. Hate, intolerance, vilification, demonification and > >> all their running dogs are characteristics of the lowest debasment of the > >> human spirit. It is the antithesis of good sense to provide institutional > >> support for its manifestations without some sort mechanism for limiting the > >> damage to society by the sick and the demented. > > > >We should remember that CB's and others who wish to attack the Faith > >have access to other newsgroups and forums (fora?) now. The creation of > >t.r.b, if it happens, will not give them a forum where one never > >existed. > > > >> >The real world contains drug addicts and muggers. > >> > >> We do not tolerate forums where they pontificate on the merits of mugging > >> and drug taking - oh yeah we do - the Net! The net should be run according > >> to rules similar to those used by the Guinness Book of records. For the > >> safety of the human race, for example, they no longer entertain entries > >> into the "Closest to the ground before opening your parachute" category. > >> Why? Because it is manifestly dangerous and serves no useful purpose > >> anyway. > > > >"Should be" and "is" are two very different things, as we all know. The > >Net culture (such as it is) does reflect the culture of society in > >general, especially Western culture at its most libertarian. Is it in > >complete accordance with the teachings of the Faith? No, of course it > >isn't. > > > >IMHO, trying to impose a culture change from outside when the existing > >culture is resistant to it or not ready for it will fail. The change > >must come from within. We know this already. > > > >While we use the Net, we Baha'is need to conduct ourselves not only > >according to the teachings, but also to the standards and policies of > >the Net. But what happens when they conflict? IMHO, they do not > >conflict to the extent of forcing us to deny our faith. So we should > >follow the Net standards and policies -- and if we can't, then we > >shouldn't participate. And this includes the upcoming vote on t.r.b. > > > >As has been pointed out, there are proper and improper reasons for > >casting votes in the newsgroup process. Even though there is no way to > >enforce these reasons, I feel that if/when we participate in the > >process, we should follow those reasons. Failure to do so corrupts the > >process. > > > >I don't think I should say anything more right now, because some harsh > >thoughts are coming to mind. Time to say a few Remover of Difficulties > >and call on the Divine Physician. > > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 5:29 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Re[2]: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Someone is determined to push for an unmoderated newsgroup. Nothing said here will affect that. The question that might be of interest here is how individuals should vote (YES or NO) or perhaps not vote. I haven't decided yet and when I do decide I won't be sharing that decision with anyone else. Tom Hodges On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Richard Harmsen wrote: > > No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. > Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts > that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage > a flamewar. What other reasons are there? And aren't these > reasons sufficient not to push for an unmoderated forum? rick ---------- From: the Moum's[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 7:01 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Votes on trb are NOT confidential Today on Baha'i Discuss: >Someone is determined to push for an unmoderated newsgroup. Nothing >said here will affect that. The question that might be of interest >here is how individuals should vote (YES or NO) or perhaps not vote. > >I haven't decided yet and when I do decide I won't be sharing that >decision with anyone else. As a point of information, after the vote has been taken, a complete list is posted by the vote-taker showing the names of everyone who voted and how they voted. In other words, your vote is not confidential. Baha'i Love, Mike ------------------------------- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 6:22 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Divisive arguments over t.r.b Friends, It's happened again. The discussions about talk.religion.bahai are turning divisive. I'm beginning to be affected negatively by this, so I've been saying a few Remover of Difficulties. I apologize for my role in creating the divisiveness. I've been doing some thinking in the last few hours, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no way that the t.r.b proposal can pass, not at this time. Given the vast difference in opinion about how much weight should be given to the newsgroup creation process standards, conflict is inevitable. That should be a signal to disengage -- at least here on B-D. Since the discussions do involve the newsgroup creation process, I feel that further discussions should take place on news.groups. I invite all interested people to participate in those discussions and contribute their opinions there. Who knows what will happen? We might all learn something. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 1:20 PM To: talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu; bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: jrcole@umich.edu; smaneck@berry.edu Subject: Re: freedom of conscience & speech In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 23 Oct 97 at 14:23, Sandra Fotos wrote: > Date sent: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:23:52 +0900 > To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us > From: Sandra Fotos > Subject: freedom of conscience & speech > Copies to: talisman@umich.edu, irfan1@umich.edu > (forward from another list discussing whether public criticism of the > Institutions and Adminstration of the Baha'i Faith is a violation of the > western concept of "freedom of speech" ) Sandy, I hope you and your family are well. Thanks for the fresh insights. In the above statement, did you mean to say "[*control of*] public criticism"? Otherwise I'm lost as to how criticism violates "freedom of speech". Anyway, doesn't this all get back to the issue of the scriptural basis for the secrecy of assembly deliberations, and the lack of due process in a Baha'i context, and the appropriateness of dissent in circumstances of "structural" injustice? It seems to me that the "problem" is also related to the concept of Baha'i consultation, and the apparent lack of "checks and balances" or institutional accountability when it fails (when Abdu'l-Baha's "requisites" are absent): "The prime requisites for them that take counsel together are purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment from all else save God, attraction to His Divine Fragrances, humility and lowliness amongst His loved ones, patience and long-suffering in difficulties and servitude to His exalted Threshold." ... (I see no special emphasis on the arrogance of intellectual elites.) "The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with ***absolute freedom*** his own opinion and setteth forth his argument." ... "Should harmony of thought and absolute unity be non-existent, that gathering shall be dispersed and ****that assembly be brought to naught****." ... (This strikingly identifies the profound spiritual vacuum that is left in the wake of the use of coercive power, presumably eg, as wielded by vested interests.) "They must in every matter search out the truth and not insist upon their own opinion..." "The honored members must with ***all freedom*** express their own thoughts..." "In short, whatsoever thing is arranged in harmony and with love and purity of motive, its result is light, and should the least trace of estrangement prevail the result shall be darkness upon darkness.... ["...." in the original text] If this be so regarded, that assembly shall be of God, but otherwise it shall lead to coolness and alienation that proceed from the Evil One." Do we ***really*** want to visit "coolness and alienation" on ourselves by rigidly ritualizing an alienating culture of institutional obedience? Previously, I asked an unanswered question about the basis for electing the members of assemblies. If the system is intended to function properly when the participants are imbued with divine spirit, why do we need to bother with elections? Is there an implied principle of accountability in Baha'i electoral concepts or not? If so, why can't it be extended to other areas of the public-institution interface? BTW, what is the list that this discussion started on and why can't we just see the original posts that started the thread? Juan and Susan's [H-Bahai?] posts about Abdu'l-Baha's statements on freedom of conscience have been posted to talisman and a.r.b, is that what you are referring to? Thanks, EP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 3:14 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Allah-u-Abha Friends: I have gotten more flames,& being taken out of context over the point Pemberton is making below, I feel compelled to repost this to all the people who have been so upset with me over this issue. The Guardian wrote about this element of the Baha'i Faith, Peter Kahn brought the issue up recently, and I have witnessed this phenomenon quite often. I think we are going to e dealing with it for some time to come. I may just stop entering into this area for self preservation, but I don't see my absence as in anyway making the problem go away. The Faith is in an embriotic stage, and there is nothing out there in this embriotic stage to stop individuals banding together, to have the Faith reflect their personal views and agendas. As far a unity goes, some areas are matters of the Covenant, see Taherzadeh's vol 5, and not everything and anything is going to be a part of the unity in divirsity. I fear having again said too much. I'm going to try hard to avoid this although obviously I'm in the hot pot again, but maybe Bahaullah is using whatever steadfastness I possess to not run away from this, but for now, I would like to take a vacation and watch others deal with it. I'm going to miss discuss in my vacation though. au revoir, john h > > That is not the end of the story, though. There are those (Baha'is and/or > ex-Baha'is) who have a very specific anti-LSA / NSA / Universal House of > Justice agenda who merely want to have a platform "more accessible" to the > multitudes from which to pursue their campaign of hate. They often label > their missives "exposing" as if they were the Washington Post. If it is > that "good" a story, write to the Washington Post (oh, but that is >? ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 3:57 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Allah-u-Abha Friends: This one is easy for me at least. The reason to have an un-moderated list set up by a list manager with Baha'i like integrity is because of divirsity and because it is unique. An un-moderated list is just different. Now others here have taken the word "un-moderated" as a negative word. After all Baha'is are supposed to be moderated in all things. But I don't see an un-moderated list to lack moderation. What I see is that in an un-moderated list, the moderation comes from within the group on the list, every writer is equal and the moderator evolves from within the list. This is very exciting and illuminating. Where as a moderated list is from the top down, it has a leader. That is good too, that is a different style. The city park is un-moderated, the public beach is un-moderated, McDonalds resturant is un-moderated, the street corner is un-mderated. That is the people on the street corner, at the beach, in the cafe, make up the moderation or lack thereof. An unmoderated list is going to be more problematic for sure, but on the other hand, I have seen this, that an unmoderated list can reach higher hights, because when a group, can find unity from within, it is very special. So you savor those moments, and they get you through all the other moments of struggling. But the gems when found, are more brilliant. To me. Not that their aren't brilliant diamonds on moderated lists. au revoir, john haukness, the person who is fixated on the integrity of the list manager of both moderated and un-moderated lists. > > No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. > Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts > that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage > a flamewar. What other reasons are there? And aren't these > reasons sufficient not to push for an unmoderated forum? rick > > >C Pemberton-Pigott wrote: > >> > >> Dear Friends > >> > >> Chris wrote: > >> >> (fwd) Why do we need an unmoderated forum? The way we need > >> >>an unmoderated freeway where people can drive on whatever > >> >>side of the freeway we want to? > >> > >> > (Chris) I disagree with your analogy here. An unmoderated newsgroup is > >> not a > >> >highway, where anarchy can kill. A better comparison could be the > >> >difference between a debate and a general conversation in the works > >> >canteen > >> > >> There is no doubt that spiritual deaths can and do happen on the > >> Information Superhighway. The evisceration of the spirit and personal pain > >> akin to what JH describes harm people for decades and cripples their > >> emotional lives. This is the exact intent of some of the Covenant > >> Breakers. It is their sick desire to inflict pain. They feel no need to > >> "win". Pain will suffice. > > > >This is true. It is also true that spiritual enlightenment and rebirth > >can be found -- or at least promoted -- on the Net. I found the > >discussions on s.r.b in 1993 very useful in my investigations of the > >Faith. > > > >> I think if you look into Shoghi Effendi's descriptions of opposition and of > >> Covenant Breaking you find how he describes the illnesses, their > >> transmissability and characteristics, and describes how to minimize their > >> negative influences. Hate, intolerance, vilification, demonification and > >> all their running dogs are characteristics of the lowest debasment of the > >> human spirit. It is the antithesis of good sense to provide institutional > >> support for its manifestations without some sort mechanism for limiting the > >> damage to society by the sick and the demented. > > > >We should remember that CB's and others who wish to attack the Faith > >have access to other newsgroups and forums (fora?) now. The creation of > >t.r.b, if it happens, will not give them a forum where one never > >existed. > > > >> >The real world contains drug addicts and muggers. > >> > >> We do not tolerate forums where they pontificate on the merits of mugging > >> and drug taking - oh yeah we do - the Net! The net should be run according > >> to rules similar to those used by the Guinness Book of records. For the > >> safety of the human race, for example, they no longer entertain entries > >> into the "Closest to the ground before opening your parachute" category. > >> Why? Because it is manifestly dangerous and serves no useful purpose > >> anyway. > > > >"Should be" and "is" are two very different things, as we all know. The > >Net culture (such as it is) does reflect the culture of society in > >general, especially Western culture at its most libertarian. Is it in > >complete accordance with the teachings of the Faith? No, of course it > >isn't. > > > >IMHO, trying to impose a culture change from outside when the existing > >culture is resistant to it or not ready for it will fail. The change > >must come from within. We know this already. > > > >While we use the Net, we Baha'is need to conduct ourselves not only > >according to the teachings, but also to the standards and policies of > >the Net. But what happens when they conflict? IMHO, they do not > >conflict to the extent of forcing us to deny our faith. So we should > >follow the Net standards and policies -- and if we can't, then we > >shouldn't participate. And this includes the upcoming vote on t.r.b. > > > >As has been pointed out, there are proper and improper reasons for > >casting votes in the newsgroup process. Even though there is no way to > >enforce these reasons, I feel that if/when we participate in the > >process, we should follow those reasons. Failure to do so corrupts the > >process. > > > >I don't think I should say anything more right now, because some harsh > >thoughts are coming to mind. Time to say a few Remover of Difficulties > >and call on the Divine Physician. > > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > > ---------- From: haukness, john[SMTP:haukness@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 4:27 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Allah-u-Abha Douglas and Friends: As far as moderators only eliminating flame posts and negative posts, this has not been my and other experiences. I do not want to critisize all the hard work that moderators put into their jobs day and night. But I have on more than one occasion encountered rejections based on a slant of the moderator, based on politically correctness of the moderator, and based on a moderator taking things out of context and rejecting because of the erroneous context inferences. I am not saying this is a big problem. Moderators have many different levels of objectivity and attitudes towards the Covenant, the Baha'i Writings and to the art of consultation. BCCA moderators, in my view, by and large represent very good moderating technique, but not perfect, and how can anyone ask them to be perfect. In the other forum I net on, education, because I am an American public school teacher, I find similarly, a high standard of moderating technique. But I have found deficiencies from time to time, which is frustrating. So I don't mean to say that moderted forums are not better than un-moderated forums, but one of the reasons for my support of an un-moderated forum if the list owner is objective and honest, is that those few, rejected posts on a moderated list, that shouldn't have been rejected, will of course surface in an list that is moderated by the list users, and automatic post list, like this one. Thus an list that has an automatic post, will stretch the consultation furthur. Further to the bad but also further to the good. I will give one safe example. Volume, in a moderated list, one always sees during high volume days, posts from some complaining as to the messages being too long, and too many from some writers. I have always, always seen this. But the criticism generally is aimed at a few writers that the complainer doesn't like for personal reasons, and is often not objective. Now a person imv, has a right to argue for a lower volume, but doesn't have a good cause to single good writers out, just because those writers bring up subjects that a critic happens to personally just not like. Now in a list that rejects posts, the pressure is on that person to start deleting messages. In an automatic list, if some will accept high volume, will accept people being off topic, will accept posts from way out in left and right field, in order to get at the spark of truth, the automatic list is the way to get to this point. au revoir, john haukness > > > ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 10:31 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai 10/22/97 12:26 PM In answer to the recent message : >If the Baha'i Studies list was also set up thru AOL, then I will >put you in touch with a lists management person at AOL to fix the >situation. Dear friends- The listowner is a personal friend of mine and devoted Baha'i of long standing. I forwarded these comments to him and he phoned me today to say he is back from his unbearable burdens of tenure at the college and will be writing everyone soon. regards, doug ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 10:36 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Re[2]: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Richard Harmsen wrote: > No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated.' > Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts > that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage > a flamewar. What other reasons are there? And aren't these > reasons sufficient not to push for an unmoderated forum? rick An _excellent_ point, and--amazingly!--one I don't remember seeing made here before! Thanks, Rick! :-) ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 10:53 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai At 10:31 PM 10/23/97 -0400, Doug McAdam wrote: >Dear friends- >The listowner is a personal friend of mine and devoted Baha'i of long >standing. I forwarded these comments to him and he phoned me today to >say he is back from his unbearable burdens of tenure at the college and >will be writing everyone soon. Hi, Doug - Well, it wasn't related to my tenure (which I have had for a some time already), it was just general busyness with my academic work (mostly the construction of web sites). As I said before, I am again involved in the Baha'i Studies list and am monitoring it closely. Cordially, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D.), Prof. of Sociology * owner@sociologist.com https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (Page me online here!) * (913)469-8500, ext. 3376 https://surf.to/mark or https://earthcorp.com/mfoster (links to my sites/mirrors) https://surf.to/realitysciences or https://earthcorp.com/realitysciences (holism) https://surf.to/sociology or https://earthcorp.com/sociology (sociology/academia) https://surf.to/fosterservices or https://earthcorp.com/fosterservices (clinical) ---------- From: John B. Cornell[SMTP:jcornell@lightspeed.net] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 10:52 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai haukness, john wrote: > The city park is un-moderated, the public beach is un-moderated, > McDonalds resturant is un-moderated, the street corner is un-mderated. > That is the people on the street corner, at the beach, in the cafe, > make up the moderation or lack thereof. Dear John, All these places are protected by city, state and federal laws. Just put up a big sign, "Crack Cocaine for Sale" and see how long you are unmoderated. Shout obscenities at a policeman or at the staff at McDonald's and you will learn there are limits to free speech. This is to protect the public. Don't we want to protect the fair name of the Faith? Isn't it your understanding that it needs to be protected both from enemies and from unwisdom of its friends? John C. ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 1997 11:15 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai > The city park is un-moderated, the public beach is un-moderated, > McDonalds resturant is un-moderated, the street corner is un-mderated. > That is the people on the street corner, at the beach, in the cafe, > make up the moderation or lack thereof. They also aren't advertised as "Baha'i." ---------- From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:owner@sociologist.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 12:21 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: When does a sect or cult become a religion? At 10:52 PM 10/23/97 -0500, Richard Harmsen wrote: >Not to be contrary (I found this post most informative), but I think >its important to note that there is plenty of reason to believe >that the long standing idea that there is such a thing as a >"value-neutral" position is pretty much history - that is illusion, >imagination, vainglorious, etc. Perhaps it wasn't written in the >sense I took it. rh Hi, Richard - I agree with you that scientific research is never completely neutral. I am definitely not a Weberian (i.e, Max Weber - the sociologist/economist who proposed the idea of value-free sociology). I was referring to abandoning the use of a term which is explicitly biased - such as "cult" - in favor of a less "loaded" term, such as alternative religious movement. Of course, there is no telling how long it will be before "alternative religious movement" acquires the same sort of negative popular connotations as "cult." Originally, the remedial center at the college where I work was simply called the remedial center. Then, it became the Academic Achievement Center. This semester, it has been renamed the Student Success Center. The negative meaning which some attach to remediation sooner or later catches up with each of its euphemisms. ;-) Warmly, Mark (Foster) ---------- From: Keith James[SMTP:kjames@vision.net.au] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 6:40 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai I have come to the conclusion that talk.religion.bahai will be one of those things that will continue to be raised until it is successful. The establishment of alt.religion.bahai was a clear example of how the network responds to attempts to limit its expansion in any direction. I also think that preventing the formation of talk.religion.bahai may, in this context, be counter productive for the Faith. If it turns out to be as bad as many suggest, then Baha'is, except for a few, will not participate and it will be a body without soul. I suspect it will go through such a period and then become a very effective teaching medium once those who wish to use it as their plaything become bored with it. I also call to mind the many examples in the history of the Faith where an initially negative thing, like the banishment of the Founder, has become the cause of Triumph, fulfilment of ancient prophecy. This news group cannot defeat the Cause of God, and may indeed be the cause of its advancement. The one thing that can limit it is the actions of its avowed adherents. Keith James, kjames@vision.net.au ---------- > From: Robert Moldenhauer > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Friday, 24 October 1997 2:53 > > There are only opinions, no rules, Usenet is an anarchy with only one rule, > 100+ > yes votes with less than 1/3 no to approve a group. That's it. No rules > on why someone can cast a Yes vote, no rules on why someone can cast a No > vote. All this "canonical reasons for voting No" is just electioneering, > disguised as netiquette. ---------- From: Sandra Fotos[SMTP:sfotos@gol.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 8:05 AM To: pierceed@csus.edu Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: freedom of conscience & speech In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Eric, Warmest greetings to you and your family as well. My remarks were motivated by a post sent to H-Baha'i, a copy of which was also forwarded to Talisman. Once again, the argument was made that speech is distinct from behavior and that, by extension, one should be free to express one's views on email lists since "speech" isn't "behavior." The insistence on this point necessitates a rebuttal. >From the original post: >`Abdu'l-Baha did not authorize Baha'i institutions to punish the public >expression of individual belief, only "behavior." The attempt to subsume >Baha'is' email traffic under "behavior" rather than speech does obvious >violence to the distinctions. Sandy comments: Language is indeed behavior; in fact, it is the distinctive behavior of the human species. In terms of cognitive processing load and other neurological considerations, language development, production and automaticity is similar to other forms of information processing and output, including physical motion (which language production also requires). Sociolinguistically, language is considered to have two functions: the transmission of information and the regulation of human relationships. In fact such interactive language use is the major way of establishing and maintaining membership in social groups. Here, *language is behavior,* essential patterns of conduct (ask any anthropologist) which index belonging; countless formulaic utterances exist--ritualized forms which are essential for the function of a particular social organization. Linguists speak of speech *acts*-- in other words, *language is action.* If you doubt this, consider that certain speech acts called performatives actually perform functions when they are uttered--even legal functions (i.e., " I now pronounce you man and wife"; "We find the defendant 'Not Guilty.'") Furthermore, I have repeatedly pointed out that our legal system is based on the written word and that includes email, which is written, durable and has potentially limitless distribution. Therefore, I question the validity of the argument that emailed criticism of the Baha'i institutions is not behavior. However, there is an important issue here. But it is not whether email is speech or writing or whether speech/email is behavior. Clearly email is * both written and behavior.* Rather, what needs to be clarified is the nature of acceptable critical discourse within the constraints of non-criticism (the conditions of which have been discussed by Shoghi Effendi) of decisions arrived at through the consultative process. This past weekend members of ABS-Japan met with a Counsellor from Australia and discussed the urgent need for systematic planning and evaluation in community development. Very often such evaluation is avoided because people feel that it is criticism of the decisions of the Baha'i administration. So at what point does reasoned evaluation leave off and criticism and attacks begin? Unless we can make some progress determining this, the development of our institutions and the forward motion of the Faith in general is compromised. Is there an implied principle >of accountability in Baha'i electoral concepts or not? If so, why >can't it be extended to other areas of the public-institution >interface? I'm sorry, but I don't follow this argument. There are mechanisms in place for amending decisions. If they do not function as well as they should, then it is our duty to determine why they don't and address the problems. That we often fail to do this seems to be an indication of our own personal inadequacies, rather than the failure of the Administrative Order. Basically, I don't think that the Baha'i Faith offers anyone an easy way out. We have to just slog through these problems, developing both ourselves and our institutions in the process. Sandy - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 7:16 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Richard Harmsen wrote: > > No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. > Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts > that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage > a flamewar. What other reasons are there? And aren't these > reasons sufficient not to push for an unmoderated forum? rick One thing that could be done with an unmoderated forum that's harder to do with a moderated forum is to have articles crossposted to other groups in order to broaden the potential audience. Soc.religion.bahai does not accept crossposts, in general. So if there's a discussion that would be of interest to, say, Christians and Baha'is, it could be crossposted to both t.r.b (or a.r.b) and the appropriate Christian newsgroup. Another benefit of an unmoderated group would be to allow more latitude in what's considered "on topic". This latitude would be enforced by the group users rather than a moderator. Both of these features can be abused, I grant. But if they are used judiciously, then they can be useful. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Richard Harmsen[SMTP:RHARMSEN@MUSIC.FERRIS.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 12:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: re: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai The one concern I would have in regards to an 'unmoderated' forum about the Faith is that we live in a time when the Faith has enemies - and a growing number of ill wishers as it progresses. One of the posts mentioned Covenant-Breakers, and the potentially fatal or in any case the deleterious influence contact with them can have. All the thrill of unmitigated freedom does not, for me, outweigh the risks of such contacts, not only on the Baha'i participants, but on all the unsuspecting and blissfully unaware true seekers and curiosity seekers as well. Recent events associated with internet discussion groups has demonstrated that we as a community are not yet fully mature, much less the society at large and those who would love to have an opportunity to influence seeking souls negatively toward the Faith. No doubt in the future, when we've all matured more, the idea of unmoderated groups will be the way to go. The last point I'd like to make is that we Baha'is have access, to an extent that no other community on the face of the earth does, to divine guidance - literally if I dare use the word. For believers to take action on something as international and potentially influential as this individually, or even as a group of Baha'is associated with certain internet activities, seems to betray a degree of unawareness about at least one foundational Baha'i principle. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but I do think that it would be logical and in accord with the teachings to seek the advise of the House of Justice - and then eagerly embrace it of course - on anything of this magnitude and of such a universal scope. It would also seem logical and a great comfort, as well as a safety net, to seek inspired guidance on this issue from the institutions. Peace of mind is a rare thing in these times and we are blessed to have the means of being rather certain of our conformance to God's good pleasure - in relation to how and where we use our time. I appreciate this opportunity to express my views. Rick Harmsen ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 11:53 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote: > Another benefit of an unmoderated group would be to allow more latitude > in what's considered "on topic". This latitude would be enforced by the > group users rather than a moderator. The second sentence could be rephrased as: "This latitude would be unenforcable because there is no moderator." And we would both be accutate. > Both of these features can be abused, I grant. But if they are used > judiciously, then they can be useful. As a proud American for fifty some years I can tell you from personal experience and observation of others that is something has features that can be abused, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be abused. > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) Douglas Myers ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 1:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai Richard Harmsen wrote: > > The one concern I would have in regards to an 'unmoderated' > forum about the Faith is that we live in a time when the > Faith has enemies - and a growing number of ill wishers > as it progresses. One of the posts mentioned Covenant-Breakers, > and the potentially fatal or in any case the deleterious influence > contact with them can have. All the thrill of unmitigated > freedom does not, for me, outweigh the risks of such contacts, > not only on the Baha'i participants, but on all the unsuspecting > and blissfully unaware true seekers and curiosity seekers as > well. Recent events associated with internet discussion groups > has demonstrated that we as a community are not yet fully mature, > much less the society at large and those who would love to > have an opportunity to influence seeking souls negatively toward > the Faith. No doubt in the future, when we've all matured more, > the idea of unmoderated groups will be the way to go. > The last point I'd like to make is that we Baha'is have access, > to an extent that no other community on the face of the earth does, > to divine guidance - literally if I dare use the word. For believers > to take action on something as international and potentially > influential as this individually, or even as a group of > Baha'is associated with certain internet activities, seems to > betray a degree of unawareness about at least one foundational Baha'i > principle. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but > I do think that it would be logical and in accord with the > teachings to seek the advise of the House of Justice - and then > eagerly embrace it of course - on anything of this magnitude > and of such a universal scope. It would also seem logical and > a great comfort, as well as a safety net, to seek inspired guidance > on this issue from the institutions. Peace of mind is a rare thing > in these times and we are blessed to have the means of being rather > certain of our conformance to God's good pleasure - in relation to > how and where we use our time. I appreciate this opportunity to > express my views. Rick Harmsen I may have asked this a few weeks ago, but I'll ask again: does anybody out there recall the events surrounding the forming of soc.religion.bahai? How were the Institutions involved, if they were involved? This could be very useful information. You may recall that I have asked for the guidance of the House on matters relating to this. Since I am not the proponent of t.r.b, I have no authority to withdraw the proposal. I should point out that, if the proposal were to be withdrawn, a new proposal could be made by non-Baha'is. In fact, Covenant breakers could make a proposal for it, although if they called it talk.religion.bahai, one could make the valid technical argument that it's an improper use of namespace and would cause confusion (BTW, they could get around that by calling it t.r.b.orthodox or whatever). Suppose that the "Orthodox Baha'is" (hereafter referred to as OB's) proposed talk.religion.bahai.orthodox. Now I can tell you that I would stay far away from that group, and I'm sure the rest of you would too. But if it came to a vote, I would not vote at all. I certainly wouldn't vote YES, because I would not be a reader of the newsgroup. But I wouldn't vote NO, because I wouldn't see any namespace issues or other technical grounds. I'd stay out of the way and out of the fray. BTW, I think that such a proposal would fail due to lack of interest; I don't think it would get 100 votes. It wouldn't need a massive NO vote to fail, IMHO. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Richard Harmsen[SMTP:RHARMSEN@MUSIC.FERRIS.EDU] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 4:33 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai Roger wrote: >I may have asked this a few weeks ago, but I'll ask again: does anybody >out there recall the events surrounding the forming of >soc.religion.bahai? How were the Institutions involved, if they were >involved? This could be very useful information. > >You may recall that I have asked for the guidance of the House on >matters relating to this. Since I am not the proponent of t.r.b, I have >no authority to withdraw the proposal. > >I should point out that, if the proposal were to be withdrawn, a new >proposal could be made by non-Baha'is. In fact, Covenant breakers could >make a proposal for it, although if they called it talk.religion.bahai, >one could make the valid technical argument that it's an improper use of >namespace and would cause confusion (BTW, they could get around that by >calling it t.r.b.orthodox or whatever). Good point. It's never as simple as it seems, is it? rick h ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 3:07 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai In article , Tom Hodges wrote -- >Someone is determined to push for an unmoderated newsgroup. Nothing >said here will affect that. The question that might be of interest >here is how individuals should vote (YES or NO) or perhaps not vote. > >I haven't decided yet and when I do decide I won't be sharing that >decision with anyone else. Dear Tom, Whatever you do WILL be shared as the result of the vote lists all who voted and whether they voted YES, NO or ABSTAIN. Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Richard C. Detweiler[SMTP:rdetweil@primenet.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 4:21 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai > > I may have asked this a few weeks ago, but I'll ask again: does anybody > out there recall the events surrounding the forming of > soc.religion.bahai? How were the Institutions involved, if they were > involved? This could be very useful information. I know it was initiated during the Holy Year - 1992. I believe Mark Towfiq was the proponent. I believe he, Rick Troxel and Aaron ?? were the first moderators. I think they first approached the Institutions - perhaps the World Centre - and got their OK before going forward with the RFD and CFV. Before formation of SRB, I know Baha'is were active mostly on talk.religion.misc, soc.culture.iranian and to a lesser extent on soc.religion.islam and soc.religion.christian. Mark and Rick would know the true details. All of my musings are from memory without any documentation. Dick D. ---------- From: Bruce Limber[SMTP:blimber@CapAccess.org] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 4:57 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai > It wouldn't need a massive NO vote to fail, IMHO. Famous Last Words. :-( I operate on the philosophy that if one doesn't vote, one has no right to complain later. ---------- From: Tom Hodges[SMTP:potmod@beta.tricity.wsu.edu] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 5:02 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai Yes it will be shared but not until after the voting is complete. I am suggesting, perhaps too indirectly, that while discussion of the facts and general background of TRB is fine here, maybe we shouldn't advocate any position. That is, of course, just my opinion and no one else need consider it - I certainly not be upset whatever happens. :-) Tom On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Chris Manvell wrote: > In article 100000@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>, Tom Hodges > wrote -- > >Someone is determined to push for an unmoderated newsgroup. Nothing > >said here will affect that. The question that might be of interest > >here is how individuals should vote (YES or NO) or perhaps not vote. > > > >I haven't decided yet and when I do decide I won't be sharing that > >decision with anyone else. > > Dear Tom, > > Whatever you do WILL be shared as the result of the vote lists all who > voted and whether they voted YES, NO or ABSTAIN. > > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. > See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. > Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. > ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 5:14 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: UVV RFD tracking: talk.religion.bahai Ref: talk.religion.bahai Your RFD has been entered into the UVV tracking database. I will forward a copy of the UVV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) to you within the next couple of days. You can easily monitor the status of all proposals tracked in the UVV database by looking in the "news.groups" newsgroup for the daily posting of the article "UVV: Daily RFD, PQ, and CFV status report". If you have a question regarding the status of your proposal, please remember to check this posting first. There's a good chance that you will find the answer to your question in the article. -- Bill Aten Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 5:38 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: UVV Questionnaire: talk.religion.bahai Ref: talk.religion.bahai Our records show that you are the proponent of the referenced RFD. This message is being sent to you as a reminder that a completed UVV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) for your proposal needs to be sent to the UVV Coordinators before a votetaker can be assigned. Completed questionnaires are normally provided by the proponent 5 to 7 days prior to the anticipated CFV submission date, but that timing may vary depending on the activity generated by your RFD. A properly completed questionnaire MUST be on file in our database before we will be able to assign a votetaker to conduct the vote on your proposal. Any delay in providing this information at the proper time will cause a corresponding delay in the posting of your CFV. ****************************************************************************** A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least 21 days from the date of the first RFD, or ten days from any subsequent RFD, whichever is later. If more than 60 days have passed since the most recent RFD on the proposal, then another RFD is required before it can go to vote. The UVV must have time to process your questionnaire and submit the CFV before the 60 day limit, so do not wait until the last minute to provide your answers. ****************************************************************************** For your convenience, I have attached a copy of the current questionnaire to this message. Please take some time to review it ASAP. Your answers to the questions are based on the RFD discussions that occur. By reviewing this questionnaire now, you will be in a better position to properly complete the questionnaire at the end of the RFD discussion period. Once you have filled out the questionnaire as accurately and completely as possible, please forward it to: contact@uvv.org The above address may also be used if you have any questions regarding the voting process or procedures. If you have questions regarding your RFD, please DO NOT send them to us (the UVV). Send your RFD related questions to the group-advice folks at: group-advice@isc.org As a reminder, you can easily monitor the current status of all proposals tracked by the UVV. Simply look in the "news.groups" newsgroup for the daily posting of the article "UVV: Daily RFD, PQ, and CFV status report". If you have any questions regarding the status of your proposal, please check this article first before writing to us with your questions. -- Bill Aten Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers UseNet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page: ===================================================================== ========= UVV Pre-CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) for Newsgroup Proposals **************************************************************** Note: This document is for proponents of newsgroups which have completed the required initial 21-day discussion period and are ready for a vote. If you are looking for information about a new proposal, you need to start with a Request for Discussion (RFD). The Usenet group mentor program can help with this process; see . ***************************************************************** A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least 21 days from the date of the first RFD, or ten days from any subsequent RFD, whichever is later. If more than 60 days have passed since the most recent RFD on the proposal, then another RFD is required before it can go to vote. The UVV must have time to process your questionnaire and submit the CFV before the 60 day limit, so do not wait until the last minute to provide your answers. Please -- DO NOT return the completed questionnaire until 5 to 7 days prior to the anticipated CFV submission date. The answers you provide must reflect the discussion generated by your RFD(s). If you send it in too soon, we will simply return it to you and ask you to resubmit it at a later date when the RFD discussions are more or less complete. ***************************************************************** Last updated: March 24, 1997 The UseNet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) coordinate all the details of the newsgroup VOTING process, including two postings of the CFV and a final RESULT. Your vote will be given to a neutral member of an experienced cadre of votetakers. In order for this to work, we need the information requested in this questionnaire. All groups must have appeared in an official RFD under the same group names that you are requesting in the CFV. If you are still in the RFD process, please wait before filling out this form so that changes based upon the discussion can be incorporated. Proponents are expected to react to issues raised during the RFD process and incorporate changes based upon this process; if there are substantial changes from the last RFD, then you need to submit another RFD, not this questionnaire. Review Question #1 (in the "before you start" section below) to ensure that you're in compliance with this requirement. About a week before the desired CFV date is ideal timing for submitting this form since it takes at least a few days to assign the vote to a volunteer. If you don't send us this information, it will be assumed that you decided not to go through with the vote (it often happens). We will take the answers you provide in this questionnaire and add the voting instructions, dates, etc. to create the actual CFV, you don't need to do that. All we need from you is an accurate and properly completed questionnaire. Please fill in the requested information and return the entire form in plain text (ie. no MIME, BINHEX, BASE64, PGP, miscellaneous attachments, etc.), 80 columns wide, to . Format Instructions =================== ***************************************************************** WARNING -- Your completed PQ will be processed into a CFV usable format via automated scripts. If you don't adhere to the specified formatting instructions, your PQ will be rejected with instructions to reformat it and resubmit it. This will result in extra work for you and a further delay in the submission of your CFV. ***************************************************************** Please provide your response to each of the following questions in the appropriate area immediately following the question. The area designated for your response is delimited by two hash-lines (one marked _BEGIN_ and one marked _END_) and contains a "key" word that indicates the contents the response section. Do not edit or remove either of the hash-lines or the "key" word, and make sure that one (and only one) blank line follows the "key" word and one (and only one) blank line precedes the ending hash-line. If a section is not applicable to your proposal (eg. MODERATOR INFO: for an unmoderated proposal), leave the section in your reply but DO NOT enter any information between the two hash-lines. The specific location for your response is identified by a bracketed comment. Begin your response in the column that contains the opening bracket ([), but delete the bracket and its contents from your response. If you are using your mailer to "reply" to this PQ, make sure that you do not include any "reply prefixes" (eg. "> ") in the area between the two lines of hash marks. DO NOT allow any portion of your response to extend beyond column 78, start a new line instead. One Exception: The "Newsgroup descriptions" section has a different formatting requirement which is explained in that paragraph. The following is an example response: Assuming that you are using your mailer to reply to this PQ, the example response format template might look like the following: > > #####################################################_BEGIN_##### > EXAMPLE: [news.group.name_goes_here] > > [enter_your_response_here] > > #######################################################_END_##### > Properly completed, your response should look like the following: #####################################################_BEGIN_##### EXAMPLE: misc.proposed.group This group is needed to blah, blah, blah, etc. #######################################################_END_##### Note how the mailer reply prefixes ("> ") have been deleted, and the responses began in the same column as the beginning bracket ([) of the enclosed comment. Also note that there is exactly one (1) blank line after the "EXAMPLE:" "key" word, and exactly one (1) blank line before ending hash-line. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-CFV Questions ================= 1. Summary of the RFD Discussion. Please confirm that you participated in the required RFD discussion. In order to show compliance with the discussion phase of the newsgroup creation process, please give a brief description of the input that was given to you in response to the RFD, and what changes were made as a result of them. You do not have to implement every suggestion, but you must have answered them. Also indicate what your answers were if any serious suggestions were not implemented. For simple non-controversial proposals, it is acceptable to say, "all input was positive," but only if that's true. NOTE: If, based on the input you've received, it appears that changes to the name(s) (including typos), charter(s), or moderator information of any of the proposed newsgroup(s) are necessary, you must make those changes and issue another RFD and allow discussion of the new RFD before submitting this form. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### SUMMARY: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 2. Proposed newsgroup names. List the proposed newsgroup name(s), whether each group is unmoderated or moderated, and any applicable comments. DO NOT put the words "moderated" or "unmoderated" in parentheses. Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example: comp.foo.bar.misc unmoderated (renames comp.foo.bar) comp.foo.bar.announce moderated #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PROPOSED NAMES: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 3. Newsgroup descriptions. Please provide a one-line description of each newsgroup. Avoid phrases like "Discussion of..." since we already know that. Enter the group name, then a tab (you must tab past column 24). You now have until the end of an 80-character line to enter a description for the system newsgroups files (which you must end with a period). If applicable, there is only ONE space between the period (.) and "(Moderated)". The "(Moderated)" phrase does not count in the 80 character limit. Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example: comp.foo.bar.misc The foo bar system in general. comp.foo.bar.announce Announcements about the foo bar system. (Moderated) ( you MUST tab to here ^ [minimum] using a tabstop of 8 ) #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEWSGROUP DESCRIPTIONS: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 4. Proponent/Mentor name and address. List the proponent's name and email address for this vote (usually you). If there is more than one proponent, list them on separate lines in the same format with the "primary" proponent listed first. If you are working with a Group Mentor, please include that person's name and email address also. If you do not have a Mentor, please delete that entire line in your response. Please use the form "name ". For example: Proponent: John Foo Proponent: Dave Smith Mentor: Jane Doe #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PROPONENT: Proponent: [enter_your_response_here] Mentor: [enter_your_response_here___DELETE_this_entire_line_if_no_mentor] #######################################################_END_##### 5. Newsgroup rationale. A rationale is a short paragraph or two explaining why you think this group creation/reorganization/whatever should pass. This paragraph will be used for the "Rationale" section of the CFV. This is not optional and is quite important in convincing potential voters to cast a positive vote. Multi-group proposals must have a rationale section for each group. This information is usually taken directly from the most recent RFD. Please provide a rationale for each newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END RATIONALE." comment at the end of your rationale. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### RATIONALE: [news.group.name_goes_here] [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 6. Newsgroup charter. What is/are the charter(s) for the newsgroup(s)? This includes the name of the newsgroup(s), what is acceptable and unacceptable on the newsgroup(s), and what exactly is going on if this is a reorganization. This information can usually be taken directly from the most recent RFD. If the information has changed substantially since the last RFD, then a new RFD should be prepared instead of proceeding with a CFV. A new RFD is mandatory if any changes to a newsgroup name are made (no matter how minor). Please provide a charter for each newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END CHARTER." comment at the end of your charter. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### CHARTER: [news.group.name_goes_here] [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 7. Moderator information. If any of the groups are moderated, give the names of their moderators, their mail addresses, and the addresses they will be using to moderate the group. If there is more than one moderator, then EACH moderator's name and address info line must begin with the "Moderator:" header. NOTE 1: You MUST use quotes (") if there is a period (.) in the moderator's listed name and you elect to use the 1st address format listed in the example below. NOTE 2: DO NOT enclose the contact or submission addresses in brackets (<>). NOTE 3: Failure to provide both "contact" and "submission" addresses will cause your PQ submission to be rejected. For example: Moderator: "R. Frobs" <-- quotes required Moderator: jdoe@host.domain (J. Doe) <-- do not use quotes Administrative contact address: chess-request@host.domain Article submission address: chess@host.domain Please provide the moderator info for every moderated newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END MODERATOR INFO." comment at the end of your moderator info. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MODERATOR INFO: [news.group.name_goes_here] Moderator: [enter_your_response_here___ADD_additional_entries_if_required] Administrative contact address: [enter_your_response_here] Article submission address: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 8. Newsgroups gatewayed to mailing lists. If any groups are going to be gatewayed with a mailing list, give the name and address of the mailing list. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### GATEWAYS: [news.group.name_goes_here] Gateway mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here] Submission address: [enter_your_response_here] Request address: [enter_your_response_here_(this_entry_line_is_optional)] #######################################################_END_##### 9. CFV newsgroup distribution. These are usually the same newsgroups where you posted the RFD because you don't want the vote to come as a surprise to any unsuspecting newsgroups. There needs to be a good reason to add newsgroups to the CFV distribution. NOTE: The CFV will normally only be posted to the Big 8 (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk) and ALT newsgroups. Other requested newsgroup hierarchies may be deleted by the news.announce.newsgroup moderator before the CFV is actually posted. IMPORTANT! CFVs are always crossposted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. If these, plus the Newsgroups: header name, your other newsgroups, and the commas (",") that separate each newsgroup name, total more than 200 characters, there are several Usenet sites which will not be able to handle the CFV and will discard it. Even though 200 characters are available, shorter newsgroup lists and less crossposting are generally a good idea. We will NOT accept a Newsgroups: header that exceeds 200 characters because the "news.announce.newgroups" moderator's posting scripts will simply reject it. When you are doing your math to determine the length of the Newsgroups: header line, don't forget that the header name and the commas that separate the newsgroup names, must be counted as part of the allowed 200 characters. Since "Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups," is 48 characters in length, that leaves you with 152 characters for your desired newsgroup names and the required separating commas. When you enter your newsgroups below, please enter the newsgroups in alphabetical order, only put one newsgroup on each line, and use as many lines as necessary (without exceeding the max character count). When you count the characters in your entry, don't include any spaces after the commas. When we reformat your submission, the newsgroup names will be joined into one long header line with no spaces after the commas. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEWSGROUPS: Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups, [enter_your_1st_newsgroup_here], [enter_your_next_newsgroup_here], [enter_your_next_newsgroup_here], [enter_your_last_newsgroup_here] #######################################################_END_##### 10. New crosspostings. There needs to be a good reason for adding newsgroups to the CFV distribution. Which, if any, newsgroups listed in the previous response were not crossposted to in the RFD(s) (if none, say "none")?. Please provide a good reason for adding each newsgroup that you list. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multiple entries. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEW CROSSPOSTS: New Newsgroup: [enter_your_response_here] Reason: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 11. Moderated crossposted newsgroups. In addition to "news.announce.newgroups", which (if any) of the newsgroups in your requested distribution listing are moderated (if none, say "none")?. If more than one newsgroup is moderated, list each one on a separate line. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MODERATED NEWSGROUPS: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 12. Pointer messages to newsgroups. If you plan to post "pointers" to the CFV in additional newsgroups, list the intended newsgroups here (if none, say "none"). If you plan to post "pointers" to more than one newsgroup, list each one on a separate line. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### POINTER MESSAGES: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 13. CFV submission to mailing lists. Would you like us to send the CFV to any mailing lists? Although allowed, the use of mailing lists is strongly discouraged due to the numerous voting problems that continually arise during the CFVs that use them. If you feel that mailing lists are essential, please keep the number of lists requested to an absolute minimum. More lists mean more potential problems, and it becomes more difficult to find a volunteer votetaker to run your proposal. These mailing lists have to be named up front, so please give their names and submission addresses so that this information can be included in the CFV. You may wish to include the request address as well as the posting address, so anyone who is interested and wants to join won't send messages to the mailing list itself. IMPORTANT! For each mailing list you name, we need to know whether or not the list honors Reply-To: headers in messages sent to it, and whether or not non-members can directly post messages to the list. CFVs can only be posted to mailing lists that allow the votetaker to directly post messages, so if the list is closed to non-members, the actual CFV will not be posted to that list (unless the votetaker happens to also be a member of the closed list). For closed lists, you have the option of posting a "pointer" message to the list to advise the members that a CFV is in progress and to tell them where they can find a copy of the actual CFV. The intent to use "pointer" messages in mailing lists does not need to be listed in the CFV. Please provide the following information and answer the questions for each mailing list you name. The CFV will not be sent to any mailing lists missing this information, or to closed lists (unless the votetaker happens to be a member). Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary if you're requesting more than one mailing list submission. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MAILING LISTS: Mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here] Submission address: [enter_your_response_here] Request address (optional): [enter_your_response_here] List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_response_here] List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_here] #######################################################_END_##### Do not modify or delete this final entry. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PQ Date Stamp: 970324 #######################################################_END_##### Thanks, UVV Coordinators ===================================================================== ========= ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 4:19 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: declaration card In article <344D58C7.610C@humboldt1.com>, Douglas Myers wrote -- >Your wording is not the question here. Perhaps I did not make myself >clear enough. You and I, as believers in the Faith of Baha'u'llah, have >*no* right to inflict our views about anything on the delegates to the >National Convention. I should say *nothing* to the delegate from my >Unit and you should say *nothing* to the delegated from your Unit. No >one should say anything to any delegate from any Unit! > >Above I said we should not *inflict* our views on the delegates. I mean >exactly that, *inflict*. Every time we give our views to a delegate we >are intruding on the spiritual processes that support the Covenant. >That is the old world order politics that we are attempting to roll up. >Our elections are a spiritual process. This is the way the world will >eventually run. I know the transition is hard. I used to be a >political animal and every once in a while I still need to bit my >tongue. But we will get there eventually. I'm wondering if I wrong here, but I was under the impression that any individual who is in the delegate's unit may request that the delegate bring up a matter at National Convention (after all, there is no other way for that individual to do it). Having said that, the request is no more than that -- it is not an obligation and the delegate may decide not to persue the matter. Certainly, this is how we have operated in our unit in the past. To give a couple of examples. A believer may feel that an idea is important enough to warrant discussion by the delegates instead of just being passed to the NSA. On the other hand, I was once asked to bring up a subject that was local in interest and on which the NSA had already consulted and come to a descision. Because of this, I did not persue it openly at Convention but did bring the matter up with one of the members of the NSA so that, at least, they knew that the matter had not been laid to rest. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 5:12 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Regarding t.r.b. Fred, I'm concerned. I have seen neither the RFD nor any pointers (in the uk.* area). What's going on? Best wishes, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 5:36 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: RFD: talk.religion.bahai In message <877463342.1517501.0@hm2.hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> The message WAS posted for a while and then deleted by the list-master. >> I have posted an e-mail asking the members if I can re-post it from >> myself (Nick is more likely to say "yes" to a request) and, if not, to >> post a pointer. The only response on the group was one asking wasn't >> the group for Baha'is only -- was it you that posted it, or Chris Stone? > >David Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroup posted it, >as he does all new proposals to the major lists and newsgroups on >the RFD. Sorry if they didn't want it there.... Whatever you think >is appropriate.... I had a bit of a to-do with the list-master but we are friends again. He felt that BXUK was not an appropriate place to post the RFD but, as I said, it went up anyway. Strangely, I read a response to it about 24hours before it was downloaded to my computer. All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: Chris Manvell[SMTP:Chris@baha.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 5:48 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion.bahai In article , Tom Hodges wrote -- >Yes it will be shared but not until after the voting is complete. >I am suggesting, perhaps too indirectly, that while discussion of >the facts and general background of TRB is fine here, maybe we >shouldn't advocate any position. That is, of course, just my >opinion and no one else need consider it - I certainly not be >upset whatever happens. :-) Point taken. It is obvious where I stand but I do try to be unbiassed in that I see both the advantages and disadvantages of TRB. > All the best, Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 -- NEWSGROUP READERS: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. See for RFD on talk.religion.bahai. Discussion itself may be found on news.groups and on alt.religion.bahai. ---------- From: DEANDOBBERT@delphi.com[SMTP:DEANDOBBERT@delphi.com] Sent: Friday, October 24, 1997 11:42 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Re[2]: Pointer to RFD: talk.religion Richard, <<< No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage a flamewar.>>> Because posts that are rude, inflammatory and encouraging of flamewars may also contain the spark of truth that disturbs the status quo and brings about totally new ideas. All of history, from the tremendous events that lead to each succeeding stage of evolution, to the "all things made new" point in history when each new Manifestation of God appears, is a series of large disturbances to the status quo. Moderated groups maintain the status quo and prevent those large disturbances from bringing about new ways of thinking. Without the rude posts, how can we show our patience? Without the inflammatory posts, how can we show how the Baha'i way of thinking can change the heart? Read the Fire Tablet and you will appreciate how necessary it is. Dean Dobbert, M.D https://pages.prodigy.com/DE/deanspot/deanspot.html (Please forgive me for entering this discussion, I've tried to stay out of it for days, and I can't bear it any longer ) ---------- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette[SMTP:schuette@s.imap.itd.umich.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 5:42 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: rudeness and moderation Dean Dobbert, M.D (DEANDOBBERT@delphi.com) wrote: >Richard, > ><<< >>No one has answered the question why the need for 'unmoderated'. >>Presumably the only thing that would be censored are posts >>that are rude, inflammatory, or that might otherwise encourage >>a flamewar.>>> > >Because posts that are rude, inflammatory and encouraging of flamewars may >also contain the spark of truth that disturbs the status quo and brings >about totally new ideas. > So, for instance, when you think maybe your family should try cross-country skiing, you would smash the dinner table with a sledge- hammer, swear a blue-streak at your daughter and wife, and scream at the top of your lungs at their idiocy for not having thought of anything new this week? This seems a last resort, not a preferred approach. What happened to suggestion, conversation, and inspirational leadership? Wade -------- From - Sat Nov 01 09:13:38 1997 >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Fri Oct 31 05:19:23 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xRGrj-0003tnC; Fri, 31 Oct 97 08:11 EST X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Message from the BCCA Co-ordinating Committee From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:12:28 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3421 >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:11:40 -0500 >To: dmcadam >From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette >Subject: Re: Message from the BCCA Co-ordinating Committee >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Tom Hodges wrote: > >>10/28/97 12:09 PM In answer to the recent message : >> >>>I was also concerned for a bit but this discussion seems to be working >>>as a self regulating body. The supportive but absolutely firm attitude >>>of the friends seems to keep any problems from swinging to extremes. >>>Lets not try fixing something that is working well. Congratulations >>>to the friends on bahai-discuss. >> > > I concur. I am on several groups, both Baha'i and not, that have >a strong ability to self-stabilize and I think it's something we should >nurture. I have the same approach with my children, who sometimes get >into loud unharmonious behaviour (!) but most of the time can sort it >out themselves, and I think it is a great assistance to their development >as adults to learn how to self-moderate their own disagreements. ( Of >course, I reserve the right to step in when plan "A" doesn't work and >physical violence seems imminent. ) > >dmcadam wrote > >>Dear friends- >>I concur with Tom on this. I truly believe we can be self-regulating if >>we try to follow the Teachings about speech. Maybe the subject of >>Communications would be an interesting ongoing dialogue where we can >>bring out what has been discovered by the harmony of science and >>religion. In other words we could review some findings from social >>scientists as well as quotes from the Writings. >> > > Please don't forget Computer Science in the list of sciences with >something to contribute to the discussion of harmony with religion, >particularly in the area of designing self-stabilizing world-wide >massively-parallel networks of interacting and communicating agents. > > Many of the problems of evolution, self-organizing systems, >moderation, self-guidance, distributed intelligence, synthesis >(fusion) of multiple fragments of information into a cohesive >overall view, etc., are very heavily studied, modeled, simulated, >and tested in Computer Science these days. Distributed artificial >intelligence, and even "artificial life", emergence of order from >chaos, etc. are the topics in vogue in many places. > > I'm finishing a late-life masters degree in Distributed >artificial intelligence, and, IMHO, computer science is slowly >rediscovering what Baha'u'llah alredy told us. It's neat, and >it complements historical experience and social science since one can >try experiments, change parameters, and play "what if" games to >convince oneself that, say, positive feedback is sufficient to >stabilize and train a neural net, and one does not need negative >feedback at all (ie, pure loving supportive messages are sufficient, >and, in fact, often optimal) for a global convergence on truth, >starting from multiple, discordant fragments of knowledge. > >Wade > > > > > Cheryll & Wade Schuette R. Wade Schuette 2345 Stone Rd. University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0752 (313) 763-8278 (home) (313) 763-6115 (work) From - Wed Oct 29 08:50:32 1997 >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Tue Oct 28 08:27:16 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xQEDE-0003z2C; Tue, 28 Oct 97 11:09 EST X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Message from the BCCA Co-ordinating Committee Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <19971028051737.AAB17360@[194.239.189.7]> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:09:33 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Hodges X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1999 Dear CC members, I was also concerned for a bit but this discussion seems to be working as a self regulating body. The supportive but absolutely firm attitude of the friends seems to keep any problems from swinging to extremes. Lets not try fixing something that is working well. Congratulations to the friends on bahai-discuss. The danger we have to be ready for is a concerted attack from outside the faith that is determined to make our discussion groups unworkable. Anyone can post to our email lists, they just can't read them (thanks to the vigilance of our list managers). Eventually we will have to have a way to block posts from enemies or from mischevious individuals. I think Mark Towfiq has considered this and has some contingency measures ready for when they may be needed. Meanwhile lets keep discussing... Tom Hodges Major snips below... On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, CC Secretary wrote: > To All Subscribers to Baha'i Discuss > > > Dear Baha'i Friends > > The Co-ordinating Committee, one of whose responsibilities it is to > guarantee the smooth operation of all BCCA-sponsored services (such as > Baha'i Announce, Baha'i Discuss, Baha'i Women, etc) has noted a number of > recent exchanges on this forum that merit comment, and perhaps remedial > action. We are greatly saddened by what we must mention and distressed > that offensive messages have been posted here. > > > The Committee is in the process of consulting upon the actions to be > taken as a consequence of this situation, raising the issues with the > various appropriate institutions of the Faith (and with some of the > individuals most particularly involved), and considering converting > Baha'i Discuss into a moderated forum. > > For the moment, we would like to recall that all members of this forum > are expected to comport themselves in a dignified way that is worthy of > the Faith. Any problems or perceived misconduct should be reported From - Sun Oct 26 14:49:10 1997 >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Oct 25 09:36:29 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xP934-0003yoC; Sat, 25 Oct 97 12:26 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" References: <344FC004.C0A0C3C3@wwnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Subject: Re: Divisive arguments over t.r.b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <3451F960.74B8@hotmail.com> From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:27:13 -0400 X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 7095 Fred Glaysher wrote: >Roger Reini wrote: > >> Since the discussions do involve the newsgroup creation process, I feel >> that further discussions should take place on news.groups. I invite all >> interested people to participate in those discussions and contribute >> their opinions there. Who knows what will happen? We might all learn >> something. > >The proper place for discussion of the proposed talk.religion.bahai, >under UseNet group creation rules, is on news.groups.... Since the >RFD and pointers have been posted, please direct all discussion of >the proposal to news.groups, crossposted to alt.religion.bahai, if >you have access to it. > >Thank you. >> Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) >Frederick Glaysher --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred and Roger, thank you for the polite request. I'm afraid I must disagree with your reasoning, and will explain why. I am open to reasoned counter-arguments, as this is a relevant issue and we should try to get it clear. I am aware of no reason why a semi-private discussion among Baha'is about this issue is inappropriate, illegitimate, or illegal. Individuals are free to post their own opinions to news.groups and engage in a discussion there about general Usenet issues, if they can stand what even Joe Bernstein says some people see as a "high-traffic cesspool." However, the news.groups environment is not appropriate for a calm, civil discussion among Baha'is about what Baha'i principles may be involved here, about what the Universal House of Justice or others have written that is relevant, etc. These are Baha'i issues, and Bahai-Discuss is, IMHO, a perfect place for them. As I read the guidelines (see below), the primary reason for posting to news.groups is because many other groups do not WANT the discussion cluttering up their own bandwidth, or because one has something to share that system administrators might find relevant in deciding whether to carry the resulting group, or because one wishes to engage in public dialog with the group proponent about the proposal. These are voluntary actions. Joe Berstein says (full quote below) > Probably the most controversial sentence in the Guidelines is this one: > > The group [news.announce.newgroups] is moderated, and the > Followup-to: header > will be set so that the > actual discussion takes place only in news.groups about which I'd note that (a) this is highly controversial, whatever it is, and (b) it's fine with me if news.groups sets their own followup-to header to whatever they like -- that's their business and Baha'i-Discuss is ours. They're having their official Usenet discussion, and we're having a different discussion about principles, that would not benefit by being carried out in the news.groups environment. If you believe there should be some sanction, such as vote-invalidation for those who discuss the issue outside news.groups, then I'd like to hear how you would determine in a fair manner who those people might be, and whether you would challenge their votes regardless whether they are YES or NO votes. Am I supposed to believe that the proponents of the group have absolutely no private discussion of this issue outside news.groups? This concept is unworkable, unenforceable, and unfair, penalizing those who talk on-the-record (eg, here) in favor of those who hide in secrecy. If you intend to do more than raise this issue and then forget it, why not have David Lawrence write a message to this group explaining the reasoning and justification, and let's hear it now, not post hoc. I'd personally much rather carry on our discussion here, and post to news.groups as individuals, or, if a collective opinion and concensus arose, to post it to news.groups after it was clearly articulated as an official group position. Since the odds are about zero that a group of 1000 Baha'is will reach a concensus on this sort of thing in three weeks (!) I think that boils down to mostly individuals posting where they want to post when they feel like it. (previous references follow below) Wade Schuette ------------- As I posted to Bahai-Discuss on 10/6/97, >You keep referring to Joe Bernstein's personal opinions as if >they were some sort of agreed upon set of guidelines or laws. >They're not. >Joe Bernstein's "News.groups - a Survival Guide" can be found at >https://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html >and is interesting reading. It appears, however, that despite >much heated debate, and much promise of revised guidelines for the >last four years, the the closest thing there is to official guidelines >is the piece written by David C. Lawrence and others, >found among other places at: >https://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/guidelines.faq Joe Bernstein's first reference, above, contains section 7.3 below. Although it contains the opinion "All discussion really should be posted here [to news.groups]", the wider context of that statement refers to a desire to make the issues known to a wider Usenet community, including system adminstrators. I can't find anything that even remotely looks like "if you don't post to news.groups, such and such a sanction will be invoked." > 7.3 Discussion only in news.groups? > > Probably the most controversial sentence in the Guidelines is this one: > > The group [news.announce.newgroups] is moderated, and the Followup-to: > header will be set so that the > actual discussion takes place only in news.groups. > news.groups exists to make proposals known to the wider Usenet community, > including admins who will decide whether to > carry the resulting groups. All discussion really should be posted here; > the question is whether or not it should be > crossposted to affected groups. >A crossposted discussion is almost certain to splinter, resulting in some > posts that aren't in news.groups. Many Usenet >groups have decided they don't like RFD discussions, and they want it all > to move here when the RFD is posted. Even in >groups where this isn't the consensus, uninterested readers often want the > RFD out. And some RFDs are caused by >overwhelming volume in affected groups; crossposting only makes the problem > worse. On top of the ambiguous sentence in >the Guidelines, all this leads many people to believe that discussion should > never be cross-posted. >On the other hand, many people believe some or all discussion should be > crossposted in order to ensure that the readership >of the affected groups is educated about the proposal. They argue that >news.groups is a high-traffic cesspool and that reading >the discussion should be as convenient as possible. >However you interpret these arguments, please try to respect complaints >from the readership of the affected groups. If you >often cross-post beyond the norm established for any given debate, you are >likely to lose respect. ----- end of references. From - Sun Oct 26 14:45:25 1997 >From bahai-discuss-x@bounty.bcca.org Sat Oct 25 10:40:52 1997 Received: by bcca.org (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0xPA4u-0003pmC; Sat, 25 Oct 97 13:32 EDT X-Loop: Bahai-Discuss-request@Bounty.BCCA.Org Errors-To: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org Sender: Bahai-Discuss-x@Bounty.BCCA.Org X-IMPORTANT-NOTE: Please send unsubscribe messages to Bahai-Discuss-Request@BCCA.Org To: "Baha'i Discuss" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <344FC004.C0A0C3C3@wwnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <34521E1C.10244874@wwnet.com> Subject: Re: Divisive arguments over t.r.b X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: rreini@wwnet.com Organization: N/A Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:28:12 -0400 From: Roger Reini X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 496 My reason for inviting participation in news.groups was to promote knowledge of the newsgroup creation process, to see it in action on other group proposals. That's how I picked up my knowledge of it. And there are people there who are quite knowledgeable about it. I've never suggested that discussions about t.r.b should cease here on B-D. Clearly, if it involves issues that are best kept within the community, then B-D is the place to bring them up. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) ---------- From: Keith James[SMTP:kjames@vision.net.au] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 6:55 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai As I see it, this unmoderated list is becoming more of a question of whether Baha'is should actively oppose it, or allow it form. In the context of the Internet, it could be very counter productive for Baha'is to oppose formation of this news group. This group will eventually form, with or without our support. As the Faith becomes an issue for the general public, then there will be a growing demand for such a group where Baha'is cannot control the discussion. I personally would prefer the outright enemies to have their play while numbers using such a list were still low. They might leave before large numbers of new seekers find such a list. In my view, we should do nothing. If there is enough non-Baha'i support it can then form. Some of the more deepened, stronger Baha'is can participate according to our teachings and recent guidance from the Universal House of Justice and certain NSA's. If we stay true to the teachings then the enemies will wither away, leaving us with another valuable teaching tool, which we do need. It really is no different to attending a conference sponsored by non-Baha'is, we need to reach out to these people. ---------- > From: Richard Harmsen > To: Baha'i Discuss > Subject: re: unmoderated talk-religion-bahai > Date: Saturday, 25 October 1997 3:26 > > The one concern I would have in regards to an 'unmoderated' > forum about the Faith is that we live in a time when the > Faith has enemies - and a growing number of ill wishers > as it progresses. One of the posts mentioned Covenant-Breakers, > and the potentially fatal or in any case the deleterious influence > contact with them can have. >, but > I do think that it would be logical and in accord with the > teachings to seek the advise of the House of Justice - and then > eagerly embrace it of course - on anything of this magnitude > and of such a universal scope. > The Universal House of Justice has issued some guidelines on discussions on the Networks which cover the kind of thing we have been considering in relation to talk.religion.bahai. I do not think there is need for further guidance. We should observe the guidance we already have in dealing with Covenant Breakers, enemies of the Faith in conversation, at a conference or by correspondence. Right now it is difficult for me to find them as my files are in disarray, but portions have already been posted to this list. In summary we can participate, but we should not become embroiled in an argument. We should not respond to Covenant Breaker mail. We should refute the false arguments of the enemies of the Faith, and that is it. Do not become contentious. These rules already apply to Bahai-Studies, soc.religion.bahai, and the Compuserve Forum. Now some people have not followed this guidance and for example Talisman degenerated seriously because of the contention on that list. We must learn to deal with these people in an open forum. Keith James, kjames@vision.net.au ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 8:26 AM To: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Cc: talisman@umich.edu Subject: On Free Speech In the Baha'i Studies List today: Greetings, from Ottawa. In all this discussion about whether or not speech is behaviour i have not seen the distinction made which was made in AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, C. Herman Pritchett, McGraw-Hill 1962 p. 242: "Because of its social setting, the process of communication by speech is likely to create more temptations and justifications for government intervention than is the process of communication by the printed word. People who are reading cause no trouble, and the government should have no concern about what they are reading. A possible exception to this rule is if the reading matter is outrageously obscene; the problems of obscenity are considered in Chapter 24. But communication by speech is by definition a social process, and often occurs in situations where public problems necessarily result. Speeches often draw crowds. They are often made on public property. They may be amplified by loudspeakers to the point of becoming a public nuisance. They may arouse animosities or inflame listeners to the point of physical violance. The public interest in peace and order may often be thought to require some prior restraints on speech, and the Supreme Court has adjudicated many conflicts of this sort." Chapter 23 of this book does consider libel, "Any written or printed material defaming or reflecting on the character of a person, published maliciously and without justification", as well as slander, "An oral statement of the same kind." However, it would appear, with such exceptions as obscenity taken into consideration, that American Constitutional law in general perceives a distinction between problems caused by the exercise of speech and the expression of views in printed format. Blessed Be, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Stephen R. Friberg[SMTP:friberg@will.brl.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 8:54 AM To: pierceed@csus.edu Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Re: alienation and individuals In the Baha'i Studies List today: Dear Eric: You wrote: > I am always shocked and amazed when I hear the disapointment > privately expressed by many long-term, dedicated, pious > constructive Baha'is about the current weak collective- > leadership culture. It is not an issue that is only "owned" > by a radical fringe of undesirables who can't bring > themselves to write appeals. Can I write something a little strong in reply to this? I drove home to day from the Baha'i Center in Tokyo. The expressway was shut for repairs and all the streets were clogged: a 50 km drive took three and a half hours. There were times that I accelerated through problems: I stepped on the gas and simply zoomed through. I think that this is sometimes an option. Of course, much of the time I simply had to wait patiently. My *strong* comment is in response to your comment about "long-term, dedicated pious Baha'is" and anybody else bemoaning what you have called the "the current weak collective/leadership culture." This is to be shouted angrily: "WHY ARE THEY, WE, OR ANYBODY WAITING FOR OR DEMANDING OR DEPENDING ON SO-CALLED LEADERS?" After a pause for breath (a look in the mirror would show a face reddened by emotion), more angry shouting: "SINCE WHEN HAS THIS FAITH DEPENDED ON FOLLOWING LEADERS?" Another pause, hands are raised as if in supplication to God, and the shoulders are shrugged in a way that looks vaguely Israeli: "AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO DO THE BLANKETY BLANK WORK OR THE FAITH OURSELVES, NOT WAIT UNTIL SOME BLANKETY BLANK LEADERS TELLS US WHAT TO DO? WHAT ARE WE, SIMPLE-MINDED CHILDREN?" Ok, Ok. Emotion vented. Relax, take a deep breath. (I've been taking writing lessons from Jim Harrison.) Now think: Isn't it about time that we understood the lesson staring us straight in the face. The lesson that your comment illustrates so strongly? The lesson that says we are (more shouting) NOT SUPPOSED TO DEPEND ON LEADERS! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DEPEND ON OUR OWN VOLITION AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND WORKING IN GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES. Tell me . . . who told us we are supposed to depend on leaders? Who? Who told these pious Baha'is they are supposed to depend on leaders? The whole rest of the Baha'i world is striving to teach the Baha'is to have individual initiative and take responsibility into their own and into their communities hands, trying to get away from this childlike and unhealthy reliance on leaders, and you are telling me that the American Baha'i community is moribound because it doesn't have strong leaders?! Oy vey!! What happened to depending on God? What happened to depending on Baha'u'llah? Anyway, I hope you forgive the strong language, it is for rhetorical effect only. Actually, I think you may have touched on something very, very important. With love, Steve - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:11 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: 900 NO votes 900 No votes is beginning to look like a possibility, which has been threatened a few weeks ago on Bahai-discuss. Do you know where or how to come up with 3 times that number? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:29 AM Subject: Re: accusations and t.r.b. (was Re: UseNet II voting system?) Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <344FAF9B.6F8A@SPAM.BE.GONE.cyberatl.net>, booko@SPAM.BE.GONE.cyberatl.net wrote: [clip] > Lots of accusations, little proof on this one, but there is > one undisputed fact that gives one pause... > > There were way too many no votes for the amount of people who > joined the discussion. Someone spread the word somewhere that > you should vote no. That someone had influence (probably influence > among Bahai's), and that someone did not use any emailing lists > or newsgroups (such would have been exposed). Three mailing lists were used: Bahai-dicuss, Bahai-teachers, Bahai- announce. The individual who posted the NO vote campaign message was Mark Towfiq, who apparently now is on the Bahai Computers and Communication Association (BCCA). He recently posted a message to Bahai-discuss on behalf of the BCCA after service was interrupted, at least to my address, for twenty-four hours. Following that all discussion of talk.religion.bahai ceased for several days.... I conclude a high > probability of voting influence that was not according to usenet > voting rules. I also see *no* proof of this. I've posted and could repost the message if you truly want the proof.... People, though, have always criticized me, the victim, whenever I've posted the evidence, which seems odd to me. In a court of law, one is allowed to advance evidence. Why not on UseNet when such egregious transgressions of normal voting rules takes place? I expect that this > time Fred will be a nice polite proponent, not making everyone mad > at him like he did last time, and thus gaining another 30 or 40 yes > votes. Three times 900 requires more than that.... One of the strategies last time was to assassinate my character, and it's still being done on Bahai-discuss.... If I was offensive in the past, I believe it was often for a reason, the anger of the downtrodden, if you will.... Besides, anything I ever said was mild compared to most of UseNet.... The issue is much larger than me.... Many Bahais want complete and absolute control over everything thought and said, on and off UseNet, and that's the sad truth of my twenty-one years of experience as a Bahai..... I also expect hundreds and hundreds of no votes to appear > from email addresses that never post to usenet, crushing the > proposal. Once again, there will be no prook of campaigning for > no votes outside of usenet. Evil knows how to mask its deeds.... Foul is fair, and fair is foul.... Oh horror of the human soul.... > > I also predict that, if the proposal does pass, Fred will be very > unhappy when, 6 months later, the posts are over 90% crossposted > threads having nothing to do with bahais, and those interested in > bahai discussion abandon the spam filled wreck that was t.r.b. Guy, help give me and others the chance to express that inner light of conscience God has given everyone of us.... Let us struggle with spam and so on for ourselves.... We've gone all over that before, and I've conceded as much, but it's not a valid reason for the defeat of trb.... Let's face it, every newsgroup has to deal with it. > At this point, expect a "moderate t.r.b with a bot that only rejects > crossposts" RFD/CFV. Unmoderated religion newsgroups require constant > work to stay alive. Help give us the chance.... I know this from my experience with > soc.religion.quaker. You've had the experience and survived it, why shouldn't we on talk.religion.bahai? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 1997 9:31 AM Subject: Re: accusations and t.r.b. (was Re: UseNet II voting system?) Rick Schaut wrote: > > Guy Macon wrote in message <62pltj$o2$6@news01.deltanet.com>... > >Lots of accusations, little proof on this one, but there is > >one undisputed fact that gives one pause... > > >There were way too many no votes for the amount of people who > >joined the discussion. Someone spread the word somewhere that > >you should vote no. That someone had influence (probably influence > >among Bahai's), and that someone did not use any emailing lists > >or newsgroups (such would have been exposed). I conclude a high > >probability of voting influence that was not according to usenet > >voting rules. > > First, the lack of visible participation is probably a bad indication in > this particular case. The formation of t.r.b was discussed in > soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere in such a way that there's a good chance > that a large number of Baha'is watched the discussions and made up their own > minds. > > Second, the implications of an unmoderated USENET newsgroup with the word > "Bahai" in the name are pretty clear cut for most Baha'is. I outlined these > issues in an earlier message to news.groups (Message-ID: > <61ebch$loc@news.microsoft.com>) under the subject "Re: Listservs & UseNet > voting (was Re: Frederick unfurls the double standard!)". The issues don't > exactly require a lot of discussion, and Baha'is tend to avoid contentious > discussion an repetition of viewes that have already been adequately stated. > Hence, there's a strong likelyhood that the lurkers numbered much higher > than would normally be indicated for such a discussion. > > Lastly, I can personally attest to the lack of any effort on the part of > Baha'i Institutions to influence this vote. I'm fairly active in the US > Baha'i community. I'm currently serving and have previously served on a > committee of the US National Spiritual Assembly, and I regularly work with > other individuals who are active in various aspects of Baha'i > Administration. If anyone were to have received any kind of message from > the Baha'i Institutions, I'm at least as likely as any other Baha'i who is > active on USENET to have received such a message. And, I can honestly > attest that I received no such message. > > So, if we can find no evidence of influence having been exercised either on > USENET or through some listservs and no communications having gone through > Baha'i Administrative channels on the subject, then we're left with only one > reasonable conclusion: that a significant number of Baha'is were aware of > the formation of the newsgroup, understood the issues invloved in the > formation of the newsgroup and made a conscientious vote. > > That said, I'm curious. Since I posted the message noted above (a little > more than two weeks ago), no one has responded to say that my reasons for my > conscientious vote run contrary to the spirit of USENET voting guidelines > (not evern Frederick himself). In fact, no one has responded at all. I'd > appreciate some feedback on what folks think. At present, I believe I voted > within the spirit of USENET guidelines, and, unless someone convinces me > otherwise, I'll probably vote the same way this time around. > > Regards, > Rick Schaut > The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views > and do not reflect the official views of the Microsoft Corporation. No comment.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at ---------- From: C Pemberton-Pigott[SMTP:NEW_DAWN@compuserve.com] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 12:33 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Image of the Faith 2 Dear Roger Thanks for your time spent on the TRB issue and for intelligently drafting another message on Covenant Breaking. I have 2 comments. Nature of covenant breaking I find that the great majority of Baha'is, to my disappointment, also think that CB's are dissidents who want some things to go their own way, rather than that they are "taking an axe to the root of the cause". If I were to write a message about it I would try to show that dissent is allowable and tolerated, and that in many cases things are settled by voting, in one way or another (meaning at LSA or community meetings etc). The Faith has a huge capacity for diversity of opinion - but some _people_ do not! Some people are never satisfied with a vote and wander off or agitate for another one. This is human. We can accomodate that. We are not fragile. People who refuse to modify their behaviour to an acceptable standard, or who refuse to work on the problem, are suspended to one degree or another. They have not been excommunicated. People who actively seek to destroy and eradicate the Faith are considered enemies and are largely ignored. People who have accepted the message of Baha'u'llah and who later on do the same thing are declared CB's. (I guess you know all this - I am just being wordy). Second: I think the impression that the non-Baha'i got on the news.groups list that Baha'i's have been told to vote No is understandable because one of the contributors constantly claims just that - loudly too. What else can we expect people to think then? I would have certainly have voted Yes (admittedly in ignorance) the first time round if the proposer hadn't been so darned offensive, which led me to do some digging and deep thinking about the whole issue of unmoderated groups and then "censorship" in general. In the West censorship is often considered the root of all evil, so much so that merely attaching it to someone should ensure their demise. People act as if there is nothing between Himmler and Hustler. I spent the whole of yesterday afternoon sifting through (wading?) all the messages on news.groups to keep up to date and enjoyed the whole thing. The issue of people voting No because they don't like the Proposer or else his approach to the proposal (an issue which he raised) is a provocative one. Calls up all sorts of moral questions! Do I have the moral freedom to avoid a store that sells cheap lettuce because I don't like the owner? Should I send my children to a school whose Principal is an alcoholic? If he teaches one of my kid's classes? If I am hungry do I have to eat an apple because there is one thrust in my face or can I wait for a pizza? Interesting stuff! I am terribly impressed with Sharon Bouchard's writing and style of communication. Regards from Crispin ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 4:31 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Image of the Faith At 11:20 PM 11/01/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: >A prominent news.groups regular, Russ Allbery, has made clear in recent >posts that he has a low opinion of the Faith and its Institutions >because of the current t.r.b debate. He considers Covenant breaking to >be merely dissent and CB's to be nothing more than dissenters (I am >paraphrasing) and has said that he thinks that the friends have been >instructed to vote NO. > > > >I have posted at least one explanation of Covenant breaking and am >working on another one. This is mainly for the benefit of lurkers and >the other participants in the discussion. And it's tough to do this, >because for some people, this discussion about Covenant breaking may be >their first introduction to the Faith. Wow, what a proclamation effort >:( Dear Roger, Try not to be too sad. Your effort to produce a reasoned explanation of the Covenant will surely focus on the most positive aspects of the Covenant as well as provide a clear explanation of the problem with CBs. I think it is a valuable service you are doing. In the mean time you can comfort yourself with the realization that the Blessed Beauty and the Master both asserted that the real proclaimers of the Faith will be the opponents of the Faith, and particularly the clergy. Even the bad stuff will serve the interests of the Plan of God. When the story is told in the end, it will be seen how brilliant was the steadfastness and the confirmation of the Freinds, the Master has indicated. Best wishes and thanks for your efforts, Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Roger Reini[SMTP:rreini@wwnet.net] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 5:10 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Image of the Faith In the light of this, I've taken out my copy of THE COVENANT OF BAHA'U'LLAH and started to read it again. The introductory sections, with ample quotations from the Writings, are putting me at ease. I needed that. Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) Ed Price wrote: > > At 11:20 PM 11/01/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: > >A prominent news.groups regular, Russ Allbery, has made clear in recent > >posts that he has a low opinion of the Faith and its Institutions > >because of the current t.r.b debate. He considers Covenant breaking to > >be merely dissent and CB's to be nothing more than dissenters (I am > >paraphrasing) and has said that he thinks that the friends have been > >instructed to vote NO. > > > > > > > >I have posted at least one explanation of Covenant breaking and am > >working on another one. This is mainly for the benefit of lurkers and > >the other participants in the discussion. And it's tough to do this, > >because for some people, this discussion about Covenant breaking may be > >their first introduction to the Faith. Wow, what a proclamation effort > >:( > > Dear Roger, > > Try not to be too sad. Your effort to produce a reasoned explanation of the > Covenant will surely focus on the most positive aspects of the Covenant as > well as provide a clear explanation of the problem with CBs. I think it is > a valuable service you are doing. > > In the mean time you can comfort yourself with the realization that the > Blessed Beauty and the Master both asserted that the real proclaimers of the > Faith will be the opponents of the Faith, and particularly the clergy. > > Even the bad stuff will serve the interests of the Plan of God. When the > story is told in the end, it will be seen how brilliant was the > steadfastness and the confirmation of the Freinds, the Master has indicated. > > Best wishes and thanks for your efforts, > > Ed Price > eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: Ed Price[SMTP:eprice@mailer.fsu.edu] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 10:14 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Image of the Faith Roger: Terrific. I love that book! Rely on Baha'u'llah to guide you and Go getem! :-) Ed At 05:10 PM 11/02/97 -0400, Roger Reini wrote: >In the light of this, I've taken out my copy of THE COVENANT OF >BAHA'U'LLAH and started to read it again. The introductory sections, >with ample quotations from the Writings, are putting me at ease. > >I needed that. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) Ed Price eprice@mailer.fsu.edu ---------- From: the Moum's[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 10:25 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: free will, or the TRB conundrum I have very mixed feelings on talk.religion.bahai, which leads me to this thought: Sometimes I find myself thinking that one of the reasons we have free will in this world is so that we will really, really enjoy not having it in the next. Baha'i Love, Mike -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: dmcadam[SMTP:dmcadam@together.net] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 11:26 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Image of the Faith 11/1/97 11:20 PM In answer to the recent message : Me too my friend, but we cannot do anything about certain individuals except to push on, push on, push on with positive approaches. All reactions to the Revelation evenatually are turned into successes one way or another. I doubt that people attack something unless they really feel the power of the Cause at work in their midst. But this Cause is far too big to be distracted by a few dissenters. regards, doug >I've been laying low for the last few days in the TRB debate, and I plan >to keep on doing that. I still read the messages, though, and some >recent messages I've seen have disturbed me. > >A prominent news.groups regular, Russ Allbery, has made clear in recent >posts that he has a low opinion of the Faith and its Institutions >because of the current t.r.b debate. He considers Covenant breaking to >be merely dissent and CB's to be nothing more than dissenters (I am >paraphrasing) and has said that he thinks that the friends have been >instructed to vote NO. > > > >I have posted at least one explanation of Covenant breaking and am >working on another one. This is mainly for the benefit of lurkers and >the other participants in the discussion. And it's tough to do this, >because for some people, this discussion about Covenant breaking may be >their first introduction to the Faith. Wow, what a proclamation effort >:( > >Yesterday, I received (as secretary of our group) a letter from the US >National Spiritual Assembly calling for deepening on the Covenant, along >with an accompanying memo about Mason Remey and his followers. That >must have come when it did for a reason, as it helped me in composing my >first reply. > > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > ---------- From: Douglas Myers[SMTP:nightbrd@humboldt1.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 3:06 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Free Will Dear Mike, A new topic of disucssion! ;-} I would be very interested in where this thought of no free will in the next world comes from. The only quote I can think of that would support this view is by 'Abdu'l-Baha: Question --- Through what means will the spirit of man, that is to say the rational soul, after departing from this mortal world, make progress? Answer --- The progress of man's spirit in the divine world, after the severance of its connection with the body of dust, is through the bounty and grace of the Lord alone, or through the intercession and the sincere prayers of other human souls, or through the charities and important good works which are performed in its name. ("Some Answered Questions", p. 278) Now, consider this quote from Baha'u'llah: For the doings of men are all dependent upon Thy good-pleasure, and are conditioned on Thy behest. Make known this Thy station, O My God, unto Thy servants, that they may be made aware that the excellence of all things is dependent upon Thy bidding and Thy word, and the virtue of every act is conditioned by thy leave and the good-pleasure of Thy will, and may recognize that the reins of men's doings are with in the grasp of Thine acceptance and Thy commandment. ("Prayers and Meditations", pp. 67 - 68) Here is my dilemma. If I take the SAQ quote to indicate there is no free will in the next world, why should I not take the P&M quote to indicate there is no free will in this world? Of course, this cannot be done because we are told we have free will here and now. Would you please expand upon your thoughts. Allah'u'Abha, Douglas Myers ________________________________________________ the Moum's wrote: > > I have very mixed feelings on talk.religion.bahai, which leads me to > this thought: Sometimes I find myself thinking that one of the reasons > we have free will in this world is so that we will really, really enjoy > not having it in the next. > > Baha'i Love, > Mike > -- > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: Robert Moldenhauer[SMTP:persia@persia.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 10:27 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: The (much maligned) Madsion LSA I received several messages asking me about the attacks on the Madison LSA in alt.religion.bahai. I won't go into detail except one. The Madison LSA checked with Consellor Stephen Birkland about the residency of the person in question and he concurred that the person is a Madison resident for Baha'i purposes. So, contrary to what is alledged on Usenet, proper authorities were contacted and proper channels were used. Enough said. ---------- From: Suzanne Gerstner[SMTP:gerstner@bart.nl] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 9:52 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Free Will Dear Doug, I just wanted to share my thoughts on this very interesting point that you raised about free will in the next world. Free will is the ability to choose between doing good and evil. It is my understanding that this polarity only exists in this world. In the next world there is only good. We cannot choose to do evil. So that's where the apparent lack of free will may come in. But I do believe that people in the next world have the ability to choose what they will do. Consider this quote, for instance, where people in the next world can choose to supplicate God: "As we have power to pray for these souls here, so likewise we shall possess the same power in the Kingdom of God. Are not all the people in that world the creatures of God? Therefore, in that world also they can make progress. As here they can receive light by their supplications, there also they can plead for forgiveness and receive light through entreaties and supplications. Thus as souls in this world, through the help of the supplications, the entreaties and prayers of the holy ones, can acquire development, so is it the same after death. Through their own prayers and supplications they can also progress, more especially when they are the object of the intercession of the Holy Manifestations." Warmest Baha'i regards, Suzanne > Dear Mike, > > A new topic of disucssion! ;-} > > I would be very interested in where this thought of no free will in the > next world comes from. The only quote I can think of that would support > this view is by 'Abdu'l-Baha: > > Question --- Through what means will the spirit of man, that is to say > the rational soul, after departing from this mortal world, make > progress? > > Answer --- The progress of man's spirit in the divine world, after the > severance of its connection with the body of dust, is through the bounty > and grace of the Lord alone, or through the intercession and the sincere > prayers of other human souls, or through the charities and important > good works which are performed in its name. ("Some Answered Questions", > p. 278) > > Now, consider this quote from Baha'u'llah: > > For the doings of men are all dependent upon Thy good-pleasure, and are > conditioned on Thy behest. > > Make known this Thy station, O My God, unto Thy servants, that they may > be made aware that the excellence of all things is dependent upon Thy > bidding and Thy word, and the virtue of every act is conditioned by thy > leave and the good-pleasure of Thy will, and may recognize that the reins of men's doings are with in the grasp of Thine acceptance and Thy commandment. ("Prayers and Meditations", pp. 67 - 68) and may recognize that ("Prayers and Meditations", pp. 67 - 68) > > > Here is my dilemma. If I take the SAQ quote to indicate there is no > free will in the next world, why should I not take the P&M quote to > indicate there is no free will in this world? Of course, this cannot be > done because we are told we have free will here and now. > > Would you please expand upon your thoughts. > > Allah'u'Abha, > > Douglas Myers > ________________________________________________ > > > the Moum's wrote: > > > > I have very mixed feelings on talk.religion.bahai, which leads me to > > this thought: Sometimes I find myself thinking that one of the reasons > > we have free will in this world is so that we will really, really enjoy > > not having it in the next. > > > > Baha'i Love, > > Mike > > -- > > the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) > > Beloit, Wisconsin, USA > > e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com > > home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: Robert R Merriken[SMTP:rrmerrik@aec2.apgea.army.mil] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 11:04 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re[2]: Free Will Dear Suzanne, What is the source of this fascinating quote? Thank you for sharing it, Rob ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Free Will Author: at INTERNET Date: 11/3/97 2:52 PM Dear Doug, I just wanted to share my thoughts on this very interesting point that you raised about free will in the next world. Free will is the ability to choose between doing good and evil. It is my understanding that this polarity only exists in this world. In the next world there is only good. We cannot choose to do evil. So that's where the apparent lack of free will may come in. But I do believe that people in the next world have the ability to choose what they will do. Consider this quote, for instance, where people in the next world can choose to supplicate God: "As we have power to pray for these souls here, so likewise we shall possess the same power in the Kingdom of God. Are not all the people in that world the creatures of God? Therefore, in that world also they can make progress. As here they can receive light by their supplications, there also they can plead for forgiveness and receive light through entreaties and supplications. Thus as souls in this world, through the help of the supplications, the entreaties and prayers of the holy ones, can acquire development, so is it the same after death. Through their own prayers and supplications they can also progress, more especially when they are the object of the intercession of the Holy Manifestations." Warmest Baha'i regards, Suzanne ---------- From: Brent Poirier[SMTP:gpoirier@acca.nmsu.edu] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 11:50 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Opportunity and free will Something Michael Moum wrote about not having free will in the next life, led me to think about our eternal destinies. We won't have free will in the next realm -- the ability to choose to follow the highest or lowest within us -- perhaps because all we will have brought with us into the next realm is the highest, the most real. There will no longer be that tension. On the other hand, hell is described as the desire to draw closer to God, and to be unable to. So I think that a comparison in the physical world is paralysis. Sometimes we say in firesides that not having grown this or that spiritual quality in this world, is comparable to being crippled in the next. To me, having a limp is not a strong enough analogy. I think a truer one is paralysis: Full knowledge of where one wants to go, and inability, through our own failure to take full advantage of the bounties and opportunities given to us in this life, to move. Advancement then, will be solely through the bounty of God, and the prayers of others in our behalf. Hell will be the wish that we had exercised our free will fully and properly when we had it, that we had seized every opportunity for spiritual advancement, and for service. I also think that when we have the physical limitations that teach others spiritual lessons -- those of who do not have physical sight or hearing; or who are physically deformed; or who are paralyzed; those who teach us because they were chosen by God, and not because they volunteered -- these people are, through the bounty of God, exalted in the next realm. As to the subject of babes and infants and weak ones who are afflicted by the hands of oppressors: This contains great wisdom and this subject is of paramount importance. In brief, for those souls there is a recompense in another world and many details are connected with this matter. For those souls that suffering is the greatest mercy of God. Verily that mercy of the Lord is far better and preferable to all the comfort of this world and the growth and development of this place of mortality. (`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 372) ... and verily, God will not deal unjustly with anyone, even to the extent of a speck on a date-stone. (Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 68) "Man's physical existence on this earth is a period during which the moral exercise of his free will is tried and tested in order to prepare his soul for the other worlds of God, and we must welcome affliction and tribulations as opportunities for improvement in our eternal selves." (From a letter dated July 16, 1980 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice; Lights of Guidance, 2nd edition, p. 367, #1228) "That the members of this community, of either sex and of every age, of whatever race or background, however limited in experience, capacity and knowledge, may arise as one man, and seize with both hands the God- given opportunities now presented to them through the dispensations of an all-loving, ever-watchful, ever- sustaining Providence, and lend thereby a tremendous impetus to the propelling forces mysteriously guiding the operations of this newly-launched, unspeakably potent, world-encompassing Crusade, is one of the dearest wishes which a loving and longing heart holds for them at this great turning point in the fortunes of the Faith of Baha'u'llah in the American continent." (Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 132) "The Guardian is urging the American friends, also, to redouble their efforts and not lose their precious opportunities. The value of work accomplished at present is inestimable, and opportunities lost are in a way quite irretrievable, as the agony of mankind moves forward to a climax...." (Shoghi Effendi's secretary on his behalf, to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United Kingdom, Unfolding Destiny, p. 150) "These days are God's days, a moment of which ages and centuries can never rival. An atom, in these days, is as the sun, a drop as the ocean. One single breath exhaled in the love of God is written down by the Pen of Glory as a princely deed." (Baha'u'llah, quoted in The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 79) ---------- From: Suzanne Gerstner[SMTP:gerstner@bart.nl] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 11:20 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Re[2]: Free Will > > Dear Suzanne, > > What is the source of this fascinating quote? > > Thank you for sharing it, > > Rob Hi Rob, Some Answered Questions, page 232. It was a pleasure. :-) Warmest regards, Suzanne > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: Free Will > Author: at INTERNET > Date: 11/3/97 2:52 PM > > > Dear Doug, > > I just wanted to share my thoughts on this very interesting point that you > raised about free will in the next world. Free will is the ability to > choose between doing good and evil. It is my understanding that this > polarity only exists in this world. In the next world there is only good. > We cannot choose to do evil. So that's where the apparent lack of free will > may come in. But I do believe that people in the next world have the > ability to choose what they will do. > > Consider this quote, for instance, where people in the next world can > choose to supplicate God: > > "As we have power to pray for these souls here, so likewise we shall possess > the same power in the Kingdom of God. Are not all the people in that world > the creatures of God? Therefore, in that world also they can make progress. > As here they can receive light by their supplications, there also they can > plead for forgiveness and receive light through entreaties and > supplications. Thus as souls in this world, through the help of the > supplications, the entreaties and prayers of the holy ones, can acquire > development, so is it the same after death. Through their own prayers and > supplications they can also progress, more especially when they are the > object of the intercession of the Holy Manifestations." > > Warmest Baha'i regards, > > Suzanne > > > > > ---------- From: Joe Sporleder[SMTP:jsporleder@nckcn.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 2:43 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Will should be free? Some dude named Will sure seems to be getting into some trouble or something...because alot of religious organizations and even more non-religious organizations are wanting him to be free because they are always proclaiming "Free Will". Joe Tee Hee! ---------- From: Sharon Bouchard[SMTP:booko@cyberatl.net] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 7:41 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Image of the Faith Dear Ed: This is the sort of thing that causes me to muse on the fact that truth is often stranger than fiction. I cannot begin to explain the beneficial effects that have come from my experiences of having someone "attack" the Faith online. In each case, the non-Baha'is came to greater understanding of what we're about. Had these events not occured, had there been no "controversy" involved, most of them would have remained fairly indifferent to us and in ignorance about what we stand for. Ed Price wrote: > In the mean time you can comfort yourself with the realization that the > Blessed Beauty and the Master both asserted that the real proclaimers of the > Faith will be the opponents of the Faith, and particularly the clergy. > > Even the bad stuff will serve the interests of the Plan of God. When the > story is told in the end, it will be seen how brilliant was the > steadfastness and the confirmation of the Freinds, the Master has indicated. ---------- From: Sharon Bouchard[SMTP:booko@cyberatl.net] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 7:52 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: free will, or the TRB conundrum the Moum's wrote: > > I have very mixed feelings on talk.religion.bahai, which leads me to > this thought: Sometimes I find myself thinking that one of the reasons > we have free will in this world is so that we will really, really enjoy > not having it in the next. haha! Thanks, Mike! I'm not sure if you really meant for this to be humourous, but it certainly did a lot to lighten up my day. :) But to get serious here :( like you, I have mixed feelings about t.r.b. I've many good things come out of "bad" things that happened online, though, so at the moment I'm inclined to go with creating it anyway. I also have several concerns about t.r.b., but when I reflected on them, it occured to me that none of those worries of mine would be of any account, as long as some segment of the online Baha'i community is committed to participating there in a way that will demonstrate what we stand for. Our actions are bound to speak louder than the words of a very few. ---------- From: DEREK COCKSHUT[SMTP:derekmc@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 6:27 PM To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan1@umich.edu; talisman@umich.edu Subject: Fwd: TRBahai Reply to Gloomy Analysis The Baha'i Studies List: ---- Begin Forwarded Message - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: the Moum's[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 7:15 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Free Will Douglas Myers wrote: > > Dear Mike, > > A new topic of disucssion! ;-} > > I would be very interested in where this thought of no free will in the > next world comes from. The only quote I can think of that would support > this view is by 'Abdu'l-Baha: Greetings Doug and all: Suzanne and Brent pretty well covered my thinking on this topic, so I don't have much to add. My intent was to introduce some levity to the TRB discussion, and raise an interesting theological question at the same time. My understanding is that everything in this world is a reflection of, or metaphor for, something in the spiritual world. Thus it seems to me that what we call "free will" here, must correspond to something similar in the next world. Thus we will have some capacity to exercise choice in the next world, but I suspect that it will be so different from what we experience here that we won't understand what it is until we're actually there. Speaking for myself only, and not for anyone else, my free will usually gets me into a lot of trouble, and then I have to pray really hard for Baha'u'llah to get me out of it, which He invariably does. When I was first a Baha'i, I thought that eventually the point would come where I'd cease making mistakes. Now I understand that what has really happened is that my mistakes have become much more sophisticated. It's kind of like learning computer programming: at first one's bugs are simple and stupid, and easily fixed. As one develops experience programming, one acquires the capicity to create bugs that resist the most determined efforts to find and fix them. Anyway, I hope that I'm learning something of spiritual significance through my trials: my Teacher (Baha'u'llah) is very skilled, but the student is a bit thick. I take great hope in `Abdu'l-Baha's statements that the veils fall away when we pass on, and we become informed of secrets of which we are now ignorant. If I have to make do only with what I've learned so far, I'm in big trouble. More seriously, I believe that we learn a great deal from our spiritual experiences in this world, but the true benefit of our tests will be found in the next. If you're feeling charitable, perhaps you could pray for me. My preference is for spiritual growth without tests or pain, if it's not too much trouble. Baha'i Love, Mike -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: the Moum's[SMTP:mmoum@inwave.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 7:25 PM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: free will, or the TRB conundrum Sharon Bouchard wrote: > > the Moum's wrote: > > > > I have very mixed feelings on talk.religion.bahai, which leads me to > > this thought: Sometimes I find myself thinking that one of the reasons > > we have free will in this world is so that we will really, really enjoy > > not having it in the next. > > haha! Thanks, Mike! I'm not sure if you really meant for this to be > humourous, but it certainly did a lot to lighten up my day. :) > > But to get serious here :( like you, I have mixed feelings about t.r.b. > I've many good things come out of "bad" things that happened online, > though, so at the moment I'm inclined to go with creating it anyway. > > I also have several concerns about t.r.b., but when I reflected on them, > it occured to me that none of those worries of mine would be of any > account, as long as some segment of the online Baha'i community is > committed to participating there in a way that will demonstrate what we > stand for. > My serious thought is that the formation or non-formation of TRB is secondary. What is important is the spiritual process which each of us goes through in trying to make a responsible decision. The easy way out would have been for the Universal House of Justice to say do this, or do that. But they didn't, which is what I expected, so we are left to fall back on, and develop, our own spiritual resources. To me, one of the significances of Baha'u'llah's ushering in the maturity of mankind is that we are now expected to us all of our powers in making spiritual decisions (exercising free will), rather than being told what to do all the time. So we have lots of principles which we try to apply to specific situations (like TRB), and this is how we exercise and develop our spiritual muscles, which will come into full activity in the next world. There are two ways to look at decisions. We have seemingly contradictory principles, say A and B. If we do A, we don't do B. If we do B, we don't do A. Now we might say, if we choose A, I made a mistake, because my choice doesn't accord with B. Same if we choose B. I call this the "I can't win scenario". The other way of looking at it is this: regardless of whether I choose A or B, I've obeyed Baha'u'llah. This is that I can't lose scenario. Baha'i Love, Mike -- the Moum's (Mike, Dede, Suzanne, Jeff, Kristen) Beloit, Wisconsin, USA e-mail: mmoum@inwave.com home page: https://www.inwave.com/~mmoum ---------- From: DEREK COCKSHUT[SMTP:derekmc@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 2:02 AM To: Bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; talisman@umich.edu; irfan1@umich.edu Subject: Fwd: Fwd: TRBahai Reply to Gloomy Analysis The Baha'i Studies List: The Baha'i Studies List: ---- Begin Forwarded Message - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - My dear Micheal I believe I posted which clearly got lost in cyberspace.That those who are parnoid that there is nothing good in this Faith.They will continue regardless of what is written said or posted believe nothing but their present mindset.The strange understanding that there is nothing good in the Community or the Institutions which we elect.The discussion that rolls on I have to say is about a religious community I do not know.Sadly this fixation I can only regard as Fundamentalism and this comes from those who pride themselves on being 'liberal'.There will be no waiting to see what happens from those whose minds are fixed and whose opinions are preformed.I applaud your desire to see the Truth in the light it unfolds.I only wish those who claim to have such understanding and insight had open minds like yourself. Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut PS I also expressed concern over the financial well-being of Cafe Wim. - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: Nancy S Damren[SMTP:ladyvadr@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 1997 3:17 AM To: Baha'i Discuss Subject: Re: Opportunity and free will Best beloveds, Seen on a church billboard: When you die, you leave behind all that you have and take with you all that you are. Much love, Nancy D. On Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:50:26 -0700 (MST) Brent Poirier writes: > >Something Michael Moum wrote about not having free will in the next >life, >led me to think about our eternal destinies. We won't have free will >in >the next realm -- the ability to choose to follow the highest or >lowest >within us -- perhaps because all we will have brought with us into the >next realm is the highest, the most real. There will no longer be >that >tension. > >On the other hand, hell is described as the desire to draw closer to >God, >and to be unable to. So I think that a comparison in the physical >world >is paralysis. Sometimes we say in firesides that not having grown >this or >that spiritual quality in this world, is comparable to being crippled >in >the next. To me, having a limp is not a strong enough analogy. I >think a >truer one is paralysis: Full knowledge of where one wants to go, and >inability, through our own failure to take full advantage of the >bounties >and opportunities given to us in this life, to move. Advancement >then, >will be solely through the bounty of God, and the prayers of others in >our >behalf. Hell will be the wish that we had exercised our free will >fully >and properly when we had it, that we had seized every opportunity for >spiritual advancement, and for service. > >I also think that when we have the physical limitations that teach >others >spiritual lessons -- those of who do not have physical sight or >hearing; >or who are physically deformed; or who are paralyzed; those who teach >us >because they were chosen by God, and not because they volunteered -- >these >people are, through the bounty of God, exalted in the next realm. > > As to the subject of babes and infants and weak ones > who are afflicted by the hands of oppressors: This > contains great wisdom and this subject is of paramount > importance. In brief, for those souls there is a > recompense in another world and many details are > connected with this matter. For those souls that > suffering is the greatest mercy of God. Verily that > mercy of the Lord is far better and preferable to all > the comfort of this world and the growth and > development of this place of mortality. > (`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 372) > > ... and verily, God will not deal unjustly with > anyone, even to the extent of a speck on a date-stone. > (Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 68) > > > "Man's physical existence on this earth is a period > during which the moral exercise of his free will is > tried and tested in order to prepare his soul for the > other worlds of God, and we must welcome affliction and > tribulations as opportunities for improvement in our > eternal selves." > (From a letter dated July 16, 1980 written on behalf of > the Universal House of Justice; Lights of Guidance, > 2nd edition, p. 367, #1228) > > "That the members of this community, of either sex and > of every age, of whatever race or background, however > limited in experience, capacity and knowledge, may > arise as one man, and seize with both hands the God- > given opportunities now presented to them through the > dispensations of an all-loving, ever-watchful, ever- > sustaining Providence, and lend thereby a tremendous > impetus to the propelling forces mysteriously guiding > the operations of this newly-launched, unspeakably > potent, world-encompassing Crusade, is one of the > dearest wishes which a loving and longing heart holds > for them at this great turning point in the fortunes of > the Faith of Baha'u'llah in the American continent." > (Shoghi Effendi, Citadel of Faith, p. 132) > > > "The Guardian is urging the American friends, also, to > redouble their efforts and not lose their precious > opportunities. The value of work accomplished at > present is inestimable, and opportunities lost are in a > way quite irretrievable, as the agony of mankind moves > forward to a climax...." > (Shoghi Effendi's secretary on his behalf, to the > National Spiritual Assembly of the United Kingdom, > Unfolding Destiny, p. 150) > > "These days are God's days, a moment of which ages and > centuries can never rival. An atom, in these days, > is as the sun, a drop as the ocean. One single breath > exhaled in the love of God is written down by the Pen > of Glory as a princely deed." > (Baha'u'llah, quoted in The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 79) > > > ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 3:38 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us; irfan@umich.edu; h-bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subject: TRBahai Re Meeting Concerns The Baha'i Studies List: Greetings, Nancy, from Ottawa. If you well, it is well. Many thanks for your remarks. I am passing these on to the other forums or fora discussing this issue, including news.groups. My response to your comments comes after your words. Nancy S. Damren wrote: >Dear Michael, >I think, considering all the disturbance this topic has caused, >that such a FAQ entry as you have recommended will turn out to be a >necessity. It may even be necessary for someone reasonably friendly >to the Faith to point it out from time to time so that it won't be >forgotten. >If asked, though, I will still vote NO. The Faith has enough >enemies. The Faith also has enough hot tempers within its ranks >without inflaming those outside the protection of the Covenant. (I'm >not criticizing anybody. I am one of those hot tempers. And yes, I'm >working on it.) My primary loyalty is to the Faith, not to Usenet. >Please feel free to post this on other forums (fora?) AFTER deleting >the address for Baha'i Discuss. >Best wishes to all readers, >Nancy D. >P.S.: If anybody wants to express an opinion to me, please feel >free to contact me directly. But only if you're polite will you get >an answer. >- NSD Michael McKenny comments: Nancy, I found the above and the other material I've received this weekend fascinating. In my opinion, were those preparing this new newsgroup to heed what I feel are legitimate concerns that the real status of the newsgroup, i.e. its unofficial nature, be clearly communicated to any and all reading it, then, since the Universal House of Justice has stated that it does not object to unmoderated discussion about the Baha'i Faith in general, nor to this proposal (the only unmoderated newsgroup proposed on the Baha'i Faith in the big 8 hierarchies of USENET) and since USENET people following this discussion have stated that they view voting NO to the formation of the group on the grounds of objecting to the content it may contain the same thing as burning books which someone said the Baha'i Faith prohibits, then, I think more harm will be caused by a cyberspace book burning than anything that may appear on the newsgroup. I hope this has made some sense, and welcome any comments you may have on this post or anything else connected to the formation of this newsgroup. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. All the Best, Michael p.s. Could someone kindly post this to Bahai-Discuss. I am posting it to talisman, irfan, Bahai-st and offering it to the moderated list h-bahai and to soc.religion.bahai also moderated. Moderated Baha'i cyberspace has so far declined to consider this topic. -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) - To switch to the digested list, send the following commands to major@johnco.cc.ks.us in the message body - unsubscribe bahai-st subscribe bahai-st-digest ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 1997 9:40 AM Subject: Mark Towfiq's BCCA gets its revenge Advice: Never tell the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association (BCCA) that you have no respect for it even when it sends you email supporting personal threats against you and blaming you for them.... Mark Towfiq, author of the last NO vote campaign, is a member of the BCCA.... ---- Subject: Message from the BCCA-CC Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 19:31:00 +0100 From: CC Secretary To: "Frederick Glaysher" CC: "CC Mail" Mr Glaysher I write to advise you that the following message has been mailed to BCCA lists today. On behalf of the BCCA-CC Nicholas J A Sanders ------------------- Dear Baha'i Friends The Co-ordinating Committee of the Baha'i Computer and Communications Association regrets to announce that Mr Frederick Glaysher has been unsubscribed from all of the BCCA lists which included his name and email address and that steps have been taken to prevent his posting to any forum for which we have responsibility. We wish to make it quite clear that this action follows from Mr Glaysher's persistent contravention of the conditions of the BCCA Charter and our decision should not be taken as indicating any stance on the question of his proposal for a new Usenet group. It has been made only after our several attempts to settle difficulties amicably with Mr Glaysher have produced no positive result. The Committee now urges all the believers who participate in online Baha'i activities to focus their attention on the urgent needs of the time and to renew their efforts towards successful completion of the Four-Year Plan. We earnestly hope that the acrimonious exchanges of past weeks will now be forgotten and that there will be no repeat of them. (Please note that this message is being posted to several BCCA lists - we apologise for any multiple receipts.) In His service Nicholas Sanders Nicholas J A Sanders _______________________ Secretary BCCA Co-ordinating Committee -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai The RFD for talk.religion.bahai can be found on news.groups, news.announce.newgroups, or at