From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: BahaiWars2001CD - $24.95 suggested for bahais - FREE for non-bahais! Details below. Date: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 5:43 PM "NightShadow" wrote in message news:3c322b5e.214952960@news... > There was someone named "BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" > who once said...: > > >BahaiWars2001CD - $24.95 suggested for bahais - FREE for non-bahais! Details > >below. > > If Fred ever wanted to be officially declared a CB, this is the surest > way to make that happen. Hrm... let's see here.... > > He calls himself a Baha'i. Right. Got it. > > The Baha'i Faith is a non-profit organization, accepting donations > ONLY from members within the Faith. Okay. Got that, too. Point. > > Fred, who claims he is a Baha'i who is not a member of the AO, is now > accepting money ONLY from Baha'is for a product. The product? "Baha'i > Wars 2001." Everyone else gets it free. > > Baha'is don't wage war, Fred. Why would we PAY for you wage one on us? > Why would anyone? Hey Craphead, Read the feckin' material before you start slobbering! I quote: - "$24.95 suggested donation for bahais to the universal house of justice for BahaiWars2001CD in memory of Abdu'l-Baha's forgotten Words--"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the contingent world." --A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Please include a copy of Abdu'l-Baha's Words with your donation check! Perhaps someone there will read and actually PRACTICE His Teachings! Bahá'í World Centre P.O. Box 155 31 001 Haifa Israel FREE to non-bahais!" From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Why I don't Like NIGGERS Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:28 PM "Milissa" wrote in message news:df0d6959.0201160933.1c97c16b@posting.google.com... > Darrick-- > > I never thought I would write this, but man, you are making me miss Fred. > > ciao > Milissa Hi Milissa, Get a grab on your Calvin Kleins - there is no, repeat no, similarity at all whatsoever, of any kind, between Fred and this total bollix that goes under the title of Evensong. This is a putrid effervescence of undiluted bigotry, prejudice and hatred. Fred OTOH is just a guy that A Onions love to hate! As ever, Dermod. > > > darrickevenson@yahoo.com (Darrick Evenson) wrote in message news:<4ac0bf57.0201151323.28c99136@posting.google.com>... > > Dear Friends, > > > > I was raised in Santa Monica, California by Liberal Parents in a From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Why I don't Like NIGGERS Date: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:42 PM "Dave Fiorito" wrote in message news:f0853486.0201180752.428ddc6e@posting.google.com... > > Sounds a lot like the UHJ and its lackeys - selected quotes ... > > particular bias ... position ... clearly contradicted by other quotes. > > Show me one clear example. I can't for you don't want to see! There is no authoritative interpretation of Bahai scripture and the only remit of the House is to deal with administrative matters and not matters of belief. > > Let me remind you of two other things: - > > > > People seem to contend with the UHJ and it contends with them. > > No it does not. It consults and them makes a decision. The do not > participate in any form of contention. And are not some of these decisions contentious and clearly seen to be contentious? The old boys seem to think that they can say and do as they like and that nobody, but nobody is going to disagree with them? Have they got a screw loose, or worse? You're making them sound like the insurer's nightmare - the driver who has never had an accident ... but has caused thousands of them. Get a grip, Dave, these are a sanctimonious lot who consult nobody but those of like mind, made some bloody awful decisions and sit back askance when somebody challenges them. Well! As far as we are concerned classes on the Covenant are warning enough for anybody! Don't tell that awful Canadian anything - tell his wife instead and she'll make life hell for him, far better than we ever could! Bejaysus Dave, I thought you were half intelligent, for an American at any rate. You wouldn't accept this behaviour from your local council yet when it comes from Haifa you swallow it, hook, line and sinker. > > Where there is contention - wasn't it Abdul Baha who said that both > > sides were wrong? > > > > Oh dear! Now there's a real problem! > > Yes, it means that you and I are wrong. Ah yes! But you are more wrong than me! As ever, Dermod PS Heard about the dyslexic atheist? He refused to believe there was a dog in the sky! From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Why I don't Like the Diagonal Steam Trap! Date: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:02 PM "Susan Maneck " wrote in message news:20020118160733.05437.00003543@mb-mq.aol.com... > >I think Abdul Baha would agree with me on this > >one, is that where two sides contend with each other, continue so to > >do, insist that the one is right and the other wrong and both refuse > >to consult/negotiate on their differences such as to reach an amicable > >resolution thereof and/or a modus vivendi, then both are wrong! > > > He also insisted they should turn towards Him for a resolution instead of > continuing to argue. He is no longer around and if Brent's account of his "consultation" with the AO is accurate, is there anybody within that can deal adequately with anything in a timely fashion? So are you going to take up Fred's call for a conference or persist with your silly and failing fiction that the Apartment Block has all the answers? Indeed have you any thoughts on how to end Bahai Wars - apart from the obvious ? > > > Furthermore, as you well know, > >he who relies on quotations has the letter but not the spirit of the > >law behind him. > > And those who rely on their own ideas rather than the Writings aren't following > Baha'u'llah's Revelation. But there are many possible interpretations of the Writings and no authoritative interpreter, unless you want to pick a Guardian ... any living Guardian. Now the old Apartment Block cannot legitimately interpret authoritatively so its views on matters of faith and scripture are ... precisely that - views. Furthermore only in the minds of the AO could criticism be confused or conflated with contention. What starts as criticism may well turn into contention but usually only when the criticicism is disregarded in its entirety and lies are told about the critics. > > >Shame on me - I always thought the spirit was more > >important! > > The spirit of what, rebellion? Yes indeed! I have three regiments of troops shipping out to invade Haifa and storm the terraces to plant the flag of the Panopticon on the parapets. They're the only troops you'll see in the Five Year Plan! > > Isn't that why > >the Papacy succumbed to the Reformation - the sale of "indulgences" > >and eternal salvation, for the Terraces of the Vatican? > > No, it was the Doctrine of Justification which was the key issue of > Reformation. The Sale of Indulgences was just the occasion that raised this > issue. Like I said - 'twas the sale of indulgences that fired the steaming pile and made the Papacy succumb to the Reformation. That's the trouble with most of you academics - you rarely read what is said preferring your own preconceptions. Theologians may argue and discourse but it's money that fires the engine of revolution, usually leaving the theologians and academics way behind the events, trying to catch up by explaining the underlying causes. I can understand why revolutionaries string them up by the tumbril full. > >Did not the > >Founding Fathers rebel against a blind but discredited authority? > > They rebelled against paying their fair share of taxes, at least that's what I > tell my students. Where were you at Yorktown and Ticonderoga - with Cornwallis, you Benedict Arnold look-alike? Was it not "No taxation without representation?" After all, after the War of Independence did they not have to pay the same, if not more taxes, to protect the frontier, having to raise and pay for an Army to replace the Redcoats? > >Are > >not the troubles in mine own land the result of dictatorial authority > >that refused absolutely to see naught but its own point of view > > No, I'd say they were the result of social-economic tensions under a veneer or > religious fanaticism. And you'd be wrong - try politico-religious and you might be nearer the mark. > >Do dogs shit on the lawn - (rhetorical)? > > And newsgroups. No! My old pooch didn't stir at all when I said TRB! But "Bahai Studies" got her arthritic joints up for a quick dander outside - euphemism for doggy doo-doo time as if you hadn't guessed. > >Thanks to you for one thing - for confirmation as to the shape of > >things to come in the imminent Internet purge and clampdown. > > Paranoia lives! And who exactly do you think they are going to purge on the > Internet? Most everyone here is no longer a member of the Baha'i community. > There's no one to purge. There's always Bridges and Bahai Studies not to mention SRB. Now that would be service to mankind. I note you have not denied there is to be a purge! Some of the Points arising out of my post that I just knew you would not address. >Was the AO not ordered to go forth and earn the >respect of those it served? >And whatever your attempted >self contradictory obfuscations, it "doesnae take a braw Hieland >chukter" to determine that Counselors and their lackeys demand strict >obedience to the "loving guidance" which emanates from the collective >wisdom(?) of Mount Olympus. >And, of course, this is not the place >where Counselors explain their actions - they haven't the cajones to >do it in public, to justify their existence and actions before those >who just might have the temerity to challenge them! Well why should >they, when they have a "diagonal steam trap" to do the job for them? >It's the sheer hypocrisy of all of this crap that really gets up my >tits! >And talking of hypocrisy - I'd almost forgotten yet another of your >little slips - the little matter of proof that Martin was scheming to >be made a CB and that the advice being tendered to him to be >circumspect and precautionary in dealing with the rottweilers was in >the nature of "machinations." Only to a perverse and obdurate AO >mind, that is as thick as "champ," would such precautions become >"machinations" - doubtless if "Plod" ever takes you into custody, you >will eschew all services of the legal eagles and waive your rights >under the Fifth. Such things are but "machinations" to deprive the >State of its victims and "society" of "justice." From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Why I don't Like the Diagonal Steam Trap! Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 6:20 AM "Susan Maneck " wrote in message news:20020120212902.05404.00004234@mb-mq.aol.com... > >Of course if you're invited you can only talk about the > >things we let you talk > > How do you know what could be talked about at those meetings. We hijacked the > agenda more than once! Whereas the AO has dictated the agenda more than twice. But since you don't invite the likes of Fred how can these meetings reach out to the disaffected? So tell us all how you're going to reach out to the disaffected Bahais? How are you going to stop people like Fred, Michael, Karen, Rod, Juan etc etc (even moi) from saying what they say? Better still, how are you going to undo the PR disasters of the disenrollments? How can you convince "seekers" who drift around the Internet that yours truly is the liberal faith system it claims to be, when every thread here suggests otherwise? Any half intelligent person will know he is not going to get a true picture from the moderated groups; he will know that his investigation must seek out the problem areas and when he drifts here and elsewhere he is going to get his eyes rudely opened as to the extent and depth of opposition to the current literalist/fundamentalist stance. Do you A Onions realise the depth of the damage you have done to the good(?) name of the faith you espouse - a supposedly liberal faith which indulges in neo-Nazi techniques against its outspoken critics? Do you think that nobody notices? When the first crackdown emerged on the LA mob and Talisman - it shunted aside people who were quite well indoctrinated with Bahai principles. They have generally accepted it in a Bahai like fashion and drifted away or been quite polite in their opposition. In their wake came persons who were, shall we say, less polite and a lot louder. They also may drift away but simmering underneath is a much more militant opposition which will not make the mistakes of the predecessors, will be a lot less polite and possibly much more direct in action. As an historian(?) you should know that is what happens when the causes of dissidence and dissent go unattended and unaddressed. This process is inevitable when alienation and polarisation sets in. So far there is no evidence to suggest that the AO has a clue as to how to deal with and suppress it. We have had the technique of persuading people to withdraw; we have had the disenrollments; we had the great CB Circus scare of last July; we have the current rumours of imminent purge of BIGs still active in unapproved lists and groups - none of these things have produced the desired result of suppressing the expression of dissent. Indeed these practices merely reveal the incompetence of the guiding minds at the top. Minimal control on a member of the organisation is infinitely better than total lack of control of a non-member, is a principle that appears to be unknown by these wannabe geniuses. You need a new strategy and you need it badly, whether you realise it or not, because if you don't deal with it now, matters are only going to get worse. Now I could suggest such a strategy to you and, being somewhat connected with the dissident mind, there is every possibility that such a suggested strategy would work. But to do that would be to put pressure on the House and, as we know, it does not bow to pressure - not even the pressure of making peace of effecting reconciliation and building the unity it espouses so vocally. Quite frankly I don't give a fiddler's fart what you do - me and Bahai is sundered for good. I would indeed have been away from this place but for two things - one was Evensong and the other was something I nearly forgot about - your hints of machinations on the Martin business, for which you promised but have not produced proof. So here's a suggestion for your new strategy - produce the proof or if you haven't got it then withdraw your hints very quickly. That might just work! From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Why I don't Like the Diagonal Steam Trap! Date: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:32 PM "Randy Burns" wrote in message news:ubZ28.699$ST3.332020@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > Dermod Ryder wrote in message > news:a2gtjn$1126tf$2@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de... > What you are suggesting here is a sort of Baha'i Underground similiar to > what the dissident underground in the Soviet Union was like. An interesting > idea. The Soviet dissidents weren't allow to publish in official channels > so they produced their own literature and writings called Samizdat. After a > while the Samizdat included some of the best current poetry, fiction and > even social commentary that was being produced by Soviet intellectuals. > > Today I suppose you could say that writing and publishing on the web is akin > to Samizdat writings in the old Soviet Union. I would actually go a lot further than a Bahai Underground limited to writing and publishing on the Web. That is already well established and is now spilling out into more mainstream publications - witness Juan's articles and one by Karen soon to be published. Within Bahai there is a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction and demoralisation rooted in the Bahai Wars, lack of recruitment and manifest in financial crisis and a fairly high rate of withdrawals. Membership in the US is declining - in the UK it is static if not in gentle decline. Bahai is no longer attractive. Some will inevitably lay the blame for this state of affairs on the leadership - a fairly normal reaction in any organisation. I doubt that the more radical Bahais feel any attraction or attachment to that leadership. Is it not within the realms of possibility that a radical element could coalesce to either wait out the current leadership or actively pursue its being removed? I don't profess a great degree of familiarity with the former USSR but, based on Northern Ireland (and I think the process is sufficiently universal to mirror the USSR), disaffection, detachment and disaffiliation with the status quo can reach a critical mass at which opposition ceases to be passive and becomes active, even militant. I don't know if this will happen within Bahai or if it does, when it will. But I detect early signs of it, indications of a fundamental radicalism that is probably as damaging in its potentiality as the current fundamentalist literalism is in actuality. > > Indeed these > > practices merely reveal the incompetence of the guiding minds at the > > top. Minimal control on a member of the organisation is infinitely > > better than total lack of control of a non-member, is a principle that > > appears to be unknown by these wannabe geniuses. > > Perhaps they have now figured out that in order to maintain this kind of > control they must constantly ratchet up the "punishments". If they are > unwilling to do that then the game is already over, either checkmate or more > likely stalemate, neither side is capable of doing much. The trouble is that the AO armoury is empty. They have no more punishments to use. The disenrollments have increased opposition and the sight of Bahai Wars on the Internet is a massive dterrent to seekers. But there is a class of dissident/liberal the AO cannot touch at all - the former Bahais. If the AO were to declare me a CB it would be up before a European Court before you could say "Peter Khan" - the carefully crafted image would be up for close scrutiny of a kind it could not well withstand. Did any of us think any the less of Nima when he was officially elected to the class of the "spiritually corrosive"? Did it shackle his speech in any way? So how can the AO control the former Bahais? It is obvious that it cannot and the more it has pursued prominent liberals within the more it has angered the liberals outside - some of whom are not only erudite but plain nasty and stubborn enough to engage the AO head on. I don't especially like your chess analogy - personally I look at in military terms, an art I have long studied. A battlefield is a dynamic place - war rarely ends in a clear checkmate or stalemate, usually a messy muddle which the politicians have to still sort out (that's why the neat solutions of chess are inapplicable). Violence is however a part of that political process whether initiating or impelling a political solution. If you look at Bahai Wars it is especially messy because it is difficult to do a battle damage assessment. What casualties are being inflicted? It is almost impossible to say. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that seekers have been deterred from joining because of what they have seen on the Internet - but how many and what effect, if any, has this had on recruitment levels? What AO resources have been diverted to counter dissident attack - resources that could or might have been more profitably applied elsewhere? In a war of attrition such as this, victory, if you can call it that, goes to the side that can endure the most and even then its opponent will never sue for peace preferring instead to jockey for a position in which it can claim it was forced to make peace by external pressure - (this is broadly what happened in Northern Ireland). In Bahai Wars however, nobody can win and everybody loses, especially the Faith that so many profess to love. Yet that realisation has not dawned within the AO, for one - I think it still labours under the impression that it can achieve the destruction of the dissidents. That may be the case - it may well win the war (for reasons I won't elaborate upon), but it will pay a terrible price for that victory because it will not compromise one iota of so called principle to seek a meaningful and mutually amicable peace. > Stalemates can last for years, even centuries, if positions are hardened and > there is no overiding necessity (such as a greater danger looming elsewhere) > for a solution to the current impasse. In the Soviet Union the great change > began when the KGB spymaster Andropov was elevated to the highest post of > Premier/President. At that point the Party Apparatchiks must have realized > that they were no longer in control of the country, the KGB was in control, > and a counter movement of Perestroika was begun. Are you suggesting Baha'i > Perestroika? If it happens it will happen because it is forced upon the AO. If that is the case the floodgate to revolution is open wide. The attribute of good government is the peaceful bringing about of change. That is only possible in a free society - the tighter government controls society the less able it is to initiate and bring about change. The AO currently exercises tight control - how if it is forced to concede change can it do so without being swept away? I think this a something that should exercise AO minds for change will come - no society has ever resisted the pressure for change in the long term and no society has ever succceeded in suppressing dissent. Because Western societies generally allow the free and unfettered expression of dissent they have a safety valve which allows extreme pressures to be vented and moderate change to be effected peacefully. > > Quite frankly I don't give a fiddler's fart what you do - me and Bahai > > is sundered for good. I would indeed have been away from this place > > but for two things - one was Evensong and the other was something I > > nearly forgot about - your hints of machinations on the Martin > > business, for which you promised but have not produced proof. So > > here's a suggestion for your new strategy - produce the proof or if > > you haven't got it then withdraw your hints very quickly. That might > > just work! > > Perhaps she was leaked "disinformation?" I think she was leaked enough to be informed but not to be knowledgeable! A little knowledge is a dangerous thing (apologies to Pope for misquoting) - I think she has a little knowledge and likes to live dangerously! Great practice until you get caught on! As ever, Dermod. From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Notice: Mild Usenet annoyance, Fred "Baha'i in *Perfectly* Good Standing" Gleysher, STILL at it! Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 6:20 PM "Dave Fiorito" wrote in message news:f0853486.0201231207.50528519@posting.google.com... Hi Dave, > That was not my perception of the situation. It seemed to me that the > folks who wanted to use Alison as a case were those who had a bone to > pick with the AO. Her "case" was (and still is) paraded around as a > weapon to club the AO and its supporters. The folks that you describe > as conservative were not vultures. Heck, they were the ones under > attack. I for one expressed sympathy for Alison but could not help > but defend the AO from the kind of attacks dished out by its critics. > They swung Alison like a sword and the defenders of the AO parried the > blow. If Alison got hurt it was from being stuck against the shields > of those blocking the attack. When Alison posted her letter of expulsion I'd like to think she was old enough and ugly enough to know that she was initiating a chain of conflict in which, inevitably, she would take some blows. But sometimes, Dave, no matter what the cost to you personally is, sometimes you have to take a stand for what you know and believe to be right. You'll laud and unashamedly use those Bahais who died in Iranian jails to forward your cause and hail them as martyrs, maybe not worrying what harm or distress that may cause their families. It doesn't hurt those who are dead, of course! And Alison, whether you like it or not, is a martyr for the cause of liberalism within the BF - of course she's a worse, or braver, martyr than what you cite because she has to live through and endure something that need never have happened were there a shred of common decency in Haifa. So don't give us bullshit about her being hurt from being dashed on AO shields. They should not have been raised for she should not have been expelled in the way she was and the shame for that lies on the grumpy seat warmers of Haifa and every hack who flocked to defend them. > > This is what critics fail to see. Those who speak out about "the > injustices of the AO" think that they are trying to help. The > intention is to get the AO boosters to see the wrongs being committed. > Trouble is that only real effect is that the Baha'i Faith gets bashed > - Baha'u'llah's message gets bashed. You've got it partly right! The boosters don't get the message, don't want to get the message and the AF is being soundly bashed. But the message isn't and that's the bit you AO hacks don't get! The message calls for consultation - the AO refuses it, yet it is becoming the norm throughout the civilised world. The message calls for justice - the AO refuses it and the cry echoes throughout the world for free and just societies. The message calls for unity and reconciliation - the AO refuses it, yet the call is echoed throughout the world from Afghanistan to Ireland. You know if your precious AO cannot reconcile those who claim the name Bahai HTF can it unite the world? > What we need is reconciliation. In another post you said that you > were getting the hang of promoting ideas on the internet. That is not > what is needed right now. What is needed is a decrease in the volume > of the debate and an increase in trying to understand the Writings. > That is the only place a solution will be found. In your opinion and provided that the Writings are understood in a way which implements and substantiates the AO version of the Covenant. It ain't going to happen, Dave, something the Founders recognised when they talked of freedom of conscience and expression, when they talked of ways of resolving differences. But it takes two to resolve and two to reconcile - it's a two way process. Hell! We have two quite distinct Covenants in Northern Ireland - try reconciling that and resolving long held historical differences and prejudices. You have one Covenant with no authorised or authoritative interpretation and we're further down the road than you are! > As long as there has been a Baha'i Faith there has been opposition - > both internal and external. There will always be opposition. The > question is not who is right and who is wrong. The question is how do > we unite? How did Baha'u'llah want us to unite? What did he say > about our relationship to His AO? To me it keeps coming back to the > Covenant. I do not come back to the Covenant to bash people - I come > back to the Covenant because it is the means of our unity. In that case take the authorised version of the Covenant (as upheld by the AO) and shove it where the sun don't shine and substitute therefore tolerance and mutual respect of and for differing interpretations. In short Dave, burn the Writings and get locked into the spirit of the thing - when you do that, you don't need writings or quotations. Indeed the readiness to refer to them is the mark of one who hasn't grasped the concept suffivciently to express it in his own words. Go read what Pat said about the need to re-examine the place of the Guardian and advance from there not indulge in a headlong retreat to the past and the mistakes that have been made by every religion. Christianity suppreesed Gnosticism and plunged the world into a dark age - the spirit yielded to the letter. This will not happen now - the BF may suppress its Gnostics but day will prevail because the Revelation has run away from the BF. I'm afraid you guys are now in a catch-up race and you're not doing very well. > Has the AO been over sensative at points? Sure. Have there been > instances where they went too far in their zeal to protect the > community? Sure. > > What is going to help solve these problems? They only thing that ever > solves any problems - God and the action of the Holy Spirit. Ever hear the old saying - "God helps those who help themselves!" OR the auditor's addition "And God help anybody I catch helping himself!" As ever, Dermod. From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 10:21 PM "Pat Kohli" wrote in message news:3C699DB0.11E0665A@ameritel.net... Hi Pat, Irrespective of whether this letter was addressed to one person only or circulated to many in a full or abridged form - it is a disgrace to the House and those who unflinchingly support it. That the House would interfere in a commercial arrangement and threaten family unity to achieve its wish of endeavouring to suppress a book of which it disapproves, is so reprehensible that words fail me to adequately describe my opinion. The more that people try to justify this letter, the more they dig themselves into the cultic pit. Not for trying to discourage sales of the book - that is a legitimate activity for the House to do - but to try to do so by blackmail is an act that cries out to heaven. To suggest that adherence to a commercial contract, promoting sales of a book that is highly regarded within academia, constitutes "issues [that]continue to bear so immediately on the well-being of your family" in a spiritual context is nothing other than cheap blackmail. Putting it bluntly the message of the letter is clear although couched in the usual rancorous, but utterly false "loving " tone of the AO - remove this book from your catalogue or risk being declared a Covenant Breaker with comcomitant risk that your family will be sundered. I'm a blunt man when it come to dealing with hypocrisy - you give your adherence to a bunch of crapheads and low life of the first order. Talk about dirty laundry - I'm glad this bit has seen the light of day. Maybe the light of day will help eradicate the bacterial infection that afflicts the BF of which this letter is but another symptom! As ever, Dermod. > Allahu Akbar! > > Freethought110 wrote: > > > FYI > > > > August 1999 > > > > Transmitted by email: XXXXXXXXXXX > > > > XXXXXXXXXXX > > XXXXXXXXXXX > > XXXXXXXXXXX > > XXXXXXXXXXX > > U.S.A. > > I saw this thread on ARB. I thought it was Fred's doing. Now I see it is > _yours_. I thought Susan might do this when she threatened to do it. But I see > it is you, rather than Susan, who is happy to trade in friends for a percieved > advantage in an argument. Did you forget that the letter was introduced on TRB > as one that was going out to _dozens_ of Baha'is? With the full text you prove > Susan's point, that it was addressed to one person, not dozens! > > By posting the letter, you have _definitely_ one-upped her, this time. Whatever > you might get for trading me in, I'd like to get a right of first refusal, okay? > > No point in _me_ going on more about the matter. You and Susan can have > eachother on this one. > > May Allah help us all! > - Pat > kohli@ameritel.net > > > > > > From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: An Old Lie Aired Out (was: Nature of the Beast: UHJ Letter To An Individual Baha'i) Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:44 PM "John R MacLeod" wrote in message news:a4evmd$1f1lep$1@ID-73584.news.dfncis.de... > It seems likely that what was found objectionable is mainly what was > mentioned in the letter. > They quote "an indispensable book for any serious student of Baha'i history" > and ""a brilliant, scholarly analysis of the life and teachings of > Baha'u'llah" presumably from the promotional material. These seem to be > what they disapprove of. > By the way, do you think all this publicity will have a 'Banned in Boston' > effect and send sales soaring? I bought, read, and enjoyed the book before > I knew the UHJ didn't like but one suspects there may be a lot of curious > people out there now wondering what it really says. They can of course > order it from Amazon and no Baha'i need ever know. Anyone who buys for the > thrill of being shocked might be disappointed. I enjoyed but I don't think > the average reader will find it quite up to Kalimat's promotion and > certainly a lot less shocking than the UHJ makes it seem. Hi John, Maybe they believed the publicity and didn't actually get around to reading the book itself. Whatever may be the reason they had to right to interfere in a matter of business and a mater of conscience. All I can conclude is the the House is shit scared of Juan Cole and ready to do anything, including threatening a marriage and a family, to get its own way. Wasn't it Abdul Baha who said that if religion was a cause of disunity, it were better that it did not exist? That seems eminently sensible to one who lives in a society riven by ancient politico-religious hatreds. Perhaps Bahaism isheading that way -failing in its objective to unite and just becoming another megalomaniac sect. Its founders had the wisdom to see clearly that one cannot unite any society if one insists on rigid adherence to a narrow code of behaviour and thought. Other religions have split irretrievably over such rigid doctrines, especially Christianity. Now it is leading the way towards unity by emphasising that which is held in common,whilst relegating differences to the sidelines for later consideration if at all. Such a simple verity seems utterly incomprehensible to Covenant thumpers who believe anything and everything done by the House is righteous. In so doing they have lost sight of the big picture - that such a view is abhorrent to many, including those from whom will emerge "entry by troops," if indeed that phrase means that large numbers will become enrolled in the Haifan organisation. Less than 100 declarations in the US last month means (linked to last year's deaths exceeding declarations) that the AF is in decline. This letter is symptomatic of the policies that have resulted in this decline. As ever, Dermod. > > "Michael McKenny" wrote in message > news:a4etv8$8g4$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > Greetings, Susan. > > Could you or someone kindly provide us with the promotional material > > so we can all assess the validity of your statement? I am very interested > > in having a look at this so unacceptable promotion. > > Expectantly, Michael. > > > > Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: > > > > > > No, it wasn't. If you read the letter carefully you will see that the > major > > > problem was the way the book was being promoted, not that it was being > carried. > > > The recipient had already been warned to cease and desist from > supporting the > > > agenda which Juan represented. The manner in which he promoted the book > only > > > demonstrated to the House that he was still engaged in that activity. > > > > > > warmest, > > > > > > Susan Maneck > > > Associate Professor of History > > > Jackson State University > > > > > > > > > -- > > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > > > From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: The Letter Date: Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:56 PM "Dave Fiorito" wrote in message news:f0853486.0202131433.6b68a122@posting.google.com... > I have read _the letter_ and quite Frankly I can find nothing in that > letter that should lead anyone to the conclusion that the UHJ has > overstepped its mandate. Your opinion counts for nothing as does mine! What does count is the reaction of all of those seekers out there - what do they think of it, Dave? How will they reconcile the accord of reason and religion, the independent investigation of truth, the lack of authoritative interpretation with the fact that anybody can have his family threatened or himself thrown out, if he transgresses edicts that the house, quite frankly, has no basis for imposing. It chooses to interfere in matters of conscience and belief - matters that are best left alone by institutions. Nobody has yet succeeded in controlling thought or in suppressing ideas - both have an unfortunate propensity to perpetuate their existence and grow in direct proportion to the persecution heaped on them. > > What horrifies me is the disregard shown to the recipient of that > letter. To have ones personal struggle made public is unforgivable. > This is between the UHJ and that individual. Come now Dave, the house has never been slow to publicise what it wants publicised without regard for individual sensibilities. Did it not tell Michael's wife more than it told her about his expulsion? The "disregard" you refer to is actually the fact that the house cannot declare anybody a Covenant Breaker over this affair; it knows that, I know that and it is already laying the grounds for backing away from the action it so actively threatened in the letter. If you remember the great CB circus of July last, when rumours were rife on the street, promises were made which will be carried out if these people are stupid enough to try to put wedges between families. This is the disgusting element of AO praxis that you shut your eyes to - in the name of unity and obedience. If you want that kind of unity and to practice blind obedience, you fire ahead and do that. Others don't and won't - they will go their way. Already with declining figures your faith is in deep trouble - you fail to see the wider implications of current policy. A narrow and deeply flawed interpretation of the covenant is being imposed on the Bahai community - it alienates many within and deters many outwith from joining. That is the ultimate cost of your adherence to this covenant - the self destruction of the faith you claim to love. Fundamentalist/literalist religious interpretation is a minority interest yet this is your faith's position in society - yours is not a broadly based inclusivist faith that can unite all peoples. You may deny all of this but it is still the truth, even though you cannot see it. > > As for the characterization of Juan's book and his actions on the > Internet, all I can say is that the UHJ hit the nail on the head. Most probably with a sledge-hammer, resulting in destruction of the timbers meant to be joined by the nail. You guys really specialise in getting folks riled - the language describing Juan's book was quite intemperate, inviting retaliation which only makes the situation worse. Your faith system is far too small to afford the luxury of making enemies of those who once were its friends. Furthermore, to make an enemy of one well versed and respected in academia, is only to invite scorn by academia. And let's not forget the other enemies you have manufactured - people who could have been and should have been your friends stroll around the Internet fora making fools out of your adherents and apologists, not that you see this in any way, for the covenant, whatever that is, is all that counts. The latest addition to the catalogue of errors is of course Doc Electron, who has succeeded in alienating almost everybody here with a crass series of ill-crafted, inane and inept attacks on Juan and others, coupled to his reporting me to the FBI for a post that most people accurately perceived was taking the piss out of him. But having done this he has set himself up for ultimate ridicule - I don't expect the FBI to spend more than 2 minutes reading and researching his complaint, unless, of course, they are as dumb as he is. That means that the local police here will not have their time wasted and I shall miss my day in Court for which disappointment I shall hound and ridicule a prat with whom you are inexorably linked. The DST, supposed to be the best on the Net, has kill-filed Michael and me. She has done this because she cannot answer the points we raise without appearing to be ridiculous and harming the AO for the advancement of which she labours. She, at least, has the brains to realise that and, as a result, is probably the best you have. That speaks volumes to me and probably to others as well! But, as I said, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you or I think. It is the wider issues that are important - is the faith expanding and vigorous or is it static, perhaps contracting and moribund? The answer is determined by what the lurkers and seekers around here and elsewhere think. FWIW I think that many are deterred from considering the BF because of what they see here and that is the ultimate crass failure of your faith. It has allowed this conflict and done nothing to resolve it. I'm not a Bahai and never will be but I am utterly opposed to the spread of the AO because I don't want to see it confuse and abuse anybody else. I'm under no obligation to the house, to consult with it or obey it. If it wants me to modify my opinion and cease posting it here and elsewhere it has to do something to deserve and earn that - to date it hasn't and I don't expect it will. And this is the pattern of the emergent world order!!! As ever, Dermod. From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Why Baha'i Faith FAILING in America Date: Thursday, February 28, 2002 6:31 PM "Anon E. Mouse" wrote in message news:VEaf8.5157$E11.669@nwrddc02.gnilink.net... Hi Mouse, > I read your post with great interest and emotion as well. I feel bad that > you had such a bad experience. I wish you had the fortunate experience that > I have had so far as a Baha'i, and being an ex-Mormon myself and having been > in a church court of "love" for asking questions, what you mentioned is > quite a touchy subject. Now why should you find emotion in a post where there is none? And why do you view my dissociation from Bahaism as a "bad experience"? I don't. I learnt something very important from it - that when some folk are selling a religion to you and are anxious to sign you up in fulfilment of a "goal", they might be economical with the truth. One's best interests lie in listening politely where one is proselytised politely before showing the proselytiser the door. If the approach isn't polite - as can be the case with certain Bahai representatives - the retort will necessarily not be polite in return. > Personally, I think you desire to do what is right. I have the strongest > hunch about this, and I believe that in time you will get the answer that > you are truly seeking. Sometimes it hurts because we're human with so many > human factors to deal with. Maybe together we will all lovingly be able to > share in the spirit of Our Heavenly Father's plan for us all. I've got the answer - true religion is a means whereby an individual endeavours to define the relationship between the Deity (if any) and himself. The rest are pursuing an agenda whereby they can con enough people into supporting their political agenda which aims at subjugating society and imposing government according to their, usually warped, principles. Bahaism fits neatly into this slot - it is different however in that it aspires to this power where the major religions in the west have already been deposed from it to the great benefit of the societies so relieved. > I sense your hurt greatly. I have been there before. I have seen a lot and > have become quite a skeptic when it comes to religion. I could believe this were you not signed up to the AO. >You know, before I > officially declared my faith, I decided that I would never join any religion > again... until I reflected over and over on my own system of belief. To > date, being a Baha'i is the only name I can give to how I believe and who I > am. For me, it's a glorious yet very personal experience and journey in > life, and it will remain thus with or without my fellow brothers and sisters > in the faith. However, I like anyone else hunger after the necessary > fellowship toward my spiritual progress while on this faith journey of life. This is what is known as the "love bomb" technique. Disregard and entirely ignore the substance of any complaint or criticism and throw out this carpet of "bahai love" which will overwhelm the reason and appeal to the emotion. I've been vaccinated! What I also glean from recourse to this technique is that there is no answer to the points I raised. In effect you guys who support the AO do so through thick and thin to the point where you cannot and will not admit that it has any faults of any substantive value. Because guys like me cannot agree with you - the fault is obviously ours. > I will certainly keep you in my prayers and meditations that you will find > that peace that you hunger righteously after whether in this faith or > another. You will find it, and most assuredly the revelation of whom you > are in the whole scheme of things will come to you also. Mucker! Since I abandoned belief and hope in the current form of bahaism, I have no hunger, need or desire, to be associated in any way whatsoever, of any kind at all, with any faith system now existent or likely to come into existence before I turn the toes up for the last time. As ever, Dermod. From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: FWD AOL - Re: Article in American Family Foundation's Cultic Studies Journal by Karen Bacquet Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 5:40 AM "Robert" wrote in message news:VIEj8.5026$wt5.1792388@twister.socal.rr.com... > For over three years you have failed to enter into one single discussion on > this newsgroup. Since you are not talking directly to any of the Baha'is on > this newsgroup, since you refuse to discuss or respond to any posts directed > to you, your question ("How about it, Susan, HAVE YOU LIED?") is not a > question, it is another in a series of many hundreds of personal attacks. Like those posted by the DST including her killfiling me? > Every single Baha'i who has posted on this newsgroup has been included in > your denunciation. Every single person who avows his or her belief in > Baha'u'llah, save for those who hold views similar to yours of the Baha'i > Faith. Geez Robert - anger is clouding your judgement. > "Freedom of Conscience" is a term you repeat repeatedly, but the reality is > that you limit that freedom to viewpoints that agree with you. Item number 37 in the pack issued to BIGS - "How to Respond to Attacks on the Faith!" i have been around Bahai Cyberspace for over two years and (apart from Miss Maddy and her ilk) have yet to see one ATTACK on the FAITH from those you so glibly denounce. What they attack is the perversion and corruption of the AO - if however that AO is the Faith then, brother, you are in a sad way of going! > I suggest that you read any prayer, select any passage from the writings of > Baha'u'llah, and compare those words, representing as they do the virtues > and ethics of a Faith you confess to believe in, with your hundreds upon > hundreds of posts to this newsgroup. > > Will you see a difference? Will you see the same love for mankind? Will you > see the same humility, respect, dignity and reverence? Ever hear of righteous indignation - like when Jesus stormed into the Temple and upset the tables of the money merchants, the numbers racket of the pre-Christian era? Hint for you - why don't you storm up to Haifa and tell the grumpies to sort this fucking mess out before it does real damage instead of coming out with this incessant drivel about how wonderful the BF is supposed to be. It could be but it won't be until you and the rest of the BIGS chase these gomers in charge and demand an explanation as to how they have screwed the pooch so magnificently. After all it's your Faith that teaches consultation as a means of resolving differences and conflict and consultation is NOT threatening people with excommunication or allowing or tolerating molasses stained posters blatantly misrepresenting and lying about recent history. You wanna talk to Fred? Then start by trying to understand what grieves him. You're not going to initiate any dialogue without that. How do I know that? Well, Fred talks to me because I have tried to understand why he is the way he is. The lesson is Robert - stop reading your Writings - start applying them to real situations and take the blindfold away from your eyes. If the current status of your Faith wasn't sick there'd be no conflict. Thinks ..... how do I help resolve that conflict? Light appears - I ask people why they think things are wrong! I acknowledge they have a credible point(s)! I look for ways of amending my own views to create a harmony with them - I look for solutions! Now go do it! As ever, Dermod. PS Only through dialogue can problems be solved - not through the kill-file. resorting to silence simply informs the world that you see and acknowledge what your opponent says, that you cannot refute it and that, ignorant person that you are, you will not amend your position to create harmony. > > Robert A. Little > > "Bahai Faith" wrote in message > news:a6m0o9$foh0r$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de... > > Subj: Re: Scholl calls Maneck a Liar on talk.religion.bahai > > Date: 3/12/2002 5:48:53 PM Eastern Standard Time > > From: fg@aol.com () > > To: > > > > > > > In short, she has lied and made misleading statements about me in the > > >> past and this recent statement of hers is just another example of her > > >> lack of honesty. > > > > How about it, Susan, HAVE YOU LIED? > > > > > > >The problem in her cult view of the world is > > >> the "dissident act" of shining a light on internal Baha'i affairs so > > >> that outsiders (and insiders) can learn about what really takes place > > >> in the Baha'i world. > > > > How about it, Susan, do you have a cult view of the world? > > > > > > >In short, she has one of the weakest > > >> publishing histories I have ever seen in academics and her academic > > >> profile is nearly nonexistent. > > > > How about it, Susan, have you published ANYTHING on an intelligent level? > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > > > Google Search Engine: > > > > Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > > Return-Path: <@aol.com> > > Received: from rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) > > by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v83.45) with ESMTP id MAILINYD43-0312174853; > Tue, > > 12 Mar 2002 17:48:53 -0500 > > Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by > > rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v83.45) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYD54-0312174825; > Tue, > > 12 Mar 2002 17:48:25 -0500 > > Received: from ladder07.news.aol.com (ladder07.news.aol.com > [172.31.45.165]) > > by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) > > with ESMTP id RAA04968; > > Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:48:17 -0500 (EST) > > From: ) > > To: Date: 12 Mar 2002 17:47:41 EST > > References: <20020312173926.14740.00001315@mb-ba.aol.com> > > Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > > Subject: Re: Scholl calls Maneck a Liar on talk.religion.bahai > > Message-ID: <20020312174741.14723.00001471@mb-ba.aol.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: One Country - "Belief and Tolerance: Lights Amidst the Darkness" - October-December 2001 Issue Date: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:00 AM "NightShadow" wrote in message news:3cc6b254.207591016@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com... > Furthermore, please submit > valid proof that the Baha'i Faith has attempted to sway the political > climate of any election in any country. Try this little epistle for size! National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom XXXXXXXX, London XXXXXX Tel: XXXXXXXX Fax: XXXXXXXX When replying please refer to: XXXXXXX 24 April 1996 To all Baha'i households in Northern Ireland Dear Baha'i friends Some of the believers in Northern Ireland have queried whether it is permissible for Baha'is to vote in the forthcoming elections (30 May) in Northern Ireland. This is because, under the new electoral system, voters will be called upon to vote for a specific party, rather than an individual candidate. The National Spiritual Assembly wishes to advise the friends that under such circumstances it would not be appropriate for the Baha'is to cast votes. This is in accordance with the following guidance from the Guardian: As regards the non-political character of the Faith... The friends may vote, if they can do it without identifying themselves with one party or another. To enter the arena of party politics is surely detrimental to the best interests of the Faith and will harm the Cause. It remains for the individuals to so use their right to vote as to keep aloof from party politics... (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada March 16, 1933) The main principle, as you know, is that the friends should refrain from participating in any political election, unless they ascertain that in casting their vote for this or that candidate they are not affiliating themselves with any politcal party or organisation, and are not identifying themselves with any political program... (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 17; 1933) Yours in Baha'i service XXXXXXX Secretary From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: "fundamentalist Bah??" and other oxymorons Date: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:15 PM "Dave Fiorito" wrote in message news:f0853486.0205080635.265b6b4b@posting.google.com... > Randy, > > > Your quotes don't really support Martin's ideas against individuality. If > > we submit ourselves to God's will then we agree to accept the UHJ as our > > political leader to make laws and political decisions for us, NOT to coerce > > our individual consciences and make us do things that we believe are wrong > > but are willing to do ONLY because the UHJ orders us to do them. > > So when has the UHJ coerced our individual consciences? When has the > UHJ made anyone do aything wrong? In your eyes, never - in mine, on a number of occasions including this diatribe from Dug Out Doug who's, doubtless, putting the same show on in Belfast tonight. I think you guys really cannot see how stupid you appear to be with your acceptance of the Covenant, as dictated by Martin and co. and all that you have attached to it. Things that you would condemn as immoral and unjust in secular society, you're prepared to gloss over and endeavour to justify when undertaken by the grumpies. If a policeman arrived to search your house without a warrant you'd be screaming all the way to the Supreme Court but if an ABM arrived and locked your own door to stop you leaving you's meekly sit down and accept it, searching your informed conscience to ascertain what faults you had committed to merit this. Not finding any you'd ask him what they were and blithely plead guilty on all counts. So at the end of the day the BF is no different to any of the others that also market their allegedly unique wares and are prepared, if in a majority, to bludgeon any who dare question. They 're all divine in origin and if their results bear testimony to divine inspiration I'm sure glad I don't belong to any of them. Dermod. > > Dave From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: BI*P*GS@liberty.com is a troll. Date: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:48 PM "Paul Hammond" wrote in message news:3cff9765@212.67.96.135... Hi Paul, > > He is a troll _and_ a spammer. > > > > I just don't see how he meets that definition you posted. I hate to tell you this but Dave's comment on Fred is the current pinnacle of Bahai intellectual refutation of people who criticise the institutions i.e the Faith. They've scraped the barrel to try to come up with some answer to Fred and this is the best they can do. Yes, I know it's sad but there doesn't appear to be any cure for it known to medical science - Oops! "Science" is a naughty word to use in connection with our friends from Aonia. I see a new definition of it coming on after recent comments on the W&T. They redefined "academia" and "scolarship" - "science" has got to be next on the list. As ever, Dermod. > > Paul > > From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list." - In 1996 my request to the circulation department for the American Bahai Date: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:28 PM "Sufi Baha'i" wrote in message news:189ac3e8.0207141623.4117ddc8@posting.google.com... > What would really impress us is if you got a current membership card > rather than the old one on your website. > > I can see what happened, you send them a nasty letter calling their > publications "junk mail," in the follwup they *interpreted* your > letters as meaning you wanted to resign from the Faith and removed you > from the rolls. By staying out of contact you never realised that you > were no longer on the rolls. But didn't you write messages saying > that membership rolls should be updated to reflect those who are > active? Why are you complaining that you are no longer counted? > > Normally what would happen is that your LSA secretary would note that > your name had been removed, especially at Ridvan and you and him/her > would have corrected it. Now it's been six years, too much time has > passed and I would think that the best solution would be a new > declaration card. However a US declaration card mentions the UHJ and > I doubt that they would be willing to rephrase that to the term you > use, "nine Ayatollahs on Mt. Carmel." SO you may be SOL. Just in case you missed it - Fred has never actually been told that he has been disenrolled by Bobalong & Co at Wilmette. So until they summon up the manners and courtesy to write and tell him, as far as I'm concerned he's still a BIGS! Quite why he'd want to remain among them is something that baffles me but there's no accounting for what folks wants to do. So there you have it! God is in his heaven, Fred is still a BIGS and all's well! Of course Fred's one of the nicer BIGS of which variety, unfortunately, there is a severe shortage. > > > "Bahai Faith" wrote in message news:... > > "Please remove my name and address from your mailing list." - > > > > > > In 1996 my request to the circulation department for the American Bahai, > > repeated twice and perhaps a third time, read, "Please remove my name and > > address from your mailing list." I had torn off the preprinted address > > change label regularly published on the back page of the American Bahai and > > mailed it into the address given for subscription changes. > > > > I asked for nothing other than my name and address to be removed from the > > mailing list--no gloss, no explanation, no complaint, no threat, etc.... > > Dermod Ryder's speculation that willingness to receive the American Bahai > > has become compulsory should give pause.... > > > > Again, note well, I used the address on the back of the American Bahai given > > specifically for handling subscription addresses. I did not write the nsa, > > its secretary, etc. My communication was limited to the simplest of > > requests: remove my name and address from your mailing list. Not a word or > > suggestion about withdrawing from the Bahai Faith, nor any criticism of it > > whatsoever, real nor implied. I conveyed my wishes to the proper address, as > > announced in the American Bahai itself. That I received a response back from > > an entirely different address speaks volumes, as they say. After six years, > > I believe the time is now right to release it publicly. I've scanned the > > letter so others might read the original. > > > > I am not about to accept the slander and backbiting of fanatics and > > fundamentalists nor allow them to provoke me into one action or another. I > > prefer the facts: Again, I declared my belief in Baha'u'llah in 1976 and > > notified the nsa, who sent me back the declaration card available on my > > homepage. I have never notified them otherwise. They, as distinguished from > > liars and sycophants online, have never notified me to the contrary. Scanned > > orignials at http://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship/nsa1996.htm > > > > The other two letters were related to the Detroit local spiritual assembly > > and its junk mail. From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Re: Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing - Despite the libel and slander of many fundamentalists among my... Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:57 AM "Robert Clifton" wrote in message news:cca72aa8.0210210600.e19b56@posting.google.com... Hi Robert, > Is suffi bahai one of those fundamentalists you won't answer Fred? > Does an out of date id card make you a bonified member? > I have one of those, but they won't let me in the house - any of them > - either. Gee Fred could you teach me how to use your kind of logic? Big difference! You have been told that you're out - though whether directly or indirectly, I'm curious to know. Fred was not told that he was out although any Tom, Dick or Dave who wrote to Wilmette was told that he was out. The story goes that Bobalong's Bunch are so frightened of Fred that none of them had the intestinal fortitude to contact him and tell him he was out. Dermod. > Always with love, > Robert From: "Dermod Ryder" Subject: Have I got news for you? Date: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:17 PM One or two of you might have noticed - the DST did so with enormous relief - that I have not been about for the last few days. This has been due to the fact that our little one suffered yet another massive seizure on Sunday, just three weeks after the last one and against a normal pattern of 3-5 months' interval. Fortunately she has made a good recovery even though it took almost 3 days and is still not complete. But the risk of further seizures is now such that pending getting her meds right, I need to spend less time here. Fortunately this need to be absent is linked to the good news that we have received of ongoing negotiations between a representative element of the liberals/dissidents and the Grumpies. Whilst these have been ongoing for some time we understand they are now at a critical stage and that it is fervently hoped a "deal" to end Bahai Wars can be delivered in good time for the election next year. As yet I cannot share details of the proposed "deal" with you all although I am led to believe that the phrase "unfortunate misunderstanding" as an explanation for Bahai Wars may feature, if it is not indeed the only point of substance in it. I do so hope that it is a good "deal" that will address all of the issues raised in the course of hostilities in a comprehensive manner and that its content will come up for some form of consultation long before it is accepted or presented as a fait accompli - the best that could be done in the circumstances. Suggestions that the representative may be pursuing entirely sectional interests are, of course, entirely without any foundation whatsoever. And anybody who could even think that the impending "deal" would entail the taking out of certain persons deemed inimical to its achievement will soon be seeing men in white coats who bear jackets with very long sleeves. No, indeed, friends! We are on the portal of a new era in the affairs of the Adminocentric Faith! Keep thine eyes firmly fixed on the horizon for the issuance of the call to unity that troops of former liberals/dissidents shall enter once again into the hallowed precincts of that which is worshipped by OhMyGuinness among others. Let us pray that the "deal" with all of its conditions can be accomplished in time for the desired electoral impact it's bound to have! Since one of the conditions necessary for its acceptance is that I be banished from this place, I'm happy to oblige, at least, temporarily. And isn't it fortunate that other circumstances conspire to assist in this? So remember - you heard it here first!