From - Sun Jun 01 09:55:14 1997 >From remailer-admin@huge.cajones.com Fri May 30 20:28:49 1997 Received: (from remailer@localhost) by fat.doobie.com (8.8.5/8.8.1) id TAA10782 for FG@hotmail.com; Fri, 30 May 1997 19:29:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 19:29:14 -0700 Message-Id: <199705310229.TAA10782@fat.doobie.com> To: "Frederick Glaysher" From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer) Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2950 Posted. Subject: Re: Notarius Frederick, there was a song "Mount your Steeds, Oh Heroes of God". And "Hearken my brother and I will sing thee a lovely tune and a lovely melody". I thought you understood the reference. I then asked Roger for the name of the band that made the songs. They were popular long ago. It was a Bahai group. Notarius account is a nym account. I am surprised that you wonder why I use it. Take a look in alt.religion.scientology, there used to be many of them there. The word NOTS is understood by everybody in a.r.s. The internic put the domain on hold, which created problems for many users. This place is backwards. I call it Buchara. If I came forward I would have problems. I am not posting from bcca.org. I give you all the credit for creating and maintaining this newsgroup. You are misinterpreting me. As for my motives, I wanted to assist you so that you were not alone. Free speech needs all the help it can get. In all my postings I have tried to be honest. Some articles were intended to be funny. Fredericks wrote: Notarius wrote: > > Frederick, > I have got to talk with you off the list. > We have been outspoken. With all right, I should add. > But we are being shunned and there are very few posts. I count over 500 now since early April on www.dejanews.com and www.reference.com under alt.religion.bahai > I will probably not post for a couple of days. > We cant keep the newsgroup going all by ourselves. "We" aren't, Notarius. By the way, what's your real name? > Some people would love to hear me say that, but I dont want to > give them the satisfaction. Thats why I take this to private email. You needn't be squeamish.... I've been saying all along that many people who voted YES, 157, have been shut out of the discussion. I've received numerous email messages from some of them trying to get access.... THEY already have that satisfaction and know it.... > Its too bad that we are both technodummies. > We need help and I dont know where to look for it. > My Spanish is bad and I cant set up the list. This is a nymaccount, > as you are probably aware of. > > You dropped a bomb when you wrote about the coverups in Wilmette. > Is Roger on the NSA? He just disappeared. Everybody disappeared, > though I "hear" Donald grinding his teeth. No bombs.... Just what appears to my conscience as the truth.... I may be wrong.... I concede once again that I'm not perfect.... Who are you and what's your motives.... Why are you hiding behind an alias.... Are you posting from bcca.org? I've been to Buchara.... It's a backward little hole in the ground.... > > Notarius -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 30 07:36:59 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 30 04:22:05 1997 Received: (qmail 25362 invoked from network); 30 May 1997 11:20:30 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 May 1997 11:20:30 -0000 Message-ID: <338EB84C.1577@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 07:21:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.irani an CC: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: "Canossa" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2131 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > SOMEONE wrote: > > > > > > Frederick, > > > I confess. I hate to deceive you. > > > Please keep the secret to yourself and dont put this email in your > > > archive, please. Delete me completely. > > > Possibly it will come out anyway, but I am not ready yet. > > > You are an intellectual, do you remember Canossa? > > > > Vaguely familiar. Was that where Hitler murdered 10,000 officers in > > or near Poland? > > I'm confusing totalitarian systems.... That was Stalin.... Canossa was > where the meeting was held for the Final Solution? Closer? I'm > intrigued.... > > > > > > They will maybe never forgive us. > > > The "Special Division" for "the Protection of the Cause", Persian > > > Avenue no X, Haifa, is in a state of alert. > > > I made that up, but its close enough. > > > Yet, I wish the Faith well. There is something in it. > > > I keep thinking of the word "unfolding". > > [clip] > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > fglaysher: >Vaguely familiar. Was that where Hitler murdered 10,000 officers in >or near Poland? The Pope was in Canossa. A King, I forgot who, was banned. The King _walked_ to Canossa to beg forgiveness. I dont remember all of it. I think he had to wait a few days outside the castle, too. The Polish tragedy took place in Katyn, I think. YES IT DID. I REMEMBER NOW.... UNDERGRADUATE WESTERN HISTORY SURVEY.... NOT APPLICABLE.... REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS THE POLITY FOR ME.... I PREFER LUTHER AS A METAPHOR.... >> Yet, I wish the Faith well. There is something in it. >> I keep thinking of the word "unfolding". [CLIP] It did... I felt like you do when I was a member. Now I can wish the Faith well. I have a distance to it. I HAVE NO DISTANCE. I WAKE IN THE NIGHT AND THINK OF THE SUFFERING DELUSIONS OF OTHERS.... HERE BY THE CURTAIN WHERE THE LIGHT STREAMS IN.... DARKNESS OUT THERE, AT THE HEART OF IT.... -- FREDERICK GLAYSHER USENET: ALT.RELIGION.BAHAI From - Wed Jun 04 07:59:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 4 04:45:45 1997 Received: (qmail 28872 invoked from network); 4 Jun 1997 11:45:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 1997 11:45:43 -0000 Message-ID: <339555B6.6EDC@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:47:02 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.isra el CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Canossa" (FYI, and newsgroup list trimmed) References: <338EB84C.1577@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2885 Jean Hunter wrote: > > Following the references to Canossa by Fred and SOMEONE, here's a > brief description of the events at Canossa from the archives of a > newsgroup on Israeli politics, found by web search and posted > with permission of the author. I've left off his e-mail address > because his response to my request indicated no interest in joining > the discussion. > > Regards, > Jean in Ithaca > . > >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 08:51:15 IST > >From: steve plaut > >Subject: Canossa > > (snip) > > > > Canossa was the place in Italy where Emperor Henry IV, one of the Salic- > > Frankish line of emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, > >grovelled before Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) and begged his forgiveness > >in 1077. The background to this was a mortal struggle between the emperor > >and the Pope. when the latter was threatening the sovereignty of the > >state. Henry IV was threatened less by the Pope than by the Pope's > >allies within the empire, nobles and leaders who conspired with the Papal > >enemies of the state. At the threat of the outbreak of an all-out civil > >war in the empire, Henry went to Canossa, where he grovelled in the snow for > >three days, then approached the Pope as a penitent and confessed his sins. > > > > So far - the familiar part of the Canossa story. As it turned out, however, > >the entire trip to Canossa was an elaborate ruse to play for time. Henry was > >exercising realpolitik to unify his state and weaken his enemies. > >Once he felt sufficiently strong he forcibly deposed Pope Gregory and > >replaced him with Pope Clement III. With his victorious army Henry > >entered Rome in 1084 and was crowned by Clement, while Gregory made a fast > >retreat to Norman Sicily. (No, he did not then play in any Frances Ford > >Coppola films). > > > > The split between Henry's loyalists and the pro-Gregory factions > >evolved into two political parties, the "peace camp" (peace with the Pope > >that is) who opposed Henry, and the National Camp. Over time these were > >named the Guelfs and the Ghibellines, the very same parties that Dante > >was to wring his hands over in Italy. > > (snip) > > > DR. STEVEN E. PLAUT > > GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS > > UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA, HAIFA 31905 ISRAEL > > -- > Please remove the "NOJUNK" spam deflector from my e-mail address before replying -- Thanks! > Jean in Ithaca jbh5@NOJUNK.cornell.edu I recall the incident from Intro to Western Civ.... I can't remember that old pedant's name, bless his heart.... I'm a democrat, not a king.... If we must trade tropes, I'd prefer Nietzsche, Rousseau, or Emerson.... Someone with some real literary ability and sense of the past.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 04 07:59:25 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 4 04:56:44 1997 Received: (qmail 28913 invoked from network); 4 Jun 1997 11:56:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 1997 11:56:42 -0000 Message-ID: <3395584A.180D@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:58:02 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: "Dancing" & Iranian Bahais Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1690 SOMEONE wrote: [clip] > Years ago during consultation about the possiblility of a Naw Ruz dinner > dance, one old Persian gentleman was persistantly argueing against it, > giving all kinds of superficial suggestions as to why it was a bad idea. > Finally in exasteration one of the mature Black women members of the > community said. "What is your real problem? You just have something > against dancing, don't you?" Shut him right up. Apparently there is a > thing against dancing among some Persians because it has been associated > with houses of ill repute and immorality in Iran. Ahhh! I've witnessed almost the same kind of incident once though I can no longer remember over what.... > > So what we need to do is teach lots of agressive no nonsense Black women > who have no problem speaking their minds, and let the cultural clash > begin!!! BTW, this woman spent many years serving on the local assembly, > was very deepened and always gave us much food for thought at feast. It began a long time ago really.... Actually, I think you're on to something here.... Some feisty Black women do have a nack for giving certain personalities a swift kick in the right spot at times.... Anything that helps! > > Thought you would enjoy this. I have to go back to work now but will > write you soon with an answer. Please post to alt.religion.bahai I'm not a moderator and can't keep up with direct email. You have a lot of good ideas that others might find interesting and enjoyable too.... > > Hang in there I fear it will eventually be on the gallows, though, you see.... > Nona > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 05 07:13:48 1997 >From jahngiri@netcom.com Wed Jun 4 23:15:36 1997 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id BAA21010; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 01:15:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ala-ca26-37.ix.netcom.com(207.93.42.101) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma020998; Thu Jun 5 01:15:06 1997 Message-ID: <339658D2.410D@netcom.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 23:12:34 -0700 From: kj giri Reply-To: jahngiri@netcom.com Organization: cyberlearning X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel To: FG@hotmail.com CC: jahngiri@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: "Dancing" & Iranian Bahais References: <5n4gqc$jsr$1@murrow.corp.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3268 Ben Mahjoor wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > s> SOMEONE wrote: > s> > s> [clip] > s> > s> Years ago during consultation about the possiblility of a Naw Ruz dinner > s> dance, one old Persian gentleman was persistantly argueing against it, > s> giving all kinds of superficial suggestions as to why it was a bad idea. > s> Finally in exasteration one of the mature Black women members of the > s> community said. "What is your real problem? You just have something > s> against dancing, don't you?" Shut him right up. Apparently there is a > s> thing against dancing among some Persians because it has been associated > s> with houses of ill repute and immorality in Iran. > > > Ahhh! > > zahre mAr ! [ get it translated ] > > > I've witnessed almost the same kind of incident once though I > > can no longer remember over what.... > > I bet it was part of another "conspiracy" of Baha'is against an idiot > like you. But I really think an Iranian has kicked your butt somewhete. > Otherwise I can't think of any other reason why you have a beef against us. > Internet voting, of course, is not considered a kick in the butt...but may > be in your mind it is ! > > s> So what we need to do is teach lots of agressive no nonsense Black women > s> who have no problem speaking their minds, and let the cultural clash > s> begin!!! BTW, this woman spent many years serving on the local assembly, > s> was very deepened and always gave us much food for thought at feast. > > > It began a long time ago really.... Actually, I think you're on to > > something here.... Some feisty Black women do have a nack for giving > > certain personalities a swift kick in the right spot at times.... > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > That's exactly what I was thinking of as a cure for a whiner like you. > > > Anything that helps! > > I doubt anything helps you in SCI. Try alt.whiners.anonymous. > > > Thought you would enjoy this. I have to go back to work now but will > > write you soon with an answer. > > work ? I thought it was your "work" to post your persoanl mails to SCI, > with anything remotley against "Iranians". > > > Please post to alt.religion.bahai I'm not a moderator and can't keep > > up with direct email. You have a lot of good ideas that others might > > find interesting and enjoyable too.... > > Yes ..please post there you dummy. > > s> Hang in there > > > I fear it will eventually be on the gallows, though, you see.... > > You really are a legend in your mind, aren't you ? No one is to put a > whiner like you on "gallows" (I bet you wished it..such a hero !) > > - Behnam Freddy, I hope you reread my mails to you carefully. Your illness requires an intense group therapy with your own ilk. Don't pollute our space over here in soc.culture.iranian. Of course, we know you, desperately, need your treatment fix from us. That is fine. Some of us are willing to extend our famous hospitality even to you. But remember my last note? I, still, think you are an indecent, intellectual midget floating in the cyberspace masquerading as a POMPOUS ASS philosopher! Cool down, be good. Sur Esrafil From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 9 03:19:31 1997 Received: (qmail 8363 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1997 10:19:29 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1997 10:19:29 -0000 Message-ID: <339BD560.3A48@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 06:20:49 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Dancing" & Iranian Bahais References: <3395584A.180D@hotmail.com> <5na38a$g6s$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3543 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >SOMEONE wrote: > > > >[clip] > > > >> Years ago during consultation about the possiblility of a Naw Ruz dinner > >> dance, one old Persian gentleman was persistantly argueing against it, > >> giving all kinds of superficial suggestions as to why it was a bad idea. > >> Finally in exasteration one of the mature Black women members of the > >> community said. "What is your real problem? You just have something > >> against dancing, don't you?" Shut him right up. Apparently there is a > >> thing against dancing among some Persians because it has been associated > >> with houses of ill repute and immorality in Iran. > > > >Ahhh! I've witnessed almost the same kind of incident once though I > >can no longer remember over what.... > > What is the point in recounting this anecdote? It is inevitable that when > people of diverse cultures, temperaments, and life histories come together > that there will be diverse reactions to a given idea or suggestion, and > diverse ways of expressing those ideas. In this process, everyone has > something to learn. The point is that it typifies a certain rigidity among many Iranian Bahais toward the "evils" of the Western world.... > > The central point of unity in diversity as I understand it, is in part to > learn from each others' cultures and backgrounds, not for anybody t stifle > others. Somtimes a frank but courteous insight (which I'm guessing the > woman in the anecdote was offering) is essential to the consultative process. > But what is *not* needed IMHO (& hopefully that was not the outcome of the > consultation) is for someone to feel put down and excluded from the community > decision. Her or him? > > >> So what we need to do is teach lots of agressive no nonsense Black women > >> who have no problem speaking their minds, and let the cultural clash > >> begin!!! BTW, this woman spent many years serving on the local assembly, > >> was very deepened and always gave us much food for thought at feast. > > Culture clash?? Abdu'l-Baha speaks of the clash of opinions (from which the > spark of truth can arise) but what good does a "culture clash" do for any > individual or community? What good does it do to stifle it in preference to benightedness? > > >It began a long time ago really.... Actually, I think you're on to > >something here.... Some feisty Black women do have a nack for giving > >certain personalities a swift kick in the right spot at times.... > >Anything that helps! > > Stereotypes? What is needed in any Baha'i community IMHO is a range of > personalities and cultural backgrounds and a spirit of fellowship and > love that allows each to be expressed. Not that that's easy to attain. This isn't a stereotype; this is a reality of my own experience.... Her whole point here is that HER expression was being suppressed! That's all right as long as an Iranian is judging? > > >> Thought you would enjoy this. I have to go back to work now but will > >> write you soon with an answer. > > > >Please post to alt.religion.bahai I'm not a moderator and can't keep > >up with direct email. You have a lot of good ideas that others might > >find interesting and enjoyable too.... > > > >> Hang in there > > > >I fear it will eventually be on the gallows, though, you see.... > > Melodrama? Allusion.... > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 03:12:17 1997 Received: (qmail 7654 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 10:12:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 10:12:14 -0000 Message-ID: <339FCBA8.792F@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:12:56 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Hello" References: <5nmgtj$mqk@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 512 The, Lurker, Collective wrote: > > We are The Lurker Collective. > > We do not wish to post. > > Browbeating is futile. > > Coercion is futile. > > As you exercise your right to speak, We exercise Our right to not speak. > > You will respect Our rights. > > If you do not respect Our rights, we will not respect yours. > > To be succinct: you will be assimilated. > > And resistance will be futile. Notarius!? Back from Haifa? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Aug 18 10:19:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 07:15:47 1997 Received: (qmail 16666 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 14:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 14:15:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33F85977.2FA8@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:17:27 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: "inactive" believers/ Bahais Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1741 EMAILED TO SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI 8-18-97: RMckin6046 wrote: > > To s.r.b. with cc to provi@snet.net > > Providencia wrote a post dealing with his status as an inactive > Baha'i. It seems some Baha'is had questioned him on whether he was a > covenant breaker because of his inactive status. [clip] > A covenant breaker is NOT: [clip] > ...One who is a Baha'i, who has not withdrawn from the Faith > administratively and/or who still believes in Baha'u'llah, but for > whatever reason is not active with day-to-day affairs. Whether this > person keeps the Baha'i laws or calls himself Baha'i or not is > immaterial to his status. He is a Baha'i. He is obviously inactive > and may choose to call himself an "inactive Baha'i" but it is not up > to other Baha'is to label him anything but "Baha'i". [There are any > number of reasons why someone may be inactive. In our community is a > woman who must remain inactive for the peace of her family, and there > are passages from the Guardian that back up her choice.] It seems to me that this neglects that many "inactive" Bahais choose to have nothing or little to do with the Bahai Faith for very good reasons at times.... Perhaps Providencia was one of these people.... The rigidity and intolerance of Bahai communities, operating often along very fundamentalist lines, have driven THOUSANDS of Bahais away.... into so-called "inactivity." [clip] > Richard > -------------------------------- > Dr Richard A McKinley > Fayetteville NC USA > RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.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 - Sun Jun 29 07:07:46 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jun 29 03:59:20 1997 Received: (qmail 27578 invoked from network); 29 Jun 1997 10:59:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 1997 10:59:13 -0000 Message-ID: <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 07:00:38 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1911 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > [clip] > There have been arguments that some people *do* think that this newsgroup is > redundant to what is currently available. Frederick and others disagree, > because they would like an unmoderated forum to discuss the the Baha'i Faith > (although, I don't know if 'discuss' is quite the word I would use for what goes > on at alt.religion.bahai). The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups would be "redundant." What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the sun.... > > Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, and > people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > conscience tells them to? More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists at soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search on www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get 36 hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... [clip] > > jeff [clip] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 30 04:45:50 1997 Received: (qmail 23230 invoked from network); 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Received: from ppp-pm01-dy-22.ouhub.moa.net (HELO glaysher) (204.38.255.54) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:47:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6934 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > >> There have been arguments that some people *do* think that this newsgroup is > >> redundant to what is currently available. Frederick and others disagree, > >> because they would like an unmoderated forum to discuss the the Baha'i Faith > >> (although, I don't know if 'discuss' is quite the word I would use for what > >goes > >> on at alt.religion.bahai). > >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >would be "redundant." > > > >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >sun.... > > Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > this matter. False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. "Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > >> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >and > >> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> conscience tells them to? > > > >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >at > >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >on > >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >36 > >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > > The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > reason to vote against it. Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > degree or another, on your side. If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very dishonorable ones.... > > Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > you have had much to do with these lovable people. False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it does to the individual's conscience.... If those you are > accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been discussed.... > Those are the tactics of the fascisti. And the Bahai Faith.... They still do exist in > organizations like the (British) National Front and are well know for > their political tactics. I don't mind you saying that your (and others') > messages are being censored, because that is a very subjective matter, Not in regard to soc.religion.bahai.... Many, many people have openly stated as much now.... > but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > public eye. So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 30 04:45:50 1997 Received: (qmail 23230 invoked from network); 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Received: from ppp-pm01-dy-22.ouhub.moa.net (HELO glaysher) (204.38.255.54) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:47:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6934 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > >> There have been arguments that some people *do* think that this newsgroup is > >> redundant to what is currently available. Frederick and others disagree, > >> because they would like an unmoderated forum to discuss the the Baha'i Faith > >> (although, I don't know if 'discuss' is quite the word I would use for what > >goes > >> on at alt.religion.bahai). > >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >would be "redundant." > > > >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >sun.... > > Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > this matter. False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. "Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > >> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >and > >> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> conscience tells them to? > > > >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >at > >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >on > >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >36 > >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > > The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > reason to vote against it. Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > degree or another, on your side. If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very dishonorable ones.... > > Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > you have had much to do with these lovable people. False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it does to the individual's conscience.... If those you are > accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been discussed.... > Those are the tactics of the fascisti. And the Bahai Faith.... They still do exist in > organizations like the (British) National Front and are well know for > their political tactics. I don't mind you saying that your (and others') > messages are being censored, because that is a very subjective matter, Not in regard to soc.religion.bahai.... Many, many people have openly stated as much now.... > but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > public eye. So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 30 04:45:50 1997 Received: (qmail 23230 invoked from network); 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Received: from ppp-pm01-dy-22.ouhub.moa.net (HELO glaysher) (204.38.255.54) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:47:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6934 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > >> There have been arguments that some people *do* think that this newsgroup is > >> redundant to what is currently available. Frederick and others disagree, > >> because they would like an unmoderated forum to discuss the the Baha'i Faith > >> (although, I don't know if 'discuss' is quite the word I would use for what > >goes > >> on at alt.religion.bahai). > >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >would be "redundant." > > > >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >sun.... > > Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > this matter. False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. "Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > >> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >and > >> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> conscience tells them to? > > > >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >at > >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >on > >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >36 > >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > > The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > reason to vote against it. Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > degree or another, on your side. If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very dishonorable ones.... > > Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > you have had much to do with these lovable people. False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it does to the individual's conscience.... If those you are > accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been discussed.... > Those are the tactics of the fascisti. And the Bahai Faith.... They still do exist in > organizations like the (British) National Front and are well know for > their political tactics. I don't mind you saying that your (and others') > messages are being censored, because that is a very subjective matter, Not in regard to soc.religion.bahai.... Many, many people have openly stated as much now.... > but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > public eye. So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:10:02 1997 Received: (qmail 7138 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8D791.1DD6@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:10:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8091 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Jeff wrote: "Seriously, though, Fred, there is no reason at all why you > should feel that there will be some sort of 'opposition' given by me in > regards to the next vote (assuming, and I am, that there will be one). > I'm sure Chris would say the same thing [which I do -- Chris]. You > should have at least garnered, from my past posts, that I believe that > the correct voting criteria should be used, and that I do not support > solicitations. I even think you and I agree that the voting process > should be changed, in that all NO votes should have a reason that must > fit within the accepted standards of objections." > > I guess that we wil just have to disagree -- your interpretation is the > exact opposite of mine. THe above is not all that he said.... Go back and read the full message in which he clearly justifies voting NO because any alternative Bahai newsgroup would be redundant to soc.religion.bahai!!!!! > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > Your interpretation, not mine. To me 'discuss' is almost a synonym for > consult, whereas this forum generally seems to be more in the line of a > clash of opinions. This is not a bad thing if it leads to a mutual > understanding, but more often it seems to just end up as a war of words > with no positive outcome. As for "sappy maudlin dreck", well that may > be what you see. Personally I have seen some very lively debates there > at times. Maybe I already have the right chemical balance in the brain > not to crave contention -- I don't like those scarey fun-fair rides > either and that is something to do with hormone/chemical balance. Well, maybe you and the other totalitarian Bahais can develop the right chemical and inject the rest of us on mother earth..... Oh, for our own good, I'm sure.... > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > You won't let go will you? Can you honestly say that you have enquired > of every single one of those 691 people why they voted. Until you do > you cannot judge their motives. You once accused me quite ascerbicly of > conjecture regarding these people and now you are doing exactly what you > accused me of, except that I did start my sentence by saying that I was > speculating. It's false reasoning in my opinion to think I must know or poll 691 people to know why they voted, etc. They did vote NO and that's objective fact; they're names and email adddresses are on the RESULT, which anyone may obtain by searching www.dejanews.com under news.groups for the end of March, 1997, talk.religion.bahai.... > > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > See Jeff's words above. I cannot search for these at present as my new > software is playing havoc with Netscape (the suppliers probably want me > to use Microsoft's IE -- no thank-you!!) so I will take your word for > it. My memory may not be very good but I remember some of the posts -- > both ways. > > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > Please point out to me exactly where I said I would abstain and I will > apologise. If you cannot do that then have the common decency to admit > that your accusation is groundless. Read the last sentence. Actually, > you have made several accusations againt me over the last few months all > of which have been totally unfounded. Generally I let them go, so maybe > that has given you a false impression of what my thoughts are. I don't have the time to go back to find it but I believe you did seem to suggest it. My apologies if I'm incorrect.... > > [Load about fascists snipped.] > > As you have seen the real fear that totalitarianism brings in its wake > (fascism is only one side of it) then I am, quite frankly, amazed that > you can equate that sort of fear with the receipt of e-mails that you > have received (many of which you have published), unless, of course, you > have received some threatening you or your family with physical > violence. TWO.... I'm afraid your 'Baha'i Faith' bears as little resemblance to > the Faith that I know as a glacier does to a steam turbine -- both > derive their power from the same source (Baha'u'llah or water) and both > are completely unrecognisable as being related to the other. The etymology of my name is glass-maker.... I prefer it aesthetically and metaphorically.... > > Frankly, I worry about you Fred, I really do. You seem to see enemies > in everybody, even those who are generally behind you. Please try to be > positive to your supporters -- they are the ones who will be helping you > in the next round. Again, my apologies where due.... I don't read Jeff as a supporter frankly.... How about Roger Reini, is he one of my supporters???? > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:10:02 1997 Received: (qmail 7138 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8D791.1DD6@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:10:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8091 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Jeff wrote: "Seriously, though, Fred, there is no reason at all why you > should feel that there will be some sort of 'opposition' given by me in > regards to the next vote (assuming, and I am, that there will be one). > I'm sure Chris would say the same thing [which I do -- Chris]. You > should have at least garnered, from my past posts, that I believe that > the correct voting criteria should be used, and that I do not support > solicitations. I even think you and I agree that the voting process > should be changed, in that all NO votes should have a reason that must > fit within the accepted standards of objections." > > I guess that we wil just have to disagree -- your interpretation is the > exact opposite of mine. THe above is not all that he said.... Go back and read the full message in which he clearly justifies voting NO because any alternative Bahai newsgroup would be redundant to soc.religion.bahai!!!!! > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > Your interpretation, not mine. To me 'discuss' is almost a synonym for > consult, whereas this forum generally seems to be more in the line of a > clash of opinions. This is not a bad thing if it leads to a mutual > understanding, but more often it seems to just end up as a war of words > with no positive outcome. As for "sappy maudlin dreck", well that may > be what you see. Personally I have seen some very lively debates there > at times. Maybe I already have the right chemical balance in the brain > not to crave contention -- I don't like those scarey fun-fair rides > either and that is something to do with hormone/chemical balance. Well, maybe you and the other totalitarian Bahais can develop the right chemical and inject the rest of us on mother earth..... Oh, for our own good, I'm sure.... > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > You won't let go will you? Can you honestly say that you have enquired > of every single one of those 691 people why they voted. Until you do > you cannot judge their motives. You once accused me quite ascerbicly of > conjecture regarding these people and now you are doing exactly what you > accused me of, except that I did start my sentence by saying that I was > speculating. It's false reasoning in my opinion to think I must know or poll 691 people to know why they voted, etc. They did vote NO and that's objective fact; they're names and email adddresses are on the RESULT, which anyone may obtain by searching www.dejanews.com under news.groups for the end of March, 1997, talk.religion.bahai.... > > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > See Jeff's words above. I cannot search for these at present as my new > software is playing havoc with Netscape (the suppliers probably want me > to use Microsoft's IE -- no thank-you!!) so I will take your word for > it. My memory may not be very good but I remember some of the posts -- > both ways. > > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > Please point out to me exactly where I said I would abstain and I will > apologise. If you cannot do that then have the common decency to admit > that your accusation is groundless. Read the last sentence. Actually, > you have made several accusations againt me over the last few months all > of which have been totally unfounded. Generally I let them go, so maybe > that has given you a false impression of what my thoughts are. I don't have the time to go back to find it but I believe you did seem to suggest it. My apologies if I'm incorrect.... > > [Load about fascists snipped.] > > As you have seen the real fear that totalitarianism brings in its wake > (fascism is only one side of it) then I am, quite frankly, amazed that > you can equate that sort of fear with the receipt of e-mails that you > have received (many of which you have published), unless, of course, you > have received some threatening you or your family with physical > violence. TWO.... I'm afraid your 'Baha'i Faith' bears as little resemblance to > the Faith that I know as a glacier does to a steam turbine -- both > derive their power from the same source (Baha'u'llah or water) and both > are completely unrecognisable as being related to the other. The etymology of my name is glass-maker.... I prefer it aesthetically and metaphorically.... > > Frankly, I worry about you Fred, I really do. You seem to see enemies > in everybody, even those who are generally behind you. Please try to be > positive to your supporters -- they are the ones who will be helping you > in the next round. Again, my apologies where due.... I don't read Jeff as a supporter frankly.... How about Roger Reini, is he one of my supporters???? > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:10:02 1997 Received: (qmail 7138 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8D791.1DD6@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:10:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8091 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Jeff wrote: "Seriously, though, Fred, there is no reason at all why you > should feel that there will be some sort of 'opposition' given by me in > regards to the next vote (assuming, and I am, that there will be one). > I'm sure Chris would say the same thing [which I do -- Chris]. You > should have at least garnered, from my past posts, that I believe that > the correct voting criteria should be used, and that I do not support > solicitations. I even think you and I agree that the voting process > should be changed, in that all NO votes should have a reason that must > fit within the accepted standards of objections." > > I guess that we wil just have to disagree -- your interpretation is the > exact opposite of mine. THe above is not all that he said.... Go back and read the full message in which he clearly justifies voting NO because any alternative Bahai newsgroup would be redundant to soc.religion.bahai!!!!! > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > Your interpretation, not mine. To me 'discuss' is almost a synonym for > consult, whereas this forum generally seems to be more in the line of a > clash of opinions. This is not a bad thing if it leads to a mutual > understanding, but more often it seems to just end up as a war of words > with no positive outcome. As for "sappy maudlin dreck", well that may > be what you see. Personally I have seen some very lively debates there > at times. Maybe I already have the right chemical balance in the brain > not to crave contention -- I don't like those scarey fun-fair rides > either and that is something to do with hormone/chemical balance. Well, maybe you and the other totalitarian Bahais can develop the right chemical and inject the rest of us on mother earth..... Oh, for our own good, I'm sure.... > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > You won't let go will you? Can you honestly say that you have enquired > of every single one of those 691 people why they voted. Until you do > you cannot judge their motives. You once accused me quite ascerbicly of > conjecture regarding these people and now you are doing exactly what you > accused me of, except that I did start my sentence by saying that I was > speculating. It's false reasoning in my opinion to think I must know or poll 691 people to know why they voted, etc. They did vote NO and that's objective fact; they're names and email adddresses are on the RESULT, which anyone may obtain by searching www.dejanews.com under news.groups for the end of March, 1997, talk.religion.bahai.... > > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > See Jeff's words above. I cannot search for these at present as my new > software is playing havoc with Netscape (the suppliers probably want me > to use Microsoft's IE -- no thank-you!!) so I will take your word for > it. My memory may not be very good but I remember some of the posts -- > both ways. > > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > Please point out to me exactly where I said I would abstain and I will > apologise. If you cannot do that then have the common decency to admit > that your accusation is groundless. Read the last sentence. Actually, > you have made several accusations againt me over the last few months all > of which have been totally unfounded. Generally I let them go, so maybe > that has given you a false impression of what my thoughts are. I don't have the time to go back to find it but I believe you did seem to suggest it. My apologies if I'm incorrect.... > > [Load about fascists snipped.] > > As you have seen the real fear that totalitarianism brings in its wake > (fascism is only one side of it) then I am, quite frankly, amazed that > you can equate that sort of fear with the receipt of e-mails that you > have received (many of which you have published), unless, of course, you > have received some threatening you or your family with physical > violence. TWO.... I'm afraid your 'Baha'i Faith' bears as little resemblance to > the Faith that I know as a glacier does to a steam turbine -- both > derive their power from the same source (Baha'u'llah or water) and both > are completely unrecognisable as being related to the other. The etymology of my name is glass-maker.... I prefer it aesthetically and metaphorically.... > > Frankly, I worry about you Fred, I really do. You seem to see enemies > in everybody, even those who are generally behind you. Please try to be > positive to your supporters -- they are the ones who will be helping you > in the next round. Again, my apologies where due.... I don't read Jeff as a supporter frankly.... How about Roger Reini, is he one of my supporters???? > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:10:02 1997 Received: (qmail 7138 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:08:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8D791.1DD6@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:10:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8091 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Jeff wrote: "Seriously, though, Fred, there is no reason at all why you > should feel that there will be some sort of 'opposition' given by me in > regards to the next vote (assuming, and I am, that there will be one). > I'm sure Chris would say the same thing [which I do -- Chris]. You > should have at least garnered, from my past posts, that I believe that > the correct voting criteria should be used, and that I do not support > solicitations. I even think you and I agree that the voting process > should be changed, in that all NO votes should have a reason that must > fit within the accepted standards of objections." > > I guess that we wil just have to disagree -- your interpretation is the > exact opposite of mine. THe above is not all that he said.... Go back and read the full message in which he clearly justifies voting NO because any alternative Bahai newsgroup would be redundant to soc.religion.bahai!!!!! > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > Your interpretation, not mine. To me 'discuss' is almost a synonym for > consult, whereas this forum generally seems to be more in the line of a > clash of opinions. This is not a bad thing if it leads to a mutual > understanding, but more often it seems to just end up as a war of words > with no positive outcome. As for "sappy maudlin dreck", well that may > be what you see. Personally I have seen some very lively debates there > at times. Maybe I already have the right chemical balance in the brain > not to crave contention -- I don't like those scarey fun-fair rides > either and that is something to do with hormone/chemical balance. Well, maybe you and the other totalitarian Bahais can develop the right chemical and inject the rest of us on mother earth..... Oh, for our own good, I'm sure.... > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > You won't let go will you? Can you honestly say that you have enquired > of every single one of those 691 people why they voted. Until you do > you cannot judge their motives. You once accused me quite ascerbicly of > conjecture regarding these people and now you are doing exactly what you > accused me of, except that I did start my sentence by saying that I was > speculating. It's false reasoning in my opinion to think I must know or poll 691 people to know why they voted, etc. They did vote NO and that's objective fact; they're names and email adddresses are on the RESULT, which anyone may obtain by searching www.dejanews.com under news.groups for the end of March, 1997, talk.religion.bahai.... > > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > See Jeff's words above. I cannot search for these at present as my new > software is playing havoc with Netscape (the suppliers probably want me > to use Microsoft's IE -- no thank-you!!) so I will take your word for > it. My memory may not be very good but I remember some of the posts -- > both ways. > > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > Please point out to me exactly where I said I would abstain and I will > apologise. If you cannot do that then have the common decency to admit > that your accusation is groundless. Read the last sentence. Actually, > you have made several accusations againt me over the last few months all > of which have been totally unfounded. Generally I let them go, so maybe > that has given you a false impression of what my thoughts are. I don't have the time to go back to find it but I believe you did seem to suggest it. My apologies if I'm incorrect.... > > [Load about fascists snipped.] > > As you have seen the real fear that totalitarianism brings in its wake > (fascism is only one side of it) then I am, quite frankly, amazed that > you can equate that sort of fear with the receipt of e-mails that you > have received (many of which you have published), unless, of course, you > have received some threatening you or your family with physical > violence. TWO.... I'm afraid your 'Baha'i Faith' bears as little resemblance to > the Faith that I know as a glacier does to a steam turbine -- both > derive their power from the same source (Baha'u'llah or water) and both > are completely unrecognisable as being related to the other. The etymology of my name is glass-maker.... I prefer it aesthetically and metaphorically.... > > Frankly, I worry about you Fred, I really do. You seem to see enemies > in everybody, even those who are generally behind you. Please try to be > positive to your supporters -- they are the ones who will be helping you > in the next round. Again, my apologies where due.... I don't read Jeff as a supporter frankly.... How about Roger Reini, is he one of my supporters???? > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:36:52 1997 Received: (qmail 7237 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:38:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14062 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > [snip] > >> >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >> >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >> >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >> >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >> >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >> >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >> >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >> >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >> >would be "redundant." > >> > > >> >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >> >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >> >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >> >sun.... > >> > >> Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > >> that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > >> that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > >> this matter. > > > >False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Just to clear the air on what everybody thinks is my opinion on all of this... > > When I first encountered the 'controversy', I had just revisited s.r.b after > quite a long absence from Usenet (hint - not all people are always aware of what > is going on in this still little cyberworld). Most of what I saw at first was > posts (or rejected posts) by Fred calling people fascists, and messages from the > moderator's explaining why certain posts were rejected (ummm, this may have been > from Fred's reposting of his rejected attempts...) > > At first, I had an initial negative reaction to Fred because of what I saw as > (sometimes) abusive and disrespectful posts. I also saw a couple (though very > few in comparison) postings doing the same back to Fred, although these were > usually responsive than initiative. I'm not saying they were right to do so, > but they seemed more understandable as it usually took quite a bit before they > got upset. But, when I heard about the upcoming vote, I decided to look into > the whole situation as much and objectively as I could. > > I read the gamut of Fred's reposted archive, *tons* of postings from other > people on both sides of the fence, the CFV, etc. > > I had come to the opinion that while I do support the moderated s.r.b (there are > things to be said for being in a 'protected' environment), many people felt > stifled and oppressed by the policies of the newsgroup. Now, while I myself do > not feel this way, I understand that others do. This really has nothing to do > with whether I agree with them or not, am on their 'side' or not - whatever. > > When the call for votes came, I voted to ABSTAIN. You can verify this. When I > saw solicitations go out over e-mail, I sent out responses to the same > distributions telling people how to vote correctly (as far as I saw, it worked > well - practically no one I know voted NO). > > But all this is history. > > For the record, I did not say that I agree with the argument that the newsgroup > is redundant. I still don't have a firm opinion on this (hence my vote). I was > trying to express that other people do believe this, and as this was a matter of > opinion, and since the vote asked for people's opinions on this one > (sub-sub-sub)matter, then is calling it redundant a valid argument. Granted, > some people's opinions may be invalid, but I've never seen on Usenet where it > delineates valid opinions on the 'redundancy' argument. > > I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > > And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > easily. > > Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > > > Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that just for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm sure.... > > >> > >>>> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >> >and > >>>> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >>>> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> >> conscience tells them to? > >> > > >> >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >> >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >> >at > >> >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >> >on > >> >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >> >36 > >> >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > >> > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > > > I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > > I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > grow older... > > By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly matter.... > > >> > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > > > Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > Practices Guide" that this is so? No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to respond.... > > Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > either. > > If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression of their free consciences.... Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > >> > >> Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > >> 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > >> you have had much to do with these lovable people. > > > >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >does to the individual's conscience.... > > And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > escapes me... Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > > > > If those you are > >> accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > >> door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. > > > >It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been > >discussed.... > > Congratulations. In a medium where you can get flamed for wearing the wrong > color socks, you are not alone. Even I have received hate/kill e-mails from > people, for various reasons (yes, even for being a Baha'i). Or for not being a sufficiently ignorant, pliable Bahai.... > > > > >> Those are the tactics of the fascisti. > > > >And the Bahai Faith.... > > Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE to the contrary.... > > [snip] > >> but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > >> least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > >> public eye. > > > >So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their > >fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > > This topic tires me. That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:36:52 1997 Received: (qmail 7237 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:38:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14062 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > [snip] > >> >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >> >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >> >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >> >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >> >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >> >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >> >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >> >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >> >would be "redundant." > >> > > >> >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >> >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >> >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >> >sun.... > >> > >> Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > >> that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > >> that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > >> this matter. > > > >False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Just to clear the air on what everybody thinks is my opinion on all of this... > > When I first encountered the 'controversy', I had just revisited s.r.b after > quite a long absence from Usenet (hint - not all people are always aware of what > is going on in this still little cyberworld). Most of what I saw at first was > posts (or rejected posts) by Fred calling people fascists, and messages from the > moderator's explaining why certain posts were rejected (ummm, this may have been > from Fred's reposting of his rejected attempts...) > > At first, I had an initial negative reaction to Fred because of what I saw as > (sometimes) abusive and disrespectful posts. I also saw a couple (though very > few in comparison) postings doing the same back to Fred, although these were > usually responsive than initiative. I'm not saying they were right to do so, > but they seemed more understandable as it usually took quite a bit before they > got upset. But, when I heard about the upcoming vote, I decided to look into > the whole situation as much and objectively as I could. > > I read the gamut of Fred's reposted archive, *tons* of postings from other > people on both sides of the fence, the CFV, etc. > > I had come to the opinion that while I do support the moderated s.r.b (there are > things to be said for being in a 'protected' environment), many people felt > stifled and oppressed by the policies of the newsgroup. Now, while I myself do > not feel this way, I understand that others do. This really has nothing to do > with whether I agree with them or not, am on their 'side' or not - whatever. > > When the call for votes came, I voted to ABSTAIN. You can verify this. When I > saw solicitations go out over e-mail, I sent out responses to the same > distributions telling people how to vote correctly (as far as I saw, it worked > well - practically no one I know voted NO). > > But all this is history. > > For the record, I did not say that I agree with the argument that the newsgroup > is redundant. I still don't have a firm opinion on this (hence my vote). I was > trying to express that other people do believe this, and as this was a matter of > opinion, and since the vote asked for people's opinions on this one > (sub-sub-sub)matter, then is calling it redundant a valid argument. Granted, > some people's opinions may be invalid, but I've never seen on Usenet where it > delineates valid opinions on the 'redundancy' argument. > > I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > > And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > easily. > > Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > > > Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that just for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm sure.... > > >> > >>>> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >> >and > >>>> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >>>> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> >> conscience tells them to? > >> > > >> >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >> >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >> >at > >> >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >> >on > >> >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >> >36 > >> >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > >> > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > > > I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > > I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > grow older... > > By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly matter.... > > >> > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > > > Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > Practices Guide" that this is so? No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to respond.... > > Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > either. > > If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression of their free consciences.... Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > >> > >> Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > >> 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > >> you have had much to do with these lovable people. > > > >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >does to the individual's conscience.... > > And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > escapes me... Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > > > > If those you are > >> accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > >> door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. > > > >It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been > >discussed.... > > Congratulations. In a medium where you can get flamed for wearing the wrong > color socks, you are not alone. Even I have received hate/kill e-mails from > people, for various reasons (yes, even for being a Baha'i). Or for not being a sufficiently ignorant, pliable Bahai.... > > > > >> Those are the tactics of the fascisti. > > > >And the Bahai Faith.... > > Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE to the contrary.... > > [snip] > >> but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > >> least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > >> public eye. > > > >So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their > >fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > > This topic tires me. That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:36:52 1997 Received: (qmail 7237 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:38:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14062 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > [snip] > >> >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >> >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >> >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >> >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >> >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >> >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >> >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >> >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >> >would be "redundant." > >> > > >> >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >> >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >> >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >> >sun.... > >> > >> Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > >> that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > >> that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > >> this matter. > > > >False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Just to clear the air on what everybody thinks is my opinion on all of this... > > When I first encountered the 'controversy', I had just revisited s.r.b after > quite a long absence from Usenet (hint - not all people are always aware of what > is going on in this still little cyberworld). Most of what I saw at first was > posts (or rejected posts) by Fred calling people fascists, and messages from the > moderator's explaining why certain posts were rejected (ummm, this may have been > from Fred's reposting of his rejected attempts...) > > At first, I had an initial negative reaction to Fred because of what I saw as > (sometimes) abusive and disrespectful posts. I also saw a couple (though very > few in comparison) postings doing the same back to Fred, although these were > usually responsive than initiative. I'm not saying they were right to do so, > but they seemed more understandable as it usually took quite a bit before they > got upset. But, when I heard about the upcoming vote, I decided to look into > the whole situation as much and objectively as I could. > > I read the gamut of Fred's reposted archive, *tons* of postings from other > people on both sides of the fence, the CFV, etc. > > I had come to the opinion that while I do support the moderated s.r.b (there are > things to be said for being in a 'protected' environment), many people felt > stifled and oppressed by the policies of the newsgroup. Now, while I myself do > not feel this way, I understand that others do. This really has nothing to do > with whether I agree with them or not, am on their 'side' or not - whatever. > > When the call for votes came, I voted to ABSTAIN. You can verify this. When I > saw solicitations go out over e-mail, I sent out responses to the same > distributions telling people how to vote correctly (as far as I saw, it worked > well - practically no one I know voted NO). > > But all this is history. > > For the record, I did not say that I agree with the argument that the newsgroup > is redundant. I still don't have a firm opinion on this (hence my vote). I was > trying to express that other people do believe this, and as this was a matter of > opinion, and since the vote asked for people's opinions on this one > (sub-sub-sub)matter, then is calling it redundant a valid argument. Granted, > some people's opinions may be invalid, but I've never seen on Usenet where it > delineates valid opinions on the 'redundancy' argument. > > I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > > And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > easily. > > Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > > > Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that just for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm sure.... > > >> > >>>> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >> >and > >>>> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >>>> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> >> conscience tells them to? > >> > > >> >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >> >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >> >at > >> >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >> >on > >> >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >> >36 > >> >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > >> > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > > > I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > > I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > grow older... > > By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly matter.... > > >> > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > > > Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > Practices Guide" that this is so? No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to respond.... > > Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > either. > > If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression of their free consciences.... Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > >> > >> Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > >> 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > >> you have had much to do with these lovable people. > > > >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >does to the individual's conscience.... > > And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > escapes me... Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > > > > If those you are > >> accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > >> door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. > > > >It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been > >discussed.... > > Congratulations. In a medium where you can get flamed for wearing the wrong > color socks, you are not alone. Even I have received hate/kill e-mails from > people, for various reasons (yes, even for being a Baha'i). Or for not being a sufficiently ignorant, pliable Bahai.... > > > > >> Those are the tactics of the fascisti. > > > >And the Bahai Faith.... > > Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE to the contrary.... > > [snip] > >> but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > >> least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > >> public eye. > > > >So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their > >fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > > This topic tires me. That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:36:52 1997 Received: (qmail 7237 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:36:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:38:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14062 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > [snip] > >> >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >> >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >> >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >> >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >> >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >> >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >> >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >> >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >> >would be "redundant." > >> > > >> >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >> >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >> >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >> >sun.... > >> > >> Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > >> that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > >> that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > >> this matter. > > > >False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly > >expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete > >sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > Just to clear the air on what everybody thinks is my opinion on all of this... > > When I first encountered the 'controversy', I had just revisited s.r.b after > quite a long absence from Usenet (hint - not all people are always aware of what > is going on in this still little cyberworld). Most of what I saw at first was > posts (or rejected posts) by Fred calling people fascists, and messages from the > moderator's explaining why certain posts were rejected (ummm, this may have been > from Fred's reposting of his rejected attempts...) > > At first, I had an initial negative reaction to Fred because of what I saw as > (sometimes) abusive and disrespectful posts. I also saw a couple (though very > few in comparison) postings doing the same back to Fred, although these were > usually responsive than initiative. I'm not saying they were right to do so, > but they seemed more understandable as it usually took quite a bit before they > got upset. But, when I heard about the upcoming vote, I decided to look into > the whole situation as much and objectively as I could. > > I read the gamut of Fred's reposted archive, *tons* of postings from other > people on both sides of the fence, the CFV, etc. > > I had come to the opinion that while I do support the moderated s.r.b (there are > things to be said for being in a 'protected' environment), many people felt > stifled and oppressed by the policies of the newsgroup. Now, while I myself do > not feel this way, I understand that others do. This really has nothing to do > with whether I agree with them or not, am on their 'side' or not - whatever. > > When the call for votes came, I voted to ABSTAIN. You can verify this. When I > saw solicitations go out over e-mail, I sent out responses to the same > distributions telling people how to vote correctly (as far as I saw, it worked > well - practically no one I know voted NO). > > But all this is history. > > For the record, I did not say that I agree with the argument that the newsgroup > is redundant. I still don't have a firm opinion on this (hence my vote). I was > trying to express that other people do believe this, and as this was a matter of > opinion, and since the vote asked for people's opinions on this one > (sub-sub-sub)matter, then is calling it redundant a valid argument. Granted, > some people's opinions may be invalid, but I've never seen on Usenet where it > delineates valid opinions on the 'redundancy' argument. > > I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > > And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > easily. > > Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > >> I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > >> what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > >> open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > >> time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > >> opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > >> (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. > > > >"Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, > >maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? > > > >The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not > >an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes > >think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for > >their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > > > Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that just for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm sure.... > > >> > >>>> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >> >and > >>>> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >>>> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> >> conscience tells them to? > >> > > >> >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >> >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >> >at > >> >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >> >on > >> >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >> >36 > >> >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > >> > >> The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > >> WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > >> a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > >> (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > >> b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > >> As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > >> a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > >> a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > >> reason to vote against it. > > > >Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the > >proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search > >for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > > > I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > > I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > grow older... > > By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly matter.... > > >> > >> The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > >> for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > >> either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > >> require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > >> eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > >> block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > >> nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > >> NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > >> degree or another, on your side. > > > >If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here > >at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to > >vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a > >considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very > >dishonorable ones.... > > > > Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > Practices Guide" that this is so? No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to respond.... > > Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > either. > > If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression of their free consciences.... Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > >> > >> Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > >> 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > >> you have had much to do with these lovable people. > > > >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >does to the individual's conscience.... > > And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > escapes me... Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > > > > If those you are > >> accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > >> door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. > > > >It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been > >discussed.... > > Congratulations. In a medium where you can get flamed for wearing the wrong > color socks, you are not alone. Even I have received hate/kill e-mails from > people, for various reasons (yes, even for being a Baha'i). Or for not being a sufficiently ignorant, pliable Bahai.... > > > > >> Those are the tactics of the fascisti. > > > >And the Bahai Faith.... > > Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE to the contrary.... > > [snip] > >> but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > >> least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > >> public eye. > > > >So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their > >fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > > This topic tires me. That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:29 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:07:16 1997 Received: (qmail 13775 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:08:33 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 13001 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip!snip!snip!] > >> I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > >> > >>And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > >> or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > >>connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > >> the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). > > > >The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of > >the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, > >subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on > >soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of > >talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > > > I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > > To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > that is not a cover-up. Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the spirit of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > would be more appropriate in, let's see... > soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a few months ago on the United Nations.... And the charter should state that > anything other than endless, circular rantings about bygone felt grievances > should be duly rejected! (lesson for the day: this is called humour, although > somewhat pointed, as I'm tired of being *told* what I think, and am doing...) What's truly called is suppress when all else fails.... > > >> > >>Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > >> me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > >> easily. > >> > >>Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > >> sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > >> the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! > > > >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > >>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. > > > >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > wrote it did not point out this fact. > > You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > postings if you'd like. I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and unmoderated newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Believe me, if I was trying to get the vote to fail, then I wouldn't have > "wasted" my vote to ABSTAIN. > > >> Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >>modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >>votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >> be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > > >UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that > >just > >for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm > >sure.... > > What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt Bahais.... > > And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS and others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > >>I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > >> happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > >> > >>I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > >>is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > >>fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > >> post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > >> grow older... > >> > >>By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > >>redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. > > > >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >matter.... > > Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent deception.... > > >>Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > >>whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > >>in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > >> it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > >> Practices Guide" that this is so? > > > >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >respond.... > > Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > are you referring? > > Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > > Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > >> Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > >> that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > >> easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > >> with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > >> either. > >> > >> If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > >> everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. > > > >I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against > >talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how > >deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all > >many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression > >of their free consciences.... > > > >Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... > >When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > I am not 'against' talk/alt.religion.bahai. I have not denied anyone the > ability to express their free conscience, nor do I have the hope to. > > Drugs? Get real. > > >> >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >> >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >> >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >> >does to the individual's conscience.... > >> > >>And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > >> escapes me... > > > >Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and > >intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > .....AND? The parallel is still lost on me. Please expand upon this a bit > more. You may know exactly what you mean and what makes you believe that > Baha'is are somehow comparable to this, but most people can't read "..."s too > well. > > >>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > >>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > > > >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >to the contrary.... > > I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > > The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember non-Bahais, who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > hate letter to you? I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay indeed.... > > >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> > >> This topic tires me. > > > >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > > > (shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > "Runnin' away, eh???") > > I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > it sometimes. "This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in the high ground.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:29 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:07:16 1997 Received: (qmail 13775 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:08:33 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 13001 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip!snip!snip!] > >> I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > >> > >>And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > >> or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > >>connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > >> the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). > > > >The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of > >the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, > >subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on > >soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of > >talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > > > I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > > To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > that is not a cover-up. Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the spirit of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > would be more appropriate in, let's see... > soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a few months ago on the United Nations.... And the charter should state that > anything other than endless, circular rantings about bygone felt grievances > should be duly rejected! (lesson for the day: this is called humour, although > somewhat pointed, as I'm tired of being *told* what I think, and am doing...) What's truly called is suppress when all else fails.... > > >> > >>Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > >> me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > >> easily. > >> > >>Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > >> sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > >> the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! > > > >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > >>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. > > > >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > wrote it did not point out this fact. > > You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > postings if you'd like. I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and unmoderated newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Believe me, if I was trying to get the vote to fail, then I wouldn't have > "wasted" my vote to ABSTAIN. > > >> Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >>modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >>votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >> be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > > >UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that > >just > >for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm > >sure.... > > What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt Bahais.... > > And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS and others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > >>I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > >> happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > >> > >>I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > >>is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > >>fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > >> post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > >> grow older... > >> > >>By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > >>redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. > > > >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >matter.... > > Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent deception.... > > >>Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > >>whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > >>in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > >> it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > >> Practices Guide" that this is so? > > > >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >respond.... > > Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > are you referring? > > Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > > Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > >> Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > >> that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > >> easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > >> with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > >> either. > >> > >> If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > >> everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. > > > >I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against > >talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how > >deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all > >many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression > >of their free consciences.... > > > >Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... > >When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > I am not 'against' talk/alt.religion.bahai. I have not denied anyone the > ability to express their free conscience, nor do I have the hope to. > > Drugs? Get real. > > >> >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >> >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >> >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >> >does to the individual's conscience.... > >> > >>And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > >> escapes me... > > > >Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and > >intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > .....AND? The parallel is still lost on me. Please expand upon this a bit > more. You may know exactly what you mean and what makes you believe that > Baha'is are somehow comparable to this, but most people can't read "..."s too > well. > > >>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > >>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > > > >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >to the contrary.... > > I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > > The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember non-Bahais, who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > hate letter to you? I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay indeed.... > > >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> > >> This topic tires me. > > > >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > > > (shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > "Runnin' away, eh???") > > I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > it sometimes. "This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in the high ground.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:29 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:07:16 1997 Received: (qmail 13775 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:08:33 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 13001 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip!snip!snip!] > >> I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > >> > >>And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > >> or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > >>connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > >> the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). > > > >The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of > >the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, > >subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on > >soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of > >talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > > > I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > > To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > that is not a cover-up. Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the spirit of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > would be more appropriate in, let's see... > soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a few months ago on the United Nations.... And the charter should state that > anything other than endless, circular rantings about bygone felt grievances > should be duly rejected! (lesson for the day: this is called humour, although > somewhat pointed, as I'm tired of being *told* what I think, and am doing...) What's truly called is suppress when all else fails.... > > >> > >>Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > >> me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > >> easily. > >> > >>Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > >> sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > >> the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! > > > >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > >>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. > > > >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > wrote it did not point out this fact. > > You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > postings if you'd like. I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and unmoderated newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Believe me, if I was trying to get the vote to fail, then I wouldn't have > "wasted" my vote to ABSTAIN. > > >> Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >>modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >>votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >> be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > > >UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that > >just > >for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm > >sure.... > > What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt Bahais.... > > And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS and others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > >>I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > >> happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > >> > >>I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > >>is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > >>fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > >> post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > >> grow older... > >> > >>By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > >>redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. > > > >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >matter.... > > Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent deception.... > > >>Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > >>whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > >>in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > >> it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > >> Practices Guide" that this is so? > > > >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >respond.... > > Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > are you referring? > > Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > > Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > >> Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > >> that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > >> easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > >> with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > >> either. > >> > >> If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > >> everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. > > > >I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against > >talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how > >deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all > >many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression > >of their free consciences.... > > > >Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... > >When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > I am not 'against' talk/alt.religion.bahai. I have not denied anyone the > ability to express their free conscience, nor do I have the hope to. > > Drugs? Get real. > > >> >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >> >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >> >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >> >does to the individual's conscience.... > >> > >>And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > >> escapes me... > > > >Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and > >intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > .....AND? The parallel is still lost on me. Please expand upon this a bit > more. You may know exactly what you mean and what makes you believe that > Baha'is are somehow comparable to this, but most people can't read "..."s too > well. > > >>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > >>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > > > >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >to the contrary.... > > I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > > The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember non-Bahais, who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > hate letter to you? I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay indeed.... > > >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> > >> This topic tires me. > > > >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > > > (shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > "Runnin' away, eh???") > > I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > it sometimes. "This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in the high ground.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:12:52 1997 Received: (qmail 5685 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Message-ID: <33C22F0E.712F@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:14:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" arguments... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> <5ph40a$co4@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14630 jeff wrote: > > In article <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip] > >> I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > >>not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > >>be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > >>up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > >>what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > >> > >>To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > >> postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > >> guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > >> that is not a cover-up. > > > >Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the > >spirit > >of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments > >justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > I resent your insinuated accusation, Fred. Please be more careful in what you > accuse me of, especially when you posess no corroborative evidence. Sorry I struck a nerve.... You're right, I don't possess it.... > > And if you please, provide an extract of these Usenet guidelines that address > what you are referring to. You know as well as I that they're not "written down" somewhere but have evolved with UseNet itself.... A sort of unwritten code that Bahais and other fanatics seldom fail to abuse when it's to their advantage.... > > >>This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > >> what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > >> would be more appropriate in, let's see... > >> soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. > > > >Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at > >or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed > >the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a > >few months ago on the United Nations.... > > It's interesting to note that most of the postings in this whole 'censorship' > issue written in hateful, spiteful tones are from you (even I wouldn't go so far > as to label it "Hitlerite"). I'd also like to say that promoting hate of a > particular culture (i.e. Iranian) is not in the spirit of the Faith, no matter > *what* you think 'they' have done to you. False. Others have said similar things. Abuse and censorship inspire vitriolic feelings it is true.... Others have found the Nazi trope appropriate too.... I don't hate Iranian "culture" but it's lack of one.... and it's force feeding in other guise, i.e., Iranian Bahai, on others.... > > The *charter* lied? How could the *charter* lie about this? I believe you are > confusing someone's actions with a written-down charter. Open to convenient manipulation when desired.... You are completely ignoring my charge that the EVIDENCE exists in that particular message in a very clear way of CENSORSHIP on soc.religion.bahai.... Interesting that instead of seeking the truth, you choose to ignore it.... > > [snip] > >> >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > >> > >> And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > >> openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. > > > >Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be > >positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing > >wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, > >intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > I agree that anger would be appropriate for such things, if they are in fact > valid. Search www.dejanews.com then for the United Nations under talk.religion.bahai or alt.religion.bahai for the relevant censored message by HERR Detweiler.... > > I could argue that you have lied by (what I view as) distorting the facts. I > could say that you are being deceitful because it seems you have hidden agendas > here. I could definitely say that you have used intimidation in your postings. > And I could even say that you in fact are performing your own little version of > 'censorship' by browbeating and insulting others that don't agree with you into > silence. > > And it's only a healthy response if it is done in a constructive way towards a > positive goal. I don't think you are striving for that. > > >>>>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO > >>votes. > >> > > >> >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > >> > >>No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > >> wrote it did not point out this fact. > >> > >>You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > >> to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > >> postings if you'd like. > > > >I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise > >defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and > >unmoderated > >newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Says you. You haven't been able to provide any evidence to this, however. And > you can't, because I have not been performing 'subterfuge', as you so eagerly > yell out. The evidence you persist in ignoring.... How convenient for your "argument".... > > Can't you read? Explaining one (or two) side(s) of an argument does not imply > support. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this. > > >> What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > >>guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > >> against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > >> change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? > > > >Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay > >with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt > >Bahais.... > > What? You'd rather rail against past events that cannot be changed, than try to > modify the Usenet voting guidelines to prevent such things happening again? > Almost sounds like you'd *like* the next vote to fail. It would certainly give > you more 'ammunition'. How laughable.... > > >> And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > >> guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? > > > >And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS > >and > >others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > This is not new to Usenet; other newgroups have gone through the same thing, > unfortunately. Exactly and USENET is not changing for 691 fanatic bahais.... much to their glee.... > > [snip] > >> >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >> >matter.... > >> > >>Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > >>redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > >> conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > >> does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. > > > >There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent > >deception.... > > No, there are *two* sides, if not more, to this argument (axiom, anyone?). As > to which 'side' is being deceptive, well, now that's a matter of opinion, isn't > it... > > [snip] > >> >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >> >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >> >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >> >respond.... > >> > >>Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > >> are you referring? > >> > >> Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > >> > >> Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > I would like an answer to this, if you don't mind. > > [snip] > >>>>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do > >>you > >>>>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence > >>(not > >> >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > >> > > >> >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >> >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >> >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >> >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >> >to the contrary.... > >> > >> I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > >> > >>The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > >>NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > >> not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. > > > >I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember > >non-Bahais, > >who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup > >on > >the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Are you sure it's not more appropriate for you to say that you believe it's > 'fanatical' because they're depriving *you*...? After all, your postings don't > lead one to believe that you are doing this munificently. > > >> Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > >>because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > >> own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > >>for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > >>opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > >> this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > >> knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > >> hate letter to you? > > > >I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does > >not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and > >how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to > >use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > If you're referring to the Iceland Assembly, I agree that they do have that > responsibility. What if they think they *were* doing the right thing? Also, > another thing you don't know was if it *was* done with the assembly's approval > (i.e. an individual on the assembly could have just as easily put in the vote by > him/herself). Have you made an attempt to find out for sure? I don't think so. > Much easier to assume blame than to investigate with an open and unbiased > heart... Yes, I have made an attempt to find out. I wrote the Universal House of Justice in late March, 1997 and asked them for an explanation of the rules of Bahai censorship, among other things related to the suppression and manipulation of the individual's conscience in the Bahai Faith. I have not yet received an answer. > > If you're referring to individual Assembly members, then I would say that > *everyone* should have this responsibility. Individual action is not > institutional action. You know this. I believe you're an apologist and lackey for deceit.... > > >> No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > >> years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > >> Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > >> better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! > > > >False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations > >calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement > >in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions > >or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > False?! No evidence that the Baha'i Faith is *anything* but 'fanatical' and > 'fascist'??? You're looking through some serious blinders here, Fred. > > Logic lesson of the day: Detweiler is a Baha'i. Detweiler is one person, > Baha'is are many people. All Baha'is are not Detweiler. Many Bahais seem to imagine he's been "appointed" by God or the UHJ.... > > Since when is the s.r.b a Baha'i 'institution'? Many Bahais believe so and it acts and portrarys itself as the voice of orthodoxy.... And is apparently regarded as so by the NSA of Iceland, two presently sitting NSA members, and other fanatics in the BAhai Faith.... > > It is also not unknown in history for *individuals* to manipulate influential > bodies to their purposes.... Quite true.... All the more important that there should be MECHANISMS and SAFEGUARDS other than assassination.... > > >>And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > >> 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. > > > >They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay > >indeed.... > > This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Not ludicrous at all. Anyone who's observed Iranian Bahais telling ignorant, illiterate, ordinary Bahais how SPIRITUAL they are, fawning over them, using them, etc., will realize how accurate the characterization is.... > > >> >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> >> > >> >> This topic tires me. > >> > > >> >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >> >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >> >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > >> > > >> > >>(shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > >> "Runnin' away, eh???") > >> > >>I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > >> it sometimes. > > > >"This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in > >the high ground.... > > Think whatever you want. In the meantime, I'll take the high ground, and you'll > take... > > The air is certainly better up here! Sparse and insubstantial.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:12:52 1997 Received: (qmail 5685 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Message-ID: <33C22F0E.712F@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:14:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" arguments... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> <5ph40a$co4@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14630 jeff wrote: > > In article <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip] > >> I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > >>not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > >>be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > >>up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > >>what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > >> > >>To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > >> postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > >> guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > >> that is not a cover-up. > > > >Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the > >spirit > >of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments > >justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > I resent your insinuated accusation, Fred. Please be more careful in what you > accuse me of, especially when you posess no corroborative evidence. Sorry I struck a nerve.... You're right, I don't possess it.... > > And if you please, provide an extract of these Usenet guidelines that address > what you are referring to. You know as well as I that they're not "written down" somewhere but have evolved with UseNet itself.... A sort of unwritten code that Bahais and other fanatics seldom fail to abuse when it's to their advantage.... > > >>This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > >> what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > >> would be more appropriate in, let's see... > >> soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. > > > >Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at > >or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed > >the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a > >few months ago on the United Nations.... > > It's interesting to note that most of the postings in this whole 'censorship' > issue written in hateful, spiteful tones are from you (even I wouldn't go so far > as to label it "Hitlerite"). I'd also like to say that promoting hate of a > particular culture (i.e. Iranian) is not in the spirit of the Faith, no matter > *what* you think 'they' have done to you. False. Others have said similar things. Abuse and censorship inspire vitriolic feelings it is true.... Others have found the Nazi trope appropriate too.... I don't hate Iranian "culture" but it's lack of one.... and it's force feeding in other guise, i.e., Iranian Bahai, on others.... > > The *charter* lied? How could the *charter* lie about this? I believe you are > confusing someone's actions with a written-down charter. Open to convenient manipulation when desired.... You are completely ignoring my charge that the EVIDENCE exists in that particular message in a very clear way of CENSORSHIP on soc.religion.bahai.... Interesting that instead of seeking the truth, you choose to ignore it.... > > [snip] > >> >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > >> > >> And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > >> openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. > > > >Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be > >positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing > >wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, > >intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > I agree that anger would be appropriate for such things, if they are in fact > valid. Search www.dejanews.com then for the United Nations under talk.religion.bahai or alt.religion.bahai for the relevant censored message by HERR Detweiler.... > > I could argue that you have lied by (what I view as) distorting the facts. I > could say that you are being deceitful because it seems you have hidden agendas > here. I could definitely say that you have used intimidation in your postings. > And I could even say that you in fact are performing your own little version of > 'censorship' by browbeating and insulting others that don't agree with you into > silence. > > And it's only a healthy response if it is done in a constructive way towards a > positive goal. I don't think you are striving for that. > > >>>>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO > >>votes. > >> > > >> >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > >> > >>No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > >> wrote it did not point out this fact. > >> > >>You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > >> to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > >> postings if you'd like. > > > >I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise > >defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and > >unmoderated > >newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Says you. You haven't been able to provide any evidence to this, however. And > you can't, because I have not been performing 'subterfuge', as you so eagerly > yell out. The evidence you persist in ignoring.... How convenient for your "argument".... > > Can't you read? Explaining one (or two) side(s) of an argument does not imply > support. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this. > > >> What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > >>guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > >> against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > >> change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? > > > >Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay > >with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt > >Bahais.... > > What? You'd rather rail against past events that cannot be changed, than try to > modify the Usenet voting guidelines to prevent such things happening again? > Almost sounds like you'd *like* the next vote to fail. It would certainly give > you more 'ammunition'. How laughable.... > > >> And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > >> guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? > > > >And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS > >and > >others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > This is not new to Usenet; other newgroups have gone through the same thing, > unfortunately. Exactly and USENET is not changing for 691 fanatic bahais.... much to their glee.... > > [snip] > >> >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >> >matter.... > >> > >>Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > >>redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > >> conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > >> does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. > > > >There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent > >deception.... > > No, there are *two* sides, if not more, to this argument (axiom, anyone?). As > to which 'side' is being deceptive, well, now that's a matter of opinion, isn't > it... > > [snip] > >> >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >> >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >> >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >> >respond.... > >> > >>Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > >> are you referring? > >> > >> Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > >> > >> Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > I would like an answer to this, if you don't mind. > > [snip] > >>>>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do > >>you > >>>>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence > >>(not > >> >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > >> > > >> >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >> >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >> >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >> >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >> >to the contrary.... > >> > >> I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > >> > >>The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > >>NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > >> not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. > > > >I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember > >non-Bahais, > >who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup > >on > >the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Are you sure it's not more appropriate for you to say that you believe it's > 'fanatical' because they're depriving *you*...? After all, your postings don't > lead one to believe that you are doing this munificently. > > >> Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > >>because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > >> own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > >>for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > >>opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > >> this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > >> knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > >> hate letter to you? > > > >I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does > >not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and > >how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to > >use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > If you're referring to the Iceland Assembly, I agree that they do have that > responsibility. What if they think they *were* doing the right thing? Also, > another thing you don't know was if it *was* done with the assembly's approval > (i.e. an individual on the assembly could have just as easily put in the vote by > him/herself). Have you made an attempt to find out for sure? I don't think so. > Much easier to assume blame than to investigate with an open and unbiased > heart... Yes, I have made an attempt to find out. I wrote the Universal House of Justice in late March, 1997 and asked them for an explanation of the rules of Bahai censorship, among other things related to the suppression and manipulation of the individual's conscience in the Bahai Faith. I have not yet received an answer. > > If you're referring to individual Assembly members, then I would say that > *everyone* should have this responsibility. Individual action is not > institutional action. You know this. I believe you're an apologist and lackey for deceit.... > > >> No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > >> years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > >> Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > >> better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! > > > >False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations > >calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement > >in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions > >or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > False?! No evidence that the Baha'i Faith is *anything* but 'fanatical' and > 'fascist'??? You're looking through some serious blinders here, Fred. > > Logic lesson of the day: Detweiler is a Baha'i. Detweiler is one person, > Baha'is are many people. All Baha'is are not Detweiler. Many Bahais seem to imagine he's been "appointed" by God or the UHJ.... > > Since when is the s.r.b a Baha'i 'institution'? Many Bahais believe so and it acts and portrarys itself as the voice of orthodoxy.... And is apparently regarded as so by the NSA of Iceland, two presently sitting NSA members, and other fanatics in the BAhai Faith.... > > It is also not unknown in history for *individuals* to manipulate influential > bodies to their purposes.... Quite true.... All the more important that there should be MECHANISMS and SAFEGUARDS other than assassination.... > > >>And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > >> 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. > > > >They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay > >indeed.... > > This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Not ludicrous at all. Anyone who's observed Iranian Bahais telling ignorant, illiterate, ordinary Bahais how SPIRITUAL they are, fawning over them, using them, etc., will realize how accurate the characterization is.... > > >> >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> >> > >> >> This topic tires me. > >> > > >> >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >> >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >> >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > >> > > >> > >>(shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > >> "Runnin' away, eh???") > >> > >>I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > >> it sometimes. > > > >"This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in > >the high ground.... > > Think whatever you want. In the meantime, I'll take the high ground, and you'll > take... > > The air is certainly better up here! Sparse and insubstantial.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:12:52 1997 Received: (qmail 5685 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Message-ID: <33C22F0E.712F@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:14:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" arguments... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> <5ph40a$co4@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14630 jeff wrote: > > In article <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip] > >> I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > >>not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > >>be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > >>up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > >>what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > >> > >>To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > >> postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > >> guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > >> that is not a cover-up. > > > >Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the > >spirit > >of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments > >justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > I resent your insinuated accusation, Fred. Please be more careful in what you > accuse me of, especially when you posess no corroborative evidence. Sorry I struck a nerve.... You're right, I don't possess it.... > > And if you please, provide an extract of these Usenet guidelines that address > what you are referring to. You know as well as I that they're not "written down" somewhere but have evolved with UseNet itself.... A sort of unwritten code that Bahais and other fanatics seldom fail to abuse when it's to their advantage.... > > >>This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > >> what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > >> would be more appropriate in, let's see... > >> soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. > > > >Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at > >or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed > >the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a > >few months ago on the United Nations.... > > It's interesting to note that most of the postings in this whole 'censorship' > issue written in hateful, spiteful tones are from you (even I wouldn't go so far > as to label it "Hitlerite"). I'd also like to say that promoting hate of a > particular culture (i.e. Iranian) is not in the spirit of the Faith, no matter > *what* you think 'they' have done to you. False. Others have said similar things. Abuse and censorship inspire vitriolic feelings it is true.... Others have found the Nazi trope appropriate too.... I don't hate Iranian "culture" but it's lack of one.... and it's force feeding in other guise, i.e., Iranian Bahai, on others.... > > The *charter* lied? How could the *charter* lie about this? I believe you are > confusing someone's actions with a written-down charter. Open to convenient manipulation when desired.... You are completely ignoring my charge that the EVIDENCE exists in that particular message in a very clear way of CENSORSHIP on soc.religion.bahai.... Interesting that instead of seeking the truth, you choose to ignore it.... > > [snip] > >> >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > >> > >> And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > >> openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. > > > >Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be > >positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing > >wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, > >intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > I agree that anger would be appropriate for such things, if they are in fact > valid. Search www.dejanews.com then for the United Nations under talk.religion.bahai or alt.religion.bahai for the relevant censored message by HERR Detweiler.... > > I could argue that you have lied by (what I view as) distorting the facts. I > could say that you are being deceitful because it seems you have hidden agendas > here. I could definitely say that you have used intimidation in your postings. > And I could even say that you in fact are performing your own little version of > 'censorship' by browbeating and insulting others that don't agree with you into > silence. > > And it's only a healthy response if it is done in a constructive way towards a > positive goal. I don't think you are striving for that. > > >>>>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO > >>votes. > >> > > >> >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > >> > >>No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > >> wrote it did not point out this fact. > >> > >>You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > >> to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > >> postings if you'd like. > > > >I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise > >defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and > >unmoderated > >newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Says you. You haven't been able to provide any evidence to this, however. And > you can't, because I have not been performing 'subterfuge', as you so eagerly > yell out. The evidence you persist in ignoring.... How convenient for your "argument".... > > Can't you read? Explaining one (or two) side(s) of an argument does not imply > support. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this. > > >> What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > >>guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > >> against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > >> change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? > > > >Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay > >with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt > >Bahais.... > > What? You'd rather rail against past events that cannot be changed, than try to > modify the Usenet voting guidelines to prevent such things happening again? > Almost sounds like you'd *like* the next vote to fail. It would certainly give > you more 'ammunition'. How laughable.... > > >> And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > >> guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? > > > >And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS > >and > >others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > This is not new to Usenet; other newgroups have gone through the same thing, > unfortunately. Exactly and USENET is not changing for 691 fanatic bahais.... much to their glee.... > > [snip] > >> >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >> >matter.... > >> > >>Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > >>redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > >> conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > >> does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. > > > >There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent > >deception.... > > No, there are *two* sides, if not more, to this argument (axiom, anyone?). As > to which 'side' is being deceptive, well, now that's a matter of opinion, isn't > it... > > [snip] > >> >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >> >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >> >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >> >respond.... > >> > >>Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > >> are you referring? > >> > >> Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > >> > >> Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > I would like an answer to this, if you don't mind. > > [snip] > >>>>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do > >>you > >>>>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence > >>(not > >> >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > >> > > >> >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >> >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >> >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >> >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >> >to the contrary.... > >> > >> I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > >> > >>The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > >>NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > >> not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. > > > >I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember > >non-Bahais, > >who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup > >on > >the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Are you sure it's not more appropriate for you to say that you believe it's > 'fanatical' because they're depriving *you*...? After all, your postings don't > lead one to believe that you are doing this munificently. > > >> Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > >>because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > >> own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > >>for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > >>opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > >> this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > >> knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > >> hate letter to you? > > > >I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does > >not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and > >how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to > >use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > If you're referring to the Iceland Assembly, I agree that they do have that > responsibility. What if they think they *were* doing the right thing? Also, > another thing you don't know was if it *was* done with the assembly's approval > (i.e. an individual on the assembly could have just as easily put in the vote by > him/herself). Have you made an attempt to find out for sure? I don't think so. > Much easier to assume blame than to investigate with an open and unbiased > heart... Yes, I have made an attempt to find out. I wrote the Universal House of Justice in late March, 1997 and asked them for an explanation of the rules of Bahai censorship, among other things related to the suppression and manipulation of the individual's conscience in the Bahai Faith. I have not yet received an answer. > > If you're referring to individual Assembly members, then I would say that > *everyone* should have this responsibility. Individual action is not > institutional action. You know this. I believe you're an apologist and lackey for deceit.... > > >> No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > >> years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > >> Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > >> better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! > > > >False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations > >calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement > >in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions > >or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > False?! No evidence that the Baha'i Faith is *anything* but 'fanatical' and > 'fascist'??? You're looking through some serious blinders here, Fred. > > Logic lesson of the day: Detweiler is a Baha'i. Detweiler is one person, > Baha'is are many people. All Baha'is are not Detweiler. Many Bahais seem to imagine he's been "appointed" by God or the UHJ.... > > Since when is the s.r.b a Baha'i 'institution'? Many Bahais believe so and it acts and portrarys itself as the voice of orthodoxy.... And is apparently regarded as so by the NSA of Iceland, two presently sitting NSA members, and other fanatics in the BAhai Faith.... > > It is also not unknown in history for *individuals* to manipulate influential > bodies to their purposes.... Quite true.... All the more important that there should be MECHANISMS and SAFEGUARDS other than assassination.... > > >>And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > >> 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. > > > >They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay > >indeed.... > > This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Not ludicrous at all. Anyone who's observed Iranian Bahais telling ignorant, illiterate, ordinary Bahais how SPIRITUAL they are, fawning over them, using them, etc., will realize how accurate the characterization is.... > > >> >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> >> > >> >> This topic tires me. > >> > > >> >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >> >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >> >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > >> > > >> > >>(shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > >> "Runnin' away, eh???") > >> > >>I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > >> it sometimes. > > > >"This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in > >the high ground.... > > Think whatever you want. In the meantime, I'll take the high ground, and you'll > take... > > The air is certainly better up here! Sparse and insubstantial.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:12:52 1997 Received: (qmail 5685 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:12:47 -0000 Message-ID: <33C22F0E.712F@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:14:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" arguments... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> <5ph40a$co4@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 14630 jeff wrote: > > In article <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip] > >> I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > >>not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > >>be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > >>up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > >>what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > >> > >>To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > >> postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > >> guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > >> that is not a cover-up. > > > >Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the > >spirit > >of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments > >justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > I resent your insinuated accusation, Fred. Please be more careful in what you > accuse me of, especially when you posess no corroborative evidence. Sorry I struck a nerve.... You're right, I don't possess it.... > > And if you please, provide an extract of these Usenet guidelines that address > what you are referring to. You know as well as I that they're not "written down" somewhere but have evolved with UseNet itself.... A sort of unwritten code that Bahais and other fanatics seldom fail to abuse when it's to their advantage.... > > >>This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > >> what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > >> would be more appropriate in, let's see... > >> soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. > > > >Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at > >or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed > >the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a > >few months ago on the United Nations.... > > It's interesting to note that most of the postings in this whole 'censorship' > issue written in hateful, spiteful tones are from you (even I wouldn't go so far > as to label it "Hitlerite"). I'd also like to say that promoting hate of a > particular culture (i.e. Iranian) is not in the spirit of the Faith, no matter > *what* you think 'they' have done to you. False. Others have said similar things. Abuse and censorship inspire vitriolic feelings it is true.... Others have found the Nazi trope appropriate too.... I don't hate Iranian "culture" but it's lack of one.... and it's force feeding in other guise, i.e., Iranian Bahai, on others.... > > The *charter* lied? How could the *charter* lie about this? I believe you are > confusing someone's actions with a written-down charter. Open to convenient manipulation when desired.... You are completely ignoring my charge that the EVIDENCE exists in that particular message in a very clear way of CENSORSHIP on soc.religion.bahai.... Interesting that instead of seeking the truth, you choose to ignore it.... > > [snip] > >> >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > >> > >> And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > >> openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. > > > >Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be > >positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing > >wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, > >intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > I agree that anger would be appropriate for such things, if they are in fact > valid. Search www.dejanews.com then for the United Nations under talk.religion.bahai or alt.religion.bahai for the relevant censored message by HERR Detweiler.... > > I could argue that you have lied by (what I view as) distorting the facts. I > could say that you are being deceitful because it seems you have hidden agendas > here. I could definitely say that you have used intimidation in your postings. > And I could even say that you in fact are performing your own little version of > 'censorship' by browbeating and insulting others that don't agree with you into > silence. > > And it's only a healthy response if it is done in a constructive way towards a > positive goal. I don't think you are striving for that. > > >>>>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO > >>votes. > >> > > >> >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > >> > >>No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > >> wrote it did not point out this fact. > >> > >>You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > >> to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > >> postings if you'd like. > > > >I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise > >defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and > >unmoderated > >newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Says you. You haven't been able to provide any evidence to this, however. And > you can't, because I have not been performing 'subterfuge', as you so eagerly > yell out. The evidence you persist in ignoring.... How convenient for your "argument".... > > Can't you read? Explaining one (or two) side(s) of an argument does not imply > support. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this. > > >> What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > >>guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > >> against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > >> change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? > > > >Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay > >with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt > >Bahais.... > > What? You'd rather rail against past events that cannot be changed, than try to > modify the Usenet voting guidelines to prevent such things happening again? > Almost sounds like you'd *like* the next vote to fail. It would certainly give > you more 'ammunition'. How laughable.... > > >> And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > >> guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? > > > >And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS > >and > >others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > This is not new to Usenet; other newgroups have gone through the same thing, > unfortunately. Exactly and USENET is not changing for 691 fanatic bahais.... much to their glee.... > > [snip] > >> >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >> >matter.... > >> > >>Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > >>redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > >> conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > >> does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. > > > >There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent > >deception.... > > No, there are *two* sides, if not more, to this argument (axiom, anyone?). As > to which 'side' is being deceptive, well, now that's a matter of opinion, isn't > it... > > [snip] > >> >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >> >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >> >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >> >respond.... > >> > >>Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > >> are you referring? > >> > >> Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > >> > >> Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > I would like an answer to this, if you don't mind. > > [snip] > >>>>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do > >>you > >>>>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence > >>(not > >> >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > >> > > >> >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >> >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >> >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >> >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >> >to the contrary.... > >> > >> I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > >> > >>The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > >>NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > >> not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. > > > >I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember > >non-Bahais, > >who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup > >on > >the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Are you sure it's not more appropriate for you to say that you believe it's > 'fanatical' because they're depriving *you*...? After all, your postings don't > lead one to believe that you are doing this munificently. > > >> Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > >>because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > >> own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > >>for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > >>opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > >> this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > >> knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > >> hate letter to you? > > > >I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does > >not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and > >how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to > >use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > If you're referring to the Iceland Assembly, I agree that they do have that > responsibility. What if they think they *were* doing the right thing? Also, > another thing you don't know was if it *was* done with the assembly's approval > (i.e. an individual on the assembly could have just as easily put in the vote by > him/herself). Have you made an attempt to find out for sure? I don't think so. > Much easier to assume blame than to investigate with an open and unbiased > heart... Yes, I have made an attempt to find out. I wrote the Universal House of Justice in late March, 1997 and asked them for an explanation of the rules of Bahai censorship, among other things related to the suppression and manipulation of the individual's conscience in the Bahai Faith. I have not yet received an answer. > > If you're referring to individual Assembly members, then I would say that > *everyone* should have this responsibility. Individual action is not > institutional action. You know this. I believe you're an apologist and lackey for deceit.... > > >> No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > >> years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > >> Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > >> better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! > > > >False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations > >calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement > >in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions > >or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > False?! No evidence that the Baha'i Faith is *anything* but 'fanatical' and > 'fascist'??? You're looking through some serious blinders here, Fred. > > Logic lesson of the day: Detweiler is a Baha'i. Detweiler is one person, > Baha'is are many people. All Baha'is are not Detweiler. Many Bahais seem to imagine he's been "appointed" by God or the UHJ.... > > Since when is the s.r.b a Baha'i 'institution'? Many Bahais believe so and it acts and portrarys itself as the voice of orthodoxy.... And is apparently regarded as so by the NSA of Iceland, two presently sitting NSA members, and other fanatics in the BAhai Faith.... > > It is also not unknown in history for *individuals* to manipulate influential > bodies to their purposes.... Quite true.... All the more important that there should be MECHANISMS and SAFEGUARDS other than assassination.... > > >>And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > >> 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. > > > >They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay > >indeed.... > > This is so ludicrous it's laughable. Not ludicrous at all. Anyone who's observed Iranian Bahais telling ignorant, illiterate, ordinary Bahais how SPIRITUAL they are, fawning over them, using them, etc., will realize how accurate the characterization is.... > > >> >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> >> > >> >> This topic tires me. > >> > > >> >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >> >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >> >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > >> > > >> > >>(shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > >> "Runnin' away, eh???") > >> > >>I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > >> it sometimes. > > > >"This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in > >the high ground.... > > Think whatever you want. In the meantime, I'll take the high ground, and you'll > take... > > The air is certainly better up here! Sparse and insubstantial.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:29 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:07:16 1997 Received: (qmail 13775 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:07:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9641.5E70@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:08:33 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com> <5pbffu$1c2@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 13001 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article <33B8DE15.6888@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > [snip!snip!snip!] > >> I was stressing the point that these people were expressing their opinion. > >> > >>And since expressing one's opinion, regardless of whether others agree with you > >> or not (or how cockamamie it may be) is a part of free-speech, I made that > >>connection to show what I saw as an inconsistency in the argument (and irony, as > >> the whole issue cirled around 'censorship'). > > > >The equating of free speech with redundancy is nothing but a cover-up of > >the true motives of those who oppose free speech... A smoke screen, > >subterfuge.... This discussion could not even take place on > >soc.religion.bahai since they BANNED all discussion of > >talk.religion.bahai in their Shiite approach to everything.... > > > > I do not oppose free speech. However, I must admit that I do not like (note: > not the same as oppose) abuses of free speech. Granted, my idea of 'abuse' may > be different than anybody else's, but I do not wish to have my definition held > up as the authoritative one... I know that I do not have the perfect insight to > what is right and wrong in this world; I'm stumbling along with everybody else! > > To accuse me of a cover-up is silly. I haven't removed or altered any person's > postings. And I have tried to uphold the spirit of the Usenet voting > guidelines; obviously, they probably need to be reviewed (and modified), but > that is not a cover-up. Not yet or that we know of, eh? I don't believe it's upholding the spirit of UseNet guidelines to make excuses for others' falacious arguments justifying censorship based on the specious claim of redundancy.... > > This discussion could not take place on SRB because it really is not relevant to > what is in the charter. And it's quite a stupid argument anyway (IMO). This > would be more appropriate in, let's see... > soc.religion.bahai.arguments.unending. Another specious argument advanced ad nauseam by the Hitlerites at or supporting soc.religion.bahai.... Detweiler especially showed the charter is a piece of lying trash when he banned my message a few months ago on the United Nations.... And the charter should state that > anything other than endless, circular rantings about bygone felt grievances > should be duly rejected! (lesson for the day: this is called humour, although > somewhat pointed, as I'm tired of being *told* what I think, and am doing...) What's truly called is suppress when all else fails.... > > >> > >>Convoluted enough for you yet? Well, it's either this, or people start *asking* > >> me what my opinion is. I really would prefer the latter; my fingers cramp > >> easily. > >> > >>Is this newsgroup redundant? If you go by just looking at the posts, sometimes, > >> sometimes not. I use this as neither supporting or rejecting the creation of > >> the newsgroup. Again, I vote to ABSTAIN! > > > >You're full of deceit.... That's how I read you and say so openly.... > > And you're full of..... anger, it seems. That's how I read you and say so > openly. Doesn't necessarily make it true, though. Abdu'l-Baha states somewhere that anger and such emotions can be positive when channeled for the right reasons.... There's nothing wrong with anger and indignation in the face of lies, deceit, intimidation, censorship, etc.... It's a healthy response.... > > >>Correct, with one qualification: It requires 100+ more YES votes than NO votes. > > > >So here you are marshalling your required NO votes, eh? > > No, merely making a slight correction to your previous statement. The way you > wrote it did not point out this fact. > > You really think this is subterfuge? Do you also think I'm lying about trying > to inform people of how to vote correctly? I could provide evidence of my > postings if you'd like. I think you're lying about your true motives.... Why would you otherwise defend Bahai's deceptive claim that an obviously different and unmoderated newsgroup would be "redundant?" > > Believe me, if I was trying to get the vote to fail, then I wouldn't have > "wasted" my vote to ABSTAIN. > > >> Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >>modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >>votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >> be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > > >UseNet rules as a whole must change and they're not going to do that > >just > >for talk.religion.bahai.... Good news to you and Bahais like you, I'm > >sure.... > > What I'm saying is maybe the whole of Usenet does need to reconsider it's > guidelines in this venue. I'm sure t.r.b has not been the only one to butt up > against this thing. And what I'm wondering is *who* would make this kind of > change/reconsideration? Could there be a CFV on this issue itself? Subterfuge! I and we and not going to change UseNet.... Let's stay with where the fault truly lies.... on 600+ shamelessly corrupt Bahais.... > > And no, it is not good news to me. I have repeatedly stated I think the > guidelines should probably be modified. How clearer can I make this? And why should they be changed? Because they've been abused by BAHAIS and others..... specifically in regard to talk.religion.bahai vote.... > > >>I would more say that "If this group WERE redundant, two of three things *COULD* > >> happen --". a) the same, b) the same, c) postings continue on both. > >> > >>I make that qualification because it sounded like an 'ideal' argument, and this > >>is certainly not an ideal situation (being that we humans are involved...). In > >>fact, there *are* some redundant newsgroups on Usenet, where people continue to > >> post on both. And then, some ('redundant') newsgroups die while others just > >> grow older... > >> > >>By the way, Jeff (that is, I) did not imply otherwise (i.e. that I support the > >>redundancy argument); Fred may have thought so, but that does not make it true. > > > >You sure have a knack for obscuring your ideas on this particularly > >matter.... > > Please... do me a favor and find me in one of my posts where I say I support the > redundancy argument. You have only said I've implied as much, but that is your > conclusion, and it is wrong. Just because I can see two sides of an argument > does not mean I'm on a particular 'side'. There's only one side to this argument, the other is patent deception.... > > >>Chris and I did not 'refuse' to vote YES. We *preferred* to vote ABSTAIN (for > >>whatever reasons). Just because I did not have a vested or particular interest > >>in the creation of a newsgroup does not mean I have no right to participate in > >> it. If I'm wrong on this, could you please show me in whatever "Usenet > >> Practices Guide" that this is so? > > > >No, there's no law against your hanging around to harass people and > >obscure your real interests and motives and heckle occasionally.... > >That's the nature of an unmoderated newsgroup.... And my right to > >respond.... > > Who am I harassing? Do you think I'm harassing *you*? If not, then about whom > are you referring? > > Heckle??? Example(s), please, that I have done this. > > Or is this just a rhetorical statement? > > >> Do you want to close access to this newsgroup (or the future t.r.b) to people > >> that do not share your views on this matter? If so, then you could even more > >> easily argue that you have no right to post to s.r.b because you do not agree > >> with their moderation policies. I do not believe this; I'm sure you do not > >> either. > >> > >> If you want open and frank discussions from all sides, you should welcome > >> everybody's opinions, and therefore everybody's posts. > > > >I do. And I welcome your insincere, calculating posts against > >talk/alt.religion.bahai.... They reveal quite well for others how > >deceitful many Bahais are and how willing they are to commit all > >many of subterfuge in the hope of denying others the expression > >of their free consciences.... > > > >Drugging Bahais into compliance.... I wouldn't doubt it.... > >When all else fails.... A very modern idea, really.... > > I am not 'against' talk/alt.religion.bahai. I have not denied anyone the > ability to express their free conscience, nor do I have the hope to. > > Drugs? Get real. > > >> >False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English > >> >and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students > >> >at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it > >> >does to the individual's conscience.... > >> > >>And? The parallel between Chinese students at Beijing University <--> Baha'is > >> escapes me... > > > >Fear and terror are the modern fascist drugs for control and > >intimidation of others.... Read Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.... > > .....AND? The parallel is still lost on me. Please expand upon this a bit > more. You may know exactly what you mean and what makes you believe that > Baha'is are somehow comparable to this, but most people can't read "..."s too > well. > > >>Are you implying these things are sanctioned by the Administrative body? Do you > >>have evidence of this? If you believe you do, please provide that evidence (not > >> references to evidence, please) so that others may judge for themselves. > > > >One begins to wonder.... The RESULT contains the names of two presently > >sitting National Spiritual Assembly members and the official name and > >email address of the National Spiritual Assembly of Iceland.... Cold > >oppressive hearts up there.... More importantly, I see no EVIDENCE > >to the contrary.... > > I see. So temperature must have something to do with it. Interesting. > > The vote is very sketchy at best to try to color people's motives. You call the > NO's fanatics. I and many others who've stated their opinions on this matter do > not agree with this judgement. It simply does not hold water. I believe it is fanatical to deprive Bahais, and let's remember non-Bahais, who wished to form an unmoderated, uncensored, unmanipulated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith of that RIGHT, not privilege.... > > Remember, LSA,NSA,UHJ members are individuals when acting on their own. Just > because someone sits on these doesn't mean they cease to be a person with their > own thoughts, ideas, etc. There is no evidence they voted as representatives > for the assembly they sit on. As for the Iceland assembly, I still stand by my > opinion that voting NO was not necessarily a 'fanatic' gesture. Even if it was, > this has nothing to do with fearing the "knock at the door", a "bullet in the > knee-caps", or "email in the late evening". Did the Iceland assembly send a > hate letter to you? I wouldn't put anything past them now.... Your defending them here does not answer to the fact that their actions influence other Bahais and how they perceive the entire matter.... They have a responsibility to use their personal actions with the public ramificatiions in mind.... > > No EVIDENCE to the contrary? The Writings. Assembly guidelines. Years and > years of Baha'is striving to build unified communities and teach the Baha'i > Faith. Our involvement in the U.N. and other world organizations to try to > better this world for all people. Etc. raised to the N'th degree! False.... Detweiler's suppressing of my message on the United Nations calls into profound question the real motivations of Bahai involvement in that institution.... It is not unknown in human history for religions or organizations to manipulate influential bodies to their purposes.... > > And all this done without accepting funds from external sources, and most of the > 'workers' of the Faith doing this completely on an unpaid, unrewarded basis. They get their psychological strokes from Iranian Bahais.... Low pay indeed.... > > >> No need to jump at shadows, Fred. What Chris said was not a threat. > >> > >> This topic tires me. > > > >That's it. Run away like most Bahais when confront with reality, > >opinions that don't mimick received Shiite views.... And then > >imagine "independent investigation of reality" exists.... > > > > (shades of fight w/ black knight in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail... > "Runnin' away, eh???") > > I never said I was going anywhere. Do you want me to? It certainly seems like > it sometimes. "This topic tires me" suggests you are while wrapping yourself in the high ground.... > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:13:22 1997 Received: (qmail 13797 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:12:18 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB977C.35E4@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:13:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Tactical voting -- how to tackle it.... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3388 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, jeff wrote > >Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > That really is for more sensible that the 'voting' method, especially as > tactical voting seems to be very much on the increase. However, if one > were only to go an a 100+ vote we would, a) be swamped with new groups > and b), where there really WAS a good reason for not forming a group, > there would be no forum for opposing it. I've never disagreed with Fred > over the injustice of the 691 vs 157 votes, its just the bit about them > being orchestrated that bugs me because I was in on this right at the > beginning and didn't see that. What an absurdity! Towfiq's No vote champaign was widespread and certainly influenced others.... It appeared on at least 3 Bahai listservs.... Also, going back to the main-line, even > if you insist that a valid NO vote must include a valid reason, it is > still possible for people to cover up their motives, so we are back to > square one. So, what to do. Well, [Are you reading this Fred? maybe > you coud put this as an idea to whoever it is relevant to] what might > work is to have an interest poll with -- You're peddling excuses for the fascist in the Bahai Faith.... That's how I read the above.... BLAME the victim or the system instead of the liars who committed the crime and slaughter.... > > a) YES -- indicating an INTEREST in forming a group, > b) ABSTAIN -- as before (just to show one has followed the discussion, > c) OBJECTIONS -- which must include the reason for the objection. These > latter to be non-cumulative (i.e. 27 objections on the grounds of > redundancy be counted as an objection. The ajudicator, working to > well defined rules, to decide whether an objection is valid and, if > so to request the PROPONENT to address the objection before making a > final descision. > > I know, it's still open to abuse on the part of the adjudicator, or > adjudicators, so there would have to be an appeal. Maybe one could > include a clause saying that the 'owner' of any group that would be > adversely affected should be allowed to object of, by default, waive > their right to objection. However, no system is perfect but there must > be a way round tactical NO votes. (Much more difficult to monitor > tactical YES votes though.) > > I don't know. I just don't want to see what happened before happening > again. > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:13:22 1997 Received: (qmail 13797 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:12:18 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB977C.35E4@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:13:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Tactical voting -- how to tackle it.... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3388 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, jeff wrote > >Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > That really is for more sensible that the 'voting' method, especially as > tactical voting seems to be very much on the increase. However, if one > were only to go an a 100+ vote we would, a) be swamped with new groups > and b), where there really WAS a good reason for not forming a group, > there would be no forum for opposing it. I've never disagreed with Fred > over the injustice of the 691 vs 157 votes, its just the bit about them > being orchestrated that bugs me because I was in on this right at the > beginning and didn't see that. What an absurdity! Towfiq's No vote champaign was widespread and certainly influenced others.... It appeared on at least 3 Bahai listservs.... Also, going back to the main-line, even > if you insist that a valid NO vote must include a valid reason, it is > still possible for people to cover up their motives, so we are back to > square one. So, what to do. Well, [Are you reading this Fred? maybe > you coud put this as an idea to whoever it is relevant to] what might > work is to have an interest poll with -- You're peddling excuses for the fascist in the Bahai Faith.... That's how I read the above.... BLAME the victim or the system instead of the liars who committed the crime and slaughter.... > > a) YES -- indicating an INTEREST in forming a group, > b) ABSTAIN -- as before (just to show one has followed the discussion, > c) OBJECTIONS -- which must include the reason for the objection. These > latter to be non-cumulative (i.e. 27 objections on the grounds of > redundancy be counted as an objection. The ajudicator, working to > well defined rules, to decide whether an objection is valid and, if > so to request the PROPONENT to address the objection before making a > final descision. > > I know, it's still open to abuse on the part of the adjudicator, or > adjudicators, so there would have to be an appeal. Maybe one could > include a clause saying that the 'owner' of any group that would be > adversely affected should be allowed to object of, by default, waive > their right to objection. However, no system is perfect but there must > be a way round tactical NO votes. (Much more difficult to monitor > tactical YES votes though.) > > I don't know. I just don't want to see what happened before happening > again. > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:13:22 1997 Received: (qmail 13797 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:12:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:12:18 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB977C.35E4@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:13:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Tactical voting -- how to tackle it.... References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> <5p9d7b$8en@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3388 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, jeff wrote > >Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried to see if this rule is in any way > >modifiable? That is, removing the 'ceiling' part, so that it is just 100+ YES > >votes and that is it? Though, I'm sure that valid NO votes will still need to > >be considered (this is general newsgroup creation I'm talking about)... > > That really is for more sensible that the 'voting' method, especially as > tactical voting seems to be very much on the increase. However, if one > were only to go an a 100+ vote we would, a) be swamped with new groups > and b), where there really WAS a good reason for not forming a group, > there would be no forum for opposing it. I've never disagreed with Fred > over the injustice of the 691 vs 157 votes, its just the bit about them > being orchestrated that bugs me because I was in on this right at the > beginning and didn't see that. What an absurdity! Towfiq's No vote champaign was widespread and certainly influenced others.... It appeared on at least 3 Bahai listservs.... Also, going back to the main-line, even > if you insist that a valid NO vote must include a valid reason, it is > still possible for people to cover up their motives, so we are back to > square one. So, what to do. Well, [Are you reading this Fred? maybe > you coud put this as an idea to whoever it is relevant to] what might > work is to have an interest poll with -- You're peddling excuses for the fascist in the Bahai Faith.... That's how I read the above.... BLAME the victim or the system instead of the liars who committed the crime and slaughter.... > > a) YES -- indicating an INTEREST in forming a group, > b) ABSTAIN -- as before (just to show one has followed the discussion, > c) OBJECTIONS -- which must include the reason for the objection. These > latter to be non-cumulative (i.e. 27 objections on the grounds of > redundancy be counted as an objection. The ajudicator, working to > well defined rules, to decide whether an objection is valid and, if > so to request the PROPONENT to address the objection before making a > final descision. > > I know, it's still open to abuse on the part of the adjudicator, or > adjudicators, so there would have to be an appeal. Maybe one could > include a clause saying that the 'owner' of any group that would be > adversely affected should be allowed to object of, by default, waive > their right to objection. However, no system is perfect but there must > be a way round tactical NO votes. (Much more difficult to monitor > tactical YES votes though.) > > I don't know. I just don't want to see what happened before happening > again. > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 30 04:45:50 1997 Received: (qmail 23230 invoked from network); 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Received: from ppp-pm01-dy-22.ouhub.moa.net (HELO glaysher) (204.38.255.54) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 1997 11:45:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33B79CC1.730E@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:47:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" alt.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B64056.7FC1@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6934 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > >> There have been arguments that some people *do* think that this newsgroup is > >> redundant to what is currently available. Frederick and others disagree, > >> because they would like an unmoderated forum to discuss the the Baha'i Faith > >> (although, I don't know if 'discuss' is quite the word I would use for what > >goes > >> on at alt.religion.bahai). > >The excuse of "redundancy" was often used by individuals opposed to > >forming talk.religion.bahai and now alt.religion.bahai. What it neglects > >is that there IS and HAS been much discussion, surrounding both, that > >could NEVER have taken placed on the highly censored newsgroup of > >soc.religion.bahai.... It is illogical, therefore, to call the > >unmoderated newsgroups "redundant." The UseNet structure of moderated > >versus unmoderated itself frankly emphasizes the difference and > >thereby the impossibility that two thematically related newsgroups > >would be "redundant." > > > >What Jeff's claims here highlight again is the desire to CENSOR on > >his part and others in the Bahai Faith and their willingness to > >commit sophistry in order to achieve it.... Nothing new under the > >sun.... > > Fred, how on earth do you arrive at that conclusion. All Jeff said was > that "some people" think the group is redundant. At no point did he say > that HE thought it redundant, and in other posts he is even clearer on > this matter. False. His original message went on from what I quote above. He clearly expressed the belief that he too felt it was "redundant." Complete sophistry, as far as I'm concerned.... > > I do agree with him that the word 'discuss' is a euphamism for some of > what has gone on on this group, but it was obvious all along that an > open forum would carry abusive, and polite, posts by those who have no > time for our Faith. However, that that is the case is no reason for > opposing the formation of the group. In fact, it is by our response > (reaction?) to these posts that we are judged. "Discuss" only qualifies if people are expressing the same sappy, maudlin dreck that soc.religion.bahai specializes in? The forming of a newsgroup requires only 100+ votes for it; not an inquisition to determine whether or not a bunch of moral prudes think the nature and method of discussion is delicate enough for their tastes.... That's the reality of UseNet, which 691 violated.... > > >> Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* apply, > >and > >> people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnecessary > >> redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion and > >> conscience tells them to? > > > >More sophistry hiding behind the appearance of "redundancy." If you wish > >to research how long this agrument has been around now by the fascists > >at > >soc.religion.bahai and in the Bahai Faith broadly, do an advanced search > >on > >www.dejanews.com under "talk.religion.bahai and needed" You should get > >36 > >hits, many of which addressed this issue months ago.... > > The whole concept of redundancy has now been addressed. If this group > WERE redundant, one of two things would have happened -- > a) Posting to s.r.b would have diminished and been diverted to a.r.b. > (Actually that would show that s.r.b was redundant.) > b) No-one would be posting to a.r.b > As far as I can see, neither of these conditions has been met, ergo, > a.r.b is NOT redundant and compliments s.r.b. People may not like > a.r.b, granted, but that does not make it redundant and is certainly no > reason to vote against it. Jeff implied otherwise.... MANY Bahais stated otherwise and the proof resides on www.dejanews.com for anyone to read under a search for "alt.religion.bahai and need/needed" > > The fact is that there ARE people out there who will vote against t.r.b > for all the wrong reasons and until the interest poll system is changed > either to disallow NO votes (quite a reasonable suggestion) or to > require a reason for a NO vote, to check whether it is valid or not (and > eevn then, people can hide their reasons), these people will be able to > block t.r.b. From what I can make of what Jeff has written, neither he, > nor, I will be voting NO. So, please do not accuse us a priori of being > NO voters, and don't look for enemies amongst those who are, to one > degree or another, on your side. If you're going to abstain, why are you even bothering to post here at all? What's your motivation? It's quite illogical to refuse to vote YES for a group you've participated in regularly or to a considerable extent. You're motives, to my mind, must be very dishonorable ones.... > > Finally, Fred, I must take you to task over your use of the word > 'fascist'. Having lived in the relative isolation of America, I doubt > you have had much to do with these lovable people. False. I spent over twenty years of my life in and around English and Humanities Departments.... And enough time with Chinese students at Beijing University to understand what REAL fear is and what it does to the individual's conscience.... If those you are > accusing really were fascists, you would now be fearing the knock at the > door at the wee hours of the morning, or the bullet in the knee-caps. It's more like the email in the late evening.... This has been discussed.... > Those are the tactics of the fascisti. And the Bahai Faith.... They still do exist in > organizations like the (British) National Front and are well know for > their political tactics. I don't mind you saying that your (and others') > messages are being censored, because that is a very subjective matter, Not in regard to soc.religion.bahai.... Many, many people have openly stated as much now.... > but calling people fascist is a serious charge and, in this country at > least, can lead to claims for damages, especially from those in the > public eye. So now Bahais are going to resort to the courts to protect their fascist censorship? I wouldn't doubt it.... > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 24 07:51:22 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 24 04:28:42 1997 Received: (qmail 2824 invoked from network); 24 Jun 1997 11:28:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 1997 11:28:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33AFAFBD.52F3@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 07:30:05 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai To: webmaster@iranvision.com CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1593 please post the article here so that we can judge for ourselves.... webmaster@iranvision.com wrote: > > It appears Bahais are shameless in their censorship of the truth. > I posted an article questioning Bahai claim that Bahaullah is a prophet > while at the same time accepting Islam which claims Mohammad as being the > last prophet. > > The moderator of soc.religion.bahai had the nerve to reject the article, > saying it appears to have been "posted by mistake" and it has nothing to > do with the "ongoing threads" in soc.religion.bahai. I wonder what the > on going threads are in soc.bahai.religion. They appear to be threads of > ignorance and propaganda. See his reply for yourself: > > "From: Teri Rhan > To : webmaster@iranvision.com > > I'm returning this to you unposted as it appears to be mistakenly posted > to this forum and does not sppear to relate to ongoing threads in this > newsgroup. Please keep it to the original NG..." > > I wonder how do Bahais shamelessly justify their censorship. They have the > nerve to flood soc.culture.iranian with junk and propaganda, while they > censor anything that questions the validity of their fundamental beliefs. > > This is another typical move by this cult as are other cults, which are > filled with dictatorships and totalitarian movements. > > webmaster@iranvision.com > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 25 06:46:13 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 25 03:29:31 1997 Received: (qmail 7131 invoked from network); 25 Jun 1997 10:29:23 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 1997 10:29:23 -0000 Message-ID: <33B0F359.931@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 06:30:49 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <01bc8059$0d142540$758462cf@indirect.indirectcom> <867191039.15774@dejanews.com> <01bc80f9$2a1718a0$708462cf@indirect.indirectcom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5726 Alma F. Engels wrote: [clip] Soc.religion.bahai is a newsgroup for > the Baha'i Faith. Mr. Reed is not a member of the Baha'i Faith for he has > rejected the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. And as such he cannot speak with a > Baha'i Faith voice. Soc.religion.bahai is established by the Baha'i Faith > and understandably wants an exchange between members of the Faith and > either other members of the Faith or others interested in such a > dialog.There is no reason you cannot discuss Mr. Reeds opinions on matters > concerning Baha'u'llah. But soc.religion.bahai is the wrong forum. Soc.religion.bahai was not "established by the Bahai Faith" but by individual Bahais.... This point was repeatedly discussed at great length during the discussion some months ago for formin talk.religion.bahai, which Bahai fanatics opposed because they were afraid they could control and manipulate the way they can soc.religion.bahai.... [clip] > > In peace, > Alma > > webmaster@iranvision.com wrote in article <867191039.15774@dejanews.com>... > > In article <01bc8059$0d142540$758462cf@indirect.indirectcom>, > > "Alma F. Engels" wrote: > > > > > > I have been a moderator for soc.religion.bahai and thus have seen > things > > > from the inside. Generally speaking, if your article is related to the > > > Baha'i Faith and is reasonably politely worded, it will be posted. > This > > > > This is a BOLD LIE! Read my previous threads and you will see that my > > articles had legitimate questions regarding Bahai claims and were worded > > politely. None was posted! I have also noticed that certain articles > > posted by Mr. Afrashteh which were excellently worded were also rejected. > > Iy makes me wonder if what you say is just a show for people here who are > > not aware of the details or are you just trying to play me as a fool? > > > > > includes articles by Muslims trying to proselytize the Baha'is and the > > > > What do you care if it is a Moslem, Jew, Athiest or a Buddist posting? Do > > you have a thing against Moslems that you use them as the extreme > > example? > > > > > issue of the Seal of the Prophets has come up there several times. And > > > sometimes the exchange of posts lasts for months and months and the > posts > > > get so long they are divided into segments. My suggestion is if you > have > > > something you want to post to soc.religion.bahai that you make your > point > > > in a reasonable way and then send it there and only there. > > > > I will post my articles in relevant newsgroups. If I am comparing > > Mohammad's claim as being the last prophet and Bahais claim as Bahaullah > > being a prophet it is very appropriate to post this article in both > > soc.religion.islam and soc.religion.bahai. It is not upto you to tell us > > to "only" send articles there. If you are so concerned about relevance of > > articles to a newsgroup, then why is it that every Bahai ad appears on > > soc.culture.iranian as well? What does Bahaullah's invitation to Bahiasm > > have to do with Iran? > > > > > > > > Alma Engels > > > > > > webmaster@iranvision.com wrote in article > <867098427.5125@dejanews.com>... > > > > It appears Bahais are shameless in their censorship of the truth. > > > > I posted an article questioning Bahai claim that Bahaullah is a > prophet > > > > while at the same time accepting Islam which claims Mohammad as being > the > > > > last prophet. > > > > > > > > The moderator of soc.religion.bahai had the nerve to reject the > article, > > > > saying it appears to have been "posted by mistake" and it has nothing > to > > > > do with the "ongoing threads" in soc.religion.bahai. I wonder what > the > > > > on going threads are in soc.bahai.religion. They appear to be threads > of > > > > ignorance and propaganda. See his reply for yourself: > > > > > > > > "From: Teri Rhan > > > > To : webmaster@iranvision.com > > > > > > > > I'm returning this to you unposted as it appears to be mistakenly > posted > > > > to this forum and does not sppear to relate to ongoing threads in > this > > > > newsgroup. Please keep it to the original NG..." > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how do Bahais shamelessly justify their censorship. They > have > > > the > > > > nerve to flood soc.culture.iranian with junk and propaganda, while > they > > > > censor anything that questions the validity of their fundamental > beliefs. > > > > > > > > This is another typical move by this cult as are other cults, which > are > > > > filled with dictatorships and totalitarian movements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > webmaster@iranvision.com > > > > > > > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News > ====----------------------- > > > > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet > > > > > > > > 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

) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet > > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 25 06:46:16 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 25 03:33:53 1997 Received: (qmail 7156 invoked from network); 25 Jun 1997 10:33:51 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 1997 10:33:51 -0000 Message-ID: <33B0F465.F25@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 06:35:17 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2257 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, > webmaster@iranvision.com wrote > >It appears Bahais are shameless in their censorship of the truth. > >I posted an article questioning Bahai claim that Bahaullah is a prophet > >while at the same time accepting Islam which claims Mohammad as being the > >last prophet. > > Dear Webmaster, > > There have been many postings on soc.religion.baha'i over the last year > or so which were attacks on the Baha'i Faith, including a whole series > from an Ahmadaya (please excuse the spelling) which discussed Baha'i > claims in depth, and from a Christian minister who discussed the Bible > in depth. > > What was very evident from these discussion was a respect for both the > intelligence and the beliefs of the other readers. What you will not > find on s.r.b. are unbased prejudicial, and ad hominem, attacks. This is completely false.... Soc.religion.bahai chooses and manipulates what messages are posted and allows prejudicial and ad hominem attacks when it suits its purposes.... There's been plenty of evidence over the last several months of this. Search www.dejanews.com under "SRB Censored" for the relevant messages.... To many > of us, this makes s.r.b. a pleasure to read, even if we don't agree with > what is being posted. Conversely, I find a.r.b. and many of the other > un-moderated religious newsgroups quite sickening at times. This has > become especially so in the last 12 months, with increasing amounts of > flaming for the sake of it, and ignorqance posing as erudition. > > May the blessing of Allah be with you, > > 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: https://www.miracles.win-uk.net/Bahai > https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html > or my embryonic web site at -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 05:51:00 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Jun 28 04:49:38 1997 Received: (qmail 21105 invoked from network); 28 Jun 1997 11:49:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 1997 11:49:36 -0000 Message-ID: <33B4FAA5.1D43@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:51:01 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5ou4j3$juj@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4135 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > In article , Chris says... > > > >In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, jeff wrote > >>When the call for votes went out, there were some unfortunate incidents where > >>certain individuals solicited for votes (which is against standard netiquette, > >>but impossible to prohibit). Two of the main solicitations, which were widely > >>distributed, asked people to vote against it. There were also solicitations to > >>*create* the newsgroup as well. So, the process was somewhat compromised, but > >>to an undeterminate level. > >> > >>The solicitations did not inform people of the correct voting criteria, so it > >>can be assumed some of the people who voted did not have complete and accurate > >>information on how they should vote and what those votes meant. > > > >Thank's Jeff for your detailed explanation, which is far more thorough > >than my own. My only comment is that after the unfortunate post calling > >for opposition to t.r.b. there were many posts to the three e-mail fora > >concerned pointing out thta the call for NO votes was wrong and, in my > >case at least, posting the relevant part of the CFV and adding an > >explanation. Equally unfortunately, the call for NO votes was > >propagated widely in the ensuing discussion which probably increased its > >effectiveness well beyond its original appeal. However, as you write, > >it is unlikely that we will ever know why each of the 600 odd NO votes > >were cast. > > Agreed. I myself tried in my corner of cyber-space to correct the proliferation > of the solicitations by posting more information, including the actual CFV. My > attempt was to try to keep the vote as 'accurate' as possible. Too little, too > late? Maybe. But I also think that Fred may be right in that people have now, > to a certain extent, been 'colored' by the previous vote. Because of this, I > expect similar outcomes from the next vote, but only time will tell. And are obviously already at work lying the groundwork for such a RESULT.... > > > > >My only other comment is that you (mis)wrote, in the first line of your > >post, "alt. heirarchy.' You meant, of course, the 'talk. heirarchy.' > > The line you are referring to was: "All newsgroups outside of the alt.* > heirarchy are created by polling for interest. These polls are open to > everybody with a valid e-mail address." > > At the time I wrote it, I was under the impression that ALL newsgroups *not* in > the alt.* heirarchy had to be voted upon. From your posts, I think I may be > incorrect on that assumption. However, the line I wrote wasn't miswritten. It > (in my mind when I read it) says pretty much exactly what I had intended. It > may be inaccurate, however. (to replace 'alt' with 'talk' would definitely have > made the statement incorrect! at least, from how I read it) > > > > >Best wishes from another ABSTAINer, > > Thanks, Chris. And thanks for also reminding me (through your many posts) to > try to 'self-moderate' my tone a little better. > > To Fred, I would like to say that I probably shouldn't have singled you out as > much as I did, or make you out to be the 'bad guy'. Obviously, you are not the > only person who feels that undue censorship has occurred/is occurring. From one > 'fanatic' to another 'fanatic', continue to fight the good fight, as your > conscience sees fit. > > > > >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: https://www.miracles.win-uk.net/Bahai > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html > >or my embryonic web site at > > jeff -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 05:51:02 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Jun 28 04:52:00 1997 Received: (qmail 21121 invoked from network); 28 Jun 1997 11:51:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 1997 11:51:59 -0000 Message-ID: <33B4FB35.405C@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:53:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5ou4j3$juj@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1588 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, jeff wrote > >I also think that Fred may be right in that people have now, > >to a certain extent, been 'colored' by the previous vote. Because of this, I > >expect similar outcomes from the next vote, but only time will tell. > > Regretably, I think you are probably right. Well, it's useful to know where the two of you stand early on here.... > > >The line you are referring to was: "All newsgroups outside of the alt.* > >heirarchy are created by polling for interest. These polls are open to > >everybody with a valid e-mail address." > > Whoops! I read your post as I would have written it. having gone back, > I see you are right. I don't know if ALL other heirarchies need a vote. > What I assumed (ha!) was that youy meant to say that talk. required a > vote, all other heirarchies being irrelevant to the arguement! > > Sorry about that. > > All teh 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: https://www.miracles.win-uk.net/Bahai > https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html > or my embryonic web site at -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 05:51:04 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Jun 28 05:02:57 1997 Received: (qmail 21135 invoked from network); 28 Jun 1997 12:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 1997 12:02:55 -0000 Message-ID: <33B4FDC5.2D05@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 08:04:21 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B36862.1B7B@aracnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4054 Audil Virk wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > As-Salamo Alaikum, > > > There have been many postings on soc.religion.baha'i over the last year > > or so which were attacks on the Baha'i Faith, including a whole series > > from an Ahmadaya (please excuse the spelling) which discussed Baha'i > > claims in depth, and from a Christian minister who discussed the Bible > > in depth. > > I, Audil Virk, was that Ahmadi Muslim who brought up some issues which I > found > disturbing concerning the Bahai faith. > The correct spelling is Ahmadiyya. > > I did not mean for it to be an attack on the Bahai faith, but more to > show that > their are many aspects of the Bahai faith which are not clear and infact > it would seem completley contradictory to Islam. > > > What was very evident from these discussion was a respect for both the > > intelligence and the beliefs of the other readers. What you will not > > find on s.r.b. are unbased prejudicial, and ad hominem, attacks. To many > > of us, this makes s.r.b. a pleasure to read, even if we don't agree with > > what is being posted. > > I found it incredibly hard to post responses without them being rejected > and finally I gave up. > I say it with all honesty, that I fully believe that soc.religion.bahai > is censored and the "moderators" will not allow any deep and penetrating > questions or replies to be posted in the newsgroup. As a Bahai, I fully concur with you.... It's definitely heavily censored, and, as you say below, for flimsy reasons.... > > I have been following soc.religon.bahai for more than 2 years and have > typed many an article, and as soon as a conversation is getting to the > real points, my articles > start getting rejected and I am sent warning letters from the > "moderators" giving flimsy excuses for the rejections. "Flimsy" is definitely the right word in my experience too.... > > > Conversely, I find a.r.b. and many of the other > > un-moderated religious newsgroups quite sickening at times. This has > > become especially so in the last 12 months, with increasing amounts of > > flaming for the sake of it, and ignorqance posing as erudition. > > I agree with this. > But this is the opposite end of the two extremes, one is the censorship > of soc.religion.bahai, disquised as moderating. And of course the "disguising as moderating" is surrounded by an unbelievable amount of lying and deception about what they are really doing!!!! > The second extreme is that which you mention, where there is no > moderation and every person, whether good or bad, clean or foul mouthed, > courteous or vulgar can state his opinion. > > That which you mention is a separate issue, here we are discussing > whether soc.religion.bahai is censored in favour of the Bahai faith. > I believe it is and have first hand experience of having articles > rejected for no sound reason. Many people have had this same experience, including other Muslims.... > > Censorship is not the answer to solve the problem of flaming and > ignorant statements made in many alt.groups. > Moderating is the answer. > The problem with the Bahai newsgroup is that, the "moderators" have > stepped across the bounds of moderating, and have ventured into one > extreme, namely censorship. It was the CENSORSHIP that motivated me to propose talk.religion.bahai way back in December, 1996.... Apparently their actions must be condoned by members of the Bahai administration and institutions because they continue to operate the same way.... I had requested the Bahai Universal House of Justice define for me the rules of Bahai censorship in late March but have yet to receive an answer.... > The other extreme is allowing anyone and everyone to say whatever they > want, and examples of this extreme can be found in any un-moderated > newsgroup, or where the > moderators are too lenient. > > Was-Salam > Audil Virk (my opinions) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 07:07:44 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jun 29 03:25:25 1997 Received: (qmail 17759 invoked from network); 29 Jun 1997 10:25:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 1997 10:25:17 -0000 Message-ID: <33B63863.7131@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:26:43 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B4B5B8.7DF07766@McMaster.CA> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1874 nader wrote: > > I have been following this thread, quietly, for some time now. Apart > from those who are adhering to the polite, non-argumentative, factual > and restrained presentation of their views as Baha'is, I don't believe > that anybody else is a Baha'i, because Baha'is are recognized by their > actions and not their verbal claim. Also for the longest time I tried > to avoid joining the discussion, because I personally avoid interacting > with anybody who wants to insult me or my beliefs, irrespective of > their religon, ethnicity, "race", and any other label you would like to > attach to poeple. But the persistence of some of the participants, > whose views I respect but do not agree with, in portraying the > Soc.Religion.Bahai (SRI) as an intolerent, close minded Newsgroup, > compelled me to search for a site where I could find an archive of SRI > topics to date. For those individulas who insist on portraying the > Baha'i Faith in a negative light (whether claiming to be Baha'is or > not), I want to say: PLEASE READ THESE ARCHIVED MESSAGES > AND THEN CRY OUT WOLF. > And to the silent majority I would say: > PLEASE DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES WHETHER THESE CLAIMS OF CENSORSHIP ARE VALID > OR NOT. > > And here is the site: > https://www.bcca.org/srb/archive/930421-940420/index.html I suggest a more reliable site would www.dejanews.com since it is not owned and controlled by Bahais.... I have noticed in the past that not all messages are archived on the Bahai site.... > > One more thing, before I signoff. As a Baha'is I was taught that my > duty is to bring the message to poeple. Therefore I am not responsible > for their acceptance or rejection of the Faith. It is upto them to > independently investigate and accept or reject these claims. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 07:07:44 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jun 29 03:25:25 1997 Received: (qmail 17759 invoked from network); 29 Jun 1997 10:25:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 1997 10:25:17 -0000 Message-ID: <33B63863.7131@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:26:43 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B4B5B8.7DF07766@McMaster.CA> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1874 nader wrote: > > I have been following this thread, quietly, for some time now. Apart > from those who are adhering to the polite, non-argumentative, factual > and restrained presentation of their views as Baha'is, I don't believe > that anybody else is a Baha'i, because Baha'is are recognized by their > actions and not their verbal claim. Also for the longest time I tried > to avoid joining the discussion, because I personally avoid interacting > with anybody who wants to insult me or my beliefs, irrespective of > their religon, ethnicity, "race", and any other label you would like to > attach to poeple. But the persistence of some of the participants, > whose views I respect but do not agree with, in portraying the > Soc.Religion.Bahai (SRI) as an intolerent, close minded Newsgroup, > compelled me to search for a site where I could find an archive of SRI > topics to date. For those individulas who insist on portraying the > Baha'i Faith in a negative light (whether claiming to be Baha'is or > not), I want to say: PLEASE READ THESE ARCHIVED MESSAGES > AND THEN CRY OUT WOLF. > And to the silent majority I would say: > PLEASE DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES WHETHER THESE CLAIMS OF CENSORSHIP ARE VALID > OR NOT. > > And here is the site: > https://www.bcca.org/srb/archive/930421-940420/index.html I suggest a more reliable site would www.dejanews.com since it is not owned and controlled by Bahais.... I have noticed in the past that not all messages are archived on the Bahai site.... > > One more thing, before I signoff. As a Baha'is I was taught that my > duty is to bring the message to poeple. Therefore I am not responsible > for their acceptance or rejection of the Faith. It is upto them to > independently investigate and accept or reject these claims. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 02:49:13 1997 Received: (qmail 28523 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 09:49:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 09:49:11 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8D2EF.76F5@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 05:50:39 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More Bahai Censorship References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <33B4B5B8.7DF07766@McMaster.CA> <33B63863.7131@hotmail.com> <33b78ffa.48776948@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2222 Roger Reini wrote: > > Followups set -- s.c.i removed. > > On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:26:43 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > >nader wrote: > > >> not), I want to say: PLEASE READ THESE ARCHIVED MESSAGES > >> AND THEN CRY OUT WOLF. > >> And to the silent majority I would say: > >> PLEASE DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES WHETHER THESE CLAIMS OF CENSORSHIP ARE VALID > >> OR NOT. > >> > >> And here is the site: > >> https://www.bcca.org/srb/archive/930421-940420/index.html > > >I suggest a more reliable site would www.dejanews.com since it is > >not owned and controlled by Bahais.... I have noticed in the past > >that not all messages are archived on the Bahai site.... > > I should point out that the archives at www.bcca.org are for the > soc.religion.bahai newsgroup only. The particular URL above will give > you the articles from April 21, 1993 to April 20, 1994. > > Are these archives complete? I can't say. There are HUGH gaps of messages that were posted on soc.religion.bahai itself, not elsewhere as he suggests below.... They appear to have been CENSORED after the fact! > > The articles which Fred is talking about would not be found at that > archive, simply because most of the discussion took place on > news.groups rather than s.r.b. WWW.dejanews.com exists for that purpose.... > > >> > >> One more thing, before I signoff. As a Baha'is I was taught that my > >> duty is to bring the message to poeple. Therefore I am not responsible > >> for their acceptance or rejection of the Faith. It is upto them to > >> independently investigate and accept or reject these claims. > > Nader speaks wisely here. I agree and that's why I urge people not to believe the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai but the many, many people who have stated they themselves have been CENSORED for, as one recently put it, "flimsy" reasons at best.... Search www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai to decide for yourself. I'd warn you against using the so-called archive at bcca.org.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 05:50:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 26 05:14:13 1997 Received: (qmail 11744 invoked from network); 26 Jun 1997 12:14:11 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 1997 12:14:11 -0000 Message-ID: <33B25D61.6199@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:15:29 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <01bc8059$0d142540$758462cf@indirect.indirectcom> <867191039.15774@dejanews.com> <01bc80f9$2a1718a0$708462cf@indirect.indirectcom> <33B0F359.931@hotmail.com> <$7tTtDAcgXszEwh7@baha.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4725 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Neil Kelley > wrote > >Why can't you just start a talk.religion.bahai newsgroup without so > >called "Bahai fanatics"? > > Because to start a group in the talk. heirarchy of newsgroups, you have > to have an interest poll. To get your group you have to have a majority > for it of at least 100 people and at least 2/3 of the votes cast must be > YES votes. > > It is important to realise that it is an INTEREST poll, and NO votes > should be cast purely for technical objections (e.g. the group is in the > wrong heirarchy, or would poach posts from an existing group). > Unusually, one can also register an ABSTAIN vote, which indicates that > one has followed the discussion and wish to register neither an > objection nor an interest in the group. > > What upset Fred so much was that there were some 150 interest votes and > some 600+ votes againt the formation of t.r.b. Looking at this > dispassionately, one can see that the NO votes cannot have been in the > spirit of the Usenet voting ethos. In fact, it is not uncommon for > groups to fail because of incorrect NO voting, or, more corectly, > tactical NO voting. Chris, I appreciate your fairness.... Rare among Bahais.... > > Regretably, there was one individual who, not understanding the system, > tried to start a "NO vote" campaign. How much success he had is > debatable because several people made it very clear that he was not > 'doing it right', but there will have been some who voted NO because of > his post. The rest, I conjecture, did not like the idea of a free-for- > all in the name of the Faith and decided to vote NO. There was a lot of > flack about this and Fred, I feel justifiably, feels agrieved. Double thanks.... "Free-for-all," though, is slanted, in my opinion.... > > What the whole fiasco has done is to highlight the vulnerability of the > voting system. If 150+ people have an interest in forming a technically > feasible group, there should be no reason to stop them (assuming the > subject is legal). The only way I can see round this is for a NO vote > to have to be justified -- not a 'I don't want this group', or 'it > sucks', but a genuine technical reason for the group to be thrown out. The vulnerability of the voting system AND the deceitfulness of many Bahais, including two present and two former National Spiritual Assembly members AND the presently sitting NSA of Iceland.... > > -------- > > The other side of the coin here is the existing soc.religion.bahai > group. Traditionally, the soc. heirarchy has always been moderated. In > other words you post to uu.moderators.net and the post is passed to a > moderator, or team of moderators who vet what is being posted and decide > whether it accords with the stated rules of the stated rules of the > newsgroup, e.g. no ad homimen, no insulting the president, or whatever. > These rules are published when the group is formed and, I feel, should > be published periodically on the newsgroup. If you don't like the > rules, you can try to get them changed but in the end the group > 'belongs' to the people who set it up, and they have the final say on > what gets posted. They CENSOR what they wish is more like it.... > > -------- > > Finally, why the fuss about talk. instead of alt. Well, quite simply, > the alt. heirarchy gats a fairly limited distribution and that means > that many of the people who voted YES have not had access to a.r.b. This > is changing as Deja News and others are accepting posts. Also, many > alt. groups do not propagate well and fail to get to the servers that do > carry them. For this reason, it is a good idea to include, in the > header, a dummy group which does propagate well. Most of the posts used > to be cross-posted to misc.misc for that reason. that seems to have > stopped, probably because the people who are posting now were not in at > the beginning when all this was being discussed. Despite some slow improvement, requiring much exertion on my part, I might add, the damage of the NO vote can't be undone.... Many, who voted YES, will not have access until talk.religion.bahai is proposed again in September, discussed, voted on, and then, if not subverted again by fanatical, contemptibly self-righteous Bahais, at last widely available through a major hierarchy.... > > ------- > > I hope that clears up any questions you had. > > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 05:50:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Jun 28 04:42:35 1997 Received: (qmail 21096 invoked from network); 28 Jun 1997 11:42:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 1997 11:42:29 -0000 Message-ID: <33B4F8F8.1DA1@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:43:52 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel.soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 10337 jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > = > In article , Neil says... > > > >In article <33B0F359.931@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher > > writes > >>Soc.religion.bahai was not "established by the Bahai Faith" but by > >>individual Bahais.... This point was repeatedly discussed at great > >>length during the discussion some months ago for formin > >>talk.religion.bahai, which Bahai fanatics opposed because they > >>were afraid they could NOT control and manipulate the way they can > >>soc.religion.bahai.... > > > >I have a question. > > > >Why can't you just start a talk.religion.bahai newsgroup without so > >called "Bahai fanatics"? > >-- > > > > =E8=BF~ > >Neil Kelley > = > All newsgroups outside of the alt.* heirarchy are created by polling fo= r > interest. These polls are open to everybody with a valid e-mail addres= s. A > person can vote YES if they are interested in the newgroup being formed= , ABSTAIN > if they have no opinion (pretty much the same as not voting but showing= you > participated in the process), and NO. A NO vote, as the standards of U= senet go, > only apply for administrative objections, like if the newsgroup is beli= eved to > be redundant, the name not fitting the topic in the charter, or somethi= ng > similar. Moral objections to newsgroups do not apply, as Usenet standa= rds go. Yet the 691 NO votes were precisely such smugly self-righteous = objections to the talk.religion.bahai.... > = > When the call for votes went out, there were some unfortunate incidents= where > certain individuals solicited for votes (which is against standard neti= quette, > but impossible to prohibit). Two of the main solicitations, which were= widely > distributed, asked people to vote against it. There were also solicita= tions to > *create* the newsgroup as well. So, the process was somewhat compromis= ed, but > to an undeterminate level. Bahais immediately began lying and deceiving to cover up, justify, and make excuses for the solicitation of NO votes.... > = > The solicitations did not inform people of the correct voting criteria,= so it > can be assumed some of the people who voted did not have complete and a= ccurate > information on how they should vote and what those votes meant. Several individuals posted lengthy and short pieces on proper procedures for voting.... 691 bahai fanatics ignored those guidelines.... There's no reason to believe the fanatics won't do so again this fall.... > = > For a newsgroup to be created, there need to merely be 100 YES votes, i= n > addition to any NO votes that might have been registered (that is, NO v= otes > raise the 'pass ceiling'). For whatever reason, the result of the poll= was that > the NO votes (~690)[691!] greatly exceeded the YES votes (~150). The r= esult is that > the newsgroup creation was voted down, and it may not be voted on again= in six > months (around August/September?). Late September, by my count. > = > Frederick made an objection to the vote, which he now believed to be in= valid. > An independent group reviewed this objection, and decided to let the vo= te stand. False. What "independent group" are you refering to? The UUV was motivated solely, as I understood it, by their reluctance to set a precedent they could not follow on other groups as well.... They did not "let it stand" as though it were a proper vote. Several individuals involved all express HORROR at the unjust RESULT! The voting system as a whole needs to be change and couldn't be bent for just one newsgroup vote. Hence, the Bahai SCUM who voted NO managed to perpetrate the crime they wanted.... muzzling others who don't THINK the way they do. That's what it comes down to.... > = > Now, Frederick has definitely gotten a kick out of repeatedly labeling = each and > every person who voted against this as a 'fanatic'. His basis? Merely= that > they voted NO, regardless of whether they did not have all the informat= ion, > whether they actually had a valid objection, whether they did it out of= spite, > whatever. (just so you know, I voted to ABSTAIN, so I don't believe I'm= coloring > the issue unduly) What a FARCE! THEY knew exactly what they were doing.... and so do you, = you.... > = > I personally know of people who voted and did not know what the voting = rules > were for Usenet creation. Frederick has argued that information was po= sted on > Usenet many times beforehand, so no one has an excuse for not knowing. = However, > the solicitations were mostly distributed over e-mail, which, as you kn= ow, is > totally separate from Usenet. Not everyone uses Usenet, or even reads = the > particular groups that the Call For Votes was posted on. A bald-faced lie! They were posted on soc.religion.bahai, several long and detailed messages, including one by the moderator Detweiler, and one by the group-mentor Christopher Stone, who practically begged Bahais not to be a bunch of ignorant bunnies about the vote and painstakingly pointed out it was merely an interst poll, not a true vote or election at all.... Search on www.dejanews.com for = Christopher Stone on soc.religion.bahai, if you want to judge for yourself. > = > And on this alone, everyone who voted NO has been labeled a 'fanatic'. It's more like on this lying, deceitful, contemtible kind of trash that Bahais like you post.... Only a fanatic would distort the way you are.... > = > There have been arguments that some people *do* think that this newsgro= up is > redundant to what is currently available. Frederick and others disagre= e, > because they would like an unmoderated forum to discuss the the Baha'i = Faith > (although, I don't know if 'discuss' is quite the word I would use for = what goes > on at alt.religion.bahai). A good Bahai should be a liar for Baha'u'llah.... It's God's holy will for today.... and the glorious Iranian Bahai future.... > = > Now, if the voting criteria says that administrative objections *do* ap= ply, and > people, in their own opinions, believe that this newsgroup is an unnece= ssary > redundancy, then shouldn't they be allowed to vote as their own opinion= and > conscience tells them to? It took you long enough to work up to this! Is this going to be the tactic this fall on the next vote for talk.religion.bahai? Are you the advance-guard? Testing the waters? You're all going to hide behind this cheap-shot subterfuge? > = > Not according to Frederick (and others). Evidently, they are 'fanatics= ' unless > they vote with the same viewpoint in mind as Fred. In essence, Fred wo= uld like > to censor people's views to match his own so he can get what he wants, = which is > quite odd considering one of his major complaints is that he believes t= he > newsgroup soc.religion.bahai is censoring *him* (which is not quite tru= e - there > is a charter for soc.religion.bahai that delineates acceptable posting > procedures. by the way, moderated newsgroups with charters *are* in fu= ll > accordance with Usenet practices. Fred just doesn't *like* that.) All answered above.... > = > One of the reasons that a charter was established for soc.religion.baha= i was so > that people could openly discuss issues about the Baha'i Faith without = fear of > being impugned upon, being flamed, etc. So long as the topic was in re= lation to > the Baha'i Faith, and that the person's tone was non-inflammatory, mali= cious, > demeaning, etc., there is no problem (you should read the charter for a= more > complete view of this). Remember, now, *people* must moderate these th= ings. > Practically *everybody* has their own beliefs of what is malicious, dem= eaning, > etc. The moderators had to make a decision based on what they understo= od to be > the right thing to do, and rejected posts that they believed violated t= he > charter. > = > However, the moderators (usually, unless for other stated reasons) did = not > object to postings on *what* was being said. Rather, the problem was m= ostly > with *how* things were being said. Essentially, they were trying to ma= intain > the spirit of the charter. > = > I myself still can't figure out if Fred has a problem with the charter = itself, > which was made in full compliance with all Usenet standards, or with th= e > moderators, who, to the best of their ability are trying to uphold the = spirit of > the charter, or if he simply wants to communicate in his own way freely= and > resents being told to self-moderate his own tone. > = > Nobody is telling Fred or others that communicating freely is wrong. T= hey are > being told that they must comply by the newgroup's charter to post ther= e. This > is not at all dissimilar to having to speak quietly in a library. It i= s a > public forum, in which certain guidelines have been established to whic= h > everyone must comply. If they cannot, there is *nothing* stopping them= from > speaking in whatever manner they want elsewhere. IMHO, calling this > 'censorship' is not valid. Preventing others from communicating by falsely voting NO pretending technical exceptions is ethically reprehensible.... But it's = apparently the Bahai way.... at least for many like you.... > = > In any case, the vote will most likely be up again in another couple of= months, > and we'll see what happens. Indeed, we shall.... > = > jeff > = > p.s. Granted that these are my observations and opinions of the situati= on. I > expect opposing viewpoints (obviously), but I would encourage everyone > interested in learning more about it to investigate it on their own and= not take > any particular person's view on it as 'authoritative'. Not even mine! Search www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai from January 17, 1997 to late April for full discussion of the proposal. Please do decide for yourself, as well as protect yourself against the distortions of Bahais like Jeff here.... -- = Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:49 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 02:43:51 1997 Received: (qmail 7050 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 09:41:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 09:41:43 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8D12F.69AF@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 05:43:11 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B4F8F8.1DA1@hotmail.com> <33b892d1.49504084@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1649 Roger Reini wrote: > > Followups set -- irrelevent newsgroups trimmed. > > On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:43:52 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > >jeffd@goodnet.com wrote: > > > >Yet the 691 NO votes were precisely such smugly self-righteous > >objections to the talk.religion.bahai.... > > > >> > > > >Bahais immediately began lying and deceiving to cover up, > >justify, and make excuses for the solicitation of NO votes.... > > I can recall nobody who spoke in favor of the No solicitations. There > was a widespread agreement that it was wrong. And the solicitation > was retracted and an apology issued. Roger, you were one of the foremost excuse-makers, to put it politely.... > > >> > >> The solicitations did not inform people of the correct voting criteria, so it > >> can be assumed some of the people who voted did not have complete and accurate > >> information on how they should vote and what those votes meant. > > > >Several individuals posted lengthy and short pieces on > >proper procedures for voting.... 691 bahai fanatics ignored > >those guidelines.... There's no reason to believe the > >fanatics won't do so again this fall.... > > This statement about "691 Baha'i fanatics" is incorrect. While > there were several Baha'is who voted No, there were many non-Baha'is > who voted No as well. "Several" only? Huh! > > There were a few Baha'is who voted Yes, and there were several who > voted Abstain (myself among them). > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:16:48 1997 Received: (qmail 6048 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:16:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:16:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9887.56C0@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:18:15 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B4F8F8.1DA1@hotmail.com> <33b892d1.49504084@news.wwnet.com> <33B8D12F.69AF@hotmail.com> <33ba31e7.34647710@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1546 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 05:43:11 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > >Roger Reini wrote: > >> >Bahais immediately began lying and deceiving to cover up, > >> >justify, and make excuses for the solicitation of NO votes.... > >> > >> I can recall nobody who spoke in favor of the No solicitations. There > >> was a widespread agreement that it was wrong. And the solicitation > >> was retracted and an apology issued. > > > >Roger, you were one of the foremost excuse-makers, to put it > >politely.... > > Not so! I did speak out in opposition to t.r.b. But I never > solicited votes, and I never supported any solicitations or alleged > solicitations. You made endless attacks and excuses... It's all the same.... You went so low as to accuse me of being a covenant breaker TWICE.... The tactic of fanatical lying Iranian Bahai scum everytime someone fails to regurgitate their benighted, backward opinions.... > > >> This statement about "691 Baha'i fanatics" is incorrect. While > >> there were several Baha'is who voted No, there were many non-Baha'is > >> who voted No as well. > > > >"Several" only? Huh! > > A large, indefinite number. The only way to know for sure is to > solicit that information from every voter, and I have no plans to do > that. Unmitigated subterfuge and excuses.... A very definite number: 691.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:05 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 03:43:55 1997 Received: (qmail 5265 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 10:43:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 10:43:53 -0000 Message-ID: <33C21A3E.33FA@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 06:45:18 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai (was Re: More Bahai Censorship) References: <867098427.5125@dejanews.com> <5os0l9$516@drn.zippo.com> <33B4F8F8.1DA1@hotmail.com> <33b892d1.49504084@news.wwnet.com> <33B8D12F.69AF@hotmail.com> <33ba31e7.34647710@news.wwnet.com> <33BB9887.56C0@hotmail.com> <33BBF824.2F6E@wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 896 Roger Reini wrote: > > Followups set -- > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Roger Reini wrote: > > > Not so! I did speak out in opposition to t.r.b. But I never > > > solicited votes, and I never supported any solicitations or alleged > > > solicitations. > > > > You made endless attacks and excuses... It's all the same.... You > > went so low as to accuse me of being a covenant breaker TWICE.... > > I did not, and you know it. At least you know my previous responses to > this, which I will not repeat here. If you decide not to accept them, > so be it. Anyone interested in reading the evidence for himself can search www.dejanews.com for "Response to a fanatic" under talk.religion.bahai > > Let us put this argument aside. This does not become us as good > Baha'is. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:28 1997 >From nf6y@faraday.clas.virginia.edu Mon Jul 14 04:20:45 1997 Received: from faraday.clas.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa26364; 14 Jul 97 7:19 EDT Received: (from nf6y@localhost) by faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.6) id CAA138000 for FG@hotmail.com; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:18:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:18:35 -0400 From: Nafeh Fananapazir Message-Id: <199707140618.CAA138000@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "redundant" arguments... Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel Organization: uva X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 668 Dear Frederick Glaysher, Hello! I am a reader of soc.culture.iranian soc.culture.iranian is pretty much an unmoderated newsgroup. Even though the Baha'i Faith is a subject related to Iran, this is regrettably not the forum for any and all postings related to the Baha'i Faith in my humble opinion. The Baha'i Faith is being attacked mercilessly, and the Baha'is are beginning to be accused of having 'secret agendas' and wishing to spread 'propaganda' As you know, this is inaccurate. Perhaps you could forward only those messages to soc.culture.iranian which are specifically related to Iranian culture. Respectfully and gratefully, Nafeh From - Tue Jun 17 07:52:39 1997 >From burlb@bmi.net Tue Jun 17 01:49:26 1997 Received: from burlbare(really [204.57.191.182]) by ns.bmi.net via sendmail with smtp id for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT) (Smail-3.2.0.92 1997-Feb-9 #10 built 1997-Mar-13) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970616104227.006cb228@mail.bmi.net> X-Sender: burlb@mail.bmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 10:42:27 -0700 To: "Frederick Glaysher" From: Burl Barer Subject: Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <199706161127.EAA29473@f28.hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1558 Try www.reference.com which allows >reading and posting to alt.religion.bahai right now.... > >There are many news reader servers, some allow posting, >some only reading capablities. I was reading from ftp.louisa -- I'll try www.reference.com THanks Burl >-- > >>From burlb@bmi.net Mon Jun 16 00:30:53 1997 >>Received: from BURLBARE(really [204.57.191.186]) by ns.bmi.net >>via sendmail with smtp >>id >>for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:33:24 -0700 (PDT) >>(Smail-3.2.0.92 1997-Feb-9 #10 built 1997-Mar-13) >>Message-Id: >>Date: Mon, 16 Jun 97 00:32:17 -0700 >>From: Burl Barer >>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (Windows; I; 16bit) >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>To: FG@hotmail.com >>Subject: (no subject) >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >>Hi again.. I just tried to post and I got a message that said "posting >not >>allowed" What's that about? >> >>BB >> >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com >--------------------------------------------------------- > > ****************************************************************** THE SAINT by Burl Barer is on sale NOW wherever paperbacks are sold. Burl's homepage is https://www.bmi.net/burlb for the latest Baha'i News click this: https://www.pagecreator.com/~newsroom ******************************************************************** From - Tue Jul 08 08:46:51 1997 >From nokhodchi@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 15:03:32 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by f68.hotmail.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA05082; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 15:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199707032201.PAA05082@f68.hotmail.com> Received: from 128.100.46.63 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:01:40 PDT X-Originating-IP: [128.100.46.63] From: "Afshin Afrashteh" To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Anti Bahai site to include Bahai responses? How about it?] Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 15:01:40 PDT X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3190 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:45:34 1997 >Received: (qmail 2956 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:45:32 -0000 >Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) > by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:45:32 -0000 >Message-ID: <33BB9F45.4F2@hotmail.com> >Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:47:01 -0400 >From: FG >Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian >CC: nokhodchi@hotmail.com, FG@hotmail.com >Subject: Re: [Fwd: Anti Bahai site to include Bahai responses? How about it?] >References: <33BAA979.3DD6181A@interport.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >faryar wrote: >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Subject: Anti Bahai site to include Bahai responses? How about it? >> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 15:14:59 -0400 >> From: faryar >> Organization: Interport Communications Corp. >> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian >> >> The Anti-Bahai website has dedicated a section for Bahais to respond... >> The author should post genuine responses to the questions posed.. >> regarding the following...up to now he has not. >> 1. The Bahai view of "seal of prophets", the major stumbling block in Bahai-Islam dialogue. and the >> logical explanation of the concept. >> 1 (a) Personal Accounts by islamic scholars who had chosen to believe in Baha'u'llah...giving >> (b) a comprehensive and logical explanation of what Islam thinks to be the true meaning of "the >> seal of Prophets" and what this particular Islamic scholar found convincing about the Bahai angle. >> >> 2. Explanation of Bahai history and the quality of the historians, their scholarship etc...and their >> >> sources.. >> 3. The concept and uniqueness of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah the attempt to divide >> Bahai the faith different factions by persons of ambition, refered to by Bahais as "Covenant >> Breakers". >> >> If the authors are truly sincere about an intelligent and fair dialogue between the two >> positions...I for one would arrange for the appropriate people to contribute. >> >> If they are not..then the whole idea is farce and only designed to further harrass Bahais and those >> interested in it. >> How about it? > >Afshin, I second that, in the interests of fair interreligious >conversation and understanding.... Are you willing to let people >decide for themselves? > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > In my site I said some "comments" by bahais not 1 Mb articles. If you have concise articles to contribute then sure. I have ignored this faryar guy because he just tends to copy and pastes 20 page articles. Also I ask you, will the soc.religion.bahai newsgroup post my replies, or that www.bahai.org site? I don't think so. Afshin Afrashteh aka the nokhodchi _______________________________________________________ Get Private Web-Based Email Free https://www.hotmail.com From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:46:36 1997 Received: (qmail 2956 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:45:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:45:32 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9F45.4F2@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:47:01 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian CC: nokhodchi@hotmail.com, FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Anti Bahai site to include Bahai responses? How about it?] References: <33BAA979.3DD6181A@interport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1823 faryar wrote: > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Anti Bahai site to include Bahai responses? How about it? > Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 15:14:59 -0400 > From: faryar > Organization: Interport Communications Corp. > Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian > > The Anti-Bahai website has dedicated a section for Bahais to respond... > The author should post genuine responses to the questions posed.. > regarding the following...up to now he has not. > 1. The Bahai view of "seal of prophets", the major stumbling block in Bahai-Islam dialogue. and the > logical explanation of the concept. > 1 (a) Personal Accounts by islamic scholars who had chosen to believe in Baha'u'llah...giving > (b) a comprehensive and logical explanation of what Islam thinks to be the true meaning of "the > seal of Prophets" and what this particular Islamic scholar found convincing about the Bahai angle. > > 2. Explanation of Bahai history and the quality of the historians, their scholarship etc...and their > > sources.. > 3. The concept and uniqueness of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah the attempt to divide > Bahai the faith different factions by persons of ambition, refered to by Bahais as "Covenant > Breakers". > > If the authors are truly sincere about an intelligent and fair dialogue between the two > positions...I for one would arrange for the appropriate people to contribute. > > If they are not..then the whole idea is farce and only designed to further harrass Bahais and those > interested in it. > How about it? Afshin, I second that, in the interests of fair interreligious conversation and understanding.... Are you willing to let people decide for themselves? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:13 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 04:25:59 1997 Received: (qmail 5496 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 11:25:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 11:25:57 -0000 Message-ID: <33C22420.2EF5@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 07:27:28 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iran,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Purpose of SCI?] References: <33BBF101.274802D@interport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2332 faryar wrote: > [clip on use of soc.religion.iranian by Bahais] > 1. This is the first opportunity Bahais have had to openly present their own beliefs > without any intereference, to to their fellow Iranians as opposed to hearing it from >others.(mullas, etc) Yet Bahais deprive American Bahais and others precisely the opportunity to "openly present their own beliefs" regularly on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere in their community life.... Have you no sense of IRONY? > 2. Because of a genuine belief in the power of Bahai teachings in personal > transformation. Iran can not become a Golden society when its made up of copper >people. > We need new thinking, our society need to break from the paralysing and corrupt >influence of its traditional leaders... Our people need to be able to see and think for >themselves, and not repeat what has been fed to them in terms of ritual and dogma. Bahais deprive American and other Bahais the right "to see and think for themselves" and demand they "repeat" what has "been fed to them in terms of ritual and dogma." [clip] > Iran is not its leaders, or its government...it is its people.. > we need more education, so that people could decide for themselves and not be >subjected by the local mulla etc we need more tolerance, so that there is freedom of >expression. Freedom of expression is precisely what 691 fanatical Bahais denied 157 Bahais and other people who wanted talk.religion.bahai, what would have been an open, free forum on a major Internet hierarchy, uncontrolled by the mullahs of the Bahai Faith.... [clip] > >I hope Mr Rafat will see one Bahai's view that, as Iranian Bahais we can not be > separated in any way from our culture and Iran. It is with much love and hope that we >look forward to a time when all Iranians see the reason why Bahais care so much about >voicing their beliefs; a time when it is no longer so violently opposed; to a time when people of Iran can independantly investigate it; to a time when it will spread like wild fire in people's hearts. While depriving others the right to "voice their beliefs"; the victims become the violent; when "independent investigation" means mindless obedience and submission....???? > > Faryar -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Aug 25 17:44:12 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 07:51:13 1997 Received: (qmail 15478 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 14:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 14:51:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33FDA7C6.78B0@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:52:54 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hkt@wwa.com CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [Fwd: Re: talk.religion.bahai] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------10665BBA485D" X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 12305 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------10665BBA485D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 2nd try. My server can't find a wwa.com for some reason. -- 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. --------------10665BBA485D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 07:45:28 1997 Received: (qmail 15424 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 14:45:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 14:45:25 -0000 Message-ID: <33FDA66F.3B6F@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:47:11 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrietta Thomas CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Henrietta Thomas wrote: > > At 10:03 AM 8/21/97 -0400, you wrote: > > >Henrietta Thomas wrote: > > [snip]... saving bandwidth > > >> You have said talk.religion.bahai will come up again next month. I > >> assume that means you have an RFD ready to go. If so, would you > >> please email it to me? I may be able to give some help in how to > >> word so as not to create any more enemies for you. > > > >I've included the original RFD at the end of this message. > >I believe there was nothing wrong with the original one > >and plan to use it again with perhaps only a few minor > >changes. If you can suggest any, I'd be grateful. > > The rationale and voting explanation look OK, but I _do_ have some > comments to make on the charter and distribution. See below. > > >It's not my intention to create any more enemies. There > >are, however, some out there who aren't about to change > >no matter what, I fear.... > > So you have to accept that that's the way it is. There is nothing you > can do to change them -- it's best to pretend they don't exist. Hard to do, but you're probably right. > > >> I have no interest in the group, but I think you were your own worst > >> enemy last time, and I agree with Guy Macon that you ought to give > >> yourself a better chance this time. > > > >Well, I respect your opinion, though I hope you'll permit > >me to say I don't believe that it's entirely accurate. > >Others have said I was my own worst enemy too. I understand > >what they mean I believe. However, most of those individuals > >are not Bahais and do not truly or even remotely understand > >the pervasiveness of control and censorship within Bahai > >circles, including soc.religion.bahai.... Concomitantly, > >the need to shake it up.... > > The best you can do is give some dissenters their own group to talk > in. I doubt that the moderated group will ever change. I agree again.... > > You are correct, of course, that most of us have little understanding > of the Bahai faith. But that is not necessary for those who wish to > vote on your proposal. The purpose of the vote is to see how many > people would be interested in reading and posting to the group, not > how many want to "shake up" the Bahai leadership. The problem is 157, more than the required 100+, were interested in forming a newsgroup last time, in late March of this year.... > > >I am open to any suggestions though.... And again appreciate > >your offer to look at the RFD. Thanks. > > [snip]..... > > OK, here are my comments on the charter: > > >CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > > >All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, > >teachings, theology -- and so on would be appropriate areas for > >discussion. > > This would read a little better: > > All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, > teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for > discussion. I've clipped the original version and will use yours. > > >Crossposting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith > >is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large > >ASCII graphics, special-format files, pornography, and any postings of > >a purely commercial nature. > > I would change the word "crossposting" to "The posting of ..." Good suggestion. > > >Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars and excessive > >crossposts. Articles may be crossposted to soc.religion.bahai -- > >subject, of course, to the approval of the moderator of that group. > > I would _not_ encourage crossposting to a moderated group. This gives > the moderators total control over whether an article is posted or not. > They don't even have to return articles if they don't want to -- they > just drop them on the floor and forget they were ever in the queue. > > So let me suggest something like this: > > Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars in this newsgroup, > but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate > tones. Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers > are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. I'll substitute this passage too almost verbatim. > > >Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > >soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. > > I have mixed emotions about this, so I am leaving it in. > > >DISTRIBUTION: > > > >This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > > > > news.announce.newgroups news.groups soc.religion.bahai, > > soc.culture.iranian soc.culture.israel soc.religion.christian, > > alt.religion.islam, soc.rights.human, talk.religion.misc, > > alt.religion.bahai, news.admin.censorship, talk.religion.misc > > 1. I notice you have listed talk.religion.misc twice. One of these should > be deleted. Done. > > 2. I do not think soc.rights.human or news.admin.censorship belong here. > These have nothing to do with the Bahai faith, and your reference to them > might only arouse the opposition to act. I think there has to be at least one news.* group and news.admin.censorship makes the most sense. There's so much crossposting between it and the other news.* ones that many messages will be spread by others. Censorship has been the real crux all along and others have suggested posting to the news.* groups so I do believe it's best to keep it for historical reasons and to keep the pressure on certain forces.... > > 3. I also do not know why Iran and Israel are singled out here. Are > these the countries with the most Bahai's in the world? Iran has one of the largest concentrations of Bahais with reportedly about 100,000. The Bahai Faith originated there in 1844. Haifa, Israel is the location of the Bahai World Center, with historical attachments going back there to the 1860's. > > 4. I also wonder why soc.religion.christian and alt.religion.islam > are singled out to get the full RFD, whereas other "religion" groups > will only get a pointer. Good point. I've decided to remove both of them. They wouldn't permit the posting anyway last time though most religious newsgroups did accept a pointer. > > If the above are all taken out, your list would read as follows: > > soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc > > I am not necessarily recommending this. I just want you to be sure > to get your RFD to the most relevant groups. > > I hope this is of value to you. Let me know what you think. I appreciate your help and advice a lot. I've included another copy with the changes. If anything occurs to you later, don't hesitate to mention it. > > Henrietta K. Thomas > hkt@wwa.com Thanks again. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ================================================================= NEW DRAFT: Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship,soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iran ian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,alt.religion.bahai REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, special-format files, pornography, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. 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 may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai discussion list Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher --------------10665BBA485D-- From - Wed Aug 13 08:42:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 05:39:13 1997 Received: (qmail 7813 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 12:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 12:39:11 -0000 Message-ID: <33F1AB56.44E1@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:40:54 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 106432.425@compuserve.com CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [Fwd: SRB Censored: 8-13-97] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------7CE38B418C2" X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 6594 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7CE38B418C2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've attached my censored response to your message on soc.religion.bahai. I've also posted it to alt.religion.bahai if you have access to the alt.* hierarchy. I'm afraid this is the way it really is.... -- 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. --------------7CE38B418C2 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 05:18:29 1997 Received: (qmail 7688 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 12:18:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 12:18:27 -0000 Message-ID: <33F1A676.775B@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:20:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-13-97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another excellent example of censorship on soc.religion.bahai. All three of the reasons given below are bogus, in my opinion. This message does address the crucial existence of censorship in the Bahai Faith; it adds to and states ideas not found in the other three messages (by my count); AND please someone point out to me WHERE in my message there is "abusive language." ------------- Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:14:21 -0600 From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher , FG@hotmail.com, CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Frederick. This one is coming back to you. It's your fifth message tonight on the same subject saying the same thing. I let you accuse Dick and myself of being liers, censors, I let you accuse us of being unwilling to listen to suggestion and being hopelessly inconsistant. But just for the record, I am returning this one on the following grounds: 1) Does not address the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith 2) Repetative, does not move the discussion forward, fifth message tonight by the poster on the same subject. 3) abusive language Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > To: srb@bcca.org > From: FG > Subject: Re: censorship - moderators > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:35:10 -0400 > Organization: None > Reply-to: FG@hotmail.com > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > dmcadam wrote: > > > > [Note: Followups should address the Baha'i Faith. -- Mods] > > > > In answer to your last message : > > > > Dear friend- > > > > I can only speak from an individual point of view as a long time > > Baha'i and my experience is that most folks today simply cannot > > handle a wide open, no holds barred, let it all hang out type of > > discussion. These open forums tend to be hostile and > > attack/defend type things where one has great trouble achieving > > unity and discovering truth. > > "Achieving unity and discovering truth": Usually means > thinking the same as the moderators who know how others > should regard any given subject.... > > > > > In time I feel we will be developed enough to be self regulating. > > Self-censoring is how I read that.... > > > Personally the moderators are not trying to censor anyone, just > > keep things in perspective by applying principles of full, frank > > and honest opinions, tempered with courtesy, tact and wisdom. I > > really appreciate the wonderful job they do. I too have had > > submissions refused but they always kindly and lovingly give their > > reason and most of the times I feel it is valid. Course they and > > I both know that none of us is perfect. > > You too have been censored by them? "Most of the times" (note the > plural) you think it's "valid"? "Not trying to censor anyone"? It > appears to me there is much confused thinking here.... > > > > > We Baha'is know how suppressing it can be for a soul to want to > > find the truth and not be able to because of negative emotions > > clouding issues so we want to create a safe and secure, loving > > atmosphere where freedom of speech can be enjoyed in such a way > > that it will not distress anyone. > > A very frightening rationale, which horrible historical > precedents.... > > > > > My children are not allowed to use foul language, attack one > > another, use put downs, categorize things by labelling people or > > showing racist or other forms of divisiveness that impede soul > > relations. I feel to a great extent we are all kind of like > > spiritual children and do need some detached moderation. > > > > We have all sorts of wonderful teachings about speech and how we > > must conduct ourselves in term of fulfilling our overall goal of > > love and unity in the world and they all fit scientific findings. > > However not everyone has read these or tried them on for size and > > we lapse back into speech patterns that do not reflect our reality > > and cause disunity. > > "Scientific findings"? Ahhhmmmm.... Can you quote those for > us? > > > > > In addition we join this list knowing that it is moderated and we > > mostly all agree that it should be. So our part of the agreement > > is to follow these list guidelines and cooperate to make the world > > a better place. > > Or off with your head.... > > > > > I believe it might be a good idea for the Moderators to post the > > List guidelines. If you don't agree with them then say why and I > > am sure they will listen. > > I am not so sure. > > > > > with all due respect, > > doug > > [clip] > > -- > 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. -- 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. --------------7CE38B418C2-- From - Thu Aug 14 11:30:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 07:57:19 1997 Received: (qmail 20142 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 14:57:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 14:57:16 -0000 Message-ID: <33F31D2E.73DF@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:58:54 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: srb-mods@bcca.org CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [Fwd: SRB Censored: 8-14-97] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------1ADDA62632B" X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 7778 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1ADDA62632B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- 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. --------------1ADDA62632B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 07:53:04 1997 Received: (qmail 20101 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 14:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 14:53:02 -0000 Message-ID: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:54:31 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admi n.misc,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com, SRB-MODS@BCCA.ORG Subject: SRB Censored: 8-14-97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CENSORED BY SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI: --------- Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:19:46 -0600 From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Frederick, I am sure you expected that I would bounce this one to. It appears that you especially constructed it just so that I would have to. So here you are. An official rejection note. Have fun with it. I DIDN'T EXPECT ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I DON'T CONSIDER IT "FUN" TO HAVE TO POST CENSORED MESSAGES TO ALT.RELIGION.BAHAI AND ELSEWHERE. IN FACT, I FEEL IT'S A DISGRACE TO THE BAHAI FAITH THAT I HAVE TO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE THE BAHAI WRITINGS INDISPUTABLY STATED I HAVE A RIGHT TO.... It's kind of pointless to argue with you about your baseless conspiracy theories about the NSA somehow majically controlling the SRB mods, and the suspicious nature of the poor distribution of ARB, so I won't bother. SINCE YOU WRAP YOURSELVES IN THE ROBES OF ORTHODOXY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE YOU CAN CONTINUOUSLY DO THAT WITHOUT SOME ENCOURAGEMENT FROM SOMEWHERE.... THERE ARE MESSAGES EXTANT ON WWW.DEJANEWS.COM WHEREIN YOU AND OTHERS STATE YOU HAVE MET WITH A SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY IN THE PAST FOR GUIDANCE AND ADVICE. YOU KNOW QUITE WELL MOST BAHAIS TAKE SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI AS GOD'S HOLY WORD WRIT LARGE.... AGAIN, YOU SEEM TO WANT TO CHARACTERIZE ME AS AN ABERRANT INDIVIDUAL. THAT'S AN OLD TIRESOME PLOY, ALL THE MORE SO NOW WHEN SO MANY HAVE FOUND THE COURAGE TO STATE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CENSORIOUS PRACTICES OF SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI. Rick Boatright > Isaac freeman wrote: > > > > [Moderators Note: While the moderators allowed the original post, > > and will allow reasonable replys, please note that the subject of the > > newsgroup as stated in the monthly introduction posting is "the > > beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Followups to this > > article should address the beliefs and teachings of the faith, or be > > directed to talk.religon.misc, alt.religion.bahai or news.groups. > > How about the beliefs and teachings of the Bahai Faith ON > censorship? I think that's a valid topic for discussion, > not suppression as the above note intimates in my > opinion. Using the charter as a means of silencing is not > a legitimate use of it. "Reasonable replys [sic]" is a > very suspicious construction in this context.... > > > > > -- The Moderators] > > > > On 10 Aug 1997 00:29:34 shahin nikjoo wrote about "Re: censorship - > > moderator": > > > > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > > usenet. > > > > It's a subject worth discussing. Note that the moderators of > > soc.religion.bahai haven't vetoed this post. > > They just vetoed a posting of mine in response to shahin nikjoo! > I'll post on alt.religion.bahai titled "SRB Censored: 7-13-97" > and cc shahin nikjoo in case he/she doesn't have access (for > reasons we all know) to alt.religion.bahai. > > > > > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as a > > > 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > > > Perhaps you could rewrite, and resubmit it. > > Was it a joke that might have caused offense (even if you didn't mean > > it to)? That might explain it. The moderators are also expected to > > veto posts that don't discuss the Baha'i Faith. > > It seems to me this "principle" is highly abused.... > > > > > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > > > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > > > hostile to the group as a result. > > > > I've read their posts. > > How if they were suppressed? > > > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > > > There's no official status to soc.religion.bahai - it has no > > connection with the Baha'i administration. > > It operates as though it does, many believe it does, > and one cannot help wondering whether there might > not be a connection of some sort.... It seems to > me that the long-term and consistent censorship > imposed by the moderators sullies the reputation of > the Bahai Faith and the institutions.... WHY is that > being tolerated, if not supported? > > > > > > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > > > There is now. A Baha'i who became frustrated at not getting his > > messages posted has started the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup, to be > > used for general unmoderated discussion about the Baha'i Faith. So > > far, it doesn't propagate very far, but we can expect to see it > > carried by more and more servers over time. > > > > Another option is talk.religion.misc. > > > > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > > > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > > > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > > > Laws etc.? > > > > Personally, I think there's a difference between the tone of a message > > and its content. If the content of messages was being vetoed by the > > moderators, that would constitute censorship. Some people claim this > > is happening, but I have yet to see any evidence I found convincing. > > Many posts make it onto soc.religion.bahai that strongly challenge the > > Baha'i Faith - they're welcomed. > > For vetoed CONTENT see my censored message mentioned above > on alt.religion.bahai. Permit me to add you might find my > censored message on the United Nations, currently reposted > to alt.religion.bahai of interest in this regard. And MANY > do not.... > > > > > On the other hand, I don't think it's censorship if people are > > required to write their messages in a polite tone, and not to give > > undue offense. That's what the moderators are expected to do, and I > > find it makes soc.religion.bahai very good reading. > > > > Isaac Freeman > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --------------1ADDA62632B-- From - Sun Sep 07 07:41:53 1997 >From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Sat Sep 6 04:01:31 1997 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id HAA08364 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id HAA03568; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 07:01:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709061101.HAA03568@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu: 1/ Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts] Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 22915 ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu ("Eric D. Pierce") To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: 1/ Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:11:35 PST8PDT In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 5 Sep 97 at 12:14, bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks wrote: > From: Self > To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Service of Women paper, 4 parts > Send reply to: pierceed@csus.edu > Date sent: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:14:10 PST8PDT > ----------------------------------------------- > see 4 attachments for "Service of Women" paper. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Attachments: > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2B > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2D > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2C > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2A Folks, I am posting this per Michael McKinney's request. I have broken it up into 4 parts. Please note that at least one of the authors has expressed some change of view in the 10 years since the paper was written, and another, Juan Cole, has more recently distributed another paper refining the points in the original. EP ---------------------------------------------------------------------- part 1 of 4 ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan@umich.edu, bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Service of Women Paper Date: Thu, 04 Sep Greetings, from Ottawa. I have received a request for the SERVICE OF WOMEN paper. Here it is: [originally written 1988?] The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith Anthony A. Lee, Peggy Caton, Richard Hollinger, Marjan Nirou, Nader Saiedi, Shahin Carrigan, Jackson Armstong-Ingram, and Juan R. I. Cole. >From 1844, the year of the founding of the Babi religion, to the present day, women have played important roles in Baha'i history. Babi and Baha'i women have often acted as leaders in the community, holding its highest positions and participating in its most important decisions. In the first days of His Revelation, the Bab Himself appointed Qurratu'l-'Ayn, Tahirih, as one of His chief disciples - one of the nineteen Letters of the Living who were the first to believe in Him and were entrusted by Him with the mission of spreading His Faith and shepherding its believers. This remarkable woman would soon become one of the most radical and influential of the Bab's disciples and the leader of the Babis of Karbala. Her vision and achievement have become legend. [1] In later periods of Baha'i history, women have acted in central roles of leadership within the community. Bahiyyih Khanum, the Greatest Holy Leaf, the sister of 'Abdu'l-Baha, several times in her lifetime was called upon to act as the de facto head of the Baha'i Faith. When 'Abdu'l-Baha left the Holy Land to travel to the West, for example, He chose to leave the affairs of the Cause in the hands of His sister. Likewise, immediately after the ascension of 'Abdu'l-Baha - before Shoghi Effendi, the new Guardian, could arrive in Palestine to assume control of the Faith, the Greatest Holy Leaf assumed leadership. The Baha'is in the Holy Land instinctively turned to her as their guide and protector. And again, during the Guardian's absences from his duties during the early years of his ministry, he repeatedly entrusted the affairs of the Cause to the Greatest Holy Leaf. [2] After the passing of Shoghi Effendi, women were once more called upon to serve the Baha'i Faith at its highest levels. The international leadership of the religion fell to the Hands of the Cause, the chief stewards of the Faith who had been appointed by the Guardian during his lifetime. The women Hands served along with the men to guide the Baha'i community through the turbulent years preceding the election of the Universal House of Justice. Once again, Baha'i women demonstrated their capacity to administer the affairs of the Faith at its highest levels. THE BAHA'I PRINCIPLE OF GRADUALISM. Nonetheless, the service of women on the elected institutions of the Baha'i Faith has emerged only gradually. Although a few exceptional Baha'i women have always set the example for their sex, the role of women on Baha'i institutions in the community as a whole has not been comparable to that of men. Traditional notions of inequality, as well as the restrictions of a hostile environment, have caused the participation of women to lag behind. Even to the present day, the participation of women on National Spiritual Assemblies, Boards of Counsellors, and Auxiliary Boards is not equal to that of men, as the charts show. A long road has yet to be travelled. Participation of Women in Baha'i Institutions "The equality of men and women is not, at the present time, universally applied. In those areas where traditional inequality still hampers its progress we must take the lead in practicing this Baha'i principle. Baha'i women and girls must be encouraged to take part in the social, spiritual and administrative activities of their communities." The Universal House of Justice, Ridvan 1984. Numbers of women members of National Spiritual Assemblies 1953 1963 1973 1979 1985 Africa 0 4 58 53 103 Americas 18 82 86 106 131 Asia 0 11 35 33 39 Australasia 5 8 26 24 33 Europe 11 44 40 44 48 World 34 149 245 260 354 The following table shows, by continent, the numbers of National Assemblies with their corresponding numbers of women members indicated by the column headings. For example, column 1, line 1, there are 4 Assemblies in Africa with no women members. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Africa 4 9 13 6 6 4 1 0 0 0 Americas 1 4 8 10 12 4 1 1 0 0 Asia 5 14 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 Australasia 2 6 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 Europe 1 4 6 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 World 13 37 34 28 21 11 2 2 0 0 Percentage of Women members of Institutions (Information provided by the Department of Statistics at the Baha'i World Centre, and reprinted from dialogue, volume 1, no. 3 (Summer/Fall 1986), p 31.) The gradual emergence of women on the institutions of the Faith should not come as a surprise, however. Virtually all Baha'i laws and practices have gone through a gradual evolution in Baha'i history. The recognition of the principle of the equality of men and women, and its gradual application in the development of Baha'i Administration is no exception. The principle of progressive revelation, the concept of the gradual emergence of divine purpose, is a universal principle which applies within the dispensation of each Manifestation, as well as between dispensations. Baha'u'llah Himself has explained: Know of a certainty that in every Dispensation the light of Divine Revelation hath been vouchsafed to men in direct proportion to their spiritual capacity. Consider the sun. How feeble its rays the moment it appeareth above the horizon. How gradually its warmth and potency increase as it approacheth its zenith, enabling meanwhile all created things to adapt themselves to the growing intensity of its light. How steadily it declineth until it reacheth its setting point. Were it all of a sudden to manifest the energies latent within it, it would no doubt cause injury to all created things.... In like manner, if the Sun of Truth were suddenly to reveal, at the earliest stages of its manifestation, the full measure of the potencies which the providence of the Almighty hath bestowed upon it, the earth of human understanding would waste away and be consumed; for men's hearts would neither sustain the intensity of its revelation, nor be able to mirror forth the radiance of its light. Dismayed and overpowered, they would cease to exist. [3] The Universal House of Justice has demonstrated how this principle of progressive revelation has applied, and continues to apply, to the implementation of Baha'i law, particularly to the laws of the Kitab-i Aqdas. The Central Figures of the Faith have promulgated these laws only gradually as the condition of the Baha'i community would allow. [4] Similarly, 'Abdu'l-Baha recognised that women could not take their rightful place in the affairs of the world all at once. Throughout history women have been deprived of education and opportunity. Therefore, it was impossible that they would be able to immediately play an equal role in Baha'i life. But 'Abdu'l-Baha has insisted that all distinctions of sex will be erased once women attain proper education and experience. He says: Woman's lack of progress and proficiency has been due to her need for equal education and opportunity. Had she been allowed this equality, there is no doubt she would be the counterpart of man in ability and capacity. [5] In a talk given in New York, 'Abdu'l-Baha again pinpoints education as the key to women's equality: ...if woman be fully educated and granted her rights, she will attain the capacity for wonderful accomplishments and prove herself the equal of man. She is the coadjutor of man; his complement and helpmeet. Both are human, both are endowed with potentialities of intelligence and embody the virtues of humanity. In all human powers and functions they are partners and co-equals. At present in spheres of human activity woman does not manifest her natal prerogatives owing to lack of education and opportunity.[6] In Paris He said: ...the female sex is treated as though inferior, and is not allowed equal rights and privileges. This condition is not due to nature, but to education. In the Divine Creation there is no such distinction. Neither sex is superior to the other in the sight of God. Why then should one sex assert the inferiority of the other...If women received the same educational advantages as those of men, the result would demonstrate the equality of capacity of both for scholarship. [7] On another occasion he made the same point: The only difference between them [ie: men and women] now is due to lack of education and training. If woman is given equal opportunity of education, distinction and estimate of inferiority will disappear. [8] And again: Therefore, woman must receive the same education as man and all inequality be adjusted. Thus, imbued with the same virtues as man, rising through all the degrees of human attainment, women will become the peers of men, and until this equality is established, true progress and attainment for the human race will not be facilitated. [9] It was clearly 'Abdu'l-Baha's position that lack of education and opportunity had relegated woman to an inferior position in society, and that through education and experience all inequalities of sex would be gradually removed. His own policies and actions concerning the service of women on the institutions of the Faith reflected this belief in gradualism. THE FIRST BAHA'I INSTITUTIONS Any investigation of the history of the development of the Baha'i Administrative Order will reveal that Baha'i women only gradually took their place beside the men in this area of service - and not without struggle. This has been especially true in the East, where women were most heavily restricted. But lack of education and other cultural circumstances have affected the participation of women on Baha'i institutions all over the world. The first Hands of the Cause appointed by Baha'u'llah were, for example, all males. 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed no additional Hands, and it was only during the ministry of Shoghi Effendi that women were appointed to this rank. Even so, it has been only Western Baha'i women who have been found qualified for this distinction. At later times, when the first Auxiliary Boards to the Hands of the Cause were appointed, and then the first contingents of Boards of Counsellors, women were included. But circumstances dictated that it be mostly Western women who were appointed, and that their numbers were far fewer than those of men. As the above chart shows, that situation remains the same today. This is not due to any policy of discrimination on the part of the institutions of the Faith, but simply due to historical circumstances. As the position of women improves - especially in Asia and Africa - with respect to education and experience, we can expect that the current situation will change in favour of more participation of women. The House of Justice of Tehran The struggle for the equal participation of women in Baha'i Administration has been played out most dramatically, however, in the arena of the development of local institutions. The first of these bodies was formed in Tehran, Iran, at the initiative of individual believers. In 1873, Baha'u'llah revealed the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book, His book of laws. Here He established the institution of the House of Justice (bayt al-'adl). The Kitab-i-Aqdas states: The Lord hath ordained that in every city a House of Justice (bayt al-'adl) be established wherein shall gather counsellors to the number of Baha [i.e., nine], and should it exceed this number it does not matter ... It behoveth them to be the trusted ones of the Merciful among men and to regard themselves as the guardians appointed of God for all that dwell on earth. It is incumbent on them to take counsel together and to have regard for the interests of the servants of God, for His sake, even as they regard their own interests, and to choose that which is meet and seemly.[10] In the same book it is written: O ye Men of Justice! (rijal al-'adl) Be ye in the realm of God shepherds unto His sheep and guard them from the ravening wolves that have appeared in disguise, even as ye would guard your own sons. Thus exhorteth you the Counsellor, the Faithful.[11] There are other references in the Kitab-i-Aqdas to the House of Justice (bayt al-'adl) or the Place of Justice (maqarr al-'adl) which define its function and fix some of its revenues. In most cases, these references are not specific but refer to the general concept of a House of Justice rather than a particular institution. The Universal House of Justice has explained: In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha'u'llah ordains both the Universal House of Justice and the Local Houses of Justice. In many of His laws He refers simply to "the House of Justice" leaving open for later decision which level or levels of the whole institution each law would apply to.[12] Although the Kitab-i-Aqdas was revealed in 'Akka in 1873, it was withheld for some time by Baha'u'llah before it was distributed to the Baha'is of Iran.[13] It appears that it was not until around 1878 that the Baha'is of Tehran received copies of the book and began to implement some of its laws in their personal lives. Upon reading the Kitab-i Aqdas, Mirza Asadu'llah Isfahani, a prominent Baha'i teacher living in Tehran, was particularly struck by the command of Baha'u'llah that a House of Justice should be established by the Baha'is in every city. Mirza Asadu'llah is an important figure in Baha'i history: he eventually married the sister of 'Abdu'l-Baha's wife; he was (as we shall see) one of the earliest Baha'i teachers sent to America by 'Abdu'l-Baha to instruct the new Western believers and he later accompanied 'Abdu'l-Baha on his travels in Europe. In any case, in 1878 he was the first to undertake the organization of a local House of Justice in Iran. He took the initiative to invite eight other prominent believers to form a body, responding to the laws of the Kitab-i Aqdas, which they referred to as bayt al-'adl (House of Justice) or bayt al-a'zam ( the Most Great House). The organization of this first House of Justice was kept a secret, even from the believers. However, it met sporadically in the home of Mirza Asadu'llah for a couple of years. After consulting with this body, the prominent Baha'i men who had been invited to attend its meetings would seek to take action as individual Baha'i teachers that would implement its decisions. Around 1881, the Tehran House of Justice was reorganized and more members were added. The House adopted a written constitution and pursued its activities with more organization and vigour than before. The constitution mandated, however, that the meetings remain strictly confidential, hidden from the body of the believers. This constitution also assumes that the members of the House would all be men (aqayan). Naturally, considering the social conditions in Iran at the time, no other arrangement was possible. Some of the minutes of this early House of Justice survive today. It was a gathering of the older and more prominent Baha'i men of Tehran. Meetings were attended by invitation only, and at times included fourteen members or more. Eventually, this meeting came to be called the Consultative Gathering (majlis-i shur), while the house where the body met was referred to as the House of Justice (bayt al-'adl). These meetings sought to assist and protect the Baha'is through consultation on various problems. The House in Tehran sent Baha'i teachers to other cities in Iran to organize Houses of Justice there. Again, the decisions of the House were always carried out by individuals, and the consultations remained secret. The organization of this body eventually met with some controversy. One important Baha'i teacher, Jamal-i Burujurdi, who later - in the time of 'Abdu'l-Baha - would become a notorious Covenant-breaker, objected strongly to the organization of a House of Justice in Tehran. Because of these objections, the Baha'is involved on the House appealed to Baha'u'llah for guidance. Baha'u'llah replied with a Tablet in which He approved of the House of Justice and strongly upheld the principle of consultation in the Baha'i Faith. [14] continued in part 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric D. Pierce Information Technology Consultant Client-Server Database/PC Network Server Student Services Lassen Hall 1008 California State University, Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA desk phone (916) 278-7586 internet email: PierceED@csus.edu la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net - 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 -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Sun Sep 07 07:41:38 1997 >From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Sat Sep 6 03:55:56 1997 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA07884 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:54:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id GAA02551; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709061054.GAA02551@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu: 2/ Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts] Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 22476 ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu ("Eric D. Pierce") To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: 2/ Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:13:22 PST8PDT In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 5 Sep 97 at 12:14, bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks wrote: > From: Self > To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Service of Women paper, 4 parts > Send reply to: pierceed@csus.edu > Date sent: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:14:10 PST8PDT > ----------------------------------------------- > see 4 attachments for "Service of Women" paper. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Attachments: > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2B > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2D > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2C > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith Anthony A. Lee, Peggy Caton, Richard Hollinger, Marjan Nirou, Nader Saiedi, Shahin Carrigan, Jackson Armstong-Ingram, and Juan R. I. Cole. originally written 1988? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- part 2 of 4 Early Organisation in America When the first rudimentary local Baha'i institutions were organized in the United States, their membership was also confined to men. Later, as various forms of Baha'i organization at the local level became more common, men and women served together. But it was the understanding of the Baha'is at the turn of the century that consultative bodies in the Baha'i community should be composed of men. This understanding became firmly institutionalized in the largest Baha'i communities of New York, Chicago, and Kenosha, Wisconsin, and was sanctioned by 'Abdu'l-Baha. A scholarly history of the beginnings of Baha'i organization in America has yet to be written. Many of the details of these events have yet to be uncovered. However, it appears that the early American Baha'is were moved to form local councils for the first time in 1900, as a consequence of the defection of Ibrahim Kheiralla from the community. Kheiralla, a Lebanese Christian who had been converted to the Baha'i Faith in Egypt by a Persian Baha'i, 'Abdu'l-Karim Tihrani, had brought the Baha'i teachings to America and had acted as the head of the Faith in the West until that point. His repudiation of 'Abdu'l-Baha as the rightful leader of the Faith and chosen successor to his Father caused a temporary rift among the Baha'is. In the fall of 1899, Edward Getsinger, a leading American Baha'i, appointed five men as a "Board of Counsel" for the Baha'is of northern New Jersey.[15] Isabella Brittingham was made the honorary corresponding secretary, but was not a member of the body. Later, in a letter dated March 21, 1900, Thornton Chase wrote from Chicago: "We have formed a 'Board of Council' with 10 members." In this letter, Chase lists the names of nine of these members, all of whom were men. [16] In June of 1900, however, it appears that the Chicago Board was reorganized. 'Abdu'l-Karim Tihrani had travelled to America at the request of 'Abdu'l-Baha and had arrived in Chicago at the end of May. The Baha'is of Chicago immediately asked him to draw up rules and regulations that would govern the affairs of their Board. As a result, the Board of Counsel was expanded to nineteen members, some of whom were women. In a statement to the press the Baha'is indicated that this Board was being organized to replace Ibrahim Kheiralla, whom they repudiated as the leader of the Faith. [18] Although 'Abdu'l-Karim remained in Chicago for only a short time, his nineteen-member Board appears to have functioned for about a year. However, on May 15, 1901, a nine-member, all-male House of Justice was elected in Chicago to replace it. This was done at the direction of Mirza Asadu'llah Isfahani, who had been sent to America by 'Abdu'l-Baha. Writing to the House of Justice in New York that had already been established, the Chicago House wrote: Recently His Honor, Mirza Assad'Ullah, received a Tablet from the Master, Abdul-Baha, in which He has positively declared to be necessary the establishment here of the House of Justice by election by the believers with order and just dealing. According to this blessed Announcement, our believers have elected those whom they deemed best fitted, and thus The House of Justice was established. [19] It was Mirza Asadu'llah who instructed the Baha'is of Chicago that the new House of Justice should be composed only of men. He and his company appear to have regarded the nineteen-member Board as illegitimate, possibly because women served as members. The change to an all-male institution was not accomplished without anguish. Writing years later, Fannie Lesch, who had served on the Board of Counsel, wrote: We had a Council Board of men and women after Dr. Kheiralla left us... Mirza Assad'Ullah ignored us, although they were all invited to meet with us, and he established a House of Justice of men only...[20] Only days after the election of the Chicago House of Justice, a Ladies' Auxilliary Board was organized at the suggestion of Mrs. Ella Nash and Mrs. Corinne True. This Board was later to be known as the Women's Assembly of Teaching. It appears that the Ladies' Auxilliary was able to maintain control of the funds of the Chicago Baha'i community despite the election of the House of Justice.[21] Men of Justice The belief that women were not eligible for service on local Baha'i institutions was based on the language of certain passages of the Kitab-i Aqdas which refer to the House of Justice. Of course, as we have noted above, these passages do not make a distinction between local, national, and international bodies. The institution as a whole is addressed. Baha'u'llah twice uses the Arabic word rijal (gentlemen) to refer to the members of the Houses of Justice. He says: O ye Men (rijal) of Justice! Be ye in the realm of God shepherds unto His sheep... [22] And: We have designated a third of all fines for the Place of Justice (maqarr al-'adl), and exhort its members (rijal) to show forth perfect equity...[23] The word rijal (plural; singular is rajul) is exclusively masculine in Arabic. A dictionary would render an English definition of rajul as: man, gentleman; important man, statesman, nobleman. (A related form of the word, rujula or rujuliyya, would be translated as: masculinity; virility.) Since Baha'u'llah addressed the members of the Houses of Justice using this term, it appears that it was universally assumed that only men were eligible for service on such institutions. The word rijal, meaning men, is used in the Qur'an and is part of an important passage which establishes the relationship between men and women in Islam (Qur'an 4:34): Men (rijal) are superior to women (nisa') on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. However, Baha'u'llah has in His Writings clearly established the principle of the equality of men and women. It is therefore possible that when He used the word rijal He did not intend its normal meaning. Although rijal is the normal Arabic word for men (as opposed to women), there are passages in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that indicate that He may have used the term in a special sense. Such passages suggest that, in a Baha'i context, the word may be understood to include women. Baha'u'llah has stated that women in His Cause are all to be accorded the same station as men - and He has used the very term rijal to make this point. For example, He writes: Today the Baha'i women (lit., the leaves of the Holy Tree) must guide the handmaidens of the earth to the Lofty Horizon with the utmost purity and sanctity. Today the handmaidens of God are regarded as gentlemen (rijal). Blessed are they! Blessed are they! [24] And in another passage: Today whoever among the handmaidens attains the knowledge of the Desire of the World [i.e., Baha'u'llah] is considered a gentleman (rajul) in the Divine Book. [25] And in another place: ...many a man (rajul) hath waited expectant for God's Revelation, and yet when the Light shone forth from the horizon of the world, all but a few turned their faces away from it. Whosoever from amongst the handmaidens hath recognized the Lord of all Names is recorded in the Book as one of those men (rijal) by the Pen of the Most High. [26] Likewise, 'Abdu'l-Baha in one of his Tablets has made the same point: Verily, according to Baha'u'llah, women are judged as gentlemen (rijal). [27] However, such passages were not raised as an issue at the time, either because the believers were not aware of them, or because they did not find them applicable. Certainly, the American Baha'is had no access to these texts and had to rely on the understandings of the Persian teachers who were sent by 'Abdu'l-Baha to guide them. Names and Terminology In any case, it was the goal of Mirza Asadu'llah to establish a House of Justice among the believers in Chicago, as he indicated to the Baha'is that 'Abdu'l-Baha had instructed him to do. He had been at the centre of the organization of the first House of Justice in Tehran, and he assumed a similar role in Chicago. At his direction, the Baha'is in Chicago elected nine men by ballot to a new institution. Those elected were: George Lesch, Charles H. Greenleaf, John A. Guilford, Dr. Rufus H. Bartlett, Thornton Chase, Charles Hessler, Arthur S. Agnew, Byron S. Lane and Henry L. Goodall. [28] At its first meeting, the House of Justice decided to raise the number of its members to twelve. The body appointed three additional Baha'i men to serve. The minutes of the meeting read: Motion made and seconded that Messrs. Ioas, Pursels and Doney be selected as add'n [additional] members of this Board of Council. Said motion approved by Board. Secretary instructed to notify said members. [29] This action was taken, no doubt, in accordance with the statement of Baha'u'llah in the Kitab-i Aqdas that the minimum number of members for a House of Justice is nine, "and should it exceed this number it does not matter." It is instructive to note that, in its first minutes, the secretary of the House of Justice refers to it as a "Board of Council." This illustrates the fluidity of terminology that was used for Baha'i meetings and institutions at the time. Standard terms for the Baha'i institutions did not become fixed and universal until well after the passing of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Today, the elected local and national Baha'i institutions are known as "Spiritual Assemblies," while the term "House of Justice" is reserved exclusively for the supreme, international institution. In the early years of this century, however, though these same terms were in use among the Baha'is, they were not used in the same ways. 'Abdu'l-Baha himself confirmed the legitimacy of the election of the first Chicago House of Justice. A Tablet, probably received in September 1901, is addressed from 'Abdu'l-Baha "To the members of the House of Justice, the servants of the Covenant, the faithful worshippers of the Holy Threshold of the Beauty of El-Abha." Two such Tablets addressed to the House of Justice of Chicago are translated in the compilation Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas. [31] Shoghi Effendi, writing much later in 1929, has discussed the significance of these Tablets. He says: That the Spiritual Assemblies of today will be replaced in time by Houses of Justice, and are to all intents and purposes identical and not separate bodies, is abundantly confirmed by 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself. He has in fact in a Tablet addressed to the members of the first Chicago Spiritual Assembly, the first elected Baha'i body instituted in the United States, referred to them as members of the "House of Justice" for that city, and has thus with His own pen established beyond any doubt the identity of the present Baha'i Spiritual Assemblies with the House of Justice referred to by Baha'u'llah. For reasons which are not difficult to discover, it has been found advisable to bestow upon the elected representatives of Baha'i communities throughout the world the temporary appellation of Spiritual Assemblies, a term which, as the position and aims of the Baha'i Faith are better understood and more fully recognised, will gradually be superseded by the permanent and more appropriate designation of House of Justice. [32] This "temporary appellation" was assumed at the instruction of 'Abdu'l-Baha about a year after the election of the Chicago House of Justice. The minutes of the House of Justice for May 10, 1902, read: Mr/ Greenleaf stated that he was instructed by Mirza Assad Ullah to inform this Body that here after and until otherwise informed it shall be known as the "House of Spirituality," in accordance with a Tablet recently received from our Master. Motion made and seconded that the command of Master changing name of this Body as transmitted by Mirza Assad Ullah be entered upon our records. Approved by House. Motion made and seconded that a copy (translation) of that portion of tablet setting forth the change as above mentioned be procured and placed on file. Approved by House. [33] Extracts from this Tablet were indeed translated for the House of Justice, now the House of Spirituality. The heading to the translation indicates that the Tablet was received in Chicago by Mirza Assadu'llah on May 3, 1902. One extract reads: The House of Justice of Chicago should be called "the House of Spirituality" (or the Spiritual House). In short, no one must hurt the weak ones, there, but must treat them in kindness. Because now is the cycle of kindness and forgiveness to all people. [34] In what is apparently a second Tablet on the subject, 'Abdu'l-Baha explained the reasons for the change. This Tablet was, some time later, translated and published: The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term "House of Justice" that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs. Hereafter, enemies will be many. They would use this subject as a cause for disturbing the mind of the government and confusing the thoughts of the public. The intention was to make known that by the term Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality), that Gathering has not the least connection with material matters, and that its whole aim and consultation is confined to matters connected with spiritual affairs. This was also instructed (performed) in all Persia. [35] At the same time, and in the original Tablet received on May 3, 'Abdu'l-Baha had instructed that the name of the Women's Assembly of Teaching be changed to the "Spiritual Assembly." He instructed that "Spiritual Assemblies" should be organized in every place. However, although the change of name for the House of Justice was effected immediately, the instruction to change the name of the women's institution was ignored. This is probably because the translation of this command into English was so poor as to render it incomprehensible. And so we read the following in the minutes of the House of Spirituality three years later (July 29, 1905): Mr. Windust read portions of the Tablet received from the Master in May, 1902 authorizing change of name of this body from "House of Justice" to "House of Spirituality"; as it also stated in said Tablet that the name of the Women's "Assembly of Teaching" be changed to "Spiritual Assembly." It was decided that this matter be spoken of at some future joint meeting [with the women's group], as it had evidently been overlooked. [37] As we have seen in the Tablets quoted above, in the first year after the election of the Chicago House of Justice, 'Abdu'l-Baha Himself used various terms to refer to that body. (Of course, we have quoted His Tablets in translation - the translations available to the Baha'is at the time.) These Tablets reflect the use of at least three different designations during this period: House of Justice (bayt al-'adl) in the earliest Tablets, House of Spirituality (probably, bayt-i rawhani) in one Tablet, and Spiritual Gathering (mahfil-i rawhani) in another. This last term, mahfil-i rawhani, can also be translated as "Spiritual Assembly." However, it was usually translated as "House of Spirituality" in the publications and translations made at this time, even though this translation was in error. The Chicago body came to be known as the House of Spirituality from 1902, and so the translators rendered 'Abdu'l-Baha's references to it in these words, even if the original Persian did not warrant such a designation. This was because the term "Spiritual Assembly" had no fixed meaning in the early community and could refer to a number of different Baha'i meetings. 'Abdu'l-Baha had asked, for example, that the term be used for the Ladies' Auxiliary. It was also used by the Baha'is of this time to refer to any Baha'i community as a whole, some weekly teaching meetings, any consultative body, or any gathering of believers. Terms used to designate the local administrative body were also fluid in 'Abdu'l-Baha's writings. In addition to the three designations above, the following additional names can be found: mahfil-i shur (Assembly of Consultation), mahfil-i shur rawhani (Spiritual Assembly of Consultation), bayt al-'adl rawhani (Spiritual House of Justice), anjuman (Council), anjuman-i adl (Council of Justice), and marakiz-i 'adl (Centres of Justice). [38] continued in part 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 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 -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Sun Sep 07 07:41:48 1997 >From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Sat Sep 6 03:55:59 1997 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA08009 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id GAA02857; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709061056.GAA02857@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu: 4 (end)/ Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts] Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 20910 ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu ("Eric D. Pierce") To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: 4 (end)/ Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:16:53 PST8PDT In the Baha'i Studies List today: Sorry about not properly identifying part 3 in the email subject heading. EP On 5 Sep 97 at 12:14, bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks wrote: > From: Self > To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Service of Women paper, 4 parts > Send reply to: pierceed@csus.edu > Date sent: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:14:10 PST8PDT > ----------------------------------------------- > see 4 attachments for "Service of Women" paper. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Attachments: > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2B > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2D > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2C > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith Anthony A. Lee, Peggy Caton, Richard Hollinger, Marjan Nirou, Nader Saiedi, Shahin Carrigan, Jackson Armstong-Ingram, and Juan R. I. Cole. originally written 1988? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- part 4 of 4 Baha'i Institutions in the East From the time of the dissolution of the Chicago House of Spirituality and its reelection, service on local Baha'i institutions has always remained open to women in America. 'Abdu'l-Baha had made it perfectly clear that the restrictions placed on women in this regard were intended to be only temporary ones. From that point forward, women were fully integrated into the emerging Baha'i Administration erected in the West. The same was not true in the East, however. In Iran and in the rest of the Muslim world, social conditions made it impossible for the restriction on women's participation on local institutions to be lifted for some time. Local and National Spiritual Assemblies in Iran were limited to male membership during the entire period of the ministry of 'Abdu'l-Baha, and for most of the ministry of Shoghi Effendi. Again, the principle of gradualism was at play. Of course, there were Baha'i women in Iran, as well in the United States, who campaigned for a greater role for women in the Baha'i community. Their concerns were not only with participation on local Houses of Justice, but also with the elimination of other social restrictions, such as the use of the veil in public. In a Tablet to one such woman activist, 'Abdu'l-Baha urged restraint and recommended a gradual approach: The establishment of a women's assemblage (mahfil) for the promotion of knowledge is entirely acceptable, but discussions must be confined to educational matters. It should be done in such a way that differences will, day by day, be entirely wiped out, not that, God forbid, it will end in argumentation between man and women. As in the question of the veil, nothing should be done contrary to wisdom.... Now the world of women should be a spiritual world, not a political one, so that it will be radiant. The women of other nations are all immersed in political matters. Of what benefit is this, and what fruit doth it yield? To the extent that ye can, ye should busy yourself with spiritual matters which will be conducive to the exaltation of the Word of God and of the diffusion of His fragrances. Your demeanour should lead to harmony amongst all and to coalescence and the good-pleasure of all... I am endeavouring, with Baha'u'llah's confirmations and assistance, so to improve the world of the handmaidens [that is, the world of women] that all will be astonished. This progress is intended to be in spirituality, in virtues, in human perfections and in divine knowledge. In America, the cradle of women's liberation, women are still debarred from political institutions because they squabble. (Also, the Blessed Beauty has said, "O ye Men [rijal] of the House of Justice.") Ye need to be calm and composed, so that the work will proceed with wisdom, otherwise there will be such chaos that ye will leave everything and run away. "This newly born babe is traversing in one night the path that needeth a hundred years to tread." In brief, ye should now engage in matters of pure spirituality and not contend with men. 'Abdu'l-Baha will tactfully take appropriate steps. Be assured. In the end thou wilt thyself exclaim, "This was indeed supreme wisdom!" [55] Baha'i women were not admitted to service on the institutions of the Faith in Iran until 1954. But this restriction was understood to be temporary, to be removed as soon as circumstances would permit. As Iranian society allowed a greater role for women in general, and as Baha'i women became more educated and more prepared for administrative service, this restriction was lifted. The Guardian eventually made women's participation on Baha'i institutions in the East one of the goals of the Ten Year World Crusade (1953-1963). His hopes were rewarded by the signal distinction which some Baha'i women have achieved as administrators on local Assemblies and on the National Assembly of Iran. The International House of Justice The only remaining body within the Baha'i Faith whose membership continues to be limited to men is its supreme institution, the Universal House of Justice. First established in 1963, the Universal House of Justice is elected by the members of the National Spiritual Assemblies of the world. Naturally, the electors include many women. But the members of the House of Justice itself, from its inception, have all been male. Shoghi Effendi anticipated that the Universal House of Justice would be established as an all-male body, even though he passed away before he could see this implemented. He did not comment generally on the subject, and he does not seem to have devoted a great deal of time to the issue. But in answer to questions from individual Baha'is, some letters were written on the Guardian's behalf by his secretaries which comment on the composition of the yet-to-be-formed House of Justice. For example, his secretary writes: As regards your question concerning the membership of the Universal House of Justice, there is a Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Baha in which He definitely states that the membership of the Universal House of Justice is confined to men, and that the wisdom of it will be fully revealed and appreciated in the future. In the local, as well as national Houses of Justice, however, women have the full right of membership. It is, however, only to the International House that they cannot be elected. [56] And in another letter: As regards the membership of the International House of Justice, 'Abdu'l-Baha states in a Tablet that it is confined to men, and that the wisdom of it will be revealed as manifest as the sun in the future. [57] Again: Regarding your question, the Master said the wisdom of having no women on the International House of Justice, would become manifest in the future. We have no indication other than this... [58] Again: People must just accept the fact that women are not eligible to the International House of Justice. As the Master says the wisdom of this will be known in the future, we can only accept, believing it is right...[59] The remarkable similarity of these letters to individual believers should be noted. In each case, the Guardian directed his secretary to refer to the Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True which was written in reply to her petition that women be elected to the Chicago House of Justice. This Tablet explains that the reason for the exclusion of women will become manifest in the future. Subsequent events demonstrated that 'Abdu'l-Baha had intended that this exclusion be only temporary - an exclusion that would be followed by the full participation of women on this body. The exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice today is observed by the Baha'i community primarily in obedience to these letters of the Guardian. Most Baha'is assume that this exclusion was intended to be a permanent one. However, since this instruction of the Guardian is tied so closely to the meaning of the one Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha which promises that the wisdom of the exclusion of women will become manifest in the future, and since it is known that the meaning of the Tablet was that women should be excluded only temporarily from the Chicago House, the assumption that women will be permanently excluded from the current Universal House of Justice may be a faulty one. A temporary exclusion may be intended. The answer to this question, as with all other questions in the Baha'i community, will have to be worked out over time. The elements of dialogue, struggle, persistence and anguish which are so evident in the history of the gradual participation of women on local Baha'i administrative bodies will, no doubt, all attend the working out of that answer in the future. These elements are all present today. A Tablet of Assurance 'Abdu'l-Baha repeatedly assured Baha'i women in His writings that the women of the future would achieve full and complete equality with men. In one of these Tablets He refers to the composition of the House of Justice. The Tablet is dated August 28, 1913, and it appears to have been written to a Baha'i woman in the East. In it, 'Abdu'l-Baha repeats His promise: In this Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the women go neck and neck with the men. In no movement will they be left behind. Their rights with men are equal in degree. They will enter all the administrative branches of politics. They will attain in all such a degree as will be considered the very highest station of the world of humanity and will take part in all affairs. Rest ye assured. Do ye not look upon the present conditions; in the not far distant future the world of women will become all-refulgent and all-glorious, FOR HIS HOLINESS BAHA'U'LLAH HATH WILLED IT SO! At the time of the elections the right to vote is the inalienable right of women, and the entrance of women into all human departments is an irrefutable and incontravertible question. No soul can retard or prevent it... As regards the constitution of the House of Justice, Baha'u'llah addresses the men. He says: "O ye men of the House of Justice!" But when its members are to be elected, the right which belongs to women, so far as their voting and their voice is concerned, is indisputable. WHEN THE WOMEN ATTAIN TO THE ULTIMATE DEGREE OF PROGRESS, THEN, ACCORDING TO THE EXIGENCY OF THE TIME AND PLACE AND THEIR GREAT CAPACITY, THEY SHALL OBTAIN EXTRAORDINARY PRIVILEGES. Be ye confident on these accounts. His Holiness Baha'u'llah has greatly strengthened the cause of women, and the rights and privileges of women is one of the greatest principles of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Rest ye assured! [60] (Final emphasis added.) Notes 1. Nabil-i A'zam, The Dawn-Breakers, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1932, pp 80-81, 270-71. 2. See, for example, Ruhiyyih Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl, London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1969, pp 39-42 and 57-58; Baha'i Administration, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1928, pp 25-26. 3. The Universal House of Justice, A Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book of Baha'u'llah, Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1973, p 5. 4. Ibid., pp 3-7. 5. 'Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1922-25 (1982), pp 136-37. 6. Ibid., pp 136-37. 7. 'Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1912, p 161. 8. Promulgation, p 174. 9. Ibid., p 375. 10. Synopsis, p 13. 11. Ibid., p 16. 12. Ibid., p 57. 13. Ibid., pp 5-6. 14. All information in this section concerning the first House of Justice of Tehran is based on Ruhu'llah Mihrabkhani, Mahafil-i shur dar 'ahd-i Jamal-i Aqdas-i Abha, (Assemblies of consultation at the time of Baha'u'llah) in Payam-i Baha'i, nos. 28 and 29, pp 9-11 and pp 8-9 respectively. 15. Minutes of the North Hudson, N.J., Board of Counsel, National Baha'i Archives, Wilmette, Ill. 16. Chase to Blake, 21/3/00, Chase Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 17. Regulations relating to the Chicago Board of Council (Abdel Karim Effendi), Albert Windust Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 18. Kenosha Evening News, 29/6//00, p 1. 19. House of Justice in Chicago to House of Justice in New York, 23/5/01, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 20. Fannie Lesch, "Dr. C. I. Thatcher, Chicago, Illinois", (an obituary), Albert Windust Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 21. Minutes of the House of Justice (Chicago), 26/1/02 and 28/6/01. House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 22. Marzieh Gail and Fadil-i Mazandarani (trans.), typescript translation of the Kitab-i Aqdas. 23. Ibid. 24. Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Mabadiy-i Ruhani, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 104 Badi', p 109. 25. Ibid 26. Women: Extracts from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, comp. by The Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, Thornhill, Ont.: Baha'i Canada Publications, 1986, #7, p 3. 27. Quoted in Ahmad Yazdani, Maqam va Huquq-i Zan dar Diyanat-i Baha'i, vol. 1, Tehran: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 107 Badi'. 28. Minutes of the House of Spirituality, 24/5/01, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 29. Ibid., 20/5/01. 30. Synopsis, p 13. 31. Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Chicago: Baha'i Publishing Society, 1909, vol 1, p 3. 32. Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1938, p 6. 33. Minutes of 10/5/02, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 34. Extract from the Tablet of the Master, 'Abdu'l-Baha, to Mirza AssadUllah, received in Chicago on the 3rd of May, 1902. House of Spirituality Papers. National Baha'i Archives. 35. Tablets of Abdul Baha Abbas, p 6. 36. The translation reads "We named the assemblies of teaching in Chicago the Spiritual Assemblies; you should organize spiritual assemblies in every place"; ( extract from the Tablet from the Master, se note 35 above). 37. Minutes, 29/7/05, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 38. See various published Tablets and public talks of 'Abdu'l-Baha, including: Kitab-i baday 'u'l-athar, Bombay, 1921, vol.1, pp 65, 119, 120, 251; and 39. True to 'Abdu'l-Baha, 25/2/02, Document 11137, International Baha'i Archives, Haifa, Israel. 40. Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Haifa: Baha'i World Centre, 1978, pp 79-80. 41. 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True, 24/7/09, microfilm, National Baha'i Archives. 42. Chase to Remey, 19/1/10, Chase Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 43. Minutes, 31/8/09 and 7/9/09, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 44. Chase to Scheffler, 10/5/10, Chase papers, National Baha'i Archives. 45. Bahai Assembly of Kenosha to House of Spirituality, 4/7/10, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 46. House of Spirituality (Albert R. Windust, LIbrarian) to Board of Consultation, Kenosha, Wis., 23/7/10, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Kenosha Assembly to Albert Windust, 16/5/11, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 53. 'Abdu'l-Baha to the members of the Spiritual Assembly and Mr. Bernard M. Jacobsen, Kenosha, Wis., 4/5/11, House of Spirituality Papers, National Baha'i Archives. 54. Star of the West, vol. 3, no. 10 (August 20, 1912) p 16. See also, 'Abdu'l-Baha's instructions to Howard MacNutt, August 6, 1912, microfilm collection, National Baha'i Archives. 55. Women, #11, pp 6-7. 56. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 28, 1936, Baha'i News, No. 105 (February 1937) p 2. 57. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated December 14, 1940, quoted in Dawn of a New Day (New Delhi: Baha'i Publishing Trust, n.d.) p 86. 58. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated September 17, 1952, Baha'i News, No 267 (May 1953) p 10. 59. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, dated July 15, 1947, quoted in "Extracts on Membership of the Universal House of Justice" (an unpublished compilation of the Universal House of Justice). 60. Quoted in Paris Talks (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1912) pp 182-83. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -end- Eric D. Pierce Information Technology Consultant Client-Server Database/PC Network Server Student Services Lassen Hall 1008 California State University, Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA desk phone (916) 278-7586 internet email: PierceED@csus.edu la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net - 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 -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Sun Sep 07 07:41:43 1997 >From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Sat Sep 6 03:55:05 1997 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id GAA07948 for ; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id GAA02723; Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 06:55:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199709061055.GAA02723@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: [PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu: Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts] Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 22269 ================= Begin forwarded message ================= From: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu ("Eric D. Pierce") To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us Subject: Re: Service of Women paper, 4 parts Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:14:39 PST8PDT In the Baha'i Studies List today: On 5 Sep 97 at 12:14, bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks wrote: > From: Self > To: bahai-st@jcccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us > Subject: Service of Women paper, 4 parts > Send reply to: pierceed@csus.edu > Date sent: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:14:10 PST8PDT > ----------------------------------------------- > see 4 attachments for "Service of Women" paper. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Attachments: > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2B > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2D > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2C > N:\DOCUMENT\PERSONAL\MISC\SRVWMN.2A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith Anthony A. Lee, Peggy Caton, Richard Hollinger, Marjan Nirou, Nader Saiedi, Shahin Carrigan, Jackson Armstong-Ingram, and Juan R. I. Cole. originally written 1988? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- part 3 of 4 The Women's Struggle The election of an all-male House of Justice in Chicago was a development to which some of the women in the Baha'i community were never reconciled. It is Corinne True in particular who stands out in the struggle to overturn the exclusion of women from that body. After the election, she immediately helped to organize the Women's Assembly of Teaching which worked side by side with the House - and not always harmoniously - for over a decade. Beyond this, she appealed directly to 'Abdu'l-Baha, asking that women be elected to the House of Justice. Mrs. True's letter, which has recently come to light, indicates clearly that the change to an all-male body was the cause of some dispute. She writes to 'Abdu'l-Baha: There has existed a difference of opinion in our Assembly [that is, the Chicago community] as to how it should be governed. Every believer desires to carry out the Commands of the Blessed Perfection [Baha'u'llah] but we want to know from our Lord himself [that is, 'Abdu'l-Baha] what these Commands are, as they are written in Arabic and we do not know Arabic. Will Our Lord write me direct from Acca and not have it go through any Interpretor [sic] in America and thus grant me the Authority to say the Master says thus & so, for he has written it to me... Many in our Assembly feel that the Governing Board in Chicago should be a mixed Board of both men & women. Woman in America stands so conspicuously for all that is highest & best in every department and for that reason it is contended the affairs should be in the hands of both sexes. [39] She was, however, disappointed when the Master would not support her point of view. He confirmed the practise of electing only males to the Baha'i governing board of Chicago, admonishing her to be patient. She appears to have received her reply from 'Abdu'l-Baha in June of 1902, but refrained from sharing this Tablet with the Chicago House until the fall of that year. The Tablet is a famous one and reads in part (in modern translation): Know thou, O handmaid, that in the sight of Baha, women are accounted the same as men, and God hath created all humankind in His own image, and after His own likeness. That is, men and women alike are the revealers of His names and attributes, and from the spiritual viewpoint there is no difference between them. Whosoever draweth nearer to God, that one is the most favoured, whether man or woman. How many a handmaid, ardent and devoted, hath, within the sheltering shade of Baha, proved superior to the men, and surpassed the famous of the earth. The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the Lord God's, which will ere long be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon. As to you, O ye other handmaids who are enamoured of the heavenly fragrances, arrange ye holy gatherings, and found ye Spiritual Assemblies, for these are the basis for spreading the sweet savours of God, exalting His Word, uplifting the lamp of His grace, promulgating His religion and promoting His Teachings, and what bounty is there greater than this? [40] Since 'Abdu'l-Baha had confirmed that women should be excluded from the Chicago House of Justice (later, House of Spirituality), this practice continued for some time, in Chicago and elsewhere. We might assume that the belief that women were to be permanently excluded from local Baha'i executive bodies was widespread, at least amongst the men. Women were to be involved in forming women's groups, which 'Abdu'l-Baha had named "Spiritual Assemblies" in one Tablet. That did not end the issue, of course. It appears that American Baha'i women continued to discuss the possibility of membership on governing boards, with Corinne True being prominent among them. In 1909, Mrs. True received a Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Baha in response to her insistent questioning. It reads, in part: According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the Universal House of Justice [bayt al-'adl 'umumi], for, as hath been stated in the text of the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly, and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally in all rights with men. [41] This new Tablet from 'Abdu'l-Baha to Corinne True appears to have opened up a nationwide controversy over the rights of women to serve on Baha'i institutions. The use of the term "Universal House of Justice" in this Tablet caused some confusion. Corinne True and others assumed that 'Abdu'l-Baha intended by this Tablet that women were now to be admitted to membership on local Baha'i bodies, and more particularly to membership on the Chicago House of Spirituality. Thornton Chase related the controversy which erupted in Chicago in a letter written a few months later (January 19, 1910): Several years ago, soon after the forming of the "House of Justice" (name afterward changed by Abdul-Baha to House of Spirituality on account of political reasons - as stated by Him - and because also of certain jealousies) Mrs. True wrote to Abdul-Baha and asked if women should not be members of that House. He replied distinctly, that the House should be composed of men only, and told her that there was a wisdom in this. It was a difficult command for her to accept, and ever since (confidentially) there has been in that quarter and in those influenced by her a feeling of antagonism to the House of Spirituality, which has manifested itself in various forms... ...Mrs True received a Tablet, in which it was stated (in reply to her solicitation) that it was right for women to be members of all "Spiritual Gatherings" except the "Universal House of Justice", and she at once construed this to mean, that women were to be members of the House of Spirituality and the Council Boards, because in some of the Tablets for the House, it had been addressed as the "Spiritual Assembly" or "Spiritual Gathering". But the House of Spirituality could not so interpret the Master's meaning... [42] The difference of opinion was deep and serious. It took place within a wider context of gender tensions within the American Baha'i community at the time. The Chicago House of Spirituality consulted on the new Tablet to Corinne True at its meetings on August 31, 1909, and September 7, 1909. While it seemed clear to them that the Tablet did not admit women to membership on the House of Spirituality, they decided to write to 'Abdu'l-Baha for a clarification of His meaning. [43] It appears that no record of a reply to the House on this point has survived. But, in the event, the practice of excluding women from membership did not change. The men of Chicago assumed that 'Abdu'l-Baha's reference to the "Universal House of Justice" intended the local Chicago institution. This is a reasonable assumption, given the lack of fixed terminology at the time. The word 'umumi, with which 'Abdu'l-Baha qualified His reference to the House of Justice in Arabic, means public, general, or universal. Since it was known that Corinne True had asked about women's service on the Chicago House - which was understood to be a House of Justice, even if designated a House of Spirituality for various reasons - His reply seemed to indicate that only men could serve on the general (or universal) body, while women could serve on all subordinate bodies, such as the Assembly of Teaching, the Philanthropic Association, and so forth. And this is the interpretation of the Tablet that would stand for some years to come. In May of 1910, Thornton Chase wrote to a believer about this question, which was still being debated: As to women being members of the House, there is no question at all. Abdul-Baha's reply to Mrs True years ago, settled that, viz, that the members of the House should be men, and that the time would come when she would see the wisdom of that. This was in direct answer to her question to Him as to this matter. He has never changed that command, and He cannot, because it is the command of Baha'o'llah also, as applied to such bodies of business controllers. But, in a Tablet to me, 'Abdu'l-Baha said "The House of Spirituality must encourage the women as much as possible". There is the whole procedure. "Encourage the women as much as possible". That is what He does: that is what we should do. Not to be members of the H. of S., but to all good works in the Cause, which they can possibly accomplish. It seems to me that the matter of membership in H. of S. should be simply ignored, not talked about, but if it obtrudes itself too strongly, just get out that Tablet to Mrs. True and the one to me (just mentioned) and offer them as the full and sufficient answer. [44] Chase's views are undoubtedly representative of the understandings of the majority of Baha'is at the time. It was the common understanding that the Chicago House of Spirituality was properly composed of men only, and that ultimately all local Baha'i boards should be similarly composed. This was a position which was repeatedly sustained by 'Abdu'l-Baha, but which was never fully accepted by some Baha'i women. In Kenosha, which had had an all-male "Board of Consultation" for some years, the issue of women's service on the Board became a matter of dispute in 1910, as a result of Corinne True's 1909 "Universal House of Justice" Tablet. On July 4, 1910, the Kenosha Board wrote to the House of Spirituality in Chicago asking if they had any Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha which instructed that women should be elected to local institutions. They explained that two of the Baha'i ladies in their community had insisted that such Tablets existed. [45] The reply from the House of Spirituality, dated July 23, 1910, is very instructive. [46] The House was able to find three Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha which had bearing on the subject. One was the 1909 Tablet to Corinne True which had opened the controversy. Two others had been received from 'Abdu'l-Baha in 1910, in reply to more inquiries. In a Tablet to Louise Waite (April 20, 1910), 'Abdu'l-Baha had instructed: The Spiritual Assemblies which are organized for the sake of teaching the Truth, whether assemblies for men, assemblies for women or mixed assemblies, are all accepted and are conducive to the spreading of the Fragrances of God. This is essential. [47] 'Abdu'l-Baha goes on to state that the time had not come for the establishment of the House of Justice, and he exhorts the men and the women to produce harmony and conduct their affairs in unity. [48] In another Tablet directed to the Baha'is of Cincinnati, where the question of women's participation in local organization had also become an issue, 'Abdu'l-Baha wrote something similar: It is impossible to organize the House of Justice in these days; it will be formed after the establishment of the Cause of God. Now the Spiritual Assemblies are organized in most of the cities, you must also organize a Spiritual Assembly in Cincinnati. It is permissible to elect the members of the Spiritual Assembly from among the men and women; nay, rather, it is better, so that perfect union may result. [49] The House of Spirituality concluded from these Tablets that: ...in organizing Spiritual Assemblies of Consultation now, it is deemed advisable by Abdul-Baha to have them composed of both men and women. The wisdom of this will become evident in due time, no doubt. [50] By this time, Baha'is in different parts of the United States had established a variety of boards and committees as a means of local organization. Women had served on the Washington, D.C., "Working Committee" since its formation in 1907. They had been a part of the Boston "Executive Committee" from its beginning in 1908. Women also acted as officers of communities in places where Baha'is had elected no corporate body. But these were regarded, for the most part, as temporary, ad-hoc organizations not official Baha'i institutions, which were thought to be properly all male. 'Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets recognized all of these local bodies as "Spiritual Assemblies" (or Spiritual Gatherings, mahfil-i rawhani) and by 1910, He was urging that these Assemblies consist of both men and women. The House of Spirituality in Chicago was obviously puzzled by this command, though it expressed confidence that the wisdom of mixed Assemblies would "become evident in due time." However, since it knew that the Kenosha Board of Consultation had been established as an all-male body in accordance with earlier instructions from 'Abdu'l-Baha, the House of Spirituality suggested that the Kenosha Baha'is might wish to take a vote to determine whether a majority of believers would be in favour of a change. [51] Rather than do this, however, the Kenosha Board of Consultation submitted the question to 'Abdu'l-Baha. The "supplication" (as they termed it) was signed by all of the men of the Board. It asked if the Board should be dissolved, to be reelected with women as members. The Board members pledged to the Master that if it was His wish they would dissolve, but they stated that their intentions had been pure at the founding of the Board and that it had been established in accordance with a Tablet that had been revealed for the House of Spirituality some years before. [52] 'Abdu'l-Baha, however, would not support the idea of dissolving the all-male Board. His reply, received March 4, 1911, explains: Now Spiritual Assemblies must be organized and that is for teaching the Cause of God. In that city you have a spiritual Assembly of men and you can establish a spiritual Assembly for women. Both Assemblies must be engaged in diffusing the fragrances of God and be occupied with the service of the Kingdom. The above is the best solution for this problem... [53] As in other Tablets, He stated that conditions for the establishment of the House of Justice did not yet exist, and He urged unity between the men and women of the Baha'i community. And so, through 1911, the status quo that had been established by Mirza Assadu'llah in Chicago in 1901, with the election of the first American House of Justice, held firm. All-male institutions continued to function in the most important Baha'i communities. These were supplemented by parallel women's groups. A variety of committees and boards had been established in smaller Baha'i communities that included women as members, but these were regarded by most Baha'is as only informal groups. While 'Abdu'l-Baha was urging that new "Spiritual Assemblies" include both men and women, He would not sanction the reorganization of the longer-established male bodies. Baha'i women in various parts of the country continued to discuss the need for change. The Change Comes It was not until 1912, during the visit of 'Abdu'l-Baha to America, that a decisive change was finally made. While 'Abdu'l-Baha was in New York, He sent word to the Baha'is of Chicago that the House of Spirituality should be reorganized and a new election held. He chose Howard MacNutt, a prominent Baha'i from Brooklyn, to travel to Chicago as His personal representative. MacNutt was instructed to hold a new election for a "Spiritual Meeting" (probably mahfil-i rawhani) of the Baha'is of Chicago. For the first time, women were eligible for election to this body. MacNutt arrived in Chicago on August 8, 1912. At 'Abdu'l-Baha's instructions, a feast was held on August 10, at the home of Mr. and Mrs. George Lesch, where the entire Chicago Baha'i community was invited to be the guests of 'Abdu'l-Baha. MacNutt delivered to the community 'Abdu'l-Baha's message of unity and love. The election was held the following day on August 11. The Baha'i magazine, Star of the West, carried this account of that historic election: On Sunday evening, the 11th, the Chicago Assembly [meaning here, the whole Baha'i community] selected a "Spiritual Meeting" of nine, composed of men and women, whose service - according to the wish of Abdul-Baha - is, first, to promulgate the teachings of the Revelation, and, second, to attend to other matters necessary to the welfare of the assembly. Mr. MacNutt was present and gave an inspiring address. A long struggle had ended. continued in part 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 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 -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Tue Sep 02 08:18:28 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Sep 2 04:50:54 1997 Received: (qmail 27165 invoked from network); 2 Sep 1997 11:50:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Sep 1997 11:50:51 -0000 Message-ID: <340BFDFF.315F@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 07:52:31 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.misc,news.admin.censorship,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 5434 THIS IS MERELY THE 2ND ROUGH DRAFT OF A PROPOSED RFD FOR TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI. THIS ROUGH DRAFT IS INTENDED FOR DISCUSSION NOW. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THE FINAL VERSION UNTIL SOME TIME IN OCTOBER. HOWEVER, YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED NOW. I HAVE TAKEN THE RFD ORIGINALLY POSTED ON JANUARY 17, 1997, AND REVISED IT HERE. A FEW OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALSO MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS. I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCORPORATE IN THIS 2ND DRAFT ALL SUGGESTIONS MADE THUS FAR. ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: ------------ This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From April 1, 1997, until the present, over 2,257 messages have been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points of view on the Bahai Faith, 15.05 messages per day for 150 days, 451.40 messages a month for five months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Please note that despite the poor propogation of the alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. The proponent intends that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. 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, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. 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 may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai discussion list Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher -- 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 - Wed Sep 03 08:44:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Sep 3 05:00:41 1997 Received: (qmail 5118 invoked from network); 3 Sep 1997 12:00:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 1997 12:00:18 -0000 Message-ID: <340D51AF.53B9@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 08:01:51 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.misc,news.admin.censorship,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai References: <340BFDFF.315F@hotmail.com> <3dzdaPAfeID0Ew2N@baha.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3467 Chris wrote: > > Fred, I've added corrections under the line to which they apply and > comments as a separate entry after the paragraph. > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated > >worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a > >Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details > >appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to > >news.groups. > > > >Newsgroup line: > >talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. > > > >RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > > > >All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai > >faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this > Faith > >proposed newsgroup would meet that need. > > Fred, this implies that there is more than one newsgroup, i.e. that SRB > is not the only one. Is there another (it has never been mentioned)? I > suggest you reword it as "The only newsgroup on the big 8 heirarchy > given ...... Baha'i Faith is moderated." etc. Someone claimed once there was a newsgroup in Germany. I don't know. How can you have a newsgroup "in Germany," on the Internet, that others don't know about? Maybe you're right and I should reword the sentence. I'll revise it in the next draft. > > >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until > >March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning > >talk.religion.bahai, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From > >April 1, 1997, until the present, over 2,257 messages have been > >posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points > >of view on the Bahai Faith, 15.05 messages per day for 150 days, > |making (or giving) > >451.40 messages a month for five months. > |( ). Sure. A little rough there, I agree. > > >These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for > >talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time > >periods. Please note that despite the poor propogation of the > propagation Thanks. Well, I called it a *rough* draft! > >alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant > >interest justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on > |, > >the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable > >to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy > >will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. > > The rest I can see nothing to comment on. Great. Thanks. > > > 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 -- 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 - Sun Sep 07 07:41:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Sep 5 04:03:06 1997 Received: (qmail 13437 invoked from network); 5 Sep 1997 11:00:56 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 1997 11:00:56 -0000 Message-ID: <340FE6C9.7745@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 07:02:33 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai References: <340BFDFF.315F@hotmail.com> <3dzdaPAfeID0Ew2N@baha.demon.co.uk> <340D51AF.53B9@hotmail.com> <5un2mt$ods$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 9124 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick, Thanks for taking the constructive step of consulting about the > proposed t.r.b. RFD. I've a few brief comments on your 2nd draft below. Donald, Thanks for taking the constructive step of responding to it. > > On Sept. 2, Frederick Glaysher wrote in > <340BFDFF.315F@hotmail.com>: > [snip] > >ROUGH DRAFT RFD FOLLOWS: > >------------ > > > >This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated > >worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a > >Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details > >appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to > >news.groups. > > > >Newsgroup line: > >talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. > > > >RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > > > >All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai > >faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this > >proposed newsgroup would meet that need. > > > >From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until > >March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning > >talk.religion.bahai, 10.84 messages per day for 70 days. From > >April 1, 1997, until the present, over 2,257 messages have been > >posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying points > >of view on the Bahai Faith, 15.05 messages per day for 150 days, > >451.40 messages a month for five months. > > > >These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for > >talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time > >periods. Please note that despite the poor propogation of the > >alt.* hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant > >interest justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on > >the Bahai Faith on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable > >to conclude that the easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy > >will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. > >The proponent intends that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather > >than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The > > Mention of how t.r.b. relates to a.r.b. also? Good point. Any ideas? Roger and I discussed this a little, I suppose.... I'll draw from that unless you wish to add something specific. Basically that arb is a lower order propagation hierarchy versus the Big 8 with wider accessibility. I'll mention arb will evolve along as its user see fit.... Something like that.... > > >establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted > >practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* > > > >CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > > >All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, > >teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for > >discussion. > > > >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, and any > >postings of a purely commercial nature. > > > >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. > > I've always found such guidelines somewhat ineffective, rather like saying > "Participants should be nice!" Why not set the goal high? I know you've > reacted negatively to my suggestion that a brief quote or two from the > Baha'i Writings concerning communication etc. be included in the charter > (which still puzzles me, but relax I'm not proposing the same thing here so > you don't have to try to explain), so why not consider a higher appeal of a > more generic nature, appealing to people's higher sense as brought forth by > religious teachings in general (e.g., respect for others, search for truth, > etc.)? You're right, Donald, we've been over this territory before. I appreciate your not insisting on rehashing it. I think it's broad and general enough, as is, for an unmoderated newsgroup. > > >Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > >soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. > > > >END CHARTER. > > > >PROCEDURE: > > > >The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD > >stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining > >the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in > >news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion > >groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a > >three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify > >the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > > > >The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must > >pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 > >more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an > >e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet > >Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > > > >This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > >guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > >"Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further > >questions about the process. > > > >DISTRIBUTION: > > > >This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > > > > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, > > soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, > > soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai > > I'm a little puzzled as to why news.admin.censorship, soc.culture.israel, > soc.rights.human are on this list and alt.religion (a general religion > discussion group like t.r.m.) is not. If I understand your reasoning, > soc.culture.israel is there because the international center of the faith > happens to be in that country, but following that sort of reasoning, one > should include newsgroups on, say India and Malaysia (just to name two) > because they like Iran have fairly large Baha'i populations. In any > event, I haven't noticed that crossposting to s.r.israel has generated any > response or traffic concerning the Baha'i faith, so why not drop it from > this list? It seems censorship has been an oft-discussed topic in regard to talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai.... That topic touches naturally on human rights, in my opinion.... I think the RFD should appear in soc.culture.israel and soc.culture. iranian but feel less inclined to crosspost much to either this time around, perhaps.... Yes, how's that? > > As for news.admin.censorship & soc.rights.human, I realize they are groups > you've frequently crossposted to concerning your opinions of s.r.b. > moderators, but what is their relationship to a new newsgroup on the Baha'i > religion? Even if one considers the well documented official cultural > genocide policy of the Iranian government against Baha'is -- a human rights > concern if there ever was one -- s.r.h. would seem off topic for a RFD for > a proposed Baha'i newsgroup. Just my opinion ... anyway, here's an > alternative proposed list: > > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, > soc.culture.iranian,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion, > alt.religion.bahai I've never posted much to alt.religion for some reason. We can add that newsgroup if you want. Do you follow it much? > > >and the following mailing lists: > > > > Academic discussion of Bahai faith > > Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu > > > > Bahai discussion list > > > > There may be other Baha'i discussion lists that could be added. What would they be? I don't subscribe to any.... Can you suggest which ones and provide me with the appropriate addresses and subscription addresses? > > >Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: > > > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, > > soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, > > soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, > > soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, > > soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, > > talk.religion.newage > > If your intent is to cover all religions, and soc.religion.islam will not > post the RFD, you might consider alt.religion.islam Good idea. I wonder though if we should post in that direction this time.... > > Hope these help. They do.... > > DZO -- 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 - Sun Sep 07 08:44:45 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Sep 7 05:08:05 1997 Received: (qmail 2057 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1997 12:07:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 7 Sep 1997 12:07:41 -0000 Message-ID: <3412996E.837@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 08:09:18 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc To: Guy Macon CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai References: <340BFDFF.315F@hotmail.com> <3dzdaPAfeID0Ew2N@baha.demon.co.uk> <340D51AF.53B9@hotmail.com> <5un2mt$ods$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <5upa0p$prn$2@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3917 Guy Macon wrote: > > Fredrick Glaysher wrote: > > >Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: > > > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, > > soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, > > soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, > > soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, > > soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, > > talk.religion.newage > > This is a matter of some concern to me. Whie I am 100% in favor > of these pointers (because I believe that an unmoderated > talk.religion.bahai would be a Good Thing), I am still smarting a bit > from the last go around, where Fredrick took a discussion that was > about someone who did something on a bahai mailing list and dragged > the whole thing into soc.religion.quaker by crossposting there. Okay. Let's agree to disagree on that and look to the future.... I am specifically saying I WILL NOT crosspost to these newsgroups this time except for the pointer, if the moderators concerned, where there are moderators, agree to post it. > > A pointer, singleposted (not crossposted) with Followups set is most > welcome in any religious newsgroup. I will probably post the pointer > myself if Fredrick misses s.r.q. A crossposted thread about bahais > in a quaker newsgroup is another thing altogether, and I have never > seen Fredrick give a single indication that he has changed his view > that this is acceptable behavior. I've stated repeatedly that there were Quakers who didn't mind and they themselves said so. Why do you keep ignoring that fact? You don't speak for all Quakers, nor do I for all Bahais.... Regardless of all that in the past, I do not intend to post to any of these newsgroups except for pointers. I think it might make sense to ask the group-advisor to post the pointers since normally he will be posting the RFDs anyway. Since this has created disagreement in the past, he or she would probably be willing to do it. I cannot change his mind on this, > so all I can do is to promise that if he does it again I will campaign > against his proposal. I hope that it doesn't come to that, because I > support his proposal, but he needs to know that such actions will hurt > his cause more than they will help it. The other side of the coin is > that I will support his proposal if he can manage to propose it without > disrupting my favorite newsgroup. If there is no crossposting abuse > this time I will make a strong case in news.groups and elsewhere that > folks like me who have no intention of using t.r.b should vote yes > on the following grounds: > > [1] Enough interest has been demonstrated. > > [2] No legitimate technical reasons for a no vote have been shown. > > [3] There is opposition to t.r.b based on a desire by some bahais > that a subset of bahaism should be excluded from Usenet. > > [4] Therefore it is legitimate for those with little interest is > using t.r.b to vote yes. > > So, Fredrick, think hard before you make that first crosspost. > Actions have consequences. For crying out loud, Guy, would you please relax.... > > A technical question for Fredrick: do you know how to set followups? > If you don't, I will be glad to help. Your pointers really do need > to have followups set. Okay. I confess. I was simply IGNORANT of how to set a followup last time. Roger Reini was kind enough to teach me the demanding procedure a few weeks ago.... I'll dutifully do it this time.... For all pointers and postings.... Thanks again, Guy, for your suggestions and advice. I sincerely appreciate it. And I'm sorry I shook you up so much last time by posting to s.r.quaker.... -- 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 - Mon Sep 08 08:08:35 1997 >From guymacon@deltanet.com Sun Sep 7 07:08:57 1997 Received: from ana0003.deltanet.com (ana0003.deltanet.com [199.171.191.3]) by mail2.deltanet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10387 for ; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 07:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709071408.HAA10387@mail2.deltanet.com> X-Sender: guymacon@mail.deltanet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 04:53:46 -0700 To: FG@hotmail.com From: guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 402 >Thanks again, Guy, for your suggestions and advice. >I sincerely appreciate it. And I'm sorry I shook you up so >much last time by posting to s.r.quaker.... Thanks. I am looking forward to supporting your proposal. I intend to get enough folks who value the rights of minority segments of religions to vote yes so that those who want only one kind of bahai post on usenet cannot prevail. From - Mon Sep 08 09:21:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Sep 8 05:13:57 1997 Received: (qmail 22178 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1997 12:13:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 1997 12:13:49 -0000 Message-ID: <3413EC61.773A@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 08:15:29 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guy Macon CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai References: <199709071408.HAA10387@mail2.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1089 Guy Macon wrote: > > >Thanks again, Guy, for your suggestions and advice. > >I sincerely appreciate it. And I'm sorry I shook you up so > >much last time by posting to s.r.quaker.... > > Thanks. I am looking forward to supporting your proposal. > I intend to get enough folks who value the rights of minority > segments of religions to vote yes so that those who want only > one kind of bahai post on usenet cannot prevail. I really appreciate your help and advice.... I think you have an accurate sense of what I and other Bahais are up against, and I fear not enough people do.... I'm going to take your advice about crossposting but worry it will work to the advantage of the majority Bahais who will still vote NO.... The only reason I crossposted last time was because I knew I didn't stand a chance with Bahais themselves and had to look to others for support. I doubt the situation has changed.... -- 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 - Mon Sep 08 16:06:49 1997 >From guymacon@deltanet.com Mon Sep 8 09:48:35 1997 Received: from ana1044.deltanet.com (ana1044.deltanet.com [199.171.191.44]) by mail2.deltanet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA10570 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:48:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199709081648.JAA10570@mail2.deltanet.com> X-Sender: guymacon@mail.deltanet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 07:33:16 -0700 To: FG@hotmail.com From: guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai X-Mailer: X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1042 >Guy Macon wrote: >I'm going to take your advice about crossposting but worry >it will work to the advantage of the majority Bahais who >will still vote NO.... The only reason I crossposted last >time was because I knew I didn't stand a chance with >Bahais themselves and had to look to others for support. >I doubt the situation has changed.... I agree about the situation, but I firmly believe that you will get more yes votes without the ceossposting. There are a lot of people who will vote yes just to stick it to anyone who wants to limit the ange of discussion on Usenet, but to tap this reservour of potentioal yes votes, you need two things: [1] You need to prove an interest. t.r.b traffic is high enough that an interest is proven. [2] You need to be beyond reproach, following all of the rules, and doing all of the right things. If the other side bends the rules. you must not do the same. Make it really clear who has honor. Right now I estimate a 60% chance of you winning. From - Mon Sep 08 17:18:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Sep 8 13:33:52 1997 Received: (qmail 24634 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1997 20:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.125) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 1997 20:33:25 -0000 Message-ID: <3414617A.1DE8@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:35:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guy Macon CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd Rough Draft: talk.religion.bahai References: <199709081648.JAA10570@mail2.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1457 Guy Macon wrote: > > >Guy Macon wrote: > > >I'm going to take your advice about crossposting but worry > >it will work to the advantage of the majority Bahais who > >will still vote NO.... The only reason I crossposted last > >time was because I knew I didn't stand a chance with > >Bahais themselves and had to look to others for support. > >I doubt the situation has changed.... > > I agree about the situation, but I firmly believe that you > will get more yes votes without the ceossposting. There are > a lot of people who will vote yes just to stick it to anyone > who wants to limit the ange of discussion on Usenet, but to > tap this reservour of potentioal yes votes, you need two > things: > > [1] You need to prove an interest. t.r.b traffic is high > enough that an interest is proven. > > [2] You need to be beyond reproach, following all of the > rules, and doing all of the right things. If the other > side bends the rules. you must not do the same. Make it > really clear who has honor. > > Right now I estimate a 60% chance of you winning. Okay.... I'll take all of your advice on this too. I've sent a message to the Bahais in New Zealand.... I don't know that they'll have enough guts to get involved. Thanks again.... -- 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 - Wed Aug 27 06:27:39 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 26 12:01:48 1997 Received: (qmail 23519 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1997 19:01:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.129) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 1997 19:01:41 -0000 Message-ID: <34032866.2AC4@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 15:03:02 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: group-mentors@acpub.duke.edu CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 5078 I'd like to ask for advice on how and when to propose for the second time an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. On March 27, 1997, the RESULTS were posted on news.groups: 157 to 691. I believe I cannot resubmit a proposal until September 27, 1997 but would appreciate some advice in preparation. I'm concerned that nothing inadvertently be done to jeopardize the proper procedures. I would like to post the revised RFD to alt.religion.bahai now for open discussion so that it might have the input of as many people as possible before the three week discussion period. Is that acceptable practice, or should I wait until September 27th? I've included a copy at the end of the revised RFD. Thanks. And hope to hear from someone there soon. -- 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. NEW DRAFT: ================================================================= Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship,soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iran ian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,alt.religion.bahai REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, special-format files, pornography, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. 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 may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai discussion list Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher From - Wed Aug 27 06:27:43 1997 >From grobe@worf.netins.net Tue Aug 26 15:07:18 1997 Received: from worf.netins.net (grobe@worf.netins.net [167.142.225.4]) by ins2.netins.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA21394; Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:07:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:07:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Jonathan Grobe Reply-To: mentors@acpub.duke.edu To: Frederick Glaysher cc: mentors@acpub.duke.edu Subject: Re: 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai In-Reply-To: <34032866.2AC4@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5890 In terms of posting the RFD now, it is essential that people not be confused about what it is. So do not title it RFD:.., take out the boilerplate RFD language. As long as you re-write your post so people can't get confused (and think it is a formal RFD) there is no problem discussing it now. I do not understand the reason all these pointers are being posted in groups for different religions. Jonathan Grobe. Note all my comments on the group mentors list are simply my opinion. On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I'd like to ask for advice on how and when to propose for the second > time an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith, talk.religion.bahai. > > On March 27, 1997, the RESULTS were posted on news.groups: 157 to 691. > > I believe I cannot resubmit a proposal until September 27, 1997 but > would appreciate some advice in preparation. I'm concerned that > nothing inadvertently be done to jeopardize the proper procedures. > > I would like to post the revised RFD to alt.religion.bahai now for > open discussion so that it might have the input of as many people > as possible before the three week discussion period. Is that > acceptable practice, or should I wait until September 27th? > > I've included a copy at the end of the revised RFD. > > Thanks. And hope to hear from someone there soon. > > -- > 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. > > NEW DRAFT: > ================================================================= > Newsgroups: > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship,soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iran ian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,alt.religion.bahai > > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) > > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > > > > This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated > worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a > Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details > appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to > news.groups. > > Newsgroup line: > talk.religion.bahai Unmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. > > RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > > All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai > faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this > proposed newsgroup would meet that need. > > The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather > than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The > establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted > practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* > hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. > > CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, > teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for > discussion. > > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith > is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large > ASCII graphics, special-format files, pornography, and any postings of > a purely commercial nature. > > 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 may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. > > END CHARTER. > > PROCEDURE: > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD > stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining > the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion > groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a > three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify > the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > > The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must > pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 > more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an > e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet > Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further > questions about the process. > > DISTRIBUTION: > > This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,news.admin.censorship, > soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel, > soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai > > and the following mailing lists: > > Academic discussion of Bahai faith > Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu > > Bahai discussion list > > > Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: > > soc.religion.unitarian-univ,soc.religion.eastern, > soc.religion.gnosis,soc.religion.hindu, > soc.religion.paganism,soc.religion.quaker, > soc.religion.sikhism,soc.religion.vaishnava, > soc.religion.atheism,talk.religion.buddhism, > talk.religion.newage > > -- > Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > From - Tue Sep 02 08:18:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 29 08:10:54 1997 Received: (qmail 3429 invoked from network); 29 Aug 1997 15:10:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.129) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 1997 15:10:52 -0000 Message-ID: <3406E6DE.33C1@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 11:12:30 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: grobe@worf.netins.net CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1853 Thanks for your response and help. Jonathan Grobe wrote: > > I do not understand the reason all these pointers are being posted in > groups for different religions. My thinking is this: The Bahai Faith claims to be the fulfillment of all past religions and cites many of the scriptures of other religions and Bahais are encouraged to study other religions. Many people of other faiths are familiar with the Bahai Faith in one way or another such as through study or knowing someone who is or was a Bahai. During the first discussion period, there were a number of people who participated significantly as a result of pointers or crossposting. It seems to me reasonable to post at least pointers, if acceptable again, in the same newsgroups as last time. Hope this helps. Incidentally, I wonder if you have an answer to this person's question: Brian Aull wrote: > > Frederick, > > It would be helpful if you would post information about where it states > that voting for or against newsgroup formation should be only for > technical reasons. I searched for this last time in the text of the > request for votes instructions and could not find it. This led me to > the conclusion that people generally vote for whatever kind of reason they > feel like. > Any references you can give to clarify this matter would help the second > [talk.religion.bahai] process. > > -Brian Aull Is there actually a UseNet guideline somewhere I can quote? Let me thank you for forming alt.religion.bahai after the RESULT in April. It provided a place for a lot of fruitful discussion that will, I hope, lead to talk.religion.bahai passing this time around. -- 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 - Mon Aug 18 10:19:25 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:16:44 1997 Received: (qmail 16364 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:16:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:16:42 -0000 Message-ID: <33F84B9F.6CC1@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:18:23 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,news.ad min.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: 90 percent SRB, Why?? References: <33F5C4BE.6FC0@concentric.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 754 Robert J. Pease wrote: > > 90% of the posts here are about SRB censorship. > Why not just post HERE and ignore them?? > It's getting tiresome ( sigh) Because another vote on talk.religion.bahai is approaching beginning in late September and every indication is that the moderators of soc.religion.bahai will mount another NO vote campaign to defeat it: 157 to 691, as it did last March.... They appear quite willing to do anything to prevent an unmoderated newsgroup from forming on a Big 8 hierarchy, even when 157 people expressed their interest in having such a 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 - Wed Aug 27 10:47:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 27 07:38:36 1997 Received: (qmail 11238 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 14:38:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.125) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 14:38:31 -0000 Message-ID: <34043C4E.31FA@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:40:15 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: A bad joke? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1777 Michael, tell me it ain't so.... ---------------- Subject: Michael McKenny's expulsion from Baha'i Faith Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:42:31 GMT From: mirele@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) Organization: Knights of Xenu, Kingdom of Deseret Chapter Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai This letter was passed to me from a totally unrelated (to the Baha'i Faith) source. Does anyone know anything else about this? I notice they don't call him a covenant-breaker, explicitly, but he is being drummed out of the Baha'i Faith. So what *is* this? Personally, I find this kind of scary. --------------------------------------------------------- 25 July 1997 Mr Michael McKenny 424 Cambridge Street South Ottawa, Ontario K1S 4H5 Dear Mr. McKenny, The Universal House of Justice has advised us of its conclusion that, on the basis of the correspondence it has had with you and the established pattern of behaviour you have demonstrated over the past several months, you cannot properly be considered a member of the Baha'i community. Accordingly we have removed your name from our membership rolls and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned. Sincerely, National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada Judy L. Filson Deana M. Holmes alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995 NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness mirele@super.zippo.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 - Wed Aug 27 15:41:20 1997 >From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Wed Aug 27 08:54:36 1997 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA28094 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA22174; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:48:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708271548.LAA22174@freenet5.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: A bad joke? Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 12297 Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. Sorry, I've been so busy, and am still unable to access your alt.bahai. I append at the end of your comments etc. more material on this issue. may this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael > >Michael, tell me it ain't so.... > >---------------- >Subject: > Michael McKenny's expulsion from Baha'i Faith > Date: > Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:42:31 GMT > From: > mirele@super.zippo.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs >Series)) >Organization: > Knights of Xenu, Kingdom of Deseret Chapter > Newsgroups: > alt.religion.bahai > > >This letter was passed to me from a totally unrelated (to the Baha'i >Faith) source. Does anyone know anything else about this? > >I notice they don't call him a covenant-breaker, explicitly, but he is >being drummed out of the Baha'i Faith. So what *is* this? > >Personally, I find this kind of scary. > > >--------------------------------------------------------- > >25 July 1997 > >Mr Michael McKenny >424 Cambridge Street South >Ottawa, Ontario K1S 4H5 > >Dear Mr. McKenny, > > The Universal House of Justice has advised us of its conclusion >that, on the basis of the correspondence it has had with you and the >established pattern of behaviour you have demonstrated over the past >several months, you cannot properly be considered a member of the >Baha'i community. Accordingly we have removed your name from our >membership rolls and have informed the Baha'i institutions concerned. > >Sincerely, > > >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada >Judy L. Filson > > > >Deana M. Holmes >alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995 >NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness >mirele@super.zippo.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. > > To the Universal House of Justice Greetings from Ottawa. Although on the day I received from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada a notice that on your assessment I was no longer a member of the Baha'i community I addressed to you a message seeking to respond on the basis of my instant deductions as to what may have prompted such a decision, and although since that time I have continued to speculate as to what could have been the reasons for this it seems more constructive that I place the following question before you that I may affirm your assessment, attempt to clarify any misunderstanding which may exist, or consider any other steps which you may draw to my attention: "What were the specific reasons for your assessment that I am not a member of the Baha'i community, and what is required for this to change?" I would be grateful if your reply could confirm or deny your desire to receive from me the response to your communication to me dated April 8, 1997 which I had stated I would try to send by July 20th. I look forward to hearing from you. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael To The Universal House of Justice Greetings from Ottawa. I am responding to the letter I received this morning from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada stating that you have advised them that I may not appropriately be considered a Baha'i. I found this a rather unexpected message, as it was not preceeded by any communication from any Baha'i authority subsequent to the letter you sent me in April with its three enclosures. I had declared a personal goal of responding to at least one of that letter's three enclosures by the 21st of July, though I stated that I may not be able to do so. Since I received from the National Spiritual Assembly no reason for your announcement, I guess that the timing indicates that you may have expected this reply by that date. I am able to inform you that I was unaware that you wished me to answer you by that date, indeed, I was unsure as to whether you would appreciate a reply at all. I stated that I would not further address you on these issues, after that response, unless you invited me to do so, as in my mind while one response to the enclosures I received from you was legitimate, to go beyond that was contrary to the spirit of the Faith. With this attitude I assumed that no special notification was necessary that I had failed to meet my personal goal and that you would not mind were my intended response indefinitely postponed. I am able to testify that my wife, my brother and other members of my family can confirm that I was fairly pre-occupied throughout the month of July. My inability to send you a reply is quite understandable, and my failure to advise you of this was based on my impression, as stated above, that this was not necessary. The heart of the issue is that no lack of respect was meant towards you by my failure to meet a personal goal. More germane is the wider issue that in all my consultations with Auxiliary Board Member Mrs. Suzanne Tamas, in the carefully composed letter I sent to you on March 23rd, in my hope to reply once to your response, my only aim was to advance the Cause of God, to increase the influence of its institutions and to promote the harmony of the human species. When I was 21 and exerting enormous energies as a student leader of the World Federalists, convinced that nothing could be done to avoid nuclear catastrophe, but determined to die trying, I was blessed by the Prince of Peace with the awareness that God was determined to manifest the harmony of the human species. This has not changed. I believe that this communication concerning my belief in the Blessed Beauty originated in misunderstanding as to the reasons for my not notifying you that I was missing a personal goal. I have nothing else to go on. And I am willing to receive any clarification you can provide, and on my part to offer you assurance of my belief in God and the harmonizing role of His most recent Manifestation of God. I have already strongly urged believers by phone and by e-mail to refrain from any response to this announcement which would create disharmony. I do consider the Baha'i Faith endowed by the Blessed Beauty with the capacity to infuse humanity with harmony, and I feel we may do so by responding as the Master would wish, by perceiving others as friends and well-wishers, by transforming anachronistic inclinations, suspicions, insecurities, factionalism into the expansive, inclusive over-arching acceptance of the harmony of humankind. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael Greetings from Ottawa, Here is some correspondence from today's mail which I thought would be of interest. My reply follows as a separate post. May this find you very well, and may that long be so. Peace, Michael 13 August 1997/ 13 Perfection 154 Mr. Michael McKenny 424 Cambridge Street South Ottawa, ON K1S 4H5 Dear Mr. McKenny, We have your e-mail message of 31 July 1997, transmitting a copy of a letter which you have addressed to the Universal House of Justice. You mention that you have published copies of both to various internet lists. This being the case, you should note that the House of Justice does not respond to communications handled in this manner. You should note, too, that the conclusion reached by the House of Justice that you cannot properly be considered a member of the Baha'i community was in no way related to any failure on your part to write the additional letter you described. As we stated in our own letter to you, this decision was based entirely on your pattern of behaviour and attitude, as reflected in your correspondence. Sincerely, National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Canada Reginald Newkirk, Secretary Greetings from Ottawa. Many thanks for the letter which you so kindly sent me in reply to my query as to the specific reasons for the decision that I could no longer be considered properly a member of the Baha'i community. It was great that you answered with the clear information that the letter I was unable to send to the Universal House of Justice by the 20th or 21st of July was not a factor, and that the complete cause of this decision may be determined from my correspondence. I note that the second part of my question concerning what would be required for this conclusion to change has not been answered. This strengthens the impression that actually it is the exercise of freedom of thought and conscience, i.e. heresy, which is the issue. I'm sorry that this matter likely requires you to redeem your note GL 89, of which I am the holder. My inclination would be to wait until I was next in Toronto to exchange this note for a cheque made out to me for three thousand dollars, it being an interest free loan. However, this may not be for several months, and you may prefer some alternative, for example, providing the occasion for me to make this exchange with the treasurer of the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Ottawa. I am enclosing at the bottom of this thank you note analysis of this situation posted recently to a couple of e-mail lists, and I draw your attention specifically to the second last paragraph. There I make the point that one interpretation of what has happened is that a novel status of Baha'i heretic has been created, something completely opposed to the Master's brilliant means of guaranteeing the unity of the human species through the granting of freedom of thought, conscience and expression. My response to what I consider quite an alarming innovation has been formally to register as a member of the neo-pagan community, thus quickly remedying the anomaly of an existing Baha'i heretic. As I'm making clear, also, to a national pagan leader who has been following this situation with considerable interest, this is not merely a matter of convenience. Since the 80s I have been telling pagans that were it not that i was Baha'i I would most likely be pagan. It has to do with the recognition of the essential unity in diversity so vital, at least in theory, in each. One way of perceiving reality is that spirituality, as an ocean, covers the world, and mortals scoop up some of this water in various shaped containers: a cup, a glass, a bowl, etc., though really the water is what counts. Again, many thanks for replying and clarifying the reasons which led to this decision. Although we may have wide divergence in views on such issues as the incpacity (in my opinion, praise be to God, or the gods) of humanity to accept thoughtless obedience to any order soever flowing from authority in disregard to fundamental principle and basic decency, yet, our hopes for the well-being of humanity surely are alike. 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) From - Sun May 18 19:34:49 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun May 18 04:43:14 1997 Received: (qmail 10121 invoked from network); 18 May 1997 11:43:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.126) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 May 1997 11:43:13 -0000 Message-ID: <337EEB97.4763@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 07:44:23 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: A Christian's investigation References: <"fRV1UD.A.mHE.Ypgfz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 910 Howdy bud wrote: > Greetings, [clip] > I observe that this newsgroup is "moderated" and do not wish to > offend or break any rules. Nevertheless, censorship obviously > precludes any hope for an "independent search after truth" and so I am > interested to know whether respectful posts are welcomed that are > still candid in terms of controversial problems. I noticed, for > example, an ambiguous statement of purpose for the news group that > read, "The newsgroup will act as a non-threatening forum for > discussing and sharing information about the tenets, history, and > texts of the Baha'i Faith." Have you heard of alt.religion.bahai? It's an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith and therefore open to every opinion freely expressed.... Post or crosspost to it. [clip] > Thank You, > Dale Grider > Howdybud@AOL.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun May 18 19:34:47 1997 >From news@lana.zippo.com Sun May 18 04:43:11 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA13210; Sun, 18 May 1997 04:43:06 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: A Christian's investigation Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 07:44:23 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 28 Message-ID: <337EEB97.4763@hotmail.com> References: <"fRV1UD.A.mHE.Ypgfz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.126 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 910 Howdy bud wrote: > Greetings, [clip] > I observe that this newsgroup is "moderated" and do not wish to > offend or break any rules. Nevertheless, censorship obviously > precludes any hope for an "independent search after truth" and so I am > interested to know whether respectful posts are welcomed that are > still candid in terms of controversial problems. I noticed, for > example, an ambiguous statement of purpose for the news group that > read, "The newsgroup will act as a non-threatening forum for > discussing and sharing information about the tenets, history, and > texts of the Baha'i Faith." Have you heard of alt.religion.bahai? It's an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith and therefore open to every opinion freely expressed.... Post or crosspost to it. [clip] > Thank You, > Dale Grider > Howdybud@AOL.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 03:31:28 1997 Received: (qmail 25355 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 10:31:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 10:31:26 -0000 Message-ID: <33C60BD9.E8F@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:32:57 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a desription of Abdul Baha (text) References: <33C54B41.ED25E051@interport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2598 Massoud Ajami wrote: > = > X-no-archive: yes > In article <33C54B41.ED25E051@interport.net> faryar writes: > >From: faryar > >Subject: a desription of Abdul Baha (text) > >Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:51:14 -0400 > = > > A Description of `Abdu'l-Bah=E1 > > by Edward Browne. > >"Seldom have I seen one whose appearance impressed me more. A tall > >strongly-built man holding > >himself straight as an arrow, with white turban and raiment, long blac= k locks > >reaching almost to the > >shoulder, broad powerful forehead indicating a strong intellect combin= ed with > >an unswerving will, > >eyes keen as a hawk's, and strongly-marked but pleasing features--such= was my > >first impression of > >`Abb=E1s Effendi, 'the master' as he par excellence is called.... One = more > >eloquent of speech, more > >ready of argument, more apt of illustration, more intimately acquainte= d with > >the sacred books of the > >Jews, the Christians, and the Muhammadans, could, I should think, scar= cely be > >found even amongst the > >eloquent, ready, and subtle race to which he belongs. These qualities,= > >combined with a bearing at > >once majestic and genial, made me cease to wonder at the influence and= esteem > >which he enjoyed even > >beyond the circle of his father's followers. About the greatness of th= is man > >and his power no one > >who had seen him could entertain a doubt." > >----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------- > = > So who said Edward Browne was against Mirza Huseinali?! So, everything = he > wrote about him was correct then! > = > Oh yah, professor Browne wrote in the preface to "noghtehe alkAf" By Mi= rza > JAni kAshAni, that during the siege of the fort Tabarsi, Ghoddus wrote = a > brave letter to the commander in chief of the king's army (nAserdin shA= h) > Mehdi Gholy Mirza, but later, Bahaies in Tariekhe jadid, turned this le= tter > (tagged it as) to a "crying letter" by him to the king. > = > So was it a "brave" letter as Browne says, of "crying letter" as Bahais= say? > = > He also wrote: > = > ...One should know that Bahaullah expanded on the socio-culture of Bab,= but > he tried hard to destroy the "erfAn" portion of Bab's teaching, and had= no > value for that... A piety Baha'u'llah didn't dump more of it, including the idiotic calendar..... -- = Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sat Jun 14 13:41:38 1997 >From forumbahai@es.co.nz Fri Jun 13 04:27:53 1997 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 97 22:23 GMT+1200 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970613222230.36578848@es.co.nz> X-Sender: forumbahai@es.co.nz X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Frederick Glaysher" From: Alison and Steve Marshall Subject: A listing in an on-line BCCA document X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1093 Hi Frederick, You may remember me from the days when we were trying to get talk.religion.bahai off the ground. I understand that alt.religion.bahai exists -- although it's not propagated to my Internet service provider yet -- and would like to include it in the updated BCCA FAQ, called "Baha'i discussion groups on the Internet". When I joined the group that was doing the update, none of the really interesting discussion groups and newsgroups were on the list -- newsgroups like Talisman, Irfan and H-Bahai. Well, they will be now. Can you email a short paragraph or two, outlining the purpose of alt.religion.bahai, and explaining how to subscribe. Can you also estimate the number of messages a subscriber would receive each day. thanks, ka kite ano, Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling forumbahai@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten Try: https://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana From - Mon Jun 16 07:29:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Jun 14 11:12:14 1997 Received: (qmail 18172 invoked from network); 14 Jun 1997 18:12:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.132) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 1997 18:12:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33A2DF4F.29F6@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 14:13:35 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alison and Steve Marshall CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: A listing in an on-line BCCA document References: <2.2.16.19970613222230.36578848@es.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3905 Alison and Steve Marshall wrote: > > Hi Frederick, > > You may remember me from the days when we were trying to get > talk.religion.bahai off the ground. I understand that alt.religion.bahai > exists -- although it's not propagated to my Internet service provider yet > -- and would like to include it in the updated BCCA FAQ, called "Baha'i > discussion groups on the Internet". When I joined the group that was doing > the update, none of the really interesting discussion groups and newsgroups > were on the list -- newsgroups like Talisman, Irfan and H-Bahai. > > Well, they will be now. > > Can you email a short paragraph or two, outlining the purpose of > alt.religion.bahai, and explaining how to subscribe. Can you also estimate > the number of messages a subscriber would receive each day. > > thanks, > ka kite ano, > Steve > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling > forumbahai@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten > Try: https://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana -------------- Ask your system support person to add alt.religion.bahai to the alt.* hierarchy. They have to flip a software switch or something. It should take them 15 seconds.... Or you can read alt.religion.bahai through one of the following NNTP news servers: baracka.rz.uni-augsburg.de news.idt.net ftp.louisa.net news.tln.lib.mi.us rtcsrv5.realtech.de Or use the Web at www.reference.com; www.dejanews.com allows reading and should add posting to it before long. The following original message to create it can be found archived on www.dejanews.com. You might adapt it to fit your purposes. Since it's unmoderated and I didn't create it, I'm actually not in charge of it, nor is anyone else.... -----begin message Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.religion.bahai From: grobe@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe) Date: 1997/04/10 Message-Id: Newsgroups: alt.config,alt.religion.bahai [More Headers] 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. For your newsgroups file: alt.religion.bahai Bahai faith. [Adapted from the talk.religion.bahai proposal] RATIONALE: alt.religion.bahai All newsgroups and listservs given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. It is intended that alt.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. CHARTER: alt.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology -- and so on would be appropriate areas for discussion. Crossposting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, special-format files, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars and excessive crossposts. Articles may be crossposted to soc.religion.bahai -- subject, of course, to the approval of the moderator of that group. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. -- Jonathan Grobe -------end message Thanks for adding it to the BCCA list. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 06:27:16 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 12:01:07 1997 Received: (qmail 19874 invoked from network); 15 May 1997 10:29:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 May 1997 10:29:33 -0000 Message-ID: <337AE5D6.5013@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 06:30:46 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: A little help, please Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 271 What's the correct method of crossposting to soc.religion.bahai? Do you limit them to three? Or do you not accept crossposts? Can't remember.... My apologies in advance if I've been transgressing your policy. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jun 13 06:40:36 1997 >From sundayw@aol.com Thu Jun 12 09:13:21 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA14412; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT) From: SundayW@aol.com Message-ID: <970612121317_1109223660@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bahai-faith-request@bcca.org cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: a note from a non-baha'i re: bahai terrorism X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1065 Fredrick, I don't think that you are acting the way I have been accustomed to finding "bahai-like" behavior...kind and thoughtful EVEN when expressing their distaste for a situation. From a person on the outside, with no ulterior motives, it seems as though you are very angry and hostile to a group that I am learning to love. It is not helpful to spiritual growth that you use this area to continue with an agenda that you are angry didn''t get met. I find your using this peaceful, moderated space to express that anger to be disruptive. I don't see how the lack of users on an unmoderated space has anything to do with this moderated space. If what you need to do is build a support for this area....your methods are failing with this reader/contributor. Rather than stay on this terrorism thread of discussion (the title of which is emotive and devisive in itself), why don't we share how when we get angry it is handled by using Bahai principles? I know that this is an area that I could grow from...Take care of yourself...Sunday From - Tue Jun 10 05:47:53 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 9 04:16:16 1997 Received: (qmail 17404 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1997 11:16:15 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1997 11:16:15 -0000 Message-ID: <339BE64F.7275@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 07:17:35 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: A personal threat Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1014 Someone sent the following message to my email account last Friday. I'm not sure how this was done but I have contacted hotmail.com and request that if anything appears on alt.religion.bahai or elsewhere in my name that is not congruent with my past postings it be taken with a grain or ton of salt.... I'd even appreciate being notified about it. This message was not sent from my own account.... ----------begin message: >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 17:22:33 1997 Received: from hotmail.com ([205.161.129.79]) by basement.replay.com (8.8.5/RePlay, Inc.) with SMTP id CAA21398 for FG@hotmail.com; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:22:25 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:22:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: FG@hotmail.com Message-Id: <199706070022.CAA21398@basement.replay.com> Subject: So! The truth comes out... I know what you are. You will be exposed. You have been warned. ----------end message -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 05:47:58 1997 >From lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hk Mon Jun 9 20:50:30 1997 Received: from localhost by uxmail.ust.hk with SMTP id <102319-17029>; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:51:09 +0800 Date:Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:47:42 +0800 (HKT) Sender: HOLLINGER RICHARD VERNON From:rv X-Sender: lbhollin@uststf3.ust.hk To:Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: A personal threat In-Reply-To: <339BE64F.7275@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1591 Frederick, I believe that replay.com is the site of one of a number of anonymous e-mail forwarders that are available on internet. As I recall, the default address will be "nobody@replay.com" unless you specify another (fictitious) address. That may be how this was done. You might want to do an internet search for "replay.com" to see what is going on that site (I stumbled across it a year or so ago and have looked at it recently). Richard On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Someone sent the following message to my email account last Friday. > I'm not sure how this was done but I have contacted hotmail.com > and request that if anything appears on alt.religion.bahai or > elsewhere in my name that is not congruent with my past postings > it be taken with a grain or ton of salt.... I'd even appreciate > being notified about it. This message was not sent from my own > account.... > > ----------begin message: > > From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 17:22:33 1997 > Received: from hotmail.com ([205.161.129.79]) > by basement.replay.com (8.8.5/RePlay, Inc.) with SMTP id > CAA21398 > for FG@hotmail.com; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:22:25 +0200 (MET > DST) > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:22:25 +0200 (MET DST) > From: FG@hotmail.com > Message-Id: <199706070022.CAA21398@basement.replay.com> > Subject: So! The truth comes out... > > I know what you are. You will be exposed. You have been warned. > ----------end message > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > From - Tue Jul 29 08:33:39 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 25 04:25:13 1997 Received: (qmail 8486 invoked from network); 25 Jul 1997 11:25:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 1997 11:25:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33D88D78.7AB0@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 07:26:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com, talisman@umich.edu Subject: A return to Moscow? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1179 Just as arbitrarily, it seems the Man of Steel, Stalin himself, has passed some kind of reprieve or directive and now my keepers say I am at last free to leave.... The gates are open.... At any time I might choose to walk through them, out into the forests, to make my way as best I can, to Moscow or anywhere else I might care to go.... Strange the exhilaration that overwhelms the soul, freedom, and a fresh breeze flooding in, invigorating.... despite the injustice.... Alas, I've lost the address from which the condemnation came, seemingly irrevocable, eternally damning.... guillotining my soul.... I worry about his motives but all my companions died this spring in the late bitter snows.... We had to wait for the ground to thaw to bury them.... Hateful memory, hateful.... And so there's no one left that I might ask the address of.... Stranger, might you have it? Does human pity and kinship still exist? I fear the worst.... After so much painful evidence these many years.... -- 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 - Thu May 29 05:58:59 1997 >From notarius@nym.alias.net Tue May 27 07:56:28 1997 Date: 27 May 1997 14:56:24 -0000 Message-ID: <19970527145624.28412.qmail@nym.alias.net> From: Notarius To: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: A talk off the list X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 793 Frederick, I have got to talk with you off the list. We have been outspoken. With all right, I should add. But we are being shunned and there are very few posts. I will probably not post for a couple of days. We cant keep the newsgroup going all by ourselves. Some people would love to hear me say that, but I dont want to give them the satisfaction. Thats why I take this to private email. Its too bad that we are both technodummies. We need help and I dont know where to look for it. My Spanish is bad and I cant set up the list. This is a nymaccount, as you are probably aware of. You dropped a bomb when you wrote about the coverups in Wilmette. Is Roger on the NSA? He just disappeared. Everybody disappeared, though I "hear" Donald grinding his teeth. Notarius From - Thu May 22 19:34:16 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Thu May 22 12:57:04 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA02675; Thu, 22 May 1997 14:57:48 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 14:57:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199705221957.OAA02675@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: a thought Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1112 Dear Fred, I don't know if you know me, but I contributed to Irfan for a while. I'm one of your "yes" votes, too. I'm not a Baha'i, but I'm married to Frank Baker. He is currently a Baha'i kind of the way I am Jewish, sentimentally attached due to family and upbringing. My view of the Baha'i Faith and community began as neutral about 10 years ago and has gone steadily downhill ever since. I think the problems go very deep. I won't list the problems, as they would not be news to you, but I watch in horror as you continue to take the punishment. It seems to me that others have been able to come to terms and go on in a more peaceful way (Juan is a good example). Wouldn't it be healthier for you to walk away and find spiritual, intellectual, and social fulfillment elsewhere? The good people, e.g., Susan Maneck and others, will still be your friends, and you will be free from the craziness, the self-serving semantics/exegesis, the martinets, the ego-tripping evangelists, the control-freak fundamentalists, etc. You don't need this tsuris (grief)! Just a vent/thought! Fran From - Fri May 23 07:48:25 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 23 03:41:42 1997 Received: (qmail 15726 invoked from network); 23 May 1997 10:41:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 23 May 1997 10:41:40 -0000 Message-ID: <338574AF.2330@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 06:42:55 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fran Baker CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought References: <199705221957.OAA02675@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2149 Fran, Thanks for the kind word. I truly appreciate. There have been so few! If you find it acceptable, I'd like to post my response here to your message. I haven't done so and won't unless I hear back from you that it's okay. Fred Incidentally, I recently published an essay on Saul Bellow, familiar at all with him? -- Fran Baker wrote: > > Dear Fred, > > I don't know if you know me, but I contributed to Irfan for a while. > I'm one of your "yes" votes, too. I'm not a Baha'i, but I'm married > to Frank Baker. He is currently a Baha'i kind of the way I am Jewish, > sentimentally attached due to family and upbringing. My view of > the Baha'i Faith and community began as neutral about 10 years ago > and has gone steadily downhill ever since. I think the problems go very deep. > I won't list the problems, as they would not be news to you, but I watch > in horror as you continue to take the punishment. It seems to me that > others have been able to come to terms and go on in a more peaceful way > (Juan is a good example). Wouldn't it be healthier for you to walk away > and find spiritual, intellectual, and social fulfillment elsewhere? I could never take the route that Cole has.... I began my intellectual development as a young man reading Emerson and his struggles with the church.... I quite rationally left the Catholic church I was born into. I can't and won't go backwards. I believe quite deeply in the Bahai Faith. It's the way, historically, it's been interpreted by some that I find problematic.... > The good people, e.g., Susan Maneck and others, will still be your friends, > and you will be free from the craziness, the self-serving semantics/exegesis, > the martinets, the ego-tripping evangelists, the control-freak fundamentalists, etc. > You don't need this tsuris (grief)! Just a vent/thought! I could never walk away, you see.... It's to the bitter end for me.... Life is full of grief; I don't expect ever to be free of it. There are duties more important than the evasion of grief.... > > Fran -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 06:12:06 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Fri May 23 08:37:30 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA03533; Fri, 23 May 1997 10:40:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:40:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199705231540.KAA03533@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: jsHJAZXvtdHyUnOzXeLWqg== X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3924 > From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 23 05:42:13 1997 > Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 06:42:55 -0400 > From: FG > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: Fran Baker > CC: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: a thought > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Fran, > > Thanks for the kind word. I truly appreciate. There have been > so few! If you find it acceptable, I'd like to post my response > here to your message. I haven't done so and won't unless I hear > back from you that it's okay. > > Fred > Incidentally, I recently published an essay on Saul Bellow, > familiar at all with him? > -- > > Fran Baker wrote: > > > > Dear Fred, > > > > I don't know if you know me, but I contributed to Irfan for a while. > > I'm one of your "yes" votes, too. I'm not a Baha'i, but I'm married > > to Frank Baker. He is currently a Baha'i kind of the way I am Jewish, > > sentimentally attached due to family and upbringing. My view of > > the Baha'i Faith and community began as neutral about 10 years ago > > and has gone steadily downhill ever since. I think the problems go very deep. > > I won't list the problems, as they would not be news to you, but I watch > > in horror as you continue to take the punishment. It seems to me that > > others have been able to come to terms and go on in a more peaceful way > > (Juan is a good example). Wouldn't it be healthier for you to walk away > > and find spiritual, intellectual, and social fulfillment elsewhere? > > I could never take the route that Cole has.... I began my intellectual > development as a young man reading Emerson and his struggles with the > church.... I quite rationally left the Catholic church I was born into. > I can't and won't go backwards. I believe quite deeply in the Bahai > Faith. It's the way, historically, it's been interpreted by some that > I find problematic.... > > > The good people, e.g., Susan Maneck and others, will still be your friends, > > and you will be free from the craziness, the self-serving semantics/exegesis, > > the martinets, the ego-tripping evangelists, the control-freak fundamentalists, etc. > > You don't need this tsuris (grief)! Just a vent/thought! > > I could never walk away, you see.... It's to the bitter end for me.... > Life is full of grief; I don't expect ever to be free of it. There > are duties more important than the evasion of grief.... > > > > > Fran > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Oh, Fred, you are so hard on yourself. But I understand...you really do believe it. I am too firmly grounded in a skeptical view of claims such as those of Bahu'llah; it makes no sense to me that this is God's work...the evidence against it is overwhelming to me...but that's not what this is about. I was concerned for what this is all doing to your health and well-being. Yes, the Baha'i Faith's institutions and community had to evolve, and they happen to have evolved in unfortunate ways; it could have been much better. On the other hand, I think the seeds of the problems (along with the seeds of better things) were there from the very beginning. Paranoia, triumphalism, punitiveness, etc.; they were always there, they are no accident. Oops, I am trying to convert you, and I don't really believe in doing that. Yes, I am familiar with Saul Bellow (his son was a classmate of mine at U of Chicago years ago)! What was your essay about? My background is in philosophy and literature. It is fine with me if you post our exchange, except please delete the following, which is just between you and me: > > and you will be free from the craziness, the self-serving semantics/exegesis, > > the martinets, the ego-tripping evangelists, the control-freak > > fundamentalists, etc. With sympathy and moral support, Fran From - Tue May 27 06:12:08 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Fri May 23 08:48:08 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA03536; Fri, 23 May 1997 10:51:09 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:51:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199705231551.KAA03536@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: qqUFQ/msPaUG2Ljpge1CNA== X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 302 Dear Fred, Please also delete the following sentence, as I do not want to speak for Frank in a public forum. > > He is currently a Baha'i kind of the way I am Jewish, > > sentimentally attached due to family and upbringing. Thanks so much. Have you thought of writing a novel? Fran From - Tue May 27 06:12:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 02:52:04 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by f33.hotmail.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA12285; Tue, 27 May 1997 02:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705270951.CAA12285@f33.hotmail.com> Received: from 199.179.42.20 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 1997 02:51:25 PDT X-Originating-IP: [199.179.42.20] From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 02:51:25 PDT X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1245 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Fri May 23 08:48:08 1997 >Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA03536; Fri, 23 May 1997 10:51:09 -0500 (CDT) >Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:51:09 -0500 (CDT) >From: Fran Baker >Message-Id: <199705231551.KAA03536@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> >To: FG@hotmail.com >Subject: Re: a thought >Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-MD5: qqUFQ/msPaUG2Ljpge1CNA== > > >Dear Fred, > >Please also delete the following sentence, as I do not want to >speak for Frank in a public forum. > >> > He is currently a Baha'i kind of the way I am Jewish, >> > sentimentally attached due to family and upbringing. I've just made a note of it and will do so. Thanks. > >Thanks so much. > >Have you thought of writing a novel? Why a novel? I consider myself a poet-critic, really.... > >Fran > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From - Tue May 27 06:12:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 03:02:09 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by f23.hotmail.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA11769; Tue, 27 May 1997 03:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705271001.DAA11769@f23.hotmail.com> Received: from 199.179.42.20 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 1997 03:01:37 PDT X-Originating-IP: [199.179.42.20] From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 03:01:37 PDT X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2135 Fran wrote: > >Oh, Fred, you are so hard on yourself. But I understand...you really >do believe it. I am too firmly grounded in a skeptical view of claims >such as those of Bahu'llah; it makes no sense to me that this is >God's work...the evidence against it is overwhelming to me...but that's >not what this is about. I was concerned for what this is all doing >to your health and well-being. My health is just fine, thank you. And so's my well-being.... Actually, getting better all the time.... > >Yes, the Baha'i Faith's institutions and community >had to evolve, and they happen to have evolved in unfortunate ways; >it could have been much better. On the other hand, I think the seeds >of the problems (along with the seeds of better things) were there >from the very beginning. Paranoia, triumphalism, punitiveness, etc.; >they were always there, they are no accident. Oops, I am trying to >convert you, and I don't really believe in doing that. I think you're right in some ways.... > >Yes, I am familiar with Saul Bellow (his son was a classmate of mine >at U of Chicago years ago)! What was your essay about? My background >is in philosophy and literature. "Saul Bellow's Soul." In Saul Bellow and the Struggle for the Center. ed. Eugene Hollanhan. 1996, AMS Press. (I suggested the title to him and then he thanklessly stole it from me....) Now I'm trying to convert you.... > >It is fine with me if you post our exchange, except please delete >the following, which is just between you and me: > >> > and you will be free from the craziness, the self-serving semantics/exegesis, >> > the martinets, the ego-tripping evangelists, the control-freak >> > fundamentalists, etc. Ahhh gee! That was the good part, Fran.... > >With sympathy and moral support, >Fran I thank you for the latter but worry about the former.... -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From - Thu May 29 05:59:00 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Tue May 27 08:57:28 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA07524; Tue, 27 May 1997 10:59:42 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 10:59:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199705271559.KAA07524@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: +qY6fLrleDETx7dzJMgTiw== X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 165 > > Why a novel? I consider myself a poet-critic, really.... > Sorry, perils of going on so little information! It was the Bellow reference I guess. From - Thu May 29 05:59:01 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Tue May 27 09:27:00 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA07527 for FG@hotmail.com; Tue, 27 May 1997 11:29:49 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 11:29:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199705271629.LAA07527@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: a thought Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: e6Ak8MAjlFw+abaay4KTkg== X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 892 > > My health is just fine, thank you. And so's my well-being.... > Actually, getting better all the time.... > > Sorry, I was presumptuous (again)! > >> > and you will be free from the craziness, the self-serving > semantics/exegesis, > >> > the martinets, the ego-tripping evangelists, the control-freak > >> > fundamentalists, etc. > > Ahhh gee! That was the good part, Fran.... > I had a feeling you'd say that! > > > >With sympathy and moral support, > >Fran > > I thank you for the latter but worry about the former.... > > OK, no more sympathy, just moral support. Picky, picky! > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Rochester Hills, Michigan USA > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > From - Mon Jun 02 07:25:58 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 2 03:50:19 1997 Received: (qmail 9127 invoked from network); 2 Jun 1997 10:50:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 1997 10:50:17 -0000 Message-ID: <3392A5B7.371D@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:51:35 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & conscience Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 515 Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, page 2: "O ye that have minds to know! Raise up your suppliant hands to the heaven of the one God, and humble yourselves and be lowly before Him, and thank Him for this supreme endowment, and implore Him to succor us until, in this present age, godlike impulses may radiate from the conscience of mankind, and this divinely-kindled fire which has been entrusted to the human heart may never die away." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 22 19:34:09 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Thu May 22 05:55:31 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id FAA10859; Thu, 22 May 1997 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705221255.FAA10859@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha & conscience Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3002 Douglas A. McAdam wrote: > > Dear Fred- > > Some time ago you posted a quote from the Beloved Master about freedom of > conscience and the right to state our beliefs. I responded and asked what > the purpose of this single post was, because there was no accompanying > explanation. > > Then you responded- > > > >What should Bahais do if that "right" is taken away? If other > > > >overly zealous Bahais suppress their right to express themselves, > > > >what should be done? What when Bahais themselves deprive other > > > >Bahais of what Abdu'l-Baha called "freedom of conscience, liberty > > > >of thought and right of speech"? > [clip] > After you state your purpose I will feel better focused in addressing your > needs. > > regards, > doug Let me restore the context by quoting my posting of Abdu'l-Baha: > At 3:07 PM 5/8/97, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of religious conscience and belief: > > > > "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 freethought, > > 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." > > > > Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > It seems to me the many, many passages in the Writings, like this one, ought to be considered too. That's all. The usual response is, and has been, to dismiss it immediately and leap over it to cite more, what? What word should I use, trying to find a "nice" one? If a "balance" between various passages is called for, let's not tip the balance in the oppressive direction..... That's all.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- 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. From - Thu May 22 19:34:11 1997 >From news@reference.com Thu May 22 05:55:34 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by bilbo.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id FAA29134; Thu, 22 May 1997 05:55:30 -0700 (PDT) To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net Path: not-for-mail From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha & conscience Date: 22 May 1997 12:55:30 GMT Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service Lines: 73 Message-ID: <5m1fo2$sec$1@bilbo.reference.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shadowfax.reference.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Originator: panuser@reference.com () X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3002 Douglas A. McAdam wrote: > > Dear Fred- > > Some time ago you posted a quote from the Beloved Master about freedom of > conscience and the right to state our beliefs. I responded and asked what > the purpose of this single post was, because there was no accompanying > explanation. > > Then you responded- > > > >What should Bahais do if that "right" is taken away? If other > > > >overly zealous Bahais suppress their right to express themselves, > > > >what should be done? What when Bahais themselves deprive other > > > >Bahais of what Abdu'l-Baha called "freedom of conscience, liberty > > > >of thought and right of speech"? > [clip] > After you state your purpose I will feel better focused in addressing your > needs. > > regards, > doug Let me restore the context by quoting my posting of Abdu'l-Baha: > At 3:07 PM 5/8/97, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of religious conscience and belief: > > > > "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 freethought, > > 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." > > > > Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > It seems to me the many, many passages in the Writings, like this one, ought to be considered too. That's all. The usual response is, and has been, to dismiss it immediately and leap over it to cite more, what? What word should I use, trying to find a "nice" one? If a "balance" between various passages is called for, let's not tip the balance in the oppressive direction..... That's all.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- 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. From - Tue Jun 03 07:30:32 1997 >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Mon Jun 2 07:18:31 1997 Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10786 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Teri Rhan To: Fredrick Glaysher Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & conscience (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 947 Same question as your previous message. Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:51:35 -0400 From: FG Cc: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & conscience Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, page 2: "O ye that have minds to know! Raise up your suppliant hands to the heaven of the one God, and humble yourselves and be lowly before Him, and thank Him for this supreme endowment, and implore Him to succor us until, in this present age, godlike impulses may radiate from the conscience of mankind, and this divinely-kindled fire which has been entrusted to the human heart may never die away." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 02 07:25:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 2 03:44:35 1997 Received: (qmail 11911 invoked from network); 2 Jun 1997 10:44:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 1997 10:44:33 -0000 Message-ID: <3392A45F.51A4@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:45:51 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 288 Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, page 53: "One of the principal reasons why people of other religions have shunned and failed to become converted to the Faith of God is fanaticism and unreasoning religious zeal." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 03 07:30:31 1997 >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Mon Jun 2 07:15:53 1997 Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10768; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Teri Rhan To: Fredrick Glaysher cc: srb moderators Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 921 Dear Fred, Since you sent this to the srb moderators, crossposting to a number of groups that does not include srb, I just want to confirm your intent. Is this a message for the moderators or are you wanting to post it to srb? Thanks Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:45:51 -0400 From: FG Cc: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.iranian, soc.rights.human Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, page 53: "One of the principal reasons why people of other religions have shunned and failed to become converted to the Faith of God is fanaticism and unreasoning religious zeal." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 03 07:30:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 04:27:00 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by f61.hotmail.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA24027; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 04:26:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199706031126.EAA24027@f61.hotmail.com> Received: from 199.179.42.122 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Jun 1997 04:26:20 PDT X-Originating-IP: [199.179.42.122] From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: trhan@serv.net Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism (fwd) Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 04:26:20 PDT X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1899 I'd appreciate it if you'd post it. I emailed it since you or someone there clarified for me last week you don't accept crossposts. I thought emailing would be an acceptable way of submitting it to srb. No? -- >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Mon Jun 2 07:15:53 1997 >Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) >by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10768; >Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:03 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:03 -0700 (PDT) >From: Teri Rhan >To: Fredrick Glaysher >cc: srb moderators >Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism (fwd) >Message-ID: >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Dear Fred, >Since you sent this to the srb moderators, crossposting to a number of >groups that does not include srb, I just want to confirm your intent. Is >this a message for the moderators or are you wanting to post it to srb? > >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:45:51 -0400 >From: FG >Cc: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org >Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, soc.culture.israel, >soc.culture.iranian, soc.rights.human > >Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, page 53: > >"One of the principal reasons why people of other religions >have shunned and failed to become converted to the Faith of >God is fanaticism and unreasoning religious zeal." > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:11 1997 >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Tue Jun 3 07:04:14 1997 Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA22136; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 07:04:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199706031126.EAA24027@f61.hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2357 Thanks for the confirmation. In the future, you can simply send it to soc.religion.bahai without the crossposting, then we'll know you want it posted to the newsgroup (and is not just a message to the moderators). Thanks Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I'd appreciate it if you'd post it. I emailed it since you or > someone there clarified for me last week you don't accept > crossposts. I thought emailing would be an acceptable way > of submitting it to srb. No? > -- > > >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Mon Jun 2 07:15:53 1997 > >Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) > >by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA10768; > >Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:03 -0700 (PDT) > >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 07:16:03 -0700 (PDT) > >From: Teri Rhan > >To: Fredrick Glaysher > >cc: srb moderators > >Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism (fwd) > >Message-ID: > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > >Dear Fred, > >Since you sent this to the srb moderators, crossposting to a number of > >groups that does not include srb, I just want to confirm your intent. > Is > >this a message for the moderators or are you wanting to post it to srb? > > > >Thanks > >Teri Rhan > >trhan@serv.net > >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 06:45:51 -0400 > >From: FG > >Cc: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org > >Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & fanaticism > >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, soc.culture.israel, > >soc.culture.iranian, soc.rights.human > > > >Abdu'l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, page 53: > > > >"One of the principal reasons why people of other religions > >have shunned and failed to become converted to the Faith of > >God is fanaticism and unreasoning religious zeal." > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > From - Fri May 16 06:26:51 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 11:37:23 1997 Received: (qmail 13190 invoked from network); 14 May 1997 11:18:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 May 1997 11:18:07 -0000 Message-ID: <33799FB1.6F79@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 07:19:14 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,misc.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.irania n,alt.religion,soc.rights.human Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & liberty References: <5knsog$hfq$1@news2.i-2000.com> <5l0fno$240$1@news2.i-2000.com> <3375f1aa.147995046@news.wwnet.com> <5l7hc3$l8s$1@news2.i-2000.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 882 Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of conscience and liberty: "These [see pages 88-91] are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty there of produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 15 07:10:08 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Thu May 15 03:58:44 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id DAA14446; Thu, 15 May 1997 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 03:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705151058.DAA14446@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & liberty Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1129 Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of conscience and liberty: "These [see pages 88-91] are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty there of produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- 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. From - Thu May 15 07:10:10 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Thu May 15 04:00:15 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id DAA14535; Thu, 15 May 1997 04:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 04:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705151100.DAA14535@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Abdu'l-Baha & liberty Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1129 Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of conscience and liberty: "These [see pages 88-91] are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty there of produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- 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. From - Fri May 16 06:26:56 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 11:47:54 1997 Received: (qmail 10028 invoked from network); 12 May 1997 10:25:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 May 1997 10:25:27 -0000 Message-ID: <3376F058.5BF3@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 06:26:32 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech References: <5ktiq6$5si$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> <5kvud0$cbb$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5896 Dr Steve Burgess wrote: > > FG@hotmail.com recently posted a quotation from Abdu'l-Baha on > freedom of religious conscience and belief. This is an interesting > concept often debated during the last year in the group. Free speech is > not without responsibility and we often ignore this in discussing the > Baha'i viewpoint on free speech. I have seen much posted about > backbiting but very little about calumny. What you seem to be ignoring, to my mind, is Abdu'l-Baha's own words on freedom of conscience and belief. Why? Find them unpalatable? > > Might I add a few more quotes to help Fred Glaysher more accurately > balance the Baha'i concept of free speech with a few more quotes > concerning limitations on the content of free speech? I find it interesting that in stead of discussing the quotation I posted you launch into firing other passages back at me. I don't believe that's fair or that it does justice to the Writings. It is an immense Ocean. If we are to avoid the fact that any devil can quote scripture, we need to at least listen to the words that are quoted to begin with.... > > In sooth, there will be found in those regions certain persons like > the Pharisees of the time of Christ, who, night and day, will exert > themselves with all heart and soul to cast forth doubts, in order that > they may deprive the souls of the glad-tidings of the Holy Spirit. They > will disseminate false rumors and utter many a calumny and will publish > and announce stories. They will undertake all these only for the sake > of earthly vanities. (`Abdu'l-Baha: Baha'i World Faith*, page 388) Please use quotation marks around the words of the Writings. I find your quoting this passage less than honorable. By your clear implication, I'm a Pharisee in your reckoning.... It seems to me, since you're utterly ignoring the Words of Abdu'l-Baha and immediately striking out with nasty suggestions that you're not truly interest in the freedom of conscience He expressed respect for.... Essentially, you're shouting "Fire" in a theater.... > > Those who would have men believe that religion is their own private > property once more bring their efforts to bear against the Sun of > Truth: they resist the Command of God; they invent calumnies, not > having arguments against it, neither proofs. They attack with masked > faces, not daring to come forth into the light of day. > Our methods are different, we do not attack, neither calumniate; we > do not wish to dispute with them; we bring forth proofs and arguments; > we invite them to confute our statements. They cannot answer us, but > instead, they write all they can think of against the Divine Messenger, > Baha'u'llah. I don't recall immediately the context Abdu'l-Baha says this all in in Paris Talks. I'm concerned that you're switching contexts. What are your "proofs and arguments"? I gave you the Writings on freedom of the human conscience, you give me insinuations. Speak up clearly so all understand what you're getting at. > Do not let your hearts be troubled by these defamatory writings! > Obey the words of Baha'u'llah and answer them not. Rejoice, rather, > that even these falsehoods will result in the spread of the truth. When > these slanders appear inquiries are made, and those who inquire are led > into a knowledge of the Faith. > (`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, page 103) > > For over a period of thirty years, always increasing their efforts, > they inflicted extreme anguish on Abdu'l-Baha; and they did not, in all > this span, ever take one step nor draw a single breath to help the > Faith. They spent their entire time in attempts to wean to beloved of > God away from obedience to the Centre of the Covenant, and to undermine > their convictions, making them waver in their faith, and turning them > cold; and because of what they did, thousands of souls were veiled from > the holy Cause, and prevented from embracing it. > Such then is a glimpse of their aims and actions, which made them > to be cut off from the Holy Tree, and excluded them from glory and joy > everlasting. They lost out, both here and hereafter, and `this verily is > utter perdition'.(1) > (Shoghi Effendi: Bahiyyih Khanum, pages 137-138) Again, to a beautiful passage by Abdu'l-Baha, you respond with intimations of covenant breaking! Shame on you.... > > 2253. Surely in this very critical period of human history when old > institutions are beginning to crumble down or being considerably > modified, there is a certain amount of maladjustments and unfortunate > happenings; but such a condition is not permanent. The Cause and its > institutions will gradually take their place and with its virile spirit > secure the full obedience of its followers and of the people of the > world as a whole. Let's face it. It's just not happening, and apparently isn't going to happen either. Why? I suggest because of very fanatical interpretations of the Bahai Writings that are DRIVING people away.... Interpretations like Mr. Burgess' in this response to my quoting a wonderful passage from Abdu'l-Baha.... So we need not be too pessimistic as to the future or > take passing conditions too seriously. The young people who are living > between these two eras, and seeing the destruction of old institutions > are therefore apt to discard all respect for them and in fact view with > contempt any person that may still cherish the old. Hence we see the > loose morality prevalent among them. This condition is not true only of > America and Europe but also of the East, and I dare say in the East more > than in the West. > (Shoghi Effendi: Youth, page 422) -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 06:27:01 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 11:48:03 1997 Received: (qmail 10080 invoked from network); 12 May 1997 10:47:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 May 1997 10:47:25 -0000 Message-ID: <3376F57E.1F45@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 06:48:30 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.righ ts.human Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech References: <5l20i1$4dn$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3295 Douglas A. McAdam wrote: > > Dear friends- > > This, to me is a very important subject inasmuch as it deals with a very > important aspect of our daily lives. > > In the Writings we are not only given the right to express ourselves > freely, but we are also taught how best to exercise this freedom. What should Bahais do if that "right" is taken away? If other overly zealous Bahais suppress their right to express themselves, what should be done? What when Bahais themselves deprive other Bahais of what Abdu'l-Baha called "freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech"? [clip] > > There are many other quotes regarding the appropriate ways in which we > should communicate or make known our conscience, share our beliefs, and > otherwise connect with reality, with God and His Creatures. You've basically ignored the words of Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of conscience and gone into a fingering wagging session.... [clip] > > IMHO it would be impossible to have freedom of speech without the > acquisition of the appropriate virtues. Without virtues we suffer from the > pull of our material side and our speech echos the attack and defend, or > flight and fight reactions of the animal whose purpose is survival at all > costs. Since you utterly ignore the words of Abdu'l-Baha, which I posted, I find it difficult not to believe that this is exactly what you're doing.... [clip] > > Indeed, I believe this is a most worthy and important subject to discuss in > depth. It seems to me you haven't touch the real issues at all. By blithely ignoring the passage by Abdu'l-Baha that I posted you are merely responding in a highly inappropriate way. > > regards, > doug > > At 3:07 PM 5/8/97, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of religious conscience and belief: > > > > "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 freethought, > > 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." > > > > Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > > -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 06:26:48 1997 >From username@mandic.com.br Thu May 15 07:07:32 1997 Received: from eanunes by merlim.mandic.com.br (8.6.12/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20802; Thu, 15 May 1997 11:08:48 -0300 Message-Id: <199705151408.LAA20802@merlim.mandic.com.br> From: "Eduardo Nunes" To: Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 00:23:00 -0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 276 Hi, Please I'd like to know more about the Bahai's . Thank Ed ================================> Eduardo Albuquerque Nunes email : bigduda@usp.br Eduardo_Nunes@wvi.org <=============================== From - Fri May 16 07:50:07 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Fri May 16 04:26:27 1997 Received: (qmail 650 invoked from network); 16 May 1997 11:22:52 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 May 1997 11:22:52 -0000 Message-ID: <337C43D6.5CE5@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 07:24:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eduardo Nunes Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech References: <199705151408.LAA20802@merlim.mandic.com.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 664 Eduardo Nunes wrote: > > Hi, > Please I'd like to know more about the Bahai's . > Thank > Ed > > ================================> > Eduardo Albuquerque Nunes > email : bigduda@usp.br > Eduardo_Nunes@wvi.org > <=============================== If you've never heard about the Bahai Faith before, you might try soc.religion.bahai; they do a good job of introducing people to the basics about the Faith. Alt.religion.bahai might assume a little more experience or knowledge and tends to be a little more lively in debate.... Hope this helps! -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 06:27:04 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 11:56:56 1997 Received: (qmail 16650 invoked from network); 14 May 1997 11:46:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 May 1997 11:46:55 -0000 Message-ID: <3379A673.7AEC@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 07:48:03 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech References: <5ktiq6$5si$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> <5kvud0$cbb$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1044 Dr Steve Burgess wrote: > > FG@hotmail.com recently posted a quotation from Abdu'l-Baha on > freedom of religious conscience and belief. This is an interesting > concept often debated during the last year in the group. Free speech is > not without responsibility and we often ignore this in discussing the > Baha'i viewpoint on free speech. I have seen much posted about > backbiting but very little about calumny. Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this view is fundamentally a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings--a common one, indeed.... > > Might I add a few more quotes to help Fred Glaysher more accurately > balance the Baha'i concept of free speech with a few more quotes > concerning limitations on the content of free speech? I'm also further struck by the lack of "balance" in this point of view and how predictable it is in its dismissal of the Writings when they clearly support respectable, civilized values.... [clip] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 06:27:11 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 12:01:07 1997 Received: (qmail 19866 invoked from network); 15 May 1997 10:23:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 May 1997 10:23:04 -0000 Message-ID: <337AE442.669A@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 06:24:02 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai,alt.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech References: <"wkD9RC.A.6hF.s-nez"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6885 Jeffrey J. Davey wrote: > > In article <"V6xpND.A.3sF.qi-dz"@bounty>, Frederick says... > > > >Douglas A. McAdam wrote: > >> > >> Dear friends- > >> > >> This, to me is a very important subject inasmuch as it deals with a > >> very important aspect of our daily lives. > >> > >> In the Writings we are not only given the right to express > >> ourselves freely, but we are also taught how best to exercise this > >> freedom. > > > >What should Bahais do if that "right" is taken away? If other overly > >zealous Bahais suppress their right to express themselves, what > >should be done? What when Bahais themselves deprive other Bahais of > >what Abdu'l-Baha called "freedom of conscience, liberty of thought > >and right of speech"? > > > > This would seem somewhat obvious. Pray, meditate on possible > solutions, strive for unity between the parties in disagreement, > *consult*, etc. Plus pray a little bit more! Charming response, but not at all realistic.... or to the point. > > In all the Writings I've read about consultation, conflict resolution, > disagreements and the like, the suggested guidelines always embody the > attributes of the Faith. I would think it kind of rediculous that a > good way to bring about positive change is with "guns a-blazing". Now hold on thar' pardner! I never in my whole dang life ever suggest'd dat! > > >> There are many other quotes regarding the appropriate ways in which > >> we should communicate or make known our conscience, share our > >> beliefs, and otherwise connect with reality, with God and His > >> Creatures. > > > >You've basically ignored the words of Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of > >conscience and gone into a fingering wagging session.... > > > > I don't see how Mr. McAdam's last statement here does what you claim. > In what way do you consider this finger-wagging? Or did you not > include the pertinent text? He deleted it.... > > >> IMHO it would be impossible to have freedom of speech without the > >> acquisition of the appropriate virtues. Without virtues we suffer > >> from the pull of our material side and our speech echos the attack > >> and defend, or flight and fight reactions of the animal whose > >> purpose is survival at all costs. > > > >Since you utterly ignore the words of Abdu'l-Baha, which I posted, I > >find it difficult not to believe that this is exactly what you're > >doing.... > > > > Your accusation is unfair, Frederick. I believe the point Mr. McAdam > was trying to make was that in everything we do, 'free' speech > included, we must constantly strive for accord and unity, and the best > way to do so, which we have been told time and time again, is to try > to reflect our spiritual attributes to our best degree. I don't believe I'm being "unfair" in pointing out he's ignoring a passage by Abdu'l-Baha that is highly relevant to the matter at hand. > > I do not think that Mr. McAdam is avoiding the issue by any means. > >From how I see it, he provided complementary information to the quote > you provided. This is a very common way in which we study the > Writings, is it not, to refer to multiple references to the subject at > hand? Doing so hopefully gives us a better overall understanding. > Multi-dimensional, if you will. What he's done is to change the topic, brushing aside the original one, as you do too.... > > >> Indeed, I believe this is a most worthy and important subject to > >> discuss in depth. > > > >It seems to me you haven't touch the real issues at all. By blithely > >ignoring the passage by Abdu'l-Baha that I posted you are merely > >responding in a highly inappropriate way. > > > > Um - inappropriate? I think you may have made a few inferences that > were not intended in Mr. McAdam's post. I don't remember reading him > accuse anyone, much less yourself, of doing/thinking anything > unseemly. Only God knows someone's true intent - don't be so quick to > read in wrongdoing! I did not use the word "wrongdoing." I said inappropriate in the context. > > And he *did* say it is worth discussing more - certainly sounds like > an invitation to me! Selective response.... > > >> > >> regards, > >> doug > >> > >> At 3:07 PM 5/8/97, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of religious conscience and belief: > >> > > >> > "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 freethought, > >> > 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." > >> > > >> > Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. > >> > > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >Rochester Hills, Michigan USA > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > > It is a very interesting quote! I think it would be useful to > research historical data regarding the practices/beliefs of that > church at the time of this speech. It could be this church was > working towards unifying the community by having open discussions and > "conscientous opinion" on matters of theology? Perhaps they were > working towards bringing different Judeo/Christian groups closer > together? > > But even so, I doubt that *all* forms of speech would be equally > accepted. For example, how would people accept information, however > correct, if it was delivered in a condescending and denigrating tone? > (Note: the above is *not* an accusation of any sort of anybody doing > anything! Anybody who thinks otherwise should be taken outside and > severely beaten around the ankles with a wet noodle! ;-)) Cute, Mr. Davey.... The usual evasion.... > > Jeff Davey -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 07:49:57 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Fri May 16 03:55:51 1997 Received: (qmail 592 invoked from network); 16 May 1997 10:55:48 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 May 1997 10:55:48 -0000 Message-ID: <337C3D78.2E9@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 06:56:56 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Abdul-Baha: freedom of conscience and speech References: <"sHQR5D.A.NrF.xGoez"@bounty> <19970515174535.25668.qmail@nym.alias.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3599 Notarius wrote: > > In soc.religion.bahai Frederick wrote: > > >Dr Steve Burgess wrote: > >> > >>FG@hotmail.com recently posted a quotation from > >>Abdu'l-Baha on freedom of religious conscience and belief. This > >>is an interesting concept often debated during the last year in > >>the group. > >>Free speech is not without responsibility and we often ignore this > >>in discussing the Baha'i viewpoint on free speech. I have seen > >>much posted about backbiting but very little about calumny. > > >Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this view is > >fundamentally a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings--a > >common one, indeed.... > > Hi Frederick, > this was not posted to alt.religion.bahai, but I would like to see > the subject discussed here, too. > I first intended to post to both newsgroups, but I dont know if that is wise. Soc.religion.bahai is very picky about what it will post, to put it nicely.... > I am very interested in hearing more about the flow of ideas. > If the faith is dominated by thoughts that belong to an older religion, > is this really to last? > The letters of the Apostles were written in Greek.The Jewish influence > was strong in the beginning, but it didnt last. With the Bahai Faith, though, the influence of Shiism has continued much more so than the former dispensations.... I met once an American married to an Iranian in Los Angeles who summed up well the situation there: "Basically, they run the whole show for themselves." That's the way it is in the Bahai Faith in my experience. Join the Bahai Faith! Become an Iranian.... > > >>Might I add a few more quotes to help Fred Glaysher more > >>accurately balance the Baha'i concept of free speech with a few > >>more quotes concerning limitations on the content of free speech? > > >I'm also further struck by the lack of "balance" in this point of > >view and how predictable it is in its dismissal of the Writings > >when they clearly support respectable, civilized values.... > > I am also struck by the lack of balance, Frederick. > The idea of free speech is regarded as being dangerous and new. Well, as far as the Shiites are concerned, free speech IS dangerous and new.... > Some people will fight tooth and nail and different camps will be formed. According to Mr. Osborn, HE doesn't belong to a camp but utters the Truth.... > This will be interpreted as disunity and warned against. Only I and others of the decadent, Western, depraved American camp of Bahais who think Abdu'l-Baha might have meant something positive about liberty and conscience are creating "disunity".... > IMHO, it is a very healthy process. I believe so too. Shallow minds, though, can't see it, let alone begin to understand the antinomies Baha'u'llah knew God had kneaded into the human soul.... > The reactionary forces will beat at the messenger. I have seen this > happening several times already. Permit me an honest though coarse word. They've been beating the SHIT out of me for months.... > Be prepared for some suffering! You are in good company. WHERE is it? I feel awfully alone.... If you're out there, how about speaking up a little more.... I'd appreciate it. > In fact, censorship attempts like the disgusting misuse of the NO-vote > and the hurriedly established inflatable soapboxes, show that you are > on the right track. I believe so too, though few will agree, perhaps for a long time, if ever.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 22 19:34:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu May 22 13:54:44 1997 Received: (qmail 6538 invoked from network); 22 May 1997 12:19:27 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 May 1997 12:19:27 -0000 Message-ID: <338439BC.4B05@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 08:19:09 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: For the record ... References: <"sHQR5D.A.NrF.xGoez"@bounty> <19970515174535.25668.qmail@nym.alias.net> <337C3D78.2E9@pop.hotmail.com> <5lv92d$gnj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1805 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > [clip] > A final item for Frederick: From some frankly surprising remarks you have > made concerning Iranian Baha'is in three separate messages recently, one > could get a certain impression about your attitude towards Iranians. I'm > sure you don't dislike any nationality or race, and so thought that you > might like to take this opportunity to clear the air. Let me reveal a little about my background: As a young person, I spent a year of my life working with emotionally impaired children, including many minorities; one of the best friends I've ever had during my adult life was black; I spent a huge amount of my time and even my own financial resources to edit the work of an African-American poet; I lived in Japan for a year and a half where I taught at a university; I lived for two years on an American Indian reservation, where many of my students were Hopi, Navaho, Mohave, or Chemuevi; I've traveled throughout China for five weeks on a Fulbright grant, including two weeks of study at Beijing University; I've studied India and Indian literature for eight weeks on a National Endowment for the Humanities grant; I taught non-Western literature, including Persian, and multi-culture literature for over four years.... etc.... etc.... I'm not exactly the average white honky from the suburbs.... When it comes to Iranian Bahai "culture," I feel complete and unmitigated revulsion.... Of all the races on the face of this earth, I can't think of one more unpalatable than the Iranians.... Indeed, though politically incorrect, if the world were to put it to a vote, "worst culture on earth," I highly suspect most nations would vote for Iran.... > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 01 09:55:03 1997 >From ncwright@earthlink.net Fri May 30 15:04:54 1997 Received: from LOCALNAME (ip99.philadelphia.ixc.pa.pub-ip.psi.net [38.26.85.99]) by norway.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA04281 for ; Fri, 30 May 1997 15:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <338F6D8F.21FC@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 17:15:11 -0700 From: "Nona C. Wright" Reply-To: ncwright@earthlink.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: For the record ... References: <"sHQR5D.A.NrF.xGoez"@bounty> <19970515174535.25668.qmail@nym.alias.net> <337C3D78.2E9@pop.hotmail.com> <5lv92d$gnj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338439BC.4B05@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2565 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > When it comes to Iranian Bahai "culture," I feel complete and > unmitigated revulsion.... Of all the races on the face of this > earth, I can't think of one more unpalatable than the > Iranians.... Indeed, though politically incorrect, if the world > were to put it to a vote, "worst culture on earth," I highly > suspect most nations would vote for Iran.... Frederick, I would like to put two cents in here and hope I can do it with sensitivity and care for our Iranian brothers and sisters. I was discussing this issue with a friend and she reminded me that the Manifestation always comes to the place that needs it the most. Indeed the descriptions of Iran during Baha'u'llah's time are not exactly complementary. Out of this pit rose many steadfast and wonderful believers, true heros of the faith. But to believe that the contemporary Baha'is of Iranian origin have totally thrown off the influence of this culture would be naive. It still has it's influence, just as the materialistic western "me first" atttitude still influences the Baha'is of America origin. When I was a new Baha'i I was in awe of the Persian Believers because they spoke the language that Baha'u'llah spoke and I felt they had some additional knowledge which I did not have. Over the years I have learned that this is not so, they are a group of human beings with the same weaknesses and flaws, with no special advantage when it comes to understanding or living the principals of the Faith. In fact they are especially challenged because they have to work to throw off the cultural degeneration that was and is present in Iran. Please do not mistake me, there are many good things about Iranian culture, but the fact remains that the Manifestation comes to the worst place. We western believers have not done them any favors in their own spiritual development by putting the Persian believers on a pedestal. The Faith is not an Iranian religion. It was sent for the world. And every cultural group is going to have to go through painful changes and self examination before this is all worked out. That said, Frederick, I still wish you didn't have to be so dramatically negative and critical in your language. Although I am beginning to undertand more of where it comes from, I really don't believe it is helpful in getting your point across. I have been reminded of these points in spite of it, not because of your language. Putting people on the defensive is not going to open many eyes. Nona From - Sun Jun 01 10:54:31 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jun 1 07:40:20 1997 Received: (qmail 4760 invoked from network); 1 Jun 1997 14:40:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.126) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 1997 14:40:19 -0000 Message-ID: <33918A1E.21A1@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 10:41:34 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: For the record ... References: <"sHQR5D.A.NrF.xGoez"@bounty> <19970515174535.25668.qmail@nym.alias.net> <337C3D78.2E9@pop.hotmail.com> <5lv92d$gnj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338439BC.4B05@hotmail.com> <338F6D8F.21FC@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4300 Nona C. Wright wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > When it comes to Iranian Bahai "culture," I feel complete and > > unmitigated revulsion.... Of all the races on the face of this > > earth, I can't think of one more unpalatable than the > > Iranians.... Indeed, though politically incorrect, if the world > > were to put it to a vote, "worst culture on earth," I highly > > suspect most nations would vote for Iran.... > > Frederick, > > I would like to put two cents in here and hope I can do it with > sensitivity and care for our Iranian brothers and sisters. > > I was discussing this issue with a friend and she reminded me that the > Manifestation always comes to the place that needs it the most. Indeed > the descriptions of Iran during Baha'u'llah's time are not exactly > complementary. Out of this pit rose many steadfast and wonderful > believers, true heros of the faith. But to believe that the contemporary > Baha'is of Iranian origin have totally thrown off the influence of this > culture would be naive. It still has it's influence, just as the > materialistic western "me first" atttitude still influences the Baha'is > of America origin. It sure would be naive and yet it's precisely the belief often cultivated in gullible American Bahais.... > > When I was a new Baha'i I was in awe of the Persian Believers because > they spoke the language that Baha'u'llah spoke and I felt they had some > additional knowledge which I did not have. Over the years I have learned > that this is not so, they are a group of human beings with the same > weaknesses and flaws, with no special advantage when it comes to > understanding or living the principals of the Faith. In fact they are > especially challenged because they have to work to throw off the > cultural degeneration that was and is present in Iran. Please do not > mistake me, there are many good things about Iranian culture, but the > fact remains that the Manifestation comes to the worst place. It seems to me the "values" of the worst place now dominate the Bahai Faith, especially in regard to freedom of religious conscience and free speech.... I don't detect any effort whatsoever to "throw off" the decadent psuedo-values of Iran, in this regard, by Iranian Bahais.... Quite the reverse, they seem to be working diligently to indoctrinate the rest of the world into their specious thinking.... > > We western believers have not done them any favors in their own > spiritual development by putting the Persian believers on a pedestal. Don't count me in that. I feel nothing but contempt for most Iranians I've ever met, Bahai or otherwise.... I've never been able to discern any significant difference in intellectual outlook on the part of Iranian Bahais from their Muslim countrymen.... > > The Faith is not an Iranian religion. It was sent for the world. And > every cultural group is going to have to go through painful changes and > self examination before this is all worked out. I completely disagree. The Bahai Faith, in my twenty-one years of experience of it, is not a world religion but definitely a narrow, stifling little would-be Iranian religion, through and through.... I'm not just attempting to be argumentative.... I believe this is the unignorable truth, carefully concealed under the image of liberal, progressive claims and propaganda.... > > That said, Frederick, I still wish you didn't have to be so dramatically > negative and critical in your language. Although I am beginning to > undertand more of where it comes from, I really don't believe it is > helpful in getting your point across. I have been reminded of these > points in spite of it, not because of your language. Putting people on > the defensive is not going to open many eyes. If some people take the defensive, that's their choice.... I can only state what I truly believe to be the case.... Sorry if that bothers you and others.... I'm not interested in being a liar for the Bahai Faith, under any conditions whatsoever.... To me, the most Bahai thing I can do is speak honestly and candidly since so few other Bahais are capable of doing so.... > > Nona -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 03 07:30:35 1997 >From jahngiri@netcom.com Mon Jun 2 15:28:49 1997 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA26121; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:26:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ala-ca14-06.ix.netcom.com(204.32.168.70) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma026087; Mon Jun 2 17:25:51 1997 Message-ID: <339347DE.5D14@netcom.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 15:23:26 -0700 From: kj giri Reply-To: jahngiri@netcom.com Organization: cyberlearning X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian To: FG@hotmail.com CC: jahngiri@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: For the record ..Of Pomposity!!!! References: <"sHQR5D.A.NrF.xGoez"@bounty> <19970515174535.25668.qmail@nym.alias.net> <337C3D78.2E9@pop.hotmail.com> <5lv92d$gnj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338439BC.4B05@hotmail.com> <338F6D8F.21FC@earthlink.net> <33918A1E.21A1@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1393 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Nona C. Wright wrote: > > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > When it comes to Iranian Bahai "culture," I feel complete and > > > unmitigated revulsion.... Of all the races on the face of this > > > earth, I can't think of one more unpalatable than the > > > Iranians.... Indeed, though politically incorrect, if the world > > > were to put it to a vote, "worst culture on earth," I highly > > > suspect most nations would vote for Iran.... > > > > Frederick, Sir: If it where not for your, patently, arrogant mind set which is, no doubt, a product of Euro-centric ignorance and superiority complex we could have explored your ignorant and bigoted assertions about Iranian "race" and your distaste for it and the "worst culture on earth." However, with your spouting of general hatred about a nationality and a culture without even making slightest historical or philosophical arguments there is nothing to be said to educate your, pathologically, disfunctional mind. As Mark Twain said beautifully: There are ONLY two types of people in this world, decent people and indecent ones. And you, sir, are nothing but a contemptible,heartless, indecent, intellectual midget floating in the cyberspace masquerading as a real human being. Nay! As a pompous ass philosopher!!! Sur Esrafil From - Tue May 27 07:37:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 03:28:00 1997 Received: (qmail 2892 invoked from network); 27 May 1997 10:27:59 -0000 Received: from softdnserror (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 May 1997 10:27:59 -0000 Message-ID: <338AB72B.3B1B@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 06:27:55 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: For the record ... II References: <"sHQR5D.A.NrF.xGoez"@bounty> <19970515174535.25668.qmail@nym.alias.net> <337C3D78.2E9@pop.hotmail.com> <5lv92d$gnj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338439BC.4B05@hotmail.com> <3385E236.6772@NOSPAMpilot.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 925 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick, I was deeply saddened by your bitter sentiments (which I do > not in any way share). Personally I've found almost all my > international and intercultural experiences (in Africa, in China, Middle > East, Europe, > North America, with people of many ethnic, racial, and national > backgrounds, including Iranians in the US, West Africa, and France) to > be rewarding. I'm sorry you feel you can't say the same. Attached are > some counsels by Abdu'l-Baha -- note especially the last paragraph > concerning how to respond to negative treatment by "other peoples and > nations." DZO > A ridiculous posting, Mr. Osborn, beg your pardon for saying so.... "Bitter sentiments"? Not bitter at all but to the point.... Which you ignore along with the context.... while standing on your pious soapbox.... [clip] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 08 08:02:08 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 8 04:16:28 1997 Received: (qmail 2424 invoked from network); 8 May 1997 11:19:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 May 1997 11:19:02 -0000 Message-ID: <3371B650.CF3@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 07:17:36 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: joe@zippo.com Subject: add a newsgroup? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 429 I've used your service for about a month now and would really appreciate your adding alt.religion.bahai to available newsgroups. I daily read it and find myself jumping from your server to www.reference.com and www.dejanews.com to post and crosspost to it. I prefer your system to either of the two above but miss the access to this one newsgroup. Can you add it? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:47 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 30 05:01:27 1997 Received: (qmail 2501 invoked from network); 30 Jun 1997 12:01:25 -0000 Received: from ppp-pm01-dy-22.ouhub.moa.net (HELO glaysher) (204.38.255.54) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 1997 12:01:25 -0000 Message-ID: <33B7A06C.27EF@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:02:52 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: alt v talk References: <7tvOxDAKMstzEwYF@nkelley.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3292 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Neil Kelley > wrote > >So, whats being posted here that wouldn't be posted in a talk ng? > > Hi Neil. It's not so much what is being posted here but what's not being > posted. Being 'Demonites' we are very lucky as Demon Internet does its > best to ensure that we have access to ALL newsgroups (over 18000 at the > last count!). Many ISPa and ICPs don't bother with most of teh alt. > heirarchy. The problem with that is that when the news train arrives at > their sites, they only pass on the groups that they do use, leaving off > all the ones they don't carry. As I said, we are lucky that Demon is so > far-seeing. (Actually, there is a negative side to this -- they have > been desribed as the largest pureyors of porn in the country as they > carry all those ngs as well. That's why the police use Demon Internet; > to keep an eye on whose posting -- especially in some of the groups that > sail very close to the wind.) Of course, the rub of all this is that if > we had talk.religion.bahai, everybody would have access because nearly > all ISP carry the talk. heirarchy. > > >If there is no difference, whats the problem. The no voters have a > >forum to vent their anger/have a go at what's wrong with s.r.b. > > > >Why aren't the no's happy with this as an alternative to talk. > > I would suggest that most of the NOs and many of the YESes don't even > know that a.r.b exists! This is the reality of it.... Three months later, I stiil continue to receive an email message every week or so from someone who doesn't know about alt.religion.bahai.... > > >btw I'm a new Bahai, found the faith through s.r.b. Got more than just > >a little bit dissolusioned with diss-united Christians (over 2000 > >different sects)(which sect IS right?) and (no offence intended) Muslims > >advocating violance to get what they want (Salman Rushdie). I dont have > >any knowledge of other religions, but they all seem a little bit dated > >to me. > > I'm sure that will draw a few responses! Please don't tar all Muslims > with the same brush. many are gentle, God-fearing people who would not > wish ill to anyone. Just as Christianity has had its moments in the > past, so has Islam. But, ask yourself: Are these people really > following the messages of Christ and or Muhammad? I think not (though I > have no doubt that they really do believe that they are doing God's > will). > > Was it you that was in touch with me a while back? Certainly Tooting > rings a bell. > > Anyway, all the best, and if you're ever up our way, give us a call. > > 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 29 05:59:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed May 28 04:19:01 1997 Received: (qmail 8612 invoked from network); 28 May 1997 11:19:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 May 1997 11:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <338C14F2.2AD7@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 07:20:18 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: comment@dejanews.com Subject: alt.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 387 Is there anyway you can add alt.religion.bahai for posting too? Right now it's read only.... It was created in early April but has not yet been picked up by your news server. Many people who want to use it only have www without a NNTP server and rely on www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com for reading and posting. Thanks. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:27 1997 >From woodgold@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca Sun Jul 13 07:56:24 1997 Received: from saw19.nrcan.gc.ca by richter (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16185; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 10:56:21 -0400 Received: by saw19.nrcan.gc.ca (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02545; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 10:54:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 10:54:18 -0400 From: woodgold@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca (Catherine woodgold) Message-Id: <199707131454.KAA02545@saw19.nrcan.gc.ca> To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: woodgold@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca Subject: re: alt.religion.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 263 Thank you for the update. However, please remove me from your mailing list. You may send me email written for me as an individual. Please don't send me copies of email going to several people, except through listservs I've signed up for. Thanks. Cathy From - Mon Sep 08 09:24:16 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Sep 8 06:17:24 1997 Received: (qmail 22426 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1997 13:17:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 1997 13:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3413FB2D.4EA1@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 09:18:37 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: alt.religion.bahai condemned in New Zealand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 7109 This message and campaign reveal quite well the attitude of many Bahais towards talk/alt.religion.bahai and freedom of religious conscience and speech in general.... Alison and Steve Marshall wrote: > > Hi Frederick, > > It seems you're famous, even in New Zealand. Here's what the New Zealand > Baha'i News had to say about you: > > "In recent weeks, a controversy has blown up concerning soc.religion.bahai > An individual Baha'i has accused its moderators of "censorship", claiming > that they will not allow his point of view to be posted there. The > moderators say his postings were rejected on the basis of tone, that the > individual wanted to post open insults and sarcasm. When the moderators > asked the complainant to re-phrase his postings he refused, and instead > embarked on a campaign to create a new 'unmoderated' newsgroup. The campaign > is still in progress." > > This is what I wrote to my national assembly about the matter: > > -----begins-------- > > Dear friends, > > My main reason for writing is to commend you on your excellent feast letter > articles concerning the Four Year Plan. However, I do also have a few > concerns about a recent article in the New Zealand Baha'i News. > > Feast letter > ------------ > The recent feast letter article, "The process of community building" (20 > August 1997), is a particular favourite of mine. It resulted in some > ground-breaking consultation at the Dunedin feast. The feast letter and the > New Zealand Baha'i News are doing a great job of keeping me really well > informed about national and local concerns and successes, as well as > offering thought-provoking articles. Amongst the wonderful material, > inevitably, there are going to be a few "problem" pieces, and I feel the > need to alert you to the following item... > > Concerns about newsletter article > --------------------------------- > The newsletter article I am concerned about is "Baha'is on the Internet--a > traveller's advisory". My general concern is that the article tends to > highlight the negative aspects of the Internet. this isn't surprising > considering the topic chosen, and I'd like to suggest including an article > focusing on the uses Baha'is have made of the Internet. I would be happy to > write such an article. > > My particular concerns are that the article is inaccurate in parts, and out > of step with the trends of the Four Year Plan: > > o The article states, "It is advisable that any individual Baha'is setting > up their own Web pages that refer to the Faith or its teachings should clear > the intended Baha'i-related content with their Assembly first." My > understanding is that Baha'i review specifically does not apply to web-sites. > > o The article goes on to say, "Also, it makes little sense to "re-create > the wheel" by including on a personal Web page large amounts of information, > in your own words, about your beliefs, as some individual Baha'is have done. > There are many good, well-prepared official sites available to which readers > can be directed by "hyperlinks" included in a personal Web page." I believe > this statements contradicts your vision of a Baha'i community moving beyond > stage one behaviour with its "expectations of conformity" and "a widely > accepted view of what the Baha'i Faith is all about." > > o The article focuses only on moderated, Baha'i-only, Baha'i-related "email > lists" run by the BCCA. In reality there are many additional Baha'i-related > lists that are unmoderated, open, and/or non-BCCA. > > o The article comments on a recent issue on Usenet: > > "In recent weeks, a controversy has blown up concerning soc.religion.bahai > An individual Baha'i has accused its moderators of "censorship", claiming > that they will not allow his point of view to be posted there. The > moderators say his postings were rejected on the basis of tone, that the > individual wanted to post open insults and sarcasm. When the moderators > asked the complainant to re-phrase his postings he refused, and instead > embarked on a campaign to create a new 'unmoderated' newsgroup. The campaign > is still in progress." > > I have several concerns: > > 1. The "individual Baha'i"/"complainant" is easily identifiable. One just > has to look through the soc.religion.bahai archives, available on the web. I > don't think it's appropriate to criticise this person (Frederick Glaysher, > ), particularly since he has not, to my knowledge, > been contacted by any Baha'i administrative body and told of concerns about > his behaviour. It amounts to trial-by-media, and I find it very distasteful. > > The newsletter article, in mentioning the situation, spreads what amounts to > gossip. Given that the writer of the article is against the airing of > personal views and advocates the promulgation of official views, there is > some irony in the inclusion of this incident. > > 2. The description of the controversy is one-sided. I believe more damage > was done, at the time, by individual Baha'is lobbying others to vote against > the formation of a new unmoderated Baha'i-related newsgroup, in violation of > the Usenet rules for voting that specifically ban lobbying and block-voting. > Not that I'm suggesting more information be printed in the newsletter about > the incident! > > ka kite ano, > Steve > > ------ends----------- > > ...And here's the national office's reply: > > >Return-Path: > >From: "Baha'i Secretariat NZ" > >To: "'Alison and Steve Marshall'" > >Subject: RE: Feast letters / Internet article > >Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 11:39:40 +-1200 > >Encoding: 123 TEXT > > > >Dear Steve, > > > >Thank you for your feedback on the Feast letters and newsletter articles. > > It is always good to hear from the friends about the way in which the > >information we disseminate is received and perceived. Your comments > >regarding the article on the use of the internet have been noted. We will > >certainly keep you in mind for another article on the uses of the internet. > > At present there is rather a backlog of material waiting to go into the > >Newsletter. > > > >Thanks again for sharing your concerns. > > > >Warmest Baha'i love, > >Suzanne Mahon > > > >---------- > > "Noted" is generally code for "we're not going to do anything about it". > Feel free to complain personally, but please don't quote me on that! > > ka kite ano, > (see you later) > Steve > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "Fanaticism consists in redoubling > forumbahai@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | your efforts when you have forgotten > Try: https://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | your aim." - George Santayana -- 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 - Mon Sep 08 17:18:59 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Sep 8 13:29:26 1997 Received: (qmail 24579 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1997 20:29:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.125) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 1997 20:29:03 -0000 Message-ID: <34146063.777@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:30:27 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: alt.religion.bahai condemned in New Zealand References: <3413FB2D.4EA1@hotmail.com> <5v1ejl$erq$4@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1627 Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <3413FB2D.4EA1@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >> o The article states, "It is advisable that any individual Baha'is setting > >> up their own Web pages that refer to the Faith or its teachings should clear > >> the intended Baha'i-related content with their Assembly first." > > This is good ammunition for getting yes votes, but qoutes from it aren't > enough. We need to get the whole article posted in a newsgroup. If > someone types it into a text file (no more than 70 characters per line, > please) and emails it to me, I can arrange to get it published anonymously. > > Think of the reaction that your average Usenet user will have to any > evidence that a minority offshoot to bahaism is being silenced. This > is good for your cause: Type the whole article and email it to me. > This will help you a lot. I must take exception with your characterization here that I'm involved in "a minority offshoot of bahaism." The Bahai Writings, especially Abdu'l-Baha, eloquently uphold the right of the individual Bahai to express his conscience.... I believe that's ALL I've done. While I have criticized the fundamentalist-minded censors at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere, I support the Bahai Administration and the Universal House of Justice.... > > Remember, *you* stay sqeeky clean! Don't lobby outside of the places > that the news.groupies say to... This is a winnable fight. -- 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 - Mon Jul 14 07:54:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 05:15:38 1997 Received: (qmail 10353 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 12:15:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 12:15:36 -0000 Message-ID: <33C62444.7D39@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:17:08 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: srb-mods@bcca.org CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: alt.religion.bahai status report Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1911 I continue to receive messages every week or so from people still having difficulty obtaining access to alt.religion.bahai, which was formed nearly four months ago.... Two or three weeks ago, www.dejanews.com finally added alt.religion.bahai for posting as well as reading capabilities. Since dejanews.com archives all newsgroups, that's an important new source that some people might find helpful for gaining access. Www.reference.com is another, while www.zippo.com for a mere $12.00 per year provides all of UseNet too. Some people apparently are finding the following news servers useful: baracka.rz.uni-augsburg.de ftp.louisa.net news.tln.lib.mi.us rtcsrv5.realtech.de There are hundreds of others available through searching Yahoo for newsgroups. Geocities.com carries a long list of free news servers. Hook up to them through your NNTP news part of Netscape or whatever you use. For those of you with only email capabilities, the tyranny of the NO vote, 157 to 691, continues.... All attempts by myself and others have failed to find a way tocreate an email echo for alt.religion.bahai that would allow you to participate.... Substantial time and effort went into that, I might add.... Under UseNet regulations, a defeated newsgroup proposal must wait 6 months before being resubmitted. I intend to resubmit the proposal for talk.religion.bahai, a major newsgroup hierarchy widely and easily available, in late September. If you have any suggestions or comments, feel free to email me or, better, post to alt.religion.bahai.... if you can.... Incidentally, discussion has been fairly lively lately, and a good number of people with varying opinions have been joining in. Best wishes, -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com, or ask your ISP to add it. From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:03 1997 >From payama@aol.com Fri Jun 6 10:00:18 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA15401 for FG@hotmail.com(frederickglaysher); Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:00:15 -0400 (EDT) From: PayamA@aol.com Message-ID: <970606125843_-860713900@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: FG@hotmail.com (frederickglaysher) Subject: alt.reliigon.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 243 Dear Frederick, Is the newsgroup alt. religion.bahai still active? I'm having a hard time locating it. I can find the reference to it on the WWW, but I can't access the list. I get a message 'group not valid'. All the best, Payam From - Tue Jun 10 05:47:55 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 9 04:21:39 1997 Received: (qmail 9519 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1997 11:21:37 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1997 11:21:37 -0000 Message-ID: <339BE793.70F9@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 07:22:59 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PayamA@aol.com Subject: Re: alt.reliigon.bahai References: <970606125843_-860713900@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 689 PayamA@aol.com wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > Is the newsgroup alt. religion.bahai still active? I'm having a hard time > locating it. I can find the reference to it on the WWW, but I can't access > the list. I get a message 'group not valid'. > > All the best, > Payam Yes, it's very active now. You probably have to ask your Internet system person to add it to your server. It should take them about 15 seconds to do. Or read and post through www.reference.com or www.zippo.com for $12.00 a year. There are a lot of other news servers that carry it too. Let me know if you still have trouble getting on. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 11 05:58:12 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 05:18:35 1997 Received: (qmail 25480 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 12:16:53 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 12:16:53 -0000 Message-ID: <339D4608.3DE7@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:18:16 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PayamA@aol.com Subject: Re: alt.reliigon.bahai References: <970606125843_-860713900@emout09.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 445 PayamA@aol.com wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > Is the newsgroup alt. religion.bahai still active? I'm having a hard time > locating it. I can find the reference to it on the WWW, but I can't access > the list. I get a message 'group not valid'. > > All the best, > Payam Also, please let me know if you cannot get access to alt.religion.bahai on AOL. I'd appreciate it. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 05:54:52 1997 >From payama@aol.com Wed Jun 11 15:54:48 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id SAA25680 for FG@hotmail.com; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:54:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:54:46 -0400 (EDT) From: PayamA@aol.com Message-ID: <970611185250_2088416661@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: alt.reliigon.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 351 Dear Frederick, I wasn't able to log on to atl.religion.bahai from the newsgroups page of AOL, however, by going to the net I was able to get there using reference.com. Is there a way I can get the archived messages of this group? I know you started this in April (?) so these must be a bunch of letters from the last three months. Payam From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:31 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 02:58:57 1997 Received: (qmail 7617 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 09:58:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 09:58:54 -0000 Message-ID: <339FC860.28B0@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:00:04 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PayamA@aol.com Subject: Re: alt.reliigon.bahai References: <970611185250_2088416661@emout18.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 539 PayamA@aol.com wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > I wasn't able to log on to atl.religion.bahai from the newsgroups page of > AOL, however, by going to the net I was able to get there using > reference.com. Is there a way I can get the archived messages of this group? > I know you started this in April (?) so these must be a bunch of letters > from the last three months. > > Payam They're archived on www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 17 08:20:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 17 05:12:32 1997 Received: (qmail 2984 invoked from network); 17 Jun 1997 12:12:29 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 1997 12:12:29 -0000 Message-ID: <33A67F7E.5FB4@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:13:50 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com, burlb@bmi.net Subject: Re: Amazing Test of Reference.com References: <5o4pci$fbq$1@orthanc.reference.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 615 burlb@bmi.net wrote: > > Hello! > > I am attempting to post to alt.religion.bahai via this web server. > > If this works, then I can join the discussion. Won't that be fun? Reading ya, loud and clear.... You might try some of the other servers too if you want.... > > Love, > > Burl > > -- > > 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. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 16 06:26:55 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 11:47:45 1997 Received: (qmail 9976 invoked from network); 12 May 1997 10:05:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 May 1997 10:05:13 -0000 Message-ID: <3376EBA1.2BC7@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 06:06:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phenix113 Subject: Re: Anyone: Tolstoy References: <5ktiq6$5sp$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> <5l20i2$4dt$1@nnrp01.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 334 Phenix113 wrote: > > Leo Tolstoy was like many people are today. Someone who says, "oh, that > Bahai Faith. It's wonderful, but I won't be one." We have people praising > the Faith, but none joining it. Why do you think that's happening? -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jul 20 07:40:15 1997 >From charlesj31@aol.com Fri Jul 18 07:47:37 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA20608 for FG@hotmail.com; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:47:35 -0400 (EDT) From: CharlesJ31@aol.com Message-ID: <970718104735_-1191240902@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Art in the Baha'i Faith X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 705 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Your characterization of art in the Baha'i Faith as "propaganda," demonstrates, to this reader at least, your need for some fundamental deepening in the verities of the Faith. I suggest you obtain a copy of a letter from Don Rogers, member of the Continental Board of Counselors, entitled "Vision," in which the responsibilities of the spiritually oriented artist are clearly set forth. The world has little need for more egotisic expression of self, rather, to quote Mr. Rogers, "the author, the visual artist, the dramatist and the musician have in common the presentation of the vision of the soul and the pathos of the human condition." Regards, Charlie Jennison From - Tue Jun 24 07:51:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 23 05:04:07 1997 Received: (qmail 28316 invoked from network); 23 Jun 1997 12:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 1997 12:04:05 -0000 Message-ID: <33AE668C.634C@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:05:32 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tmulligan@central.uh.edu CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Assessing claims Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4685 [posted to alt.religion.bahai and soc.religion.bahai] Subject: Assessing claims of Baha'u'llah (was Re: Inquiring (second try) . . . Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:47:10 -0400 From: FG To: see.sig@absolutely.nospam.edu CC: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.iranian, soc.rights.human References: 1 Tim Mulligan wrote: > > Well, an earlier post seems not to have made it here, for whatever > reason. I'll try again. > > I've recently started to inquire into the Baha'i Faith. Right now, I'm > reading _The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion_ by Hatcher and > Martin. I've visited various Baha'i Web sites, including the official > one. I contacted the local Baha'i center earlier this week to request > information. > > I'm a law librarian at a law school library in Houston, specializing in > foreign and international law, so the international emphasis of the > faith interests me. But I have some questions. > > How is one to assess the truth of the claims of Baha'u'llah to be God's > messenger? Many people claim to channel messages from God (e.g., the > Urantia Book, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith). Baha'u'llah had visions, > but others claim visions as well (e.g., six young people in Bosnia who, > since 1981, have claimed to receive visits from the Virgin Mary). > Baha'u'llah claimed to be a manifestation of God -- and the return of > Christ -- but others have recently made that same claim (Marshall > Applewhite of Heaven's Gate, David Koresh from the Branch Davidians). > Bald claims don't suffice. How do we assess truth? You're asking a very profound philosophical question which better minds than mine have failed to answer.... In this context, the usual religious answer can mean little, such as intuitive certainty or religious insight that THIS is the truth.... One can be wrong.... I have to note that you include Baha'u'llah here with several individuals of a lower order as judged by their known actions and results.... > > Also, a mere "feeling" that something is true can't suffice, either. > After all, no one would follow any spiritual teaching unless they felt > it to be true. Exactly what I mean above.... > > I sincerely would like to know how members of the Baha'i Faith suggest > that seekers determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. I want to be > clear that I have considered myself to be an atheist the last several > years, after losing my belief in Catholicism. Having left Catholicism, early in life, I turned to Stendhal, Nietszche, Carlyle, Emerson, Eliot, and so on.... Writers who very much had a pronounced sense of the transformation of traditional culture into an unprecedented modern crucible.... For me, this is the greatest proof of the truth of Baha'u'llah's revelation, the nihilism of modern culture, its impact on social and individual life.... This global phenomenon of nihilism, East and West, for instance, elaborately documented in the literature of China and Japan, coupled with the progressive political evolution of international instruments, from the League of Nations, the UN, and so on, persuades me, on a rational level, of the veracity of Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One for all peoples and religions.... In other words, it makes sense, objectively, to my mind, in addition to the personal intuitive dimension, which leads me to reject the truth claims of all other religions since they presuppose, by and large, a monopoly that negates my human experience of progress, evolution, and interconnectedness, if you will, among the religions and peoples of this earth.... > > Tim > tmulligan@central.uh.edu Given the history of let's say Catholicism and Islam, it is possible that Baha'u'llah was a charlatan and sexual pervert like Koresh.... that Abdu'l-Baha was a sycophant who did his bidding.... that Shoghi Effendi seized the opportunity to set up an international business.... that the Universal House of Justice is composed of nine lying thieves who now sit on MT Carmel.... such things are known in human experience.... I can only say that I hope for better, though I expect little from human nature.... The modern history of the secular mind is not one without shameful moments.... and murdered millions.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 25 06:46:08 1997 >From tmulligan@central.uh.edu Tue Jun 24 08:10:02 1997 Received: from Albertus.law.uh.edu by Post-Office.UH.EDU (PMDF V5.1-8 #18580) with ESMTP id <01IKG3OAAKXQ0005R1@Post-Office.UH.EDU> for FG@hotmail.com; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 10:06:47 CDT Received: by Albertus.Law.UH.EDU with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:06:46 -0600 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:06:44 -0600 From: "Mulligan, Tim" Subject: RE: Assessing claims To: FG@hotmail.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5397 Frederick, Thanks very much for your reply. I found it to be helpful, and interesting. Let's keep in touch. I've decided, based on what I've read and heard so far, to continue to investigate the Faith. Tim > ---------- > From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > Sent: Monday, June 23, 1997 7:05 AM > To: tmulligan@central.uh.edu > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Assessing claims > > [posted to alt.religion.bahai and soc.religion.bahai] > > Subject: > Assessing claims of Baha'u'llah (was Re: Inquiring (second > try) . . . > Date: > Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:47:10 -0400 > From: > Frederick Glaysher > To: > see.sig@absolutely.nospam.edu > CC: > FG@hotmail.com > Newsgroups: > alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, > soc.culture.israel, > soc.culture.iranian, > soc.rights.human > References: > 1 > > > Tim Mulligan wrote: > > > > Well, an earlier post seems not to have made it here, for whatever > > reason. I'll try again. > > > > I've recently started to inquire into the Baha'i Faith. > Right now, I'm > > reading _The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion_ by Hatcher > and > > Martin. I've visited various Baha'i Web sites, including the > official > > one. I contacted the local Baha'i center earlier this week to > request > > information. > > > > I'm a law librarian at a law school library in Houston, > specializing in > > foreign and international law, so the international emphasis of the > > faith interests me. But I have some questions. > > > > How is one to assess the truth of the claims of Baha'u'llah > to be God's > > messenger? Many people claim to channel messages from God (e.g., > the > > Urantia Book, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith). Baha'u'llah had > visions, > > but others claim visions as well (e.g., six young people in Bosnia > who, > > since 1981, have claimed to receive visits from the Virgin Mary). > > Baha'u'llah claimed to be a manifestation of God -- and the return > of > > Christ -- but others have recently made that same claim (Marshall > > Applewhite of Heaven's Gate, David Koresh from the Branch > Davidians). > > Bald claims don't suffice. > > How do we assess truth? You're asking a very profound philosophical > question which better minds than mine have failed to answer.... In > this context, the usual religious answer can mean little, such > as intuitive certainty or religious insight that THIS is the truth.... > > One can be wrong.... > > I have to note that you include Baha'u'llah here with several > individuals of a lower order as judged by their known actions and > results.... > > > > > Also, a mere "feeling" that something is true can't suffice, > either. > > After all, no one would follow any spiritual teaching unless they > felt > > it to be true. > > Exactly what I mean above.... > > > > > I sincerely would like to know how members of the Baha'i > Faith suggest > > that seekers determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. I want to > be > > clear that I have considered myself to be an atheist the last > several > > years, after losing my belief in Catholicism. > > Having left Catholicism, early in life, I turned to Stendhal, > Nietszche, > Carlyle, Emerson, Eliot, and so on.... Writers who very much had a > pronounced sense of the transformation of traditional culture into an > unprecedented modern crucible.... For me, this is the greatest proof > of > the truth of Baha'u'llah's revelation, the nihilism of modern culture, > its impact on social and individual life.... This global phenomenon of > nihilism, East and West, for instance, elaborately documented in the > literature of China and Japan, coupled with the progressive political > evolution of international instruments, from the League of Nations, > the UN, and so on, persuades me, on a rational level, of the veracity > of Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One for all peoples and > religions.... > > In other words, it makes sense, objectively, to my mind, in > addition to the personal intuitive dimension, which leads me to > reject the truth claims of all other religions since they > presuppose, by and large, a monopoly that negates my human > experience of progress, evolution, and interconnectedness, if you > will, among the religions and peoples of this earth.... > > > > > Tim > > tmulligan@central.uh.edu > > Given the history of let's say Catholicism and Islam, it is > possible that Baha'u'llah was a charlatan and sexual pervert > like Koresh.... that Abdu'l-Baha was a sycophant who did > his bidding.... that Shoghi Effendi seized the opportunity > to set up an international business.... that the Universal > House of Justice is composed of nine lying thieves who now > sit on MT Carmel.... such things are known in human > experience.... > > I can only say that I hope for better, though I expect > little from human nature.... > > The modern history of the secular mind is not one > without shameful moments.... and murdered millions.... > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > From - Tue Jun 24 07:51:12 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 23 05:01:41 1997 Received: (qmail 28309 invoked from network); 23 Jun 1997 12:01:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 1997 12:01:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33AE65F9.6AB4@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:03:05 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Assessing claims (was Re: Inquiring (second try) . . .) References: <5ogone$4hn@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4126 Tim Mulligan wrote: > > Well, an earlier post seems not to have made it here, for whatever > reason. I'll try again. > > I've recently started to inquire into the Baha'i Faith. Right now, I'm > reading _The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion_ by Hatcher and > Martin. I've visited various Baha'i Web sites, including the official > one. I contacted the local Baha'i center earlier this week to request > information. > > I'm a law librarian at a law school library in Houston, specializing in > foreign and international law, so the international emphasis of the > faith interests me. But I have some questions. > > How is one to assess the truth of the claims of Baha'u'llah to be God's > messenger? Many people claim to channel messages from God (e.g., the > Urantia Book, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith). Baha'u'llah had visions, > but others claim visions as well (e.g., six young people in Bosnia who, > since 1981, have claimed to receive visits from the Virgin Mary). > Baha'u'llah claimed to be a manifestation of God -- and the return of > Christ -- but others have recently made that same claim (Marshall > Applewhite of Heaven's Gate, David Koresh from the Branch Davidians). > Bald claims don't suffice. How do we assess truth? You're asking a very profound philosophical question which better minds than mine have failed to answer.... In this context, the usual religious answer can mean little, such as intuitive certainty or religious insight that THIS is the truth.... One can be wrong.... I have to note that you include Baha'u'llah here with several individuals of a lower order as judged by their known actions and results.... > > Also, a mere "feeling" that something is true can't suffice, either. > After all, no one would follow any spiritual teaching unless they felt > it to be true. Exactly what I mean above.... > > I sincerely would like to know how members of the Baha'i Faith suggest > that seekers determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. I want to be > clear that I have considered myself to be an atheist the last several > years, after losing my belief in Catholicism. Having left Catholicism, early in life, I turned to Stendhal, Nietszche, Carlyle, Emerson, Eliot, and so on.... Writers who very much had a pronounced sense of the transformation of traditional culture into an unprecedented modern crucible.... For me, this is the greatest proof of the truth of Baha'u'llah's revelation, the nihilism of modern culture, its impact on social and individual life.... This global phenomenon of nihilism, East and West, for instance, elaborately documented in the literature of China and Japan, coupled with the progressive political evolution of international instruments, from the League of Nations, the UN, and so on, persuades me, on a rational level, of the veracity of Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One for all peoples and religions.... In other words, it makes sense, objectively, to my mind, in addition to the personal intuitive dimension, which leads me to reject the truth claims of all other religions since they presuppose, by and large, a monopoly that negates my human experience of progress, evolution, and interconnectedness, if you will, among the religions and peoples of this earth.... > > Tim > tmulligan@central.uh.edu Given the history of let's say Catholicism and Islam, it is possible that Baha'u'llah was a charlatan and sexual pervert like Koresh.... that Abdu'l-Baha was a sycophant who did his bidding.... that Shoghi Effendi seized the opportunity to set up an international business.... that the Universal House of Justice is composed of nine lying thieves who now sit on MT Carmel.... such things are known in human experience.... I can only say that I hope for better, though I expect little from human nature.... The modern history of the secular mind is not one without shameful moments.... and murdered millions.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 24 07:51:15 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Mon Jun 23 05:01:53 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA27929; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 05:01:37 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Assessing claims (was Re: Inquiring (second try) . . .) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:03:05 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 90 Message-ID: <33AE65F9.6AB4@hotmail.com> References: <5ogone$4hn@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.117 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4126 Tim Mulligan wrote: > > Well, an earlier post seems not to have made it here, for whatever > reason. I'll try again. > > I've recently started to inquire into the Baha'i Faith. Right now, I'm > reading _The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion_ by Hatcher and > Martin. I've visited various Baha'i Web sites, including the official > one. I contacted the local Baha'i center earlier this week to request > information. > > I'm a law librarian at a law school library in Houston, specializing in > foreign and international law, so the international emphasis of the > faith interests me. But I have some questions. > > How is one to assess the truth of the claims of Baha'u'llah to be God's > messenger? Many people claim to channel messages from God (e.g., the > Urantia Book, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith). Baha'u'llah had visions, > but others claim visions as well (e.g., six young people in Bosnia who, > since 1981, have claimed to receive visits from the Virgin Mary). > Baha'u'llah claimed to be a manifestation of God -- and the return of > Christ -- but others have recently made that same claim (Marshall > Applewhite of Heaven's Gate, David Koresh from the Branch Davidians). > Bald claims don't suffice. How do we assess truth? You're asking a very profound philosophical question which better minds than mine have failed to answer.... In this context, the usual religious answer can mean little, such as intuitive certainty or religious insight that THIS is the truth.... One can be wrong.... I have to note that you include Baha'u'llah here with several individuals of a lower order as judged by their known actions and results.... > > Also, a mere "feeling" that something is true can't suffice, either. > After all, no one would follow any spiritual teaching unless they felt > it to be true. Exactly what I mean above.... > > I sincerely would like to know how members of the Baha'i Faith suggest > that seekers determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. I want to be > clear that I have considered myself to be an atheist the last several > years, after losing my belief in Catholicism. Having left Catholicism, early in life, I turned to Stendhal, Nietszche, Carlyle, Emerson, Eliot, and so on.... Writers who very much had a pronounced sense of the transformation of traditional culture into an unprecedented modern crucible.... For me, this is the greatest proof of the truth of Baha'u'llah's revelation, the nihilism of modern culture, its impact on social and individual life.... This global phenomenon of nihilism, East and West, for instance, elaborately documented in the literature of China and Japan, coupled with the progressive political evolution of international instruments, from the League of Nations, the UN, and so on, persuades me, on a rational level, of the veracity of Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One for all peoples and religions.... In other words, it makes sense, objectively, to my mind, in addition to the personal intuitive dimension, which leads me to reject the truth claims of all other religions since they presuppose, by and large, a monopoly that negates my human experience of progress, evolution, and interconnectedness, if you will, among the religions and peoples of this earth.... > > Tim > tmulligan@central.uh.edu Given the history of let's say Catholicism and Islam, it is possible that Baha'u'llah was a charlatan and sexual pervert like Koresh.... that Abdu'l-Baha was a sycophant who did his bidding.... that Shoghi Effendi seized the opportunity to set up an international business.... that the Universal House of Justice is composed of nine lying thieves who now sit on MT Carmel.... such things are known in human experience.... I can only say that I hope for better, though I expect little from human nature.... The modern history of the secular mind is not one without shameful moments.... and murdered millions.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 23 07:59:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 23 04:45:51 1997 Received: (qmail 28268 invoked from network); 23 Jun 1997 11:45:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 23 Jun 1997 11:45:49 -0000 Message-ID: <33AE623E.1129@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 07:47:10 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human To: see.sig@absolutely.nospam.edu CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Assessing claims of Baha'u'llah (was Re: Inquiring (second try) . . . References: <33AB03FD.644@absolutely.nospam.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4124 Tim Mulligan wrote: > > Well, an earlier post seems not to have made it here, for whatever > reason. I'll try again. > > I've recently started to inquire into the Baha'i Faith. Right now, I'm > reading _The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion_ by Hatcher and > Martin. I've visited various Baha'i Web sites, including the official > one. I contacted the local Baha'i center earlier this week to request > information. > > I'm a law librarian at a law school library in Houston, specializing in > foreign and international law, so the international emphasis of the > faith interests me. But I have some questions. > > How is one to assess the truth of the claims of Baha'u'llah to be God's > messenger? Many people claim to channel messages from God (e.g., the > Urantia Book, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith). Baha'u'llah had visions, > but others claim visions as well (e.g., six young people in Bosnia who, > since 1981, have claimed to receive visits from the Virgin Mary). > Baha'u'llah claimed to be a manifestation of God -- and the return of > Christ -- but others have recently made that same claim (Marshall > Applewhite of Heaven's Gate, David Koresh from the Branch Davidians). > Bald claims don't suffice. How do we assess truth? You're asking a very profound philosophical question which better minds than mine have failed to answer.... In this context, the usual religious answer can mean little, such as intuitive certainty or religious insight that THIS is the truth.... One can be wrong.... I have to note that you include Baha'u'llah here with several individuals of a lower order as judged by their known actions and results.... > > Also, a mere "feeling" that something is true can't suffice, either. > After all, no one would follow any spiritual teaching unless they felt > it to be true. Exactly what I mean above.... > > I sincerely would like to know how members of the Baha'i Faith suggest > that seekers determine the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims. I want to be > clear that I have considered myself to be an atheist the last several > years, after losing my belief in Catholicism. Having left Catholicism, early in life, I turned to Stendhal, Nietszche, Carlyle, Emerson, Eliot, and so on.... Writers who very much had a pronounced sense of the transformation of traditional culture into an unprecedented modern crucible.... For me, this is the greatest proof of the truth of Baha'u'llah's revelation, the nihilism of modern culture, its impact on social and individual life.... This global phenomenon of nihilism, East and West, for instance, elaborately documented in the literature of China and Japan, coupled with the progressive political evolution of international instruments, from the League of Nations, the UN, and so on, persuades me, on a rational level, of the veracity of Baha'u'llah's claim to be the Promised One for all peoples and religions.... In other words, it makes sense, objectively, to my mind, in addition to the personal intuitive dimension, which leads me to reject the truth claims of all other religions since they presuppose, by and large, a monopoly that negates my human experience of progress, evolution, and interconnectedness, if you will, among the religions and peoples of this earth.... > > Tim > tmulligan@central.uh.edu Given the history of let's say Catholicism and Islam, it is possible that Baha'u'llah was a charlatan and sexual pervert like Koresh.... that Abdu'l-Baha was a sycophant who did his bidding.... that Shoghi Effendi seized the opportunity to set up an international business.... that the Universal House of Justice is composed of nine lying thieves who now sit on MT Carmel.... such things are known in human experience.... I can only say that I hope for better, though I expect little from human nature.... The modern history of the secular mind is not one without shameful moments.... and murdered millions.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 22 19:34:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu May 22 13:54:44 1997 Received: (qmail 6554 invoked from network); 22 May 1997 12:27:09 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 May 1997 12:27:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33843BE5.1A00@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 08:28:21 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Backbiting References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1315 Roger Reini wrote: > > In response to several posts on a.r.b about Baha'is of Persian > ancestry, I have this to say: > > IMHO, any criticism of any ethnic group verges on backbiting and must > be avoided. Backbiting is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith; there is no > place for it in the society established by Baha'u'llah. > > Have there been instances when people have exhibited attitudes that > conflict with the spirit of the teachings? Certainly. I do not > defend such attitudes, nor do I defend the actions which arise from > such attitudes. I know I have not lived my life in perfect accord > with Baha'u'llah's teachings; indeed, I only know of one individual > who has for sure, meaning 'Abdu'l-Baha. > > Backbiting and gossip such as this can come to no good. It promotes > disunity within the community, something we must avoid. This is a > sign of the old world order which is collapsing around us. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ I believe you're mistaken to view as merely backbiting. There's a fundamentally systemic problem, and it's more than merely saying "Zelda's a bitch" behind her back.... Anyway, I'm saying it openly.... She needs to hear it.... That's my opinion.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 07:37:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 03:43:16 1997 Received: (qmail 18253 invoked from network); 27 May 1997 10:43:08 -0000 Received: from softdnserror (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 May 1997 10:43:08 -0000 Message-ID: <338ABAB7.446C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 06:43:03 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Backbiting References: <19970523124046.2596.qmail@nym.alias.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5502 Notarius wrote: > > Hi Roger, > I am waiting for one of my posts to appear. In order to provide some balance, > I mentioned that the problem is a human problem and that other groups > can be identified. > > alt.religion.bahai is an open forum. What is said here is not said behind > somebodys back. The idea is to discuss a topic. If this is done properly > everybody (or almost everybody) profits. > > When I was a bahai things were often hushed up. > I mentioned in an earlier post that a Persian family maneuvered to get > represented on the NSA of a certain country. In order to do that they had > to gain influence in several LSA:s. > That was politics. > If the friends had known what was happening maybe they would have > voted differently. > The bahai administration is built on the example of some Western countries. > In these countries it is perfectly OK to speak about such things. > > You have been a sensible participant in this newsgroup. > I want to try to make you understand my point of view. > When I was a bahai we were supposed to be nice, nice and smile,smile. > Some people reacted at once to the atmosphere. > I remember having worked hard teaching the Faith to a big group of people. > They heard about the Faith for the first time. We had a wonderful atmosphere. > Late in the evening a Shiite Interpreter arrived. He spoke for a > few minutes and ruined all the work. People started leaving. This has happened many, many times in the US.... I've had other Bahais who were the truly inspired obedient types complain in shock about this kind of thing to me.... > The point is that we were now supposed to say nothing. No criticism. > He was a bigshoot. > With one appearance we lost contact with very nice people. > I said nothing, but I stopped appearing at the firesides. Like THOUSANDS of others.... > A few weeks afterwards people stopped coming en masse. > The right thing to do would have been to get him out of the way until > the new contacts had been deepened. We never talked about it and this > is something I regret today. > I wish we had solved this problem in the early seventies instead of > talking about it now. The problem is the Iranians own and run the Bahai Faith for themselves.... Anyone who dares say so is branded "racist" and so on.... See Miguel Walter's post to me.... > Backbiting is not good. IMO, it takes place in closed groups > of which I have identified one. That's not backbiting. That's "consultation"! Don't you know the difference? > We were "barbarians", remember? Well, what else can one call people with no morality? > We should have talked openly about this, but of course it was not done. > The problem remained. > > Some of us are talking now. I used to be afraid to talk about it. > Many bahais will understand what I mean. > Hiding a problem is to allow a cancer in the body. > The Faith badly needs to deal with the cancer. > > More important than what people say is the motive behind. > Good things can be said with a bad motive. Look at some politicians. > When I look at my own motives I see a certain irritation over being > told to shut up. This is a human thing and I am free to express it, > though I try to be as reasonable as possible in this post. > Others have shown their irritation much more openly. > This is an inevitable result of longtime censorship. > People are free to express themselves in a.r.b. It is easy to blame them > for doing it instead of blaming the wall of silence that caused > their frustration. This is the reality of the situation, in my opinion too. > > Apart from this irritation, I believe I have a good motive. > It is possible that an open debate on difficult issues can help the Faith > get back on the right course. Doubtful, though. I'm more pessimistic, myself.... Ultimately, I hope so.... > > Original post follows: > > From: rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc > Subject: Backbiting > Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:47:59 GMT > Organization: WWNET > Lines: 20 > Message-ID: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> > Reply-To: rreini@wwnet.com > NNTP-Posting-Host: dbnas177.wwnet.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 > Xref: mn5.swip.net alt.religion.bahai:107 misc.misc:83793 > > In response to several posts on a.r.b about Baha'is of Persian > ancestry, I have this to say: > > IMHO, any criticism of any ethnic group verges on backbiting and must > be avoided. Backbiting is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith; there is no > place for it in the society established by Baha'u'llah. > > Have there been instances when people have exhibited attitudes that > conflict with the spirit of the teachings? Certainly. I do not > defend such attitudes, nor do I defend the actions which arise from > such attitudes. I know I have not lived my life in perfect accord > with Baha'u'llah's teachings; indeed, I only know of one individual > who has for sure, meaning 'Abdu'l-Baha. > > Backbiting and gossip such as this can come to no good. It promotes > disunity within the community, something we must avoid. This is a > sign of the old world order which is collapsing around us. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 07:37:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 03:59:24 1997 Received: (qmail 2957 invoked from network); 27 May 1997 10:57:14 -0000 Received: from softdnserror (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 May 1997 10:57:14 -0000 Message-ID: <338ABE06.531F@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 06:57:10 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Backbiting References: <5m4tar$rvn$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <19970524211014.10862.qmail@nym.alias.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1705 Notarius wrote: > > Donald wrote: > >Notarius wrote (in part): > >Late in the evening a Shiite Interpreter arrived. He spoke for a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >It would facilitate communication if, instead of such coined > >jargon, you indicated what the speaker said (as well as you can > >remember). Actually, no label at all is preferable - from your > >story the issue is the approach the speaker took &/or content of > >his talk. Thanks in advance! DZO > > Donald, > I am not going to change my way of expressing myself in any way. > Communication is fine. > There is room for a sense of humour. Sometimes it is the only way > to deal with serious things. > > I dont remember exactly what it was all about. > Very likely, one of the following subjects were brought up: > > The decadence of the West > The unspirituality of Christianity > The dangers of free speech > The infallibility of the UHJ > > Maybe somebody asked: > Then why do you need to elect representatives? Whats the point? > Shiite Interpreters didnt like this question. > > The Master had another way of teaching. > The Persian pioneers had come directly from Iran. This particular > Shiite Interpreter learned some English after coming to the West. > I dont think he understood the West at all. > He advanced very fast after coming here. > At other times he could be nice and of course he wanted converts. It seems to me Notarius points out something here worth noting.... "directly from Iran." Not understanding or respecting the West seems a prerequisite to fast advancement.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 30 07:36:54 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Fri May 30 03:46:57 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id DAA16654; Fri, 30 May 1997 03:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 03:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705301046.DAA16654@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: "Notarius" References: <5m4tar$rvn$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <19970524211014.10862.qmail@nym.alias.net> <338ABE06.531F@hotmail.com> Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1924 Notarius wrote: > > Frederick, > I have got to talk with you off the list. > We have been outspoken. With all right, I should add. > But we are being shunned and there are very few posts. I count over 500 now since early April on www.dejanews.com and www.reference.com under alt.religion.bahai > I will probably not post for a couple of days. > We cant keep the newsgroup going all by ourselves. "We" aren't, Notarius. By the way, what's your real name? > Some people would love to hear me say that, but I dont want to > give them the satisfaction. Thats why I take this to private email. You needn't be squeamish.... I've been saying all along that many people who voted YES, 157, have been shut out of the discussion. I've received numerous email messages from some of them trying to get access.... THEY already have that satisfaction and know it.... > Its too bad that we are both technodummies. > We need help and I dont know where to look for it. > My Spanish is bad and I cant set up the list. This is a nymaccount, > as you are probably aware of. > > You dropped a bomb when you wrote about the coverups in Wilmette. > Is Roger on the NSA? He just disappeared. Everybody disappeared, > though I "hear" Donald grinding his teeth. No bombs.... Just what appears to my conscience as the truth.... I may be wrong.... I concede once again that I'm not perfect.... Who are you and what's your motives.... Why are you hiding behind an alias.... Are you posting from bcca.org? I've been to Buchara.... It's a backward little hole in the ground.... > > Notarius -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- 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. From - Thu May 29 05:59:04 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed May 28 03:12:56 1997 Received: (qmail 20733 invoked from network); 28 May 1997 10:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 May 1997 10:12:54 -0000 Message-ID: <338C056E.3419@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:14:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,misc.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Backbiting References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> <5m4ham$dof$1@lunen.gac.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1487 Matthew P Menge wrote: > [clip] > Yes, but nevertheless I can sympathize. First of all, by Persian > standards there may in fact be a number of elements of American culture > that a Persian consider to be 'barbaric'. For instance, in Persian > culture certain immoral practices are banned by law which, in the United > States, are considered to be outside of the sphere of government > jurisdiction, especially sexual practices. Many Eastern thinkers consider > sexual immorality to be so destructive to society as a whole that it > neccesitates far greater legal punishments. Persians might conversely see > the laxness of our American legal system in supressing these activities > legally as 'barbaric'. > Second, if Persian Baha'is do have negative feelings towards > Americans in general, then how are they going to get over them? Are they > going to do it without talking about them? I don't think so. They need > to work through their feelings in groups of their own instead of just > bottling them up, just as alchoholics might band together to overcome > their drinking problems. Wow! What a great suggestion. That's it! Alcoholics Anon for Iranian Bahais detoxicing from their oppressive, fanatical culture.... Who knows, it might work.... > But actually what you said made sense too. > Hmm, what a very interesting line of discussion... > > mpm -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 29 05:59:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed May 28 03:21:02 1997 Received: (qmail 20739 invoked from network); 28 May 1997 10:18:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 May 1997 10:18:34 -0000 Message-ID: <338C06C2.52E7@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:19:46 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Backbiting References: <5m4ham$dof$1@lunen.gac.edu> <5m53a9$k3b$1@lunen.gac.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1499 Matthew P Menge wrote: > > In article <5m4ham$dof$1@lunen.gac.edu> mmenge@dion.gac.edu (Matthew P > Menge) writes: > > Yes, but nevertheless I can sympathize. First of all, by Persian > > standards there may in fact be a number of elements of American culture > > that a Persian consider to be 'barbaric'. For instance, in Persian > > culture certain immoral practices are banned by law which, in the United > > States, are considered to be outside of the sphere of government > > jurisdiction, especially sexual practices. Many Eastern thinkers > consider > > sexual immorality to be so destructive to society as a whole that it > > neccesitates far greater legal punishments. Persians might conversely > see > > the laxness of our American legal system in supressing these activities > > legally as 'barbaric'. > > Um, a qualifier here. I am not suggesting, by any stretch of the > imagination, that this legal system be implemented in the United States, > since Americans are not ready for it at all. I am simply giving an > example as to why a foreigner might consider Westerners uncivilized. Well, if we're "not ready for it" now, surely with wise instruction and reeducation from the holy Afnans, we might look forward to the sexually oppressive, uptight, repulsive culture of Iran right here in the USA some day.... What a wonderful Kingdom of God on Earth that would be.... > > mpm -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 07:37:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 04:12:00 1997 Received: (qmail 3043 invoked from network); 27 May 1997 11:11:58 -0000 Received: from softdnserror (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 May 1997 11:11:58 -0000 Message-ID: <338AC17A.4702@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 07:11:54 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Calumny (was re: Backbiting) References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> <5m5107$rvn$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2143 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) wrote: > >In response to several posts on a.r.b about Baha'is of Persian > >ancestry, I have this to say: > > > >IMHO, any criticism of any ethnic group verges on backbiting and must > >be avoided. Backbiting is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith; there is no > >place for it in the society established by Baha'u'llah. Is it acceptable though for Iranian Bahais to call and teach their children that Westerners are "barbarians"? Is that part of the "society" Baha'u'llah sought to establish? > > Actually it may be more akin to calumny - defaming someone or group > openly and falsely. Speaking negatively of a nationality, race, or > ethnic group is arguably setting oneself up for a charge of calumny > against at least someone... "Falsely"? What when it's true? Calumny against Western cultures is okay? Oh those evil Western devils, we'll get even now.... > > Interestingly, backbiting and calumny are prohibited in the same verse > of the Kitab-i-Aqdas that outlaws adultery and murder - an indication > of the severity of such behavior. Just as we would steer way clear from > adultery and murder (close is already bad news), so we would seek to > avoid speech that even approaches backbiting or calumny. Or is it another tactic for silencing others.... > > As I've suggested in earlier postings, the Faith's high standards for > communication, though demanding, are there to facilitate communication > among people of diverse backgrounds and opinions on a range of issues. > The need for high standards becomes very apparent on Usenet, but it's > present in all aspects of social life. Most of us (if I may presume > to use such an inclusive term [self included of course]) are far from > meeting those standards, but we can help each other by 1) steering way > clear of backbiting and calumny, 2) being a bit forbearing in pointing > out other's faults... Especially when it's to their advantage? When they never hesitate to do so? My, how amusing.... > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 29 05:59:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed May 28 03:28:48 1997 Received: (qmail 20754 invoked from network); 28 May 1997 10:28:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 May 1997 10:28:46 -0000 Message-ID: <338C0927.6EBB@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:29:59 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Calumny (was re: Backbiting) References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> <5m5107$rvn$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338AC17A.4702@hotmail.com> <338B50D8.64AD@NOSPAMpilot.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4237 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > >>rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) wrote: > RR>>>In response to several posts on a.r.b about Baha'is of Persian > >>>ancestry, I have this to say: > >>> > >>>IMHO, any criticism of any ethnic group verges on backbiting and must > >>>be avoided. Backbiting is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith; there is no > >>>place for it in the society established by Baha'u'llah. > FG> Is it acceptable though for Iranian Bahais to call and teach their > > children that Westerners are "barbarians"? Is that part of the > society" > > Baha'u'llah sought to establish? > > Of course not, on either account. Who ever implied that it was > acceptable? > > Your first question, Frederick, implies that all Iranian Baha'is teach > their children in this way, when in fact that is a ridiculous > allegation. > Presumably you didn't mean that, but please note that such carelessness > with what you post publically is 1) potentially misleading, 2) > insulting, > and 3) makes you seem unreasonable. The context was that I was alluding to Notarius who had pointed out he knew a Persian girl who WAS taught that all Europeans were barbarians by her parents.... Not at all rare over here in the USA either by my observation.... I would never claim ALL Iranian Bahais do this though I believe the tendency, on some level, is there.... > > DZO>> Actually it may be more akin to calumny - defaming someone or > group > >> openly and falsely. Speaking negatively of a nationality, race, or > >> ethnic group is arguably setting oneself up for a charge of calumny > >> against at least someone... > > > FG> "Falsely"? What when it's true? Calumny against Western cultures is > > okay? Oh those evil Western devils, we'll get even now.... > > The point is that by generalizing about a diverse group of people, it > is almost impossible for the statement to be true about all the people. You wish to ignore that it's definitely true about some Iranian Bahais? Calumny is absurd.... In general, most Bahais, if honest, will recognize the general truth of the problem and think of many incidents from their own experience or knowledge.... > > And of course calumny about any group is unacceptable (nobody implied > that it was for some but not others). Also, even if one person were to > calumnize (?) another, that does not justify the victim responding in > kind. Your allegation of calumny is odd, indeed.... > > >> Interestingly, backbiting and calumny are prohibited in the same verse > >> of the Kitab-i-Aqdas that outlaws adultery and murder - an indication > >> of the severity of such behavior. Just as we would steer way clear > from > >> adultery and murder (close is already bad news), so we would seek to > >> avoid speech that even approaches backbiting or calumny. > > > > Or is it another tactic for silencing others.... > > Of course not. There are many ways of expressing oneself > without approaching calumny or backbiting. And "expressing > oneself" is part of a larger process of social, intellectual, > and spiritual growth for which valuable counsels are given > in in the Writings, as you know. > > >> As I've suggested in earlier postings, the Faith's high standards for > >> communication, though demanding, are there to facilitate communication > >> among people of diverse backgrounds and opinions on a range of issues. > >> The need for high standards becomes very apparent on Usenet, but it's > >> present in all aspects of social life. Most of us (if I may presume > >> to use such an inclusive term [self included of course]) are far from > >> meeting those standards, but we can help each other by 1) steering way > >> clear of backbiting and calumny, 2) being a bit forbearing in pointing > >> out other's faults... > > > > Especially when it's to their advantage? When they never hesitate to do > > so? My, how amusing.... > > Do you really see people (some, many, all??) as being so relentlessly > calculating? Are you so naive, callow, and immature, you can't? > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 30 07:36:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 30 02:58:02 1997 Received: (qmail 27327 invoked from network); 30 May 1997 09:58:01 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 May 1997 09:58:01 -0000 Message-ID: <338EA4F5.2FFD@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 05:59:17 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.irania n Subject: Re: Calumny (was re: Backbiting) References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> <5m5107$rvn$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338AC17A.4702@hotmail.com> <338B50D8.64AD@NOSPAMpilot.msu.edu> <338C0927.6EBB@hotmail.com> <5mi981$892$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3345 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > >> > >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > >> >>rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) wrote: > >> RR>>>In response to several posts on a.r.b about Baha'is of Persian > >> >>>ancestry, I have this to say: > >> >>> > >> >>>IMHO, any criticism of any ethnic group verges on backbiting and must > >> >>>be avoided. Backbiting is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith; there is no > >> >>>place for it in the society established by Baha'u'llah. > > > >> FG> Is it acceptable though for Iranian Bahais to call and teach their > >> > children that Westerners are "barbarians"? Is that part of the > >> society" > >> > Baha'u'llah sought to establish? > >> > >> Of course not, on either account. Who ever implied that it was > >> acceptable? > >> > >> Your first question, Frederick, implies that all Iranian Baha'is teach > >> their children in this way, when in fact that is a ridiculous > >> allegation. > >> Presumably you didn't mean that, but please note that such carelessness > >> with what you post publically is 1) potentially misleading, 2) > >> insulting, > >> and 3) makes you seem unreasonable. > > > >The context was that I was alluding to Notarius who had pointed out > >he knew a Persian girl who WAS taught that all Europeans were > >barbarians by her parents.... Not at all rare over here in the USA > >either by my observation.... I would never claim ALL Iranian Bahais > >do this though I believe the tendency, on some level, is there.... > > I was a bit hasty to accuse you of saying all do, but still, we're only > talking about one actual alleged instance. It's a common attitude among Iranian Bahais in the USA and elsewhere.... You're still covering that up, I believe.... > > >> DZO>> Actually it may be more akin to calumny - defaming someone or > >> group > >> >> openly and falsely. Speaking negatively of a nationality, race, or > >> >> ethnic group is arguably setting oneself up for a charge of calumny > >> >> against at least someone... > >> > > >> FG> "Falsely"? What when it's true? Calumny against Western cultures is > >> > okay? Oh those evil Western devils, we'll get even now.... > >> > >> The point is that by generalizing about a diverse group of people, it > >> is almost impossible for the statement to be true about all the people. > > > >You wish to ignore that it's definitely true about some Iranian Bahais? > >Calumny is absurd.... In general, most Bahais, if honest, will recognize > >the general truth of the problem and think of many incidents from their > >own experience or knowledge.... > > There are problems with numbers of Baha'is (which sting more because > expectations are higher) e.g., whites who haven't dealt with deep seated > racist opinions. The bright side is that the Teachings are there and many > are working to apply them (of all backgrounds). Just won't let yourself recognize the deep-seated racism of Iranian Bahais, will you? Oh it's the evil white who's the worm in all apples.... People of OTHER cultures are racist too.... Many aren't. That was the orginal point you want what others to ignore.... > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:21 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 03:06:01 1997 Received: (qmail 12000 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 10:05:59 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 10:05:59 -0000 Message-ID: <339D2757.3C9A@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:07:19 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Calumny (was re: Backbiting) References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> <5m5107$rvn$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338AC17A.4702@hotmail.com> <338B50D8.64AD@NOSPAMpilot.msu.edu> <338C0927.6EBB@hotmail.com> <5mi981$892$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338EA4F5.2FFD@hotmail.com> <5n9vc9$q55$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 788 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > [clip] > > As for white racism, since I am a white American I feel more justified in trying > to help deal with that than in pointing to perceived faults in other "groups." > Anyway, I frankly think that racism among many people of European background > (in the U.S. and elsewhere) is a much bigger problem than that among other groups. > Even if I'm wrong, I still think that healing and overcoming one's own racist > attitudes (towards many or even just one "group" perceived as different) is the > priority. And if someone behaves negatively towards you, reply with love -- > that's one way to start shaking up their universe! > > DZO Twenty-eight, no more than thirty-two.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 29 07:52:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu May 29 03:56:06 1997 Received: (qmail 20613 invoked from network); 29 May 1997 10:54:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 May 1997 10:54:32 -0000 Message-ID: <338D60B4.4B81@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 06:55:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.isra el CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Racial hatred: was Re: Calumny (was re: Backbiting) References: <3383ac92.74556162@news.wwnet.com> <5m5107$rvn$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <338AC17A.4702@hotmail.com> <338B50D8.64AD@NOSPAMpilot.msu.edu> <338C0927.6EBB@hotmail.com> <5mi981$892$2@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3870 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > >> > >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > >> >>rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) wrote: > >> RR>>>In response to several posts on a.r.b about Baha'is of Persian > >> >>>ancestry, I have this to say: > >> >>> > >> >>>IMHO, any criticism of any ethnic group verges on backbiting and must > >> >>>be avoided. Backbiting is forbidden in the Baha'i Faith; there is no > >> >>>place for it in the society established by Baha'u'llah. > > > >> FG> Is it acceptable though for Iranian Bahais to call and teach their > >> > children that Westerners are "barbarians"? Is that part of the > >> society" > >> > Baha'u'llah sought to establish? > >> > >> Of course not, on either account. Who ever implied that it was > >> acceptable? > >> > >> Your first question, Frederick, implies that all Iranian Baha'is teach > >> their children in this way, when in fact that is a ridiculous > >> allegation. > >> Presumably you didn't mean that, but please note that such carelessness > >> with what you post publically is 1) potentially misleading, 2) > >> insulting, > >> and 3) makes you seem unreasonable. > > > >The context was that I was alluding to Notarius who had pointed out > >he knew a Persian girl who WAS taught that all Europeans were > >barbarians by her parents.... Not at all rare over here in the USA > >either by my observation.... I would never claim ALL Iranian Bahais > >do this though I believe the tendency, on some level, is there.... > > I was a bit hasty to accuse you of saying all do, but still, we're only > talking about one actual alleged instance. Rings true to my experience and observation, and, I would think, to any honest Bahai out there who's not given to lying and deceiving to help the "cause." > > >> DZO>> Actually it may be more akin to calumny - defaming someone or > >> group > >> >> openly and falsely. Speaking negatively of a nationality, race, or > >> >> ethnic group is arguably setting oneself up for a charge of calumny > >> >> against at least someone... > >> > > >> FG> "Falsely"? What when it's true? Calumny against Western cultures is > >> > okay? Oh those evil Western devils, we'll get even now.... > >> > >> The point is that by generalizing about a diverse group of people, it > >> is almost impossible for the statement to be true about all the people. > > > >You wish to ignore that it's definitely true about some Iranian Bahais? > >Calumny is absurd.... In general, most Bahais, if honest, will recognize > >the general truth of the problem and think of many incidents from their > >own experience or knowledge.... > > There are problems with numbers of Baha'is (which sting more because > expectations are higher) e.g., whites who haven't dealt with deep seated > racist opinions. The bright side is that the Teachings are there and many > are working to apply them (of all backgrounds). How about Iranians or blacks who haven't dealt with their own deep-seated racism and hatred of whites or the West? I taught all the multi-cultural dreck for several years and know it inside out.... The Bahai Faith is not, in my opinion, a world religion.... but a narrow, stifling little would-be world religion very much dedicated now to disgruntled minorities who are using it to acquire power and control over various majorities.... Baha'u'llah had a universal vision of human oneness.... Following the resentment fostered by liberalism, Bahais have lost that vision.... Nothing is more typical of the Bahai Faith now than its hypocrisy over human oneness.... and its mindless embrace of liberal thinking when it comes to race.... > > DZO -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 09:12:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 06:09:28 1997 Received: (qmail 5877 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 13:09:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 13:09:26 -0000 Message-ID: <33C23C60.353A@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 09:10:56 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai "art" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 5677 Stephi Stevens wrote: > > Hmmmmmm, I find this an interesting point of view. > > > fglaysher wrote: > >There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... > > Propaganda, that's an interesting word to choose. I looked the > word up in the dictionary because I wanted to make sure I > understood exactly what it is you're trying to say. > > I got two possible definitions of propaganda, 1 the spreading > of ideas, information or rumor for the purpose of helping or > injuring an institution; 2 ideas, facts, or allegations spread > deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an > opposing cause. What dictionary are you using? Bahais have their own now? > > Well, I'm not going to take either of the two negative aspects > of these definitions. I'm going to assume you meant to use > this word in the most positive manner possible. So from this > definition, I'm assuming you consider the art created by > artists who are Baha'i to be art which is done for the > purpose of helping the Baha'i Institutions and that they are > created strictly for the purpose of furthering the Baha'i Cause. Not a proper definition of art at all.... > > Well first off, the vast majority of art which is created by > individuals who are Baha'i is done from the spirit of their > hearts. This work is done to express their own individual > inspiration of their understanding of their Faith. Most of it's trite trash that's on the intellectual level of a 13 year old.... > > Very few Baha'i artists actually do get to create artwork for > Baha'i Institutions, simply because the opportunities at this > point in time are not that available. Our great artistic > endeavors are for the most part contained within our > Baha'i Temples, or the major construction which is occuring > now at our international center at Haifa, Israel. More propaganda.... > > Now as to artwork being done to deliberately further the > Baha'i Cause, again this is up to the individual artist > involved. If individuals wish to do this as artists, they > can make that choice. But it is not the policy of the > Institutions of the Baha'i Faith to use art in this manner. It is officially encouraged to produce gross propaganda.... Among the philistines, Iranian Bahai and otherwise, nothing else is known, let alone acceptable.... > > By this statement, I mean the Institutions do not choose > to "deliberately spread" the Faith in this manner. They > don't need to. There are enough Baha'is throughout the > world who are happy and willing to teach the Faith to > others of the world. There is no need to use art in this > manner. False. It's regularly debased to this level.... > > >what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities > >permitted.... > > Actually, what you call Baha'i "art" isn't "Baha'i" art. There > is no such thing. It doesn't exist yet. All that exists at this > point in time is what individuals create best as expressions > of how the Baha'i Faith reaches them. It is impossible for > artists who are Baha'i to create "Baha'i" art at this point in > time. I haven't used the specious term "Bahai art," you have.... I realize it doesn't and could never exist.... unlike the hacks who consider art a form of advertizing for the BAhai faith.... > > Now this is my personal opinion as an artist, but I honestly > believe the beginnings of what will be known as "Baha'i" > art in the future haven't yet begun to coalesce. In the past, it > always took at least a good 300 years to pass before a > new Faith had any real significant affect upon the artists > expressing that Faith through their artwork. > > Now I personally haven't yet seen anything done by Baha'is > which impresses me as being a form of artistic expression > which is truly, significantly different from the ways of > artistic expression of today, except for the subject matter. > > But this is my personal opinion and I haven't seen a > significant amount of artwork created by Baha'i artists, so > I'm admitting my limitations. Isn't it possible that you too > haven't seen a significant amount of artwork in order to > make the kind of determination which you have made > concerning "Baha'i" Art? And if that is true, are your > opinions just opinions? That's it, relativize my comments away.... The usual approach.... > > All I know is I do not choose to call my art "Baha'i" art. > I do not create art for Baha'is. I create art for any person > who wishes to enjoy it. I create art for people and I don't > care who they are, whether they are Baha'i or not. All I > care about is creating good work. Most Bahais wouldn't know "good work" if it hit them over the head.... In fact, they'd loathe as all philistines always have.... All the more so given their inablitiy to respect any opinion but received Iranian Bahai opinion.... > > Teachers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" teachers, > doctors who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" doctors, > lawyers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" lawyers. > I am an artist who is Baha'i. I am not a "Baha'i" artist. > The art I create is for all people, and the vast majority of > artists I know who are Baha'i also do not care to call their > creations "Baha'i" art. All meaningless babble in this context when Bahai "artists" are continuely recruited to produce the kind of tripe thought of as "teaching the faith" through art.... etc.... > > Loving regards, > Stephi > stevens@azstarnet.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:22 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 04:18:18 1997 Received: (qmail 10318 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1997 11:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 1997 11:16:20 -0000 Message-ID: <33C3735F.1D16@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 07:17:51 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai "art" hate mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4009 T Hodges wrote: > > Dear Fred, > You really need to try listening to people. This guy wasn't trying > to shut you up (nor will I). Many of us feel (and know this about > each other without any conspiracy!) that you are way off in your > understandings about the Baha'i community. You need to seriously > question your assumptions, some of them are badly warped by your > recent bitter experiences apparently. > > BTW I remember enjoying some of your WO articles. > > Best wishes, > Tom > > In article <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> you write: > >RMckin6046 wrote: > >> > >> Frederick: > >> > >> I was not unhappy with s.r.b. at all and have no personal problems > >> with the moderated format, BUT I supported your desire to establish > >> the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup because I agree that frank and free > >> exchange of ideas is essentially healthy in this society. I have been > >> unable to access directly alt.rel.bahai from aol, but I don't > >> particularly try hard to either. That said: I was very disappointed > >> in your last post here on the arts. It certainly made me wonder if I > >> was right to support your proposal. > > > >You've been unable to access apparently for reasons I am not permitted > >to elaborate on.... Since you are "very disappointed" in my views on > >what passes for "art" in the Bahai Faith, you consider suppressing my > >views? I don't quite follow how that would be supporting "frank and > >free exchange," etc.... > > > >> > >> You said: "There is no art allowed in the Baha'i Faith... only > >> propaganda.. what passes for "art" is really only the crudest > >> banalities permitted...." > > > >That's the way I see it.... Philistinism only welcomed in this > >religion--not the rich tensions of what is truly worthy of the > >name of art.... Rich tensions grounded in the antinomies of > >the human heart.... > > > >> > >> What a "cranky" and judgmental statement. I fancy myself a sometime > >> artist, and I do not feel that I am being allowed only to produce > >> propaganda; although, my little wood burnings, paintings and prose may > >> indeed be banal. > > > >Or dilettante? That's the Bahai conception of artist in my opinion.... > >Quite congruent really with the philistinism of modern society in > >most ways.... > > > > On the other hand, I have several artworks produced > >> by other Baha'is that I adore and have witnessed numerous singers and > >> dancers and actors who are real artists. > > > >The more inarticulate the art the better in this religion.... > > > > To characterize what they do > >> the way you did is really insulting. I do not always "get" the modern > >> dance stuff [I lean more to Gospel & classical dance/music], and the > >> youth workshops sometimes leave me scratching my head, but who can > >> deny their hard work, their devoted expression, their obvious energy > >> and their love of their art... not to mention their love of > >> Baha'u'llah? Besides you of course. > > > >Oh terrible me!!! Not insulting, accurate art criticism of the > >usual tripe that's fobbed off as art in Bahai circles where art > >is unknown, really.... Gross propaganda, what the poet Robert > >Hayden was fond of calling "doctrinaire propaganda," is all the > >Bahai Faith, by and large, has to offer or ALLOWS.... > > > >> > >> Very disappointed, and hoping that you retract your statement, or at > >> least learn to keep such hurtful opinions to yourself, > > > >That's it.... Close your mouth and go away if you can't say > >what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said > >and done.... > > > >> > >> Richard > >> ----------------------------------------------------------- > >> Dr. Richard A McKinley > >> Fayetteville NC USA > >> RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > -- From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:34 1997 >From thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Wed Jul 9 08:34:52 1997 Received: by freenet.calgary.ab.ca (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA55530; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:33:51 -0600 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 09:33:51 -0600 From: thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (T Hodges) Message-Id: <9707091533.AA55530@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai "art" hate mail In-Reply-To: <33C3735F.1D16@hotmail.com> Organization: Calgary Free-Net Cc: X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 653 Fred, That was private email to you. So is this. Private mail should not be posted publicly. Actually to do so is illegal (I think, but am not concerned enough about it to find out, so don't regard this as a threat). It was posted privately to you to avoid the possibility of any embarassment. By the way you should be pretty embarrassed about your reply to Stephi. When people try to interact with you in a courteous manner and you reply that way, they will come to fairly obvious conclusions about your character. Apologizing to her would be good for you if you can contemplate her post and your response. Cheers, Tom Hodges From - Thu Jul 10 07:02:58 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 03:40:14 1997 Received: (qmail 5050 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 10:40:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 10:40:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4BC69.4332@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:41:45 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: T Hodges CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai "art" hate mail References: <9707091533.AA55530@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1052 T Hodges wrote: > > Fred, > > That was private email to you. So is this. Private mail should not > be posted publicly. Actually to do so is illegal (I think, but am > not concerned enough about it to find out, so don't regard this as > a threat). > > It was posted privately to you to avoid the possibility of any > embarassment. Yours? Definitely not mine though you imagine otherwise.... > > By the way you should be pretty embarrassed about your reply to > Stephi. When people try to interact with you in a courteous manner > and you reply that way, they will come to fairly obvious conclusions > about your character. Apologizing to her would be good for you > if you can contemplate her post and your response. > > Cheers, Tom Hodges I'm supposed to permit you and others to email me all kinds of trash with impunity, the obscurity of the dark.... Dream on.... The best advice I've ever read is if you don't want it read by everyone, don't write it.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:07 1997 >From thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Thu Jul 10 07:45:51 1997 Received: from srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca(198.161.243.11) by srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca via smap (V1.3) id ZZ25404; Thu Jul 10 08:39:36 1997 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:39:34 -0600 (MDT) From: T Hodges To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai "art" hate mail In-Reply-To: <33C4BC69.4332@hotmail.com> Message-Id: Organization: Calgary Free-Net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1296 OK. bye, Tom Tom Hodges thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Professional Agronomist, member Baha'i Faith, Go player On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > T Hodges wrote: > > > > Fred, > > > > That was private email to you. So is this. Private mail should not > > be posted publicly. Actually to do so is illegal (I think, but am > > not concerned enough about it to find out, so don't regard this as > > a threat). > > > > It was posted privately to you to avoid the possibility of any > > embarassment. > > Yours? Definitely not mine though you imagine otherwise.... > > > > > By the way you should be pretty embarrassed about your reply to > > Stephi. When people try to interact with you in a courteous manner > > and you reply that way, they will come to fairly obvious conclusions > > about your character. Apologizing to her would be good for you > > if you can contemplate her post and your response. > > > > Cheers, Tom Hodges > > I'm supposed to permit you and others to email me all kinds of > trash with impunity, the obscurity of the dark.... Dream on.... > The best advice I've ever read is if you don't want it read > by everyone, don't write it.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > From - Tue Jul 08 09:12:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:50:47 1997 Received: (qmail 27209 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:50:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:50:46 -0000 Message-ID: <33C23801.4DE0@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:52:17 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.religion.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 652 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > fglaysher wrote: > > There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... > > what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities > > permitted.... > > Of which the tripe you never seem to tire of posting is the prime example. > > If you have nothing constructive to say, kindly do yourself and the rest of > us a favor and SAY NOTHING WHATEVER. > > I regret that you seem to wish only to demonstrate how we should _not_ act. Another topic not allowed in the Bahai Faith: That propaganda is propaganda even when called "art." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 09:12:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:55:31 1997 Received: (qmail 27231 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:55:30 -0000 Message-ID: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:56:55 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 455 Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future > postings. Bill Hyman hymanfam@samoatelco.com No fascism here.... Hitler felt the same way about his "art." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jul 09 07:13:45 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 03:58:23 1997 Received: (qmail 10242 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1997 10:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 1997 10:58:21 -0000 Message-ID: <33C36F28.518B@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:59:52 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 References: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> <868398783.31710@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2323 webmaster@iranvision.com wrote: > > In article <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com>, > FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > > > > > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on > > > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come > > > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future > > > postings. Bill Hyman > hymanfam@samoatelco.com > > > > No fascism here.... Hitler felt the same way about his "art." > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > Censorship is the essence of Bahaism. As Bahaullah himself said those who > oppose us are ignorant. Over and over my postings have been censored for > sco.religion.bahai. They have spammed soc.culture.iranian with propaganda > trash and yet censored every legitimate articles from poeple questioning > their validity. I have also noticed all the anti-Bahai publications in my > local library have gone missing. I would not be surprised if at some > point they start to conduct book burning rituals to protect the faith. It is an undeniable historical fact that the Bab advocated book burning. The residue of his thinking basically still seems to exist in some Iranian Bahai minds.... > > "Thou shall flush the toilette at all times, > after use, unless short of water" > > Webmaster`u`llah > > 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

) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 03:12:56 1997 Received: (qmail 15886 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 10:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 10:12:54 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4B601.5F45@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:14:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 References: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> <868398783.31710@dejanews.com> <33C36F28.518B@hotmail.com> <5q08hg$o2g@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 749 Bill, McGuire wrote: > > In article <33C36F28.518B@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > >It is an undeniable historical fact that the Bab advocated book burning. > >The residue of his thinking basically still seems to exist in some > >Iranian Bahai minds.... > > Really?! Which book(s) did He desire to be burned? ALL books that were not BABI.... Gee.... Any guesses why Baha'u'llah dumped that idea??? > > Do you have a reference for this? I would be very interested to check up on > this, if it is in fact true. I don't have a chapter and verse. A number of scholars have noted it from time to time. Perhaps someone can contribute here.... > > regards, > > Bill -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:45 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 03:16:38 1997 Received: (qmail 15892 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 10:16:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 10:16:36 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4B6E0.7FC3@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:18:08 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 References: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> <868398783.31710@dejanews.com> <33C36F28.518B@hotmail.com> <5q08hg$o2g@drn.zippo.com> <33C3C134.14E@wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2896 Roger Reini wrote: > > Bill, McGuire wrote: > > > > In article <33C36F28.518B@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > >It is an undeniable historical fact that the Bab advocated book burning. > > >The residue of his thinking basically still seems to exist in some > > >Iranian Bahai minds.... > > > > Really?! Which book(s) did He desire to be burned? > > > > Do you have a reference for this? I would be very interested to check up on > > this, if it is in fact true. > > > > regards, > > > > Bill > > I believe this is what Fred is talking about. I quote from the notes to > the Kitab-i-Aqdas: > > 109. the destruction of books # 77 > In the Tablet of Ishraqat Baha'u'llah, referring to the fact that > the Bab had made the laws of the Bayan subject to His sanction, states > that He put some of the Bab's laws into effect "by embodying them in the > Kitab-i-Aqdas in different words", while others He set aside. > With regard to the destruction of books, the Bayan commanded the > Bab's followers to destroy all books except those that were written in > vindication of the Cause and Religion of God. Baha'u'llah abrogates > this specific law of the Bayan. > As to the nature and severity of the laws of the Bayan, Shoghi > Effendi in a letter written on his behalf provides the following > comment: > The severe laws and injunctions revealed by the Bab > can be properly appreciated and understood only when > interpreted in the light of His own statements regarding > the nature, purpose and character of His own Dispensation. > As these statements clearly reveal, the Babi > Dispensation was essentially in the nature of a religious > and indeed social revolution, and its duration had > therefore to be short, but full of tragic events, of > sweeping and drastic reforms. Those drastic measures > enforced by the Bab and His followers were taken with > the view of undermining the very foundations of Shi'ih > orthodoxy, and thus paving the way for the coming of > Baha'u'llah. To assert the independence of the new > Dispensation, and to prepare also the ground for the > approaching Revelation of Baha'u'llah, the Bab had > therefore to reveal very severe laws, even though most of > them were never enforced. But the mere fact that He > revealed them was in itself a proof of the independent > character of His Dispensation and was sufficient to create > such widespread agitation, and excite such opposition on > the part of the clergy that led them to cause His eventual > martyrdom. > (Aqdas: Notes, pages 213-214) What else could any government interested in social order and peace have done? > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 15 06:16:57 1997 >From jensen@atlas.arc.nasa.gov Mon Jul 14 14:28:31 1997 Received: from [128.102.131.85] (accipiter.arc.nasa.gov [128.102.131.85]) by atlas.arc.nasa.gov (8.8.5/8.7.3/arc) with ESMTP id OAA14320 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:30:28 -0800 To: "Frederick Glaysher@arc.nasa.gov" From: Dan Jensen Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1537 Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future > postings No! This can't be! Baha'is would never want to censor anything! ;-) (Bill & Jane Hyman must be a bogus name used by the covenant breakers) Mr. Glaysher, Your messages are sometimes a bit heated for my personal tastes, but I'm enjoying this thread greatly! I noticed a reference to Robert Hayden, who is one of my favorite Baha'is, of which there are few. Perhaps one? What is your background, if you don't mind me asking? To be equitable, I'll let you know that I am a former Baha'i. I squarely consider myself an "Apostate", which is often confused with "Covenant Breaker", even by the founders of the Baha'i Faith, but who's counting? Respectfully, dan *************************************************************** * * * Dan Jensen jensen@atlas.arc.nasa.gov * * Sterling Software (415) 604-1345 * * IT Security Development Group * * NASA Ames Reseach Center, MS 233-18 * * Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 * * * *************************************************************** From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:02 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 05:02:27 1997 Received: (qmail 19273 invoked from network); 3 Jun 1997 12:02:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1997 12:02:26 -0000 Message-ID: <3394081C.2F0D@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:03:40 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai & Catholicism, Judaism Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3961 SOMEONE wrote: > Thoughts on Catholicism: > I think that Christianity (esp. RC) is in some ways a much more attractive > religion than The Baha'i Faith. Take away the Crusades, misogyny, > anti-Semitism, and a gloomy view of human nature...thanks, Paul, > Augustine and others >: ... and you have an interesting, even > compelling religion that has served human psychological needs, culture, > and society admirably and has great potential for good. I agree. Christianity to me is more attractive than the Bahai Faith.... Unfortunately, I believe in the Bahai Faith, not Christianity, or rather as a step in God's progressive revelation to humankind.... > I would much sooner become a Catholic than a Baha'i, > that's for sure, and I tend to feel more kinship with people of > Catholic background than most others. Again, I feel exactly the same way.... I'd much rather be a Catholic than a Bahai but I'm trapped by the integrity of my own conscience.... Hell of a position, really.... Incidentally, I've published a number of literary essays in Catholic and Christian intellectual journals, which I respect, unlike anything published by the Bahais.... I can feel at home in those circles; with Bahais, I feel I'm in Iran.... Jews and Catholics really > both understand the guilt thing, I guess! Thank God for Paul and St. Augustine, is how I see it.... Judaism also > has serious problems, but I love the emphasis on charity (for its > own sake), a morally neutral afterlife, no proselytizing, free > discussion and no worship of individuals (no one prays to > Moses or Abraham; they are not considered divine; it is the > law that is loved, there is little focus on the messenger, and > I think this is very healthy as it keeps egos out of it). What I love about Judaism is its literature, especially the Book of Job and Ecclessiastes, real religious literature, unlike the sentimentality that began with the New Testament.... > > Also: > I wanted to post the following in response to your posting, but it > didn't work due to problems at my end. Please post if you would. > Thanks,[...] > > The quote you just put on a.r.b about consience...don't you > think it portrays a rather self-deprecating view of humanity? > All that groveling before God...doesn't that bother you? "Self-deprecating"? I think you mean just deprecating view of humanity.... I don't know about your experience, but it seems accurate to me.... This > sort of rhetoric often ties in with anti-intellectualism and > fundamentalism, I think. You know, the idea that it's presumtuous to > think a mere human being could be a good person without ..., that we can't > understand anything about morality without religion. Interestingly, > this view often goes along with an arrogance about being a human in > relation to (other) animals. I guess some people just have to > have a pecking order, a place in the hierarchy. I don't think > that this particular metaphysical hierarchy exists, but rather that these > notions spring from a kind of immature, ego-conflicted view of > one's self in the cosmos. People with genuine (as opposed to > histrionic) humility in relation to the > universe and who are comfortable not being the center of it > are more likely to be tolerant and cooperative and have more time > for doing good. Religious zealots, on the other hand, too often hold > human nature in contempt and then proceed to behave very contemptably, > empowered by their self-declared place in relation to the universe and its > awesome power and mysteries (God or whatever). Please post your messages to alt.religion.bahai.... A number of people have emailed me lately.... It makes life too complicated.... Please share your thoughts with everyone to begin with. I'm starting to feel as though I were the MODERATOR.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:16 1997 >From aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us Tue Jun 3 20:35:04 1997 Received: from pm170-18.dialip.mich.net (pm170-18.dialip.mich.net [35.9.15.179]) by scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18525 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:32:47 -0400 (EDT) From: aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us (Andrea) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 03:32:36 GMT Organization: Waverly High School Reply-To: aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us Message-ID: <3394e17b.296947413@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> References: <3394081C.2F0D@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3394081C.2F0D@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 275 Hi, You requested that people post followup messages to alt.religion.bahai: sorry to email you, but which news servers carry that group? Mine doesn't unfortunately, but I'd love to find one that does :). Thanks :). -Andrea :) aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us From - Wed Jun 04 07:59:20 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 4 04:29:01 1997 Received: (qmail 14790 invoked from network); 4 Jun 1997 11:28:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 1997 11:28:59 -0000 Message-ID: <339551C7.7883@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:30:15 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us Subject: Re: alt.religion.bahai References: <3394081C.2F0D@hotmail.com> <3394e17b.296947413@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 771 Andrea wrote: > > Hi, > You requested that people post followup messages to > alt.religion.bahai: sorry to email you, but which news servers carry > that group? Mine doesn't unfortunately, but I'd love to find one that > does :). Thanks :). > -Andrea :) > aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us Ask your system administrator to add it to the server or you can access it through www.reference.com and post back to it. Www.dejanews.com will let you read it but not post back though that should be possible before long. WWW.zippo.com offers Usenet, including alt.religion.bahai, for $12.00 a year. There are other news servers too. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 05 07:13:38 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 4 05:19:05 1997 Received: (qmail 14871 invoked from network); 4 Jun 1997 12:17:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 1997 12:17:27 -0000 Message-ID: <33955D26.69FE@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 08:18:46 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com, mdadrel@umbc2.umbc.edu Subject: Bahai & Mo Dadressan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1748 Subject: Re: Bahai: "majority in my experience" Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 20:03:30 -0500 (EST) From: Mo Dadressan To: Frederick Glaysher Dear Mr. Glaysher: I would appreciate an explanation on your insaturation with posting several Bahai messages on the soc.culture.iranian and soc.culture.israel newsgroup EVERY DAY. There are enough bandwith-wasting messages on these newsgroups, and your posting of every little bit of irrelevant inforamtion in the form of blatant, agenda-slanted propaganda is getting out of control. Rather than post 10 messages a day, simply have the courtesy to combine these into one or two. EXCUSE THE CAPS. I DON'T BELIEVE THESE MESSAGES ARE IRRELEVANT. HISTORICALLY THE BAHAI FAITH HAS BEEN LONG AND INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH BOTH COUNTRIES AND CULTURES AND CONTINUES TO BE.... I am a Muslim, and consider myself very "religious." I don't believe I am stretching when I say that the overwhelming majority of Iranian Muslims -- both in and outside of Iran -- have no problem whatsoever with Bahais. They are Iranian just like us, and that is that. IF THAT'S TRUE, AND I CAN'T HELP BUT DOUBT IT A LITTLE, WHAT'S THE ATTITUDE OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT TOWARD BAHAIS? THE DENIAL OF BASIC, DECENT HUMAN RIGHTS TO BAHAIS IN IRAN DOESN'T REFLECT THE WISHES OF SOME OR MANY IRANIAN MUSLIMS, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT? SIMILAR PROBLEMS ON THE PART OF MUSLIMS TOWARD BAHAIS DON'T EXIST IN OTHER MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES? Frankly, we don't care if they are Bahai or not. You should not as well. I'M MYSELF AM A BAHAI.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 05 07:13:46 1997 >From airyanvich@aol.com Wed Jun 4 13:52:22 1997 Received: from ladder02.news.aol.com (ladder02.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.241]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA16381 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:52:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:52:21 -0400 Message-Id: <19970604205200.QAA26106@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian To: FG@hotmail.com From: airyanvich@aol.com (AiryanVich) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <33955D26.69FE@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bahai & Mo Dadressan X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4188 Subject: Bahai: "majority in my experience" From: FG Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:15:13 -0400 Message-ID: <33940AD1.375C@hotmail.com> > > >SOMEONE wrote: > > > > The Faith is not an Iranian religion. It was sent for the world. And > > > every cultural group is going to have to go through painful changes and > > > self examination before this is all worked out. > > Glaysher wrote: > > I completely disagree. The Bahai Faith, in my twenty-one years of > > experience of it, is not a world religion but definitely a narrow, > > stifling little would-be Iranian religion, through and through.... > > I'm not just attempting to be argumentative.... I believe this is > > the unignorable truth, carefully concealed under the image of > > liberal, progressive claims and propaganda.... > > But Frederick, you have also said you are in for the long haul, that you > can never see yourself leaving. The Faith I am speaking about is that > one, the one that keeps you up at night and posting here. I recognise > and acknowledge your love for that one. I can identify. Possibly my own > personal struggles have kept me preoccupied and I have not noticed these > things that disturb you so. Also it is not a major problem here. We have > only one Iraninan on our Assembly, and he is so remarkedly different > than any I have known. Stands out like a sore thumb, in a positive way. Maybe he's just better at deceiving you.... Ever consider that? > > Was the only person, when my little hyperactive boys would disrupt > feast, who went out of his way to set me at ease and reasure me that > they were just being children. > [clip] > This guy doesn't act like a westerner or an Iranian. He acts like a > Baha'i. > > So I know it can be done. Just like I know from being privy to personal > cases just how steeped in the negative aspects of Iranian culture some > Iranians can be. In fact unfortunately the majority in my experience. > > The Faith that you and I love is bigger than all this. I confess that I > was worried that alt.religion.bahai would be quickly taken over by > covenant breakers. This has not happened, which says to me 1) There is a > possiblilty that there is some Divine protection here because 2) This > stuff needs to be aired for the Faith to develope. > > They killed John Brown because he was a radical abolitionist. I am > understanding more and more where your frustration comes from. John Brown is not one of my heroes, though I admire Robert Hayden's finely nuanced poem on him.... Not for me, thank you.... > > I still have difficulty personally with the extremes of your language > but in the large sceme of things after all the dust settles, it may be > the kick in the pants we need. > > I can't follow suit, it is not in my nature. But hope you find some > support in my quieter way of saying things. Say them out in the open, where others can benefit from them too.... I'm not the moderator! Please don't make me into one.... > > [...] -- Frederick Glaysher Fred: You poor ignorant soul. You the agent of greed and hate!!! If the government of Iran persecuted all of the bahais why would they be so incompetent to let at least 2 bahai businessmen with clear evidence of embezzlement of public money and frequent visits to Israel, during the Shah's time, to continue their very very prosperous lives today in Iran. I know these men because they are in my family by marraige. One of them is, also, a very successful bahai evangelist who converts a lot of young muslims into his faith. It is realy getting very hillarious. On one hand you have contempt for the Iranian bahai's dogma and propaganda. On the other hand, you use the very same people's propaganda against Iran on face value. This is the proof of what some one recently wrote about you: "you are nothing but a contemptible, heartless,indecent, intellectual midget floating in the cyberspace masquerading as a real human being. Nay! As a pompous ass philosopher!" EXCELLENT!!!!! Be good now .Do you hear?? A.V. From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:46 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 04:41:05 1997 Received: (qmail 25393 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 11:41:04 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 11:41:04 -0000 Message-ID: <339D3D9F.2DCB@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:42:23 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai & Mo Dadressan References: <33955D26.69FE@hotmail.com> <19970604205200.QAA26106@ladder02.news.aol.com> <5n6c2h$j4o$1@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1822 Miguel Watler wrote: > > : Glaysher wrote: > : I completely disagree. The Bahai Faith, in my twenty-one years of > : experience of it, is not a world religion but definitely a narrow, > : stifling little would-be Iranian religion, through and through.... > : I'm not just attempting to be argumentative.... I believe this is > : the unignorable truth, carefully concealed under the image of > : liberal, progressive claims and propaganda.... > > Hi, > > Not many Iranian Baha'is where I am. I wish there were in fact. I quite > miss them. > > I wonder why you feel the Baha'i Faith is Iranian dominated. They are a > minority in the Baha'i Faith, like everyone else. In fact, there is no > majority. The largest Baha'i community in the world is in India presently, > not Iran. In terms of India, you're talking about a religious context in which one goes to Sufi, Vaishnava, and Sikh shrines or puja and to the Bahai fireside at night.... This is the largest "Bahai" community of the world--India.... as it really is.... in all its complexity.... A minority that runs the Bahai Faith.... Not infrequently from off-stage.... in my opinion.... > > Judging people according to their nationality is an over-simplification of > what it means to be human. Sure there are some trends common to people of > similar nations, but then again even within any given family personalities > can be sooo different. > > Regards, > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Miguel Watler > Cracow University of Technology "The earth is but one country, > 31-155 Cracow Poland and mankind its citizens." > e-mail: pewatler@cyf-kr.edu.pl - Baha'u'llah. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Aug 18 10:19:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:55:13 1997 Received: (qmail 16573 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:55:10 -0000 Message-ID: <33F854A2.40D9@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:56:50 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,news.ad min.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai Abuse of UseNet voting process Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2725 EMAILED TO Soc.Religion.Bahai ON 8-18-97: Bruce Limber wrote: > > > Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my > > opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines > > generally acceptable on UseNet. > > Yeah, right. I believe I wrote the passage above. To brush off an injustice, especially one involving voter abuse and perhaps fraud, seems highly alarming to me.... Bahais, I thought, were supposed to respect and appreciate the sanctity of casting ballots, not abuse them, as was done to suppress 157 people who voted YES for an unmoderated newsgroup. > > And if the vote had turned out the other way, I wonder if the > individual who posted this would now be saying "Talk.religion.bahai > was unfairly passed." This statement is completely illogical to me and lacks any sense of the gravity of the issue.... > > > > ... > > > An interesting new agrument by one opposed to the > > freedom of conscience UseNet stands for. > > UseNet, while a very useful tool, is a neutral entity and takes no > "stance" one way or the other. False. UseNet, through it's administration and voluntary vote takers, strives to make the Internet an equable place for people around the world of all opinions. UseNet does not support the kind of censorship that took place in regard to talk.religion.bahai.... > > > This is how I see it too. Unfortunately, both were crushed > > by the intolerant Bahai majority. > > What a nice way to talk about others! :-( If this isn't > backbiting, it's the next closest thing. An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > > It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the "suppression of > > expression" for 157 people. > > Funny how the losers usually say this. And I suppose if you had been > opposed and the measure had passed, then it would have been > "'heavy-handed' voting that resulted in 'license of expression?'" Again, this fails to take seriously a serious issue.... The serious discussion of which has repeatedly been brushed aside or suppressed on soc.religion.bahai itself.... > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people feel when censored and deprived of the right of free communication and religious conscience is disgraceful to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... -- 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 - Wed Aug 20 11:16:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 05:24:15 1997 Received: (qmail 6779 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 12:24:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 12:24:13 -0000 Message-ID: <33FAE252.1516@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:25:54 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai Abuse of UseNet voting process References: <33F854A2.40D9@hotmail.com> <5ta0s2$kkd@homepark.cc.gatech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2964 Levien de Braal wrote: > > [group-line snipped, article snipped] > > In article <33F854A2.40D9@hotmail.com>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >EMAILED TO Soc.Religion.Bahai ON 8-18-97: > >Bruce Limber wrote: > >>>Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my opinion by an abuse of > >>>the voting guidelines generally acceptable on UseNet. > > And this abuse is... ? Since you're responding to e-mail on here, and the > article doesn't mention this, it's essentially nothing more than a rumour. > Details please... There was an orchestrated campaign for NO votes posted to three Bahai email listservs detailing why NO votes should be cast against the proposed unmoderated talk.religion.bahai. An overwhelming number of people responded with 691 NO's to 157 YES's. > > >Victimize 157 people, depriving them of their right to express on a major Big > >8 hierarchy their own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when > >they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > There is no such thing as a right to have a newsgroup in the Big 8 hierarchy > devoted to your pet topic. There is no reason to deny 100+ people of discussing anything they wish from gardening to pornograghy to star trek.... 691 people voted NO for ideological reasons. Www.dejanews.com has it all archieved if you wanted to surf around to catch up a little. Search under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai from January 1, 1997 to the present. You'll find roughly 3000 messages now.... > > >To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people feel when censored > >and deprived of the right of free communication and religious conscience is > >disgraceful to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... > > Losing a 'vote' run by a UVV does not automatically mean you are censored, > deprived any right, nor religious conscience. Trying to make this a 'you > insulted my faith' issue also only muds the waters and doesn't help anyone > in any way. I don't mind losing a vote; I do mind being the victim of an orchestrated campaign of censorship and injustice.... You may insult my faith all you want; you may not deprive of the right to express how I feel about it.... Many people other than myself have stated they too have experienced censorship at the hands of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. The voter abuse and fraud that took place were merely further indications of an authoritarian mindset there. > > Levien > -- > "Do you hear the people sing, Lost in the valley of the night? > It is the music of a people, Who are climbing to the light. > For the wretched of the earth, There is a flame that never dies. > Even the darkest night will end, And the sun will rise." -- Les Miserables -- 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 - Thu Aug 21 08:43:12 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 04:50:40 1997 Received: (qmail 15544 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 11:50:37 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 11:50:37 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC2BF5.7127@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 07:52:21 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai Abuse of UseNet voting process References: <33F854A2.40D9@hotmail.com> <5ta0s2$kkd@homepark.cc.gatech.edu> <33FAE252.1516@hotmail.com> <5tf9g4$oop@homepark.cc.gatech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5319 Levien de Braal wrote: > > In article <33FAE252.1516@hotmail.com>, > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>And this abuse is... ? > >There was an orchestrated campaign for NO votes posted to three Bahai email > >listservs detailing why NO votes should be cast against the proposed > >unmoderated talk.religion.bahai. An overwhelming number of people responded > >with 691 NO's to 157 YES's. > > The CFV may only be forwarded in it's entirety. Not doing so, or in other > words, representing the vote in a way other than the CFV states, is indeed a > violation of the proper procedures. Please verify that: > 1) We're not talking about a mere discussion of the proposal. People were > urged to vote a certain way without inclusion or previous posting of the > corresponding CFV. If the CFV was posted to those mailing lists, it's fair > game to tell others on there you think they should vote yes or no. The CFV was not posted to the mailing lists in question. The only thing that was posted to all three was a detailed explanation of why and how to vote NO. I sent a copy of it to UVV and David Lawrence at the time and asked them to reverse the fraudulent vote. Nothing was done about it. And here we are again facing basically the same situation coming up in late September when I submit another proposal for talk.religion.bahai. > 2) Actual complaints of this nature should be sent to the UVV-votetaker in > charge of that particular voting process. Make sure you provide proof that > the actual proper process of the vote was violated. Merely yelling 'faul' > does not constitute proof. Answered above. I sent them a copy of it. > 3) A complaint of censorship on soc.religion.bahai is unrelated as long as > a) the full CFV was posted there, or b) no urging for people to vote one > way or the other took place there. The CFV was posted on soc.religion.bahai. People did urge others to vote both ways. What's wrong with that? > 4) You can propose a new set of moderators for a newsgroup just as you can > propose the creation/deletion of a newsgroup. I want an unmoderated newsgroup that doesn't put people again at the mercy of a small number of individuals and their interpretation of what's acceptable.... > > >>There is no such thing as a right to have a newsgroup in the Big 8 hierarchy > >>devoted to your pet topic. > >There is no reason to deny 100+ people of discussing anything they wish from > >gardening to pornograghy to star trek.... > > You were not denied speech. You were denied a newsgroup devoted to your > purposes due to losing a vote. The only question that might alter that is > whether or not the actual rules were violated in the voting process. Make sure > your complaints contain actual proof, and a reference to which rule you > regard being violated. There's not the slightest doubt that the rules were violated. Many highly technically adept people witnessed it who are not Bahais and agreed that the voting was distorted for ideological reasons. Emma Pease was one of them, I believe. > >691 people voted NO for ideological reasons. > > *ANY* reason to vote 'no' is ok. No verification is in place to check whether > or not a 'no' vote has been made for the 'right' reasons. Any 'no' vote is > a valid 'no' vote as long as the actual rules have not been broken. Check the > rules. Now I believe you're wrong. Any old reason is not good enough. You are right there is no verification in place and surely never will be. It does show how flawed the voting system is and how much it does need to be changed. > > >Www.dejanews.com has it all archieved if you wanted to surf around to catch > >up a little. Search under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai from > >January 1, 1997 to the present. You'll find roughly 3000 messages now.... > > Asking others to plow through 3000 messages to find vague 'proof' is not > sufficient. In order to state your case, you need to PROVIDE the proof, with > references of origin (verifyability) yourself. Yes, this requires some work > on your side (and quoting all 3000 messages as 'proof' isn't a good idea > either, trust me). I could repost the NO vote campaign piece if you'd like. > > >Many people other than myself have stated they too have experienced > >censorship at the hands of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai. The voter > >abuse and fraud that took place were merely further indications of an > >authoritarian mindset there. > > Any possible censorship is not the issue to determine the legality of a > voting on a different group. Please read the rules and state your case > briefly, with referenced proof. Where are the rules to read? Can you send me a copy? No one seems to know where they are.... > > Levien > -- > "Do you hear the people sing, Lost in the valley of the night? > It is the music of a people, Who are climbing to the light. > For the wretched of the earth, There is a flame that never dies. > Even the darkest night will end, And the sun will rise." -- Les Miserables -- 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 - Sun Jul 20 08:29:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jul 20 05:23:13 1997 Received: (qmail 2441 invoked from network); 20 Jul 1997 12:23:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Jul 1997 12:23:11 -0000 Message-ID: <33D2038E.1FB6@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 08:24:46 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel.soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai Art forum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3495 David Fiorito and Jennie Spotila wrote: > > Interesting. It has always been my experience that the teachings of > Baha'u'llah only become real when they reveal themselves in my interactions > with others, or in self reflective moments. I only truly understand the > Word of God when it happens. Each time a new realization hits me it colors > my perception of the past, sets up new ways of living, and changes the way > I plan for the future. In short - my life experience is in some way shaped > by my encounters with the Word of God. > > I am not an artist but it would seem to me that art springs from life > experience, and if the artist sees life through Baha'i colored glasses than > that is what he will express. To the artist the expression is born of, to > use your words, "powerful human antinomies, rich in the tension of lived > life", and the "theoretical idealism" may be a silent partner in the > process. Our perception of the world is based on raw data which passes > through many filters; some that we are conscious of and some that we are > not. Just as we take things in through filters, we also pass them out > through a different set. In this way ideas expressed in the Word of God > will influence the expression of the artistic impulse, either in the way we > see the world or wish to express its perception. I am not sure if this > creates Baha'i art or just art. "Colored glasses" is not usually thought of favorably.... It is in the unfavorable sense that most Bahais tend to view the role of art.... It's merely fluff, religious propaganda. > > One thing I feel strongly - Baha'u'llah's teachings are for all people and > not just those who sign declaration cards. To me the "sprit of the age" is > creating new forms of expression in all corners of humanity and not just in > the Baha'i community. > > I guess after all that the simple answer is I believe in art as an > expression of human experience and not a simple representation of a > particular ideology. The Bahai ideology has ossified, and unimaginative "administrators" pontificate on what arts ought to produce and attempt to set an agenda, one on a very low intellectual level, I might add.... The low literal-minded level they themselves so often live on.... > > Thoughts? I do believe art inevitably reveals where human consciousness finds value or lack thereof.... And art is the subtlest rendition of those webs of meaning.... Any attempt to limit or control or channel, "for the good of the Faith," the artist's conscience always corrupts and debases it.... Like Mao, Hitler, and Stalin, and their apparatchiks, some would-be Bahai "administrators" have arrogantly thrust themselves in the way of the arts, ruining much.... improving nothing.... Much the way, apparently, behind the scenes, they allow the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai to continue their censorship of Bahais and non-Bahais, while believing they are the voice of orthodoxy on the Internet, even that it exists.... The same dynamics have been palpable in the way the newspaper, of sorts, the AMERICAN BAHAI, has operated for decades now really.... Nothing but cheery tripe allowed there.... Anyone with half a brain can see through it.... > > Sincerely, > > David Fiorito -- 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 - Thu Jul 03 08:56:44 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:52:50 1997 Received: (qmail 2992 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:52:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:52:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33BBA0FA.6688@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:54:18 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"DcWUvC.A.sVG.3yYuz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 521 Casper Voogt wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > There is a new discussion area for the Baha'i Faith and the Arts > available at the following WWW address: > > https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt/artsforum/index.html > > I hope to hear your voice in the forum! There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities permitted.... > > --Casper Voogt > https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:45 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Thu Jul 3 05:52:48 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA20678; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 05:52:46 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:54:18 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 22 Message-ID: <33BBA0FA.6688@hotmail.com> References: <"DcWUvC.A.sVG.3yYuz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 521 Casper Voogt wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > There is a new discussion area for the Baha'i Faith and the Arts > available at the following WWW address: > > https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt/artsforum/index.html > > I hope to hear your voice in the forum! There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities permitted.... > > --Casper Voogt > https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:46:55 1997 >From blimber@capaccess.org Sat Jul 5 16:49:17 1997 Received: (from blimber@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id TAA20472; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 19:54:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 19:54:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Limber To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum In-Reply-To: <"7Vp-xB.A.6CD.97Ivz"@bounty> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 428 > There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... > what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities > permitted.... Of which the tripe you never seem to tire of posting is the prime example. If you have nothing constructive to say, kindly do yourself and the rest of us a favor and SAY NOTHING WHATEVER. I regret that you seem to wish only to demonstrate how we should _not_ act. From - Tue Jul 08 08:46:56 1997 >From hymanfam@samoatelco.com Sun Jul 6 00:59:02 1997 Received: from [208.136.102.58] (port58.samoatelco.com) by appsrv.samoatelco.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA24532; Sat, 5 Jul 1997 21:01:35 +1100 Message-ID: <33BF42BB.53E7@samoatelco.com> Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 21:01:15 -1000 From: "Bill & Jane Hyman" Reply-To: hymanfam@samoatelco.com Organization: Hyman Family X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bahai-faith@bcca.org CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"7Vp-xB.A.6CD.97Ivz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 276 I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future postings. Bill Hyman hymanfam@samoatelco.com From - Tue Jul 08 08:46:57 1997 >From rmckin6046@aol.com Sun Jul 6 17:15:10 1997 Received: from ladder02.news.aol.com (ladder02.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.241]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA06599; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:15:01 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 20:15:01 -0400 Message-Id: <19970707001400.UAA00295@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai To: FG@hotmail.com From: rmckin6046@aol.com (RMckin6046) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <"7Vp-xB.A.6CD.97Ivz"@bounty> Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1785 Frederick: I was not unhappy with s.r.b. at all and have no personal problems with the moderated format, BUT I supported your desire to establish the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup because I agree that frank and free exchange of ideas is essentially healthy in this society. I have been unable to access directly alt.rel.bahai from aol, but I don't particularly try hard to either. That said: I was very disappointed in your last post here on the arts. It certainly made me wonder if I was right to support your proposal. You said: "There is no art allowed in the Baha'i Faith... only propaganda.. what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities permitted...." What a "cranky" and judgmental statement. I fancy myself a sometime artist, and I do not feel that I am being allowed only to produce propaganda; although, my little wood burnings, paintings and prose may indeed be banal. On the other hand, I have several artworks produced by other Baha'is that I adore and have witnessed numerous singers and dancers and actors who are real artists. To characterize what they do the way you did is really insulting. I do not always "get" the modern dance stuff [I lean more to Gospel & classical dance/music], and the youth workshops sometimes leave me scratching my head, but who can deny their hard work, their devoted expression, their obvious energy and their love of their art... not to mention their love of Baha'u'llah? Besides you of course. Very disappointed, and hoping that you retract your statement, or at least learn to keep such hurtful opinions to yourself, Richard ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Richard A McKinley Fayetteville NC USA RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:02 1997 >From stevens@azstarnet.com Sun Jul 6 22:07:51 1997 Received: from usr4ip58.azstarnet.com (usr4ip58.azstarnet.com [169.197.5.58]) by mailhost.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA17544 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 22:07:44 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 22:07:44 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199707070507.WAA17544@mailhost.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet https://www.azstarnet.com/ X-Sender: stevens@pop.azstarnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: FG@hotmail.com From: stevens@azstarnet.com (Stephi Stevens) Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4338 Hmmmmmm, I find this an interesting point of view. >There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... Propaganda, that's an interesting word to choose. I looked the word up in the dictionary because I wanted to make sure I understood exactly what it is you're trying to say. I got two possible definitions of propaganda, 1 the spreading of ideas, information or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution; 2 ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause. Well, I'm not going to take either of the two negative aspects of these definitions. I'm going to assume you meant to use this word in the most positive manner possible. So from this definition, I'm assuming you consider the art created by artists who are Baha'i to be art which is done for the purpose of helping the Baha'i Institutions and that they are created strictly for the purpose of furthering the Baha'i Cause. Well first off, the vast majority of art which is created by individuals who are Baha'i is done from the spirit of their hearts. This work is done to express their own individual inspiration of their understanding of their Faith. Very few Baha'i artists actually do get to create artwork for Baha'i Institutions, simply because the opportunities at this point in time are not that available. Our great artistic endeavors are for the most part contained within our Baha'i Temples, or the major construction which is occuring now at our international center at Haifa, Israel. Now as to artwork being done to deliberately further the Baha'i Cause, again this is up to the individual artist involved. If individuals wish to do this as artists, they can make that choice. But it is not the policy of the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith to use art in this manner. By this statement, I mean the Institutions do not choose to "deliberately spread" the Faith in this manner. They don't need to. There are enough Baha'is throughout the world who are happy and willing to teach the Faith to others of the world. There is no need to use art in this manner. >what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities >permitted.... Actually, what you call Baha'i "art" isn't "Baha'i" art. There is no such thing. It doesn't exist yet. All that exists at this point in time is what individuals create best as expressions of how the Baha'i Faith reaches them. It is impossible for artists who are Baha'i to create "Baha'i" art at this point in time. Now this is my personal opinion as an artist, but I honestly believe the beginnings of what will be known as "Baha'i" art in the future haven't yet begun to coalesce. In the past, it always took at least a good 300 years to pass before a new Faith had any real significant affect upon the artists expressing that Faith through their artwork. Now I personally haven't yet seen anything done by Baha'is which impresses me as being a form of artistic expression which is truly, significantly different from the ways of artistic expression of today, except for the subject matter. But this is my personal opinion and I haven't seen a significant amount of artwork created by Baha'i artists, so I'm admitting my limitations. Isn't it possible that you too haven't seen a significant amount of artwork in order to make the kind of determination which you have made concerning "Baha'i" Art? And if that is true, are your opinions just opinions? All I know is I do not choose to call my art "Baha'i" art. I do not create art for Baha'is. I create art for any person who wishes to enjoy it. I create art for people and I don't care who they are, whether they are Baha'i or not. All I care about is creating good work. Teachers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" teachers, doctors who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" doctors, lawyers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" lawyers. I am an artist who is Baha'i. I am not a "Baha'i" artist. The art I create is for all people, and the vast majority of artists I know who are Baha'i also do not care to call their creations "Baha'i" art. Loving regards, Stephi stevens@azstarnet.com From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:30:42 1997 Received: (qmail 5750 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:30:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:30:41 -0000 Message-ID: <33C23348.7BEF@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:32:08 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"CoITWB.A.iGE.qpHwz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3147 RMckin6046 wrote: > > Frederick: > > I was not unhappy with s.r.b. at all and have no personal problems > with the moderated format, BUT I supported your desire to establish > the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup because I agree that frank and free > exchange of ideas is essentially healthy in this society. I have been > unable to access directly alt.rel.bahai from aol, but I don't > particularly try hard to either. That said: I was very disappointed > in your last post here on the arts. It certainly made me wonder if I > was right to support your proposal. You've been unable to access apparently for reasons I am not permitted to elaborate on.... Since you are "very disappointed" in my views on what passes for "art" in the Bahai Faith, you consider suppressing my views? I don't quite follow how that would be supporting "frank and free exchange," etc.... > > You said: "There is no art allowed in the Baha'i Faith... only > propaganda.. what passes for "art" is really only the crudest > banalities permitted...." That's the way I see it.... Philistinism only welcomed in this religion--not the rich tensions of what is truly worthy of the name of art.... Rich tensions grounded in the antinomies of the human heart.... > > What a "cranky" and judgmental statement. I fancy myself a sometime > artist, and I do not feel that I am being allowed only to produce > propaganda; although, my little wood burnings, paintings and prose may > indeed be banal. Or dilettante? That's the Bahai conception of artist in my opinion.... Quite congruent really with the philistinism of modern society in most ways.... On the other hand, I have several artworks produced > by other Baha'is that I adore and have witnessed numerous singers and > dancers and actors who are real artists. The more inarticulate the art the better in this religion.... To characterize what they do > the way you did is really insulting. I do not always "get" the modern > dance stuff [I lean more to Gospel & classical dance/music], and the > youth workshops sometimes leave me scratching my head, but who can > deny their hard work, their devoted expression, their obvious energy > and their love of their art... not to mention their love of > Baha'u'llah? Besides you of course. Oh terrible me!!! Not insulting, accurate art criticism of the usual tripe that's fobbed off as art in Bahai circles where art is unknown, really.... Gross propaganda, what the poet Robert Hayden was fond of calling "doctrinaire propaganda," is all the Bahai Faith, by and large, has to offer or ALLOWS.... > > Very disappointed, and hoping that you retract your statement, or at > least learn to keep such hurtful opinions to yourself, That's it.... Close your mouth and go away if you can't say what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said and done.... > > Richard > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Richard A McKinley > Fayetteville NC USA > RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:29 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Tue Jul 8 05:30:37 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA03788; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 05:30:35 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:32:08 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 77 Message-ID: <33C23348.7BEF@hotmail.com> References: <"CoITWB.A.iGE.qpHwz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3147 RMckin6046 wrote: > > Frederick: > > I was not unhappy with s.r.b. at all and have no personal problems > with the moderated format, BUT I supported your desire to establish > the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup because I agree that frank and free > exchange of ideas is essentially healthy in this society. I have been > unable to access directly alt.rel.bahai from aol, but I don't > particularly try hard to either. That said: I was very disappointed > in your last post here on the arts. It certainly made me wonder if I > was right to support your proposal. You've been unable to access apparently for reasons I am not permitted to elaborate on.... Since you are "very disappointed" in my views on what passes for "art" in the Bahai Faith, you consider suppressing my views? I don't quite follow how that would be supporting "frank and free exchange," etc.... > > You said: "There is no art allowed in the Baha'i Faith... only > propaganda.. what passes for "art" is really only the crudest > banalities permitted...." That's the way I see it.... Philistinism only welcomed in this religion--not the rich tensions of what is truly worthy of the name of art.... Rich tensions grounded in the antinomies of the human heart.... > > What a "cranky" and judgmental statement. I fancy myself a sometime > artist, and I do not feel that I am being allowed only to produce > propaganda; although, my little wood burnings, paintings and prose may > indeed be banal. Or dilettante? That's the Bahai conception of artist in my opinion.... Quite congruent really with the philistinism of modern society in most ways.... On the other hand, I have several artworks produced > by other Baha'is that I adore and have witnessed numerous singers and > dancers and actors who are real artists. The more inarticulate the art the better in this religion.... To characterize what they do > the way you did is really insulting. I do not always "get" the modern > dance stuff [I lean more to Gospel & classical dance/music], and the > youth workshops sometimes leave me scratching my head, but who can > deny their hard work, their devoted expression, their obvious energy > and their love of their art... not to mention their love of > Baha'u'llah? Besides you of course. Oh terrible me!!! Not insulting, accurate art criticism of the usual tripe that's fobbed off as art in Bahai circles where art is unknown, really.... Gross propaganda, what the poet Robert Hayden was fond of calling "doctrinaire propaganda," is all the Bahai Faith, by and large, has to offer or ALLOWS.... > > Very disappointed, and hoping that you retract your statement, or at > least learn to keep such hurtful opinions to yourself, That's it.... Close your mouth and go away if you can't say what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said and done.... > > Richard > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Richard A McKinley > Fayetteville NC USA > RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jul 09 07:13:29 1997 >From syntax@oro.net Tue Jul 8 10:42:25 1997 Received: from red-oktobr (i498.oro.net [204.119.229.198]) by Au.oro.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15224 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:42:19 -0700 Message-ID: <33C27B6C.14FE@oro.net> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 10:39:56 -0700 From: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff Organization: SFWA X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"7Vp-xB.A.6CD.97Ivz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2239 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... > what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities > permitted.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Freddie, As a musician and a writer, I must take exception to your diatribe. The Faith has done nothing but free me as an artist rather than circumscribe. It has allowed me to approach old subjects with new viewpoint and vigor and has brought a passion to my work that often surprises even me. While I have had individual Baha'is tell me that my rock oriented music wasn't Baha'i or that one shouldn't sing of Baha'u'llah in the terms one usually reserves for a lover, or that the characters in my stories shouldn't use profanity because Baha'is shouldn't use profanity, I am bright enough to understand that those were individual opinions, like yours, and are not expressive of Baha'i doctrine. Besides, we all know what they say about opinions, don't we? Like certain anatomical features, everybody has one. Abdu'l-Baha says our thought is our reality. Your thought and your reality are apparently very bitter. You have my sympathy. But don't thrust your reality at me and expect me to accept it as mine or accept it without argument. Indeed, I have to ask why you find it necessary to impose your anger and angst on others at all. The art that comes out of true faith is not propaganda, but an exploration of possibilities. I will explore the possibilities for myself and mankind in general as my faith dictates and neither you, with your cynical bluster, nor those who kindly offer the opinion that there is a "form" for Baha'i art will stop that exploration. BTW, I supppose it's too much to hope that you found it significant that your mean-spirited comment was actually published on this supposedly censored newsgroup. +----------------------------------------+ | Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syntax@oro.net | +----------------------------------------+ | "Nothing have I seen but that I | | perceived God within it, God before it,| | and God after it." - the Imam Husayn | +----------------------------------------+ From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:35 1997 >From rmckin6046@aol.com Wed Jul 9 17:11:14 1997 Received: from ladder02.news.aol.com (ladder02.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.241]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA06592; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:11:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 20:11:13 -0400 Message-Id: <19970710001100.UAA04035@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai To: Frederick Glaysher From: rmckin6046@aol.com (RMckin6046) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <"JFiF-D.A.I_C.E89wz"@bounty> Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2040 Fred: I did not suggest that you be silenced or your views "suppressed." I was disagreeing with your views though, and that is permissible is it not? As to your being insulting to many hard working and devoted people... I think that that is an accurate assessment. 'Abdu'l-Baha told us to be truthful, but He also told us to temper the truth with kindness. Do you really think that is the way He would have expressed His displeasure with art? How many times have parents told their children that the polite way is to not say anything if you cannot say something nice? And, you accuse me of "philistinism" because I suggest that articulate a little less harshly? Do you not care who's feelings are hurt by your words? Should we read your words to the Baha'i Youth Workshops and tell them to give it up... Fred doesn't like your art! For good reason, Shoghi Effendi cautioned against developing anything called a Baha'i art. And, there is no official Baha'i music or art style. Baha'i artists are free to paint, sculpt, write, poeticize, dramatize, etc pretty much anything they want. Publications that are "on" the Faith by members of the Faith should still be approved as per the instructions of the Guardian, but you can paint, etc all the "rich tensions" you want! My eldest daughter plays in a jazz band and also plays "alternative" music [yuck!] She is a good Baha'i who disagrees with my taste in music, and no one censors her. My middle daughter is an accomplished classical guitarist who also plays the violin in orchestra. I like her music better, but again, she does not have any "sanction" from the Faith that my eldest lacks. So, I really do not understand your point about "allowed" art. But, I do understand the caustic tone you took. By the way, please feel free to e-mail me about the difficulties I have experienced with a.r.b. Richard ------------------------------------- Dr Richard A McKinley Fayetteville NC USA RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 04:26:12 1997 Received: (qmail 5145 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 11:26:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 11:26:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4C72E.290B@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:27:42 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RMckin6046 CC: rmckin6046@aol.com, FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"JFiF-D.A.I_C.E89wz"@bounty> <19970710001100.UAA04035@ladder02.news.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2830 RMckin6046 wrote: > > Fred: > > I did not suggest that you be silenced or your views "suppressed." I was > disagreeing with your views though, and that is permissible is it not? I've never claimed to be a prophet.... As > to your being insulting to many hard working and devoted people... I > think that that is an accurate assessment. 'Abdu'l-Baha told us to be > truthful, but He also told us to temper the truth with kindness. Do you > really think that is the way He would have expressed His displeasure with > art? Read Tolstoy's What Is Art?.... How many times have parents told their children that the polite way > is to not say anything if you cannot say something nice? You sound like an old school marm.... And, you accuse > me of "philistinism" because I suggest that articulate a little less > harshly? Do you not care who's feelings are hurt by your words? Should > we read your words to the Baha'i Youth Workshops and tell them to give it > up... Fred doesn't like your art! You realize you're being absurd.... I know you mean well.... > > For good reason, Shoghi Effendi cautioned against developing anything > called a Baha'i art. And, there is no official Baha'i music or art style. > Baha'i artists are free to paint, sculpt, write, poeticize, dramatize, > etc pretty much anything they want. "Pretty much": contradicts "free," if you don't realize that.... Publications that are "on" the Faith > by members of the Faith should still be approved as per the instructions > of the Guardian, but you can paint, etc all the "rich tensions" you want! Utterly false.... > My eldest daughter plays in a jazz band and also plays "alternative" > music [yuck!] She is a good Baha'i who disagrees with my taste in music, > and no one censors her. My middle daughter is an accomplished classical > guitarist who also plays the violin in orchestra. I like her music > better, but again, she does not have any "sanction" from the Faith that my > eldest lacks. So, I really do not understand your point about "allowed" > art. But, I do understand the caustic tone you took. With all respect, I don't believe you do.... > > By the way, please feel free to e-mail me about the difficulties I have > experienced with a.r.b. Since you have an AOL handle, merely ask the support people to add alt.religion.bahai to the available newsgroups.... I don't know why they haven't done that yet since they offer everything else.... Or use www.zippo.com, www.dejanews.com, or www.reference.com to access alt.religion.bahai > > Richard > ------------------------------------- > Dr Richard A McKinley > Fayetteville NC USA > RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:08 1997 >From rmckin6046@aol.com Thu Jul 10 22:00:58 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA20960 for FG@hotmail.com; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 01:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 01:00:56 -0400 (EDT) From: RMckin6046@aol.com Message-ID: <970711010052_1790360969@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 199 Thanks for the reply. So, I'm more old school marm than art critic. I still do not see what keeps you from expressing all the rich tension you want in artworks. Hope to see you soon... Richard From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:20 1997 >From stevens@azstarnet.com Sat Jul 12 13:09:09 1997 Received: from usr12ip16.azstarnet.com (usr12ip16.azstarnet.com [169.197.13.16]) by mailhost.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03964 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:09:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:09:01 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199707122009.NAA03964@mailhost.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet https://www.azstarnet.com/ X-Sender: stevens@pop.azstarnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: FG@hotmail.com From: stevens@azstarnet.com (Stephi Stevens) Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5678 Dear Frederick, Hmmmmmmm, for me there is something about your criticism of your so called "Baha'i Art" that smacks of the Western concept of art criticism. It seems incomplete, self-directed, and lacking justice. Perhaps instead of looking at this art from the Western viewpoint, it might be wiser to look at this art from a new viewpoint, one that reflects what we are all trying to learn from the Baha'i Teachings. Of course, you may not be Baha'i, in which case, excuse me for making assumptions. But if you are not a Baha'i, then why are you passing judgment on our work? This is a new religion, still developing, still in its childhood stage. It's hardly fair to judge the art of a developing Faith by the same standards of past Faiths. These Faiths have had thousands of years to find their artistic niche in the cosmos. We've only been here for one hundred and fifty odd years. Come on, we're trying to find ourselves, and anyone who is a teacher knows the best way to inspire people to do better is through praise, and certainly not through unjust criticism. Now if you are a Baha'i, wouldn't you consider this an opportunity to practice loving patience with people who are not up to your artistic standards? I would dare say that if you create art, you yourself would not consider your art "Baha'i Art" in the best sense of the definition of "Baha'i Art". As you know, I do not consider most of what art is created today by artists who are Baha'i to be "Baha'i Art". I don't believe any of us know what that is yet, so it's impossible to create. You know quite often in your statements the words "in my opinion" or something to that affect came up. Consider this, wouldn't it be wiser to find out for yourself what Baha'u'llah has to say about art, about creativity, about the power of choice, about love, about justice, about honesty, about wisdom and base your "opinions" on that, rather than on what you feel is right, that is if you are Baha'i? Your words are unecessarily cruel, your words are superior, your words lack justice, your words lack patience, your words lack wisdom, and your words smack of the quality of a child who isn't getting his own way. Maybe you could be asking yourself, what is this really all about anyway, my beliefs about art or is this about my own will? Loving regards, Stephi stevens@azstarnet.com >RMckin6046 wrote: >> >> Frederick: >> >> I was not unhappy with s.r.b. at all and have no personal problems >> with the moderated format, BUT I supported your desire to establish >> the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup because I agree that frank and free >> exchange of ideas is essentially healthy in this society. I have been >> unable to access directly alt.rel.bahai from aol, but I don't >> particularly try hard to either. That said: I was very disappointed >> in your last post here on the arts. It certainly made me wonder if I >> was right to support your proposal. > >You've been unable to access apparently for reasons I am not permitted >to elaborate on.... Since you are "very disappointed" in my views on >what passes for "art" in the Bahai Faith, you consider suppressing my >views? I don't quite follow how that would be supporting "frank and >free exchange," etc.... > >> >> You said: "There is no art allowed in the Baha'i Faith... only >> propaganda.. what passes for "art" is really only the crudest >> banalities permitted...." > >That's the way I see it.... Philistinism only welcomed in this >religion--not the rich tensions of what is truly worthy of the >name of art.... Rich tensions grounded in the antinomies of >the human heart.... > >> >> What a "cranky" and judgmental statement. I fancy myself a sometime >> artist, and I do not feel that I am being allowed only to produce >> propaganda; although, my little wood burnings, paintings and prose may >> indeed be banal. > >Or dilettante? That's the Bahai conception of artist in my opinion.... >Quite congruent really with the philistinism of modern society in >most ways.... > > On the other hand, I have several artworks produced >> by other Baha'is that I adore and have witnessed numerous singers and >> dancers and actors who are real artists. > >The more inarticulate the art the better in this religion.... > > To characterize what they do >> the way you did is really insulting. I do not always "get" the modern >> dance stuff [I lean more to Gospel & classical dance/music], and the >> youth workshops sometimes leave me scratching my head, but who can >> deny their hard work, their devoted expression, their obvious energy >> and their love of their art... not to mention their love of >> Baha'u'llah? Besides you of course. > >Oh terrible me!!! Not insulting, accurate art criticism of the >usual tripe that's fobbed off as art in Bahai circles where art >is unknown, really.... Gross propaganda, what the poet Robert >Hayden was fond of calling "doctrinaire propaganda," is all the >Bahai Faith, by and large, has to offer or ALLOWS.... > >> >> Very disappointed, and hoping that you retract your statement, or at >> least learn to keep such hurtful opinions to yourself, > >That's it.... Close your mouth and go away if you can't say >what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said >and done.... > >> >> Richard >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Richard A McKinley >> Fayetteville NC USA >> RMckin6046@aol.com & RMCK-BEAR@juno.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:22 1997 >From stevens@azstarnet.com Sat Jul 12 13:09:19 1997 Received: from usr12ip16.azstarnet.com (usr12ip16.azstarnet.com [169.197.13.16]) by mailhost.azstarnet.com (8.8.5-nerd/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA04024 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:09:11 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:09:11 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199707122009.NAA04024@mailhost.azstarnet.com> X-Sent-via: StarNet https://www.azstarnet.com/ X-Sender: stevens@pop.azstarnet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: FG@hotmail.com From: stevens@azstarnet.com (Stephi Stevens) Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4450 Dear Frederick, Hmmmmmm, I find this an interesting point of view. >There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... Propaganda, that's an interesting word to choose. I looked the word up in the dictionary because I wanted to make sure I understood exactly what it is you're trying to say. I got two possible definitions of propaganda, 1 the spreading of ideas, information or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution; 2 ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause. Well, I'm not going to take either of the two negative aspects of these definitions. I'm going to assume you meant to use this word in the most positive manner possible. So from this definition, I'm assuming you consider the art created by artists who are Baha'i to be art which is done for the purpose of helping the Baha'i Institutions and that they are created strictly for the purpose of furthering the Baha'i Cause. Well first off, the vast majority of art which is created by individuals who are Baha'i is done from the spirit of their hearts. This work is done to express their own individual inspiration of their understanding of their Faith. Very few Baha'i artists actually do get to create artwork for Baha'i Institutions, simply because the opportunities at this point in time are not that available. Our great artistic endeavors are for the most part contained within our Baha'i Temples, or the major construction which is occuring now at our international center in Haifa, Israel. Now as to artwork being done to deliberately further the Baha'i Cause, again this is up to the individual artist involved. If individuals wish to do this as artists, they can make that choice. But it is not the policy of the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith to use art in this manner. By this statement, I mean the Institutions do not choose to "deliberately spread" the Faith in this manner. They don't need to. There are enough Baha'is throughout the world who are happy and willing to teach the Faith to others of the world. There is no need to use art in this manner. >what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities >permitted.... Actually, what you call Baha'i "art" isn't "Baha'i" art. There is no such thing. It doesn't exist yet. All that exists at this point in time is what individuals create best as expressions of how the Baha'i Faith reaches them. It is impossible for artists who are Baha'i to create "Baha'i" art at this point in time. Now this is my personal opinion as an artist, but I honestly believe the beginnings of what will be known as "Baha'i" art in the future haven't yet begun to coalesce. In the past, it always took at least a good 300 years to pass before a new Faith had any real significant affect upon the artists expressing that Faith through their artwork. Now I personally haven't yet seen anything done by Baha'is which impresses me as being a form of artistic expression which is truly, significantly different from the ways of artistic expression of today, except for the subject matter. But this is my personal opinion and I haven't seen a significant amount of artwork created by Baha'i artists, so I'm admitting my limitations. Isn't it possible that you too haven't seen a significant amount of artwork in order to make the kind of determination which you have made concerning "Baha'i" Art? And if that is true, are your opinions just opinions? All I know is I do not choose to call my art "Baha'i" art. I do not create art for Baha'is. I create art for any person who wishes to enjoy it. I create art for people and I don't care who they are, whether they are Baha'i or not. All I care about is creating good work. Teachers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" teachers, doctors who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" doctors, lawyers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" lawyers. I am an artist who is Baha'i. I am not a "Baha'i" artist. The art I create is for all people, and the vast majority of artists I know who are Baha'i also do not care to call their creations "Baha'i" art. Loving regards, Stephi stevens@azstarnet.com From - Tue Jul 15 06:17:01 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jul 14 17:12:31 1997 Received: (qmail 29195 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 00:12:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 00:12:27 -0000 Message-ID: <33CAC058.68E3@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:12:08 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"C1CPeD.A.UsF.Gy-xz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5720 Stephi Stevens wrote: > > Hmmmmmm, I find this an interesting point of view. > > >fglaysher wrote: > >There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... > [clip] > Well, I'm not going to take either of the two negative aspects > of these definitions. I'm going to assume you meant to use > this word in the most positive manner possible. Why would you assume that? It's obvious I meant and mean it in the UTMOST negative connotation possible.... So from this > definition, I'm assuming you consider the art created by > artists who are Baha'i to be art which is done for the > purpose of helping the Baha'i Institutions and that they are > created strictly for the purpose of furthering the Baha'i Cause. > > Well first off, the vast majority of art which is created by > individuals who are Baha'i is done from the spirit of their > hearts. This work is done to express their own individual > inspiration of their understanding of their Faith. It's coerced "art," like Hitler's or Stalin's.... > > Very few Baha'i artists actually do get to create artwork for > Baha'i Institutions, simply because the opportunities at this > point in time are not that available. Again, it appears they don't want art but propaganda, apparently in all things, including art.... Our great artistic > endeavors are for the most part contained within our > Baha'i Temples, or the major construction which is occuring > now at our international center in Haifa, Israel. Inarticulate "art," easy to manipulate and coopt.... > > Now as to artwork being done to deliberately further the > Baha'i Cause, again this is up to the individual artist > involved. If individuals wish to do this as artists, they > can make that choice. But it is not the policy of the > Institutions of the Baha'i Faith to use art in this manner. That's your opinion; I believe it fails to perceive the situation correctly.... > > By this statement, I mean the Institutions do not choose > to "deliberately spread" the Faith in this manner. They > don't need to. There are enough Baha'is throughout the > world who are happy and willing to teach the Faith to > others of the world. There is no need to use art in this > manner. Quite false. There have been innumerable calls to "use" art to teach the Bahai Faith. A philistine's conception of art, really.... > > >what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities > >permitted.... > > Actually, what you call Baha'i "art" isn't "Baha'i" art. There > is no such thing. It doesn't exist yet. All that exists at this > point in time is what individuals create best as expressions > of how the Baha'i Faith reaches them. It is impossible for > artists who are Baha'i to create "Baha'i" art at this point in > time. I never stated Bahai art exists, quite the reverse. I stated propaganda exists, only.... > > Now this is my personal opinion as an artist, but I honestly > believe the beginnings of what will be known as "Baha'i" > art in the future haven't yet begun to coalesce. In the past, it > always took at least a good 300 years to pass before a > new Faith had any real significant affect upon the artists > expressing that Faith through their artwork. Considerable time elapsed in past revelations, true. Often, it seems to me, there is a danger of misperception if timelines from the past are slavishly assumed to hold sway for the Bahai Faith too.... > > Now I personally haven't yet seen anything done by Baha'is > which impresses me as being a form of artistic expression > which is truly, significantly different from the ways of > artistic expression of today, except for the subject matter. Experimentation is not truly allowed, you see.... Freedom of the artist's individual conscience is mandatory to true art. That freedom does not exist in Bahai circles.... > > But this is my personal opinion and I haven't seen a > significant amount of artwork created by Baha'i artists, so > I'm admitting my limitations. Isn't it possible that you too > haven't seen a significant amount of artwork in order to > make the kind of determination which you have made > concerning "Baha'i" Art? And if that is true, are your > opinions just opinions? Everything I've ever said in my life is merely my opinion.... True for all flawed human beings, alas.... I've seen so much Bahai kitsch I can't bear to recall it all.... > > All I know is I do not choose to call my art "Baha'i" art. > I do not create art for Baha'is. I create art for any person > who wishes to enjoy it. I create art for people and I don't > care who they are, whether they are Baha'i or not. All I > care about is creating good work. Art is inevitably tied to a social milieu; the Bahai one is counterproductive to real artistic endeavor..... > > Teachers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" teachers, > doctors who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" doctors, > lawyers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" lawyers. > I am an artist who is Baha'i. I am not a "Baha'i" artist. > The art I create is for all people, and the vast majority of > artists I know who are Baha'i also do not care to call their > creations "Baha'i" art. I've never said any of the above. My argument is not on such a philistine or dilettantish level.... > > Loving regards, > Stephi > stevens@azstarnet.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com, or ask your ISP to add it. From - Tue Jul 15 06:16:59 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Mon Jul 14 17:12:26 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA10771; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:12:19 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:12:08 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 151 Message-ID: <33CAC058.68E3@hotmail.com> References: <"C1CPeD.A.UsF.Gy-xz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5720 Stephi Stevens wrote: > > Hmmmmmm, I find this an interesting point of view. > > >fglaysher wrote: > >There is no art allowed in the Bahai Faith.... only propaganda.... > [clip] > Well, I'm not going to take either of the two negative aspects > of these definitions. I'm going to assume you meant to use > this word in the most positive manner possible. Why would you assume that? It's obvious I meant and mean it in the UTMOST negative connotation possible.... So from this > definition, I'm assuming you consider the art created by > artists who are Baha'i to be art which is done for the > purpose of helping the Baha'i Institutions and that they are > created strictly for the purpose of furthering the Baha'i Cause. > > Well first off, the vast majority of art which is created by > individuals who are Baha'i is done from the spirit of their > hearts. This work is done to express their own individual > inspiration of their understanding of their Faith. It's coerced "art," like Hitler's or Stalin's.... > > Very few Baha'i artists actually do get to create artwork for > Baha'i Institutions, simply because the opportunities at this > point in time are not that available. Again, it appears they don't want art but propaganda, apparently in all things, including art.... Our great artistic > endeavors are for the most part contained within our > Baha'i Temples, or the major construction which is occuring > now at our international center in Haifa, Israel. Inarticulate "art," easy to manipulate and coopt.... > > Now as to artwork being done to deliberately further the > Baha'i Cause, again this is up to the individual artist > involved. If individuals wish to do this as artists, they > can make that choice. But it is not the policy of the > Institutions of the Baha'i Faith to use art in this manner. That's your opinion; I believe it fails to perceive the situation correctly.... > > By this statement, I mean the Institutions do not choose > to "deliberately spread" the Faith in this manner. They > don't need to. There are enough Baha'is throughout the > world who are happy and willing to teach the Faith to > others of the world. There is no need to use art in this > manner. Quite false. There have been innumerable calls to "use" art to teach the Bahai Faith. A philistine's conception of art, really.... > > >what passes for "art" is really only the crudest banalities > >permitted.... > > Actually, what you call Baha'i "art" isn't "Baha'i" art. There > is no such thing. It doesn't exist yet. All that exists at this > point in time is what individuals create best as expressions > of how the Baha'i Faith reaches them. It is impossible for > artists who are Baha'i to create "Baha'i" art at this point in > time. I never stated Bahai art exists, quite the reverse. I stated propaganda exists, only.... > > Now this is my personal opinion as an artist, but I honestly > believe the beginnings of what will be known as "Baha'i" > art in the future haven't yet begun to coalesce. In the past, it > always took at least a good 300 years to pass before a > new Faith had any real significant affect upon the artists > expressing that Faith through their artwork. Considerable time elapsed in past revelations, true. Often, it seems to me, there is a danger of misperception if timelines from the past are slavishly assumed to hold sway for the Bahai Faith too.... > > Now I personally haven't yet seen anything done by Baha'is > which impresses me as being a form of artistic expression > which is truly, significantly different from the ways of > artistic expression of today, except for the subject matter. Experimentation is not truly allowed, you see.... Freedom of the artist's individual conscience is mandatory to true art. That freedom does not exist in Bahai circles.... > > But this is my personal opinion and I haven't seen a > significant amount of artwork created by Baha'i artists, so > I'm admitting my limitations. Isn't it possible that you too > haven't seen a significant amount of artwork in order to > make the kind of determination which you have made > concerning "Baha'i" Art? And if that is true, are your > opinions just opinions? Everything I've ever said in my life is merely my opinion.... True for all flawed human beings, alas.... I've seen so much Bahai kitsch I can't bear to recall it all.... > > All I know is I do not choose to call my art "Baha'i" art. > I do not create art for Baha'is. I create art for any person > who wishes to enjoy it. I create art for people and I don't > care who they are, whether they are Baha'i or not. All I > care about is creating good work. Art is inevitably tied to a social milieu; the Bahai one is counterproductive to real artistic endeavor..... > > Teachers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" teachers, > doctors who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" doctors, > lawyers who are Baha'i are not called "Baha'i" lawyers. > I am an artist who is Baha'i. I am not a "Baha'i" artist. > The art I create is for all people, and the vast majority of > artists I know who are Baha'i also do not care to call their > creations "Baha'i" art. I've never said any of the above. My argument is not on such a philistine or dilettantish level.... > > Loving regards, > Stephi > stevens@azstarnet.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com, or ask your ISP to add it. From - Tue Jul 15 06:17:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jul 14 17:26:25 1997 Received: (qmail 20738 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 00:26:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 00:26:23 -0000 Message-ID: <33CAC3E8.1377@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:27:20 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum References: <"C1CPeD.A.ovF.73-xz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3334 Stephi Stevens wrote: > > Hmmmmmmm, for me there is something about your criticism of > your so called "Baha'i Art" that smacks of the Western concept > of art criticism. It seems incomplete, self-directed, and lacking > justice. There's a certain approach in the surrounding milieu which has seeped into the Bahai Faith too that thinks when anything is identified as "Western" the final word has been spoken.... I can't imagine anyone who truly understands the intimate relation of the critical faculty with the creative making such a comment.... > > Perhaps instead of looking at this art from the Western viewpoint, > it might be wiser to look at this art from a new viewpoint, one that > reflects what we are all trying to learn from the Baha'i Teachings. > Of course, you may not be Baha'i, in which case, excuse me for > making assumptions. I am a member of the Bahai Faith. Hitler and Stalin both urged a "new" viewpoint for their appalling kitsch.... "socialist realism," etc.... Such an excuse rings hollow to me. > > But if you are not a Baha'i, then why are you passing judgment > on our work? This is a new religion, still developing, still in its > childhood stage. It's hardly fair to judge the art of a developing > Faith by the same standards of past Faiths. False. Only the most demanding standards of the past are worthy of the present.... Anything else is an insult to the human spirit.... These Faiths have > had thousands of years to find their artistic niche in the cosmos. > We've only been here for one hundred and fifty odd years. > Come on, we're trying to find ourselves, and anyone who is a > teacher knows the best way to inspire people to do better is > through praise, and certainly not through unjust criticism. False. I taught literature for many years and the "encouragement" travesty of modern education has ruined the critical faculties of most young students.... > > Now if you are a Baha'i, wouldn't you consider this an opportunity > to practice loving patience with people who are not up to your > artistic standards? I would dare say that if you create art, you > yourself would not consider your art "Baha'i Art" in the best > sense of the definition of "Baha'i Art". As you know, I do not > consider most of what art is created today by artists who are > Baha'i to be "Baha'i Art". I don't believe any of us know what > that is yet, so it's impossible to create. It's impossible also for it to develop since fascist control exerts itself on everyone's conscience.... > > You know quite often in your statements the words "in > my opinion" or something to that affect came up. Consider > this, wouldn't it be wiser to find out for yourself what > Baha'u'llah has to say about art, about creativity, about the > power of choice, about love, about justice, about honesty, > about wisdom and base your "opinions" on that, rather > than on what you feel is right, that is if you are Baha'i? The reality of human experience is not gainsaid by the idealism of Baha'u'llah's Teachings.... > > Loving regards, > Stephi > stevens@azstarnet.com > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com, or ask your ISP to add it. From - Tue Jul 15 06:17:03 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Mon Jul 14 17:26:24 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA11213; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:26:17 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:27:20 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 80 Message-ID: <33CAC3E8.1377@hotmail.com> References: <"C1CPeD.A.ovF.73-xz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3336 Stephi Stevens wrote: > > Hmmmmmmm, for me there is something about your criticism of > your so called "Baha'i Art" that smacks of the Western concept > of art criticism. It seems incomplete, self-directed, and lacking > justice. There's a certain approach in the surrounding milieu which has seeped into the Bahai Faith too that thinks when anything is identified as "Western" the final word has been spoken.... I can't imagine anyone who truly understands the intimate relation of the critical faculty with the creative making such a comment.... > > Perhaps instead of looking at this art from the Western viewpoint, > it might be wiser to look at this art from a new viewpoint, one that > reflects what we are all trying to learn from the Baha'i Teachings. > Of course, you may not be Baha'i, in which case, excuse me for > making assumptions. I am a member of the Bahai Faith. Hitler and Stalin both urged a "new" viewpoint for their appalling kitsch.... "socialist realism," etc.... Such an excuse rings hollow to me. > > But if you are not a Baha'i, then why are you passing judgment > on our work? This is a new religion, still developing, still in its > childhood stage. It's hardly fair to judge the art of a developing > Faith by the same standards of past Faiths. False. Only the most demanding standards of the past are worthy of the present.... Anything else is an insult to the human spirit.... These Faiths have > had thousands of years to find their artistic niche in the cosmos. > We've only been here for one hundred and fifty odd years. > Come on, we're trying to find ourselves, and anyone who is a > teacher knows the best way to inspire people to do better is > through praise, and certainly not through unjust criticism. False. I taught literature for many years and the "encouragement" travesty of modern education has ruined the critical faculties of most young students.... > > Now if you are a Baha'i, wouldn't you consider this an opportunity > to practice loving patience with people who are not up to your > artistic standards? I would dare say that if you create art, you > yourself would not consider your art "Baha'i Art" in the best > sense of the definition of "Baha'i Art". As you know, I do not > consider most of what art is created today by artists who are > Baha'i to be "Baha'i Art". I don't believe any of us know what > that is yet, so it's impossible to create. It's impossible also for it to develop since fascist control exerts itself on everyone's conscience.... > > You know quite often in your statements the words "in > my opinion" or something to that affect came up. Consider > this, wouldn't it be wiser to find out for yourself what > Baha'u'llah has to say about art, about creativity, about the > power of choice, about love, about justice, about honesty, > about wisdom and base your "opinions" on that, rather > than on what you feel is right, that is if you are Baha'i? The reality of human experience is not gainsaid by the idealism of Baha'u'llah's Teachings.... > > Loving regards, > Stephi > stevens@azstarnet.com > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com, or ask your ISP to add it. From - Fri Jul 18 07:02:54 1997 >From fiospots@pond.com Thu Jul 17 18:16:50 1997 Received: from wanda.pond.com by wanda.vf.pond.com (8.8.5) id VAA12933; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707180116.VAA12933@wanda.vf.pond.com> From: "David Fiorito and Jennie Spotila" To: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 21:02:49 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 879 > > You know quite often in your statements the words "in > > my opinion" or something to that affect came up. Consider > > this, wouldn't it be wiser to find out for yourself what > > Baha'u'llah has to say about art, about creativity, about the > > power of choice, about love, about justice, about honesty, > > about wisdom and base your "opinions" on that, rather > > than on what you feel is right, that is if you are Baha'i? > > The reality of human experience is not gainsaid by the idealism of > Baha'u'llah's Teachings.... Sorry for the private e-mail. I usually lurk on the list and am not very interested in most of the public dialogue. I was curious about the exchange above. It is a powerful idea and I was hoping for some more detail. Could you elaborate? Sincerely, David Fiorito p.s. Your points on art are well taken. -D.F. From - Fri Jul 18 07:02:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 18 03:24:44 1997 Received: (qmail 18650 invoked from network); 18 Jul 1997 10:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 1997 10:23:29 -0000 Message-ID: <33CF447E.33FA@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 06:25:02 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.religion.israel,soc.religion.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai Calvinism (was: Guidance from the Universal House of Justice on relationships with Covenant Breakers) References: <33cda3ff.116821054@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3239 Roger Reini wrote: > > In light of recent and not-so-recent postings to alt.religion.bahai, I > felt that posting this guidance from the Universal House of Justice > would be appropriate. How it's appropriate is none too clear.... > > "To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the > believers and does not constitute in itself an act of > Covenant-breaking. Indeed, some of the Baha'is have the unpleasant > duty to read such literature as part of their responsibilities for > protecting the Cause of Baha'u'llah. However, the friends are warned > in the strongest terms against reading such literature because > Covenant-breaking is a spiritual poison and the calumnies and > distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such > that they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds > of doubt unless he is forearmed with an unshakable belief in > Baha'u'llah and His Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts. > "Personal relations with Covenant-breakers, however, such as > personal contact or entering into correspondence with one is strictly > forbidden. In this connection, however, it is important to remember > two qualifications: > "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be > scrupulously upheld. For example, if a Baha'i owes a debt to a person > who breaks the Covenant he must be sure that it is repaid and that his > obligations are met. > "Secondly, although the believers are required to avoid, if > possible, all contact with Covenant-breakers it sometimes happens that > contact on business matters cannot be avoided. For example, in one > city the head of the rate collection department was a > Covenant-breaker. In such situations the believers should restrict > their contact with the Covenant-breaker to a purely formal business > level and to an absolute minimum." > (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of > Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) > (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, page 186) > > -------------------------- > If one wishes to avoid seeing posts from Covenant breakers in the > future, you can use kill filters on your newsreader, provided your > news reader supports them. Netscape News does not; Agent does. You > can also use kill filters on your mail reader. Netscape Mail doesn't > directly use kill filters; however, there is a program called NS-Route > that takes advantage of undocumented features in Netscape and allows > you to set up filters. What's needed is an electronic form of pillory so that we might hang them out where all can see their perfidy and we can make ourselves feeelll goooooddd at their expense.... Roger, since you mentioned once you've been a Bahai for about three years, I'd like to ask you how you have managed to arrive at this stage of spiritual development. Were you a Christian fundamentalist prior to converting to the Bahai Faith? > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com, or ask your ISP to add it. From - Sun Jul 20 07:40:18 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jul 20 04:25:55 1997 Received: (qmail 2233 invoked from network); 20 Jul 1997 11:24:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Jul 1997 11:24:39 -0000 Message-ID: <33D1F5D6.4AF@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 07:26:14 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.mis c CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai Calvinism (was: Guidance from the Universal House of Justice on relationships with Covenant Breakers) References: <33cda3ff.116821054@news.wwnet.com> <33CF447E.33FA@hotmail.com> <33CFD2EF.EFE@wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1217 Roger Reini wrote: > > Followups set -- please respect this in your replies. > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Roger Reini wrote: > > > > > > In light of recent and not-so-recent postings to alt.religion.bahai, I > > > felt that posting this guidance from the Universal House of Justice > > > would be appropriate. > > > > How it's appropriate is none too clear.... > > Deepen on the Covenant. Then it'll become very clear. Predictable, I suppose, for you.... YOU're so DEEP in the covenant.... > > > Roger, since you mentioned once you've been a Bahai for about three > > years, I'd like to ask you how you have managed to arrive at this > > stage of spiritual development. Were you a Christian fundamentalist > > prior to converting to the Bahai Faith? > > I was never a fundamentalist Christian before becoming a Baha'i. I grew > up in a family that didn't go to church much, but we were raised in the > Judeo-Christian tradition. Interestingly, most of our neighbors were > Catholics. > > 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 - Tue Aug 19 08:59:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 19 05:18:51 1997 Received: (qmail 29070 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1997 12:18:50 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 1997 12:18:50 -0000 Message-ID: <33F98F92.47C8@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:20:34 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.groups CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai censorship (Re: Fun with Ex-Baha'i Intelligensia Scum) References: <5tadpo$pqv$1@shell9.ba.best.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 895 Dan Jensen wrote: > > Dear alt.religion.bahai reader, > > Here is a posting which was recently rejected by SRB. > > Since no modifications were suggested by the moderators, > I am forwarding it to you. > > Note that this posting was intended to be sarcastic, and > as such, may not have been appropriate. What bugs me is > that the moderators allow Baha'is to insult me, but not > the other way around. But who said the internet was fair? The moderators of soc.religion.bahai routinely use that tactic of allowing others to insult me as well while depriving me of a fair and honest reponse.... You're not alone.... They're censoring many people in this way.... [clip] > Peace! > > (ha! gotcha!) > > -dan -- 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 - Tue Jun 10 07:59:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 03:22:46 1997 Received: (qmail 25161 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 10:21:05 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 10:21:05 -0000 Message-ID: <339D2AE2.5B20@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:22:26 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai censorship was Re: Incident With Bahais & Muslims References: <865552625.17568@dejanews.com> <865883976.23398@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6999 success1@octonline.com wrote: > > In article , > Mo Dadressan wrote: > > [clip] > I agree with you that censorship is not justified. The Bahais yet, who > talk about independent investigation of truth are the worse of the lot > and the most paranoid when it comes to censorship. Please go to > www.dejanews.com and power search under "bahai censorship" or "soc. > religion.bahai censorship" and read the posts by the many who have > been cesnored. Interested people might also trying search under "SRB Censored" as a header title.... Many actually censored messages and follow-ups were posted by me using that opening.... In fact this dictatorial nature of the moderators of > soc.religion.bahai was the reason that Mr.Frederick Glaysher, an open > minded Bahai who is firm in his beliefs (unlike the moderators and > majority of Bahais on soc.religion.bahai who are paranoid with > suppressing other bahais) tried to form the uncensored and unmoderated > newsgroup talk.religion.bahai but the likes of you and the organised > campaign by bahai leaders including some "spiritual assemblies" put > in enough "No" votes to prevent it from forming. This was outrageous > especially on such a forum as the internet obsessed with freedom of > expression. Anyways, there is now alt.religion.bahai, that is not > moderated, no thanks in part to the negative campaign of the moderators > of soc.religion.bahai. > > With regards to other religious newsgroups also being moderated especially > soc.religion.islam that you mentioned. Please compare the charter of > soc.religion.bahai which can be found under Yahoo! directory -> "Society > and Culture" -> "Religion" -> "Bahai faith" -> "FAQ soc.religion.bahai" > especially its length with the guidelines of the moderators of soc. > religon.islam which can be found if you search in dejanews.com under > "soc.religion.islam FAQ" . > > Here are the guidelines of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai : > MODERATOR POLICIES > > o The newsgroup will be subject to standards of Baha'i consultation, a > decision-making process whose salient features include frank yet > respectful statement of views and the concerted, open-minded search > for truth. In practice, the moderators will reject personal attacks > (flames) directed at individual posters, similarly inflammatory > attacks directed at religious institutions, and articles which use > offensive language. These guidelines are intended to regulate only > the tone of the discussions, and not their contents. > > o The moderators will weigh the guidance available from the Baha'i > Institutions such as the Universal House of Justice, National Spiritual > Assemblies, Continental Counselors, and Auxiliary Board members in > determining the appropriateness of postings to the newsgroup. > > o To avoid confusion, articles should not contain unpublished, > unauthorized translations of Baha'i texts. Instead, authors should > paraphrase untranslated materials. A good model can be found in Adib > Taherzadeh's 4-volume work, "The Revelation of Baha'u'llah." > ----------------------------------------------------------- > o "Posts which argue for or promote a succession of authority > outside the Covenant of Baha'u'llah will not be posted. This > does NOT preclude posts which ask about, explain or elucidate > the Covenant of Baha'u'llah."" > -------------------------------------------------------------- > o Repetitive postings (such as multiple responses to one request for a > book reference) may also be rejected. > > o The moderators will not intentionally accept posts from individuals who > can not be reached by email. Note that this policy does not preclude > anonymous mailers, but a back-channel must exist. > > o Any rejected article will be returned to the sender with an explanation. > The moderators may also, when it appears helpful, insert clarifying > remarks in posts, with the intent of maintaining a good signal/noise > ratio. > > Here are the guidelines of soc.religion.islam : > > 3.1 The Guidelines of Soc.Religion.Islam > ----------------------------------------- > > Any individual submission is to be accepted for posting in > soc.religion.islam provided it satisfies the following two Guidelines. > The submission must be: > > 1) relevant to Islam > 2) free from verbal abuse, name calling, and insults > > In addition to these guidelines, moderators reserve the right to return > copyrighted posts submitted without the copyright holder's approval, since > posting such material may expose the moderator to legal action. > > Frequently Asked Questions Concerning News Articles > ...... > 6. I see a lot of material bashing Islam on soc.religion.*ISLAM*. > You should fear Allah and not approve this material! > > Please note that approving an article does not imply approval or > endorsement of its content by the moderator. The moderators' job is > solely to ensure that the material is relevant to Islam (for or > against, and regardless of accuracy), and that its language is > appropriate. It is the job of readers like you to check the accuracy > of articles and to speak up if you think they are wrong or misleading. > > ------------------------- > > I personally believe that all posts should be accpeted regardless and > that the only criteria should maybe be relevance to the newsgroup. > Still compare the two guidelines of soc.relgion.bahai and soc.religion. > islam especially the bahai obsession with silencing bahai covenant > breakers who oppose the Universal House of Justice. Do you really > think that in this day and age especially with the internet, you > can suppress ideas? As one previous poster mentioned, if you want > it that much censorship and dictatorial control then put up your > own web page and post articles there. The USENET by its nature is > meant to be a forum for free expression and exchange of ALL ideas. > Especially for bahais who trumpet this idea of independent investigation > of truth and are the worse of the lot in terms of censorhsip reeks > of hypocrisy and a cult-like obsession with disciplining its members > especially "covenant breakers" with the threat and action of mass > excommunications. Hmmmmmmmmmmm I, for one, welcome a free and open exchange of ideas between Muslims and Bahais and members of other religions and points of view.... > > Best of Regards, > > Afshin Afrashteh > > See this site for the truth about bahaism : > https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > > afrashteh@geocities.com > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Aug 14 10:57:16 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 07:40:45 1997 Received: (qmail 19995 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 14:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 14:39:11 -0000 Message-ID: <33F318EE.6EDE@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:40:46 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,news.ad min.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai Censorship: Question for you Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2650 SundayW@aol.com wrote: > > having seen your response to the person who asked about moderators on the > newsgroup....I wonder if you are not participating in the division of people. > I thought Unity was a central idea of the Bahai Faith? Surely, you are able > to participate in other forums (such as the one that you created) and > therefore are able to express yourself elsewhere...but this was put to a vote > and the majority of participants agreed that they WANTED a moderated > newsgroup...I for one am grateful for it. You're ignoring that the vote was illegitmate and abused widely accepted UseNet practice and guidelines--all of which was discussed and posted on soc.religion.bahai itself.... Also, "able to express [myself] elsewhere" is on a lower alt.* hierarchy, a Big 8 talk.* hierarchy have been denied myself and 156 other people who wanted it.... I am learning to be more loving > and gentle with my posts - as are other non-Bahai's and Bahai's alike...one > of the benefits is that people that are learning about the faith are able to > get guidence from the moderators (who are bahai) in how to particitpate in a > consultative approach. They're censoring people regularly, Bahai and non-Bahai, and many have said so.... A gift that is not encouraged in western > society....please allow us the opportunity to learn and grow in the way that > we have chosen. You seem very angry and that can't be good for you....I wish > you the best Fredrick, Sunday. The "Western" blather is irrelevant in this context, and much discussed in the past. You and others have abused the voting process to deny 157 people the right to "learn and grow in the way" they wish to on UseNet, throughout the world, not just the West.... You again are neglecting that fact.... "Angry"? Yes, I am angry that my rights as a Bahai, a human being, to express myself without coercion and manipulation, censorship and distortion, for someone else's ideological reasons, have been denied on a shockingly appalling level and on the Internet where various opinions should be allowed to exist since they obviously represent the diverse reality of human experience and conscience.... Anger can be very good.... Again, Abdu'l-Baha himself says so when channeled for the right reasons.... Recalling his words, I think also of Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death." To die in a just cause for justice and human dignity is no shame.... -- 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 - Wed Aug 20 07:55:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 19 05:57:07 1997 Received: (qmail 29263 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1997 12:57:03 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 1997 12:57:03 -0000 Message-ID: <33F99887.647C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:58:47 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.groups CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai intolerance and censorship Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2867 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > ... the intolerant Baha'i majority. > > > > > > What a nice way to talk about others! :-( If this isn't > > > backbiting, it's the next closest thing. > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them > > of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their > > own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when > > they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > Backbiting remains backbiting _regardless_ of what the other guy did or > didn't do. "Backbiting," considered a major Bahai sin, does not apply in this context. I am not talking about an individual but the entire process of the NO voting campaign against talk.religion.bahai, a very significant difference. I'm at a loss at how to respond to your reasoning.... > > Last I heard, two wrongs still didn't make a right. I should roll over and die and accept my lot as a victim? > > > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people > > feel when censored and deprived of the right of free > > communication and religious conscience is disgraceful > > to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... > > I stand by my point. I can only state that it does not make any sense to me. What about the people, Bahai and non-Bahai, who voted YES for talk.religion.bahai? Have they no rights to express their opinions? Are they too backbiting when they don't agree with you? > > Once again: If you feel you have a legitimate grievance, take it to the > appropriate elected administrative body. If not, kindly spare us. I have asked the Universal House of Justice, on March 31, 1997, to clarify the role of censorship in the Bahai Faith. The post exists on www.dejanews.com under the discussion for talk.religion.bahai. What more can do? > > I'm very sorry, but your opinions will start counting for more if and > when 100% of your posts here aren't carping and complaining. I have yet > to see you say _anything_ positive about anything or anybody, your > special alt forum excepted. Permit me to remind you of the prayer that > says > > I will be a happy and joyful person. ... I will not dwell > on the unpleasant things of life. Even when the "unpleasant things of life" include injustice and suppression of others? I don't believe the Bahai Writings truly teach such disgraceful attitudes or practices.... It seems to me a distortion of their meaning to interpret them in such a way as to justify censorship.... > > Peace. > > -- 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 - Thu Aug 21 08:43:20 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 05:39:11 1997 Received: (qmail 15754 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 12:39:09 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 12:39:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3752.766F@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:40:50 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.groups,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Dear Stalin: Re: Bahai intolerance and censorship References: <33F99887.647C@hotmail.com> <5tfdhp$5jt$1@bill.itis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 6462 The President wrote: > > >> > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> > An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them > >> > of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their > >> > own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when > >> > they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > >> > >> Backbiting remains backbiting _regardless_ of what the other guy > did or > >> didn't do. > > > >"Backbiting," considered a major Bahai sin, does not > >apply in this context. I am not talking about an individual > >but the entire process of the NO voting campaign against > >talk.religion.bahai, a very significant difference. I'm at > >a loss at how to respond to your reasoning.... > > > > You post a lot on this supposed NO vote campaign, so lets just take > a little look at the "campaign." Mark Tofiq wrote a message to 3 > Baha'i discussion groups > explaining that the vote was going to take place and suggestion that > people vote no, he retracted > it on those three same groups less than 24 hours later. The groups > had, at that time, a *total* > subscription of around 240 people. That's it, a quickly retracted > message to what amounts to > small private message list. If this is campaigning then God help us > all. How do you know the subscription was around 240? Not a small number anyway in my opinion. And I'm not sure it's accuract. How do you know he "quickly retracted" it? I never saw any evidence of it even though I repeatedly asked for it, emailing him directly at least two or three times.... > > Why don't you ever mention the yes campaign? The continuous posts to > soc.culture.iranian > and soc.religion.islam to vote for this group. Soc.religion.islam never posted any messages relating to talk.religion.bahai. They refused to. Groups deliberately > chosen because they were > likely to want a forum where they could, in theory, overwelm what they > believe to be Baha'i > propeganda? The endless, tedious cross posts to soc.rights.human, > trying to drum up support > there. The suggestion to convenant breakers that they would have a > forum to address their > concerns. What you did, Fred, is try to rally the "enemy" to pass > your personal newsgroup! > Are you suprised that, when seeing this, Baha'is might feel > threatened? That's your view of it, and I'm sure of other paranoid Bahais.... Soc.rights.human is an acceptable forum for posting to in this context. I never made any such suggestions to covenant breakers. I did look for support from others who would know enough about the Bahai Faith to have an interest or opinion. I was not trying to "rally the enemy" as you put it but find friends who vote to protect it from the fanatics who control soc.religion.bahai and are ruining the reputation of the Bahai Faith by their oppressive censorship.... They precisely the kind of Bahais who feel threatened, sitting in their isolated kremlins.... > > Anyway, you lost Fred, even though you violated all the rules of the > game, grow up and stop > whining. Lost unjustly.... I'm not whining.... I'm fighting back.... And will continue to until 157 people receive due justice... > >> > >> Last I heard, two wrongs still didn't make a right. Cheering for a second wrong this fall, are you? > > > >I should roll over and die and accept my lot as a victim? > > Oh God, more whining, if you create a web page you really should name > it the "whine of > astonishment." I find your whole attitude and approach to what is a serious issue disgraceful.... > > > > >> > >> > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. > > > >> > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> > To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people > >> > feel when censored and deprived of the right of free > >> > communication and religious conscience is disgraceful > >> > to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... > >> > >> I stand by my point. > > > >I can only state that it does not make any sense to me. > >What about the people, Bahai and non-Bahai, who voted > >YES for talk.religion.bahai? Have they no rights to > >express their opinions? Are they too backbiting when > >they don't agree with you? > > > > Fred, my newsreader currently lists over 22000 newgroups, that's an > amazing total. You know what, I think in your next yes campaign if > you promised never to cross post irrelevant messages to > soc.culture.iranian > and soc.rights.human and the poor news.xxx groups you cross post to, > you'd > probably get a lot of votes. How would they know that the forces of oppression at soc.religion.bahai are once again marshalling to squash by overwhelming numbers, inflated through NO vote campaigns on private Bahai mailing lists, the second proposal for talk.religion.bahai???? > > >> > >> Once again: If you feel you have a legitimate grievance, take it > to the > >> appropriate elected administrative body. If not, kindly spare us. > > > >I have asked the Universal House of Justice, on March 31, 1997, to > >clarify the role of censorship in the Bahai Faith. The post exists > >on www.dejanews.com under the discussion for talk.religion.bahai. > >What more can do? > > Ah, the infamous 9 Ayyatollahs on Mt Carmel letter, I knew you'd > mention > that sometime. If Baha'is are so intollerant how come your threats > and > insults are ignored? I take it even after that nastygram you still > have > your administrative rights. I'll answer the above when you have the honesty to step out into public view and reveal your true identity.... > > >Even when the "unpleasant things of life" include injustice > >and suppression of others? I don't believe the Bahai Writings > >truly teach such disgraceful attitudes or practices.... It > >seems to me a distortion of their meaning to interpret them > >in such a way as to justify censorship.... > > Fred, you are one of the unpleasant things in life. You don't just > make a mountain out of a mole hill, you climb it and demand that > all the record books add it to their lists of accomplishments! Insults don't bother me.... I've endured many already and expect they'll only get worse over the next few months.... -- 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 - Thu Aug 21 08:43:08 1997 >From hkt@wwa.com Wed Aug 20 11:34:36 1997 Received: from poolf1-055.wwa.com [207.241.63.56] by hirame.wwa.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.WWA) id m0x1FZD-000VrSC@hirame.wwa.com; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:33:24 -0500 (CDT) From: hkt@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: talk.religion.bahai Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 18:37:14 GMT Message-ID: <33fb37c5.7748873@smtp.wwa.com> References: <33F99887.647C@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <33F99887.647C@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 780 Dear Mr. Glaysher: I have just finished reading the threads you started in news.groups about your proposal for talk.religion.bahai. I think you should listen to Guy Macon and stop beating the dead horse. You cannot change the past, and you cannot use the past to make a better future for your proposal. You have said talk.religion.bahai will come up again next month. I assume that means you have an RFD ready to go. If so, would you please email it to me? I may be able to give some help in how to word so as not to create any more enemies for you. I have no interest in the group, but I think you were your own worst enemy last time, and I agree with Guy Macon that you ought to give yourself a better chance this time. Henrietta K. Thomas hkt@wwa.com From - Thu Aug 21 10:03:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 07:01:28 1997 Received: (qmail 16341 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 14:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 14:01:26 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC4A9C.63D3@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:03:08 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrietta Thomas CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai References: <33F99887.647C@hotmail.com> <33fb37c5.7748873@smtp.wwa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6375 Henrietta Thomas wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher: > > I have just finished reading the threads you started in news.groups about > your proposal for talk.religion.bahai. I think you should listen to Guy > Macon and stop beating the dead horse. You cannot change the past, > and you cannot use the past to make a better future for your proposal. Okay. I appreciate your interest and response and would welcome any advice or help you think might offer. > > You have said talk.religion.bahai will come up again next month. I assume > that means you have an RFD ready to go. If so, would you please email > it to me? I may be able to give some help in how to word so as not to > create any more enemies for you. I've included the original RFD at the end of this message. I believe there was nothing wrong with the original one and plan to use it again with perhaps only a few minor changes. If you can suggest any, I'd be grateful. It's not my intention to create any more enemies. There are, however, some out there who aren't about to change no matter what, I fear.... > > I have no interest in the group, but I think you were your own worst enemy > last time, and I agree with Guy Macon that you ought to give yourself a > better chance this time. Well, I respect your opinion, though I hope you'll permit me to say I don't believe that it's entirely accurate. Others have said I was my own worst enemy too. I understand what they mean I believe. However, most of those individuals are not Bahais and do not truly or even remotely understand the pervasiveness of control and censorship within Bahai circles, including soc.religion.bahai.... Concomitantly, the need to shake it up.... I am open to any suggestions though.... And again appreciate your offer to look at the RFD. Thanks. > > Henrietta K. Thomas > hkt@wwa.com ---------- [I've slightly edited it already for this time around.] From: FG Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,so c.rights.human,alt.religion.bahai,news.admin.censorship Subject: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Followup-To: news.groups Date: 17 Jan 1997 23:32:40 -0000 Organization: . Lines: 93 Sender: tale@rodan.UU.NET Approved: newgroups-request@uunet.uu.net Message-ID: <853543959.13303@uunet.uu.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net Archive-Name: talk.religion.bahai REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahaiUnmoderated discussion of the Bahai faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai All newsgroups on a Big 8 hierarchy given to the discussion of the Bahai faith are moderated. A need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would meet that need. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai. The establishment of unmoderated companion groups is a well-accepted practice on Usenet. This newsgroup will be part of the talk.* hierarchy, which is exclusively for unmoderated groups. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Bahai faith -- its history, teachings, theology -- and so on would be appropriate areas for discussion. Crossposting of articles not specifically relevant to the Bahai faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, special-format files, pornography, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Readers are asked not to start or prolong flamewars and excessive crossposts. Articles may be crossposted to soc.religion.bahai -- subject, of course, to the approval of the moderator of that group. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to the charter above. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD." Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups news.groups soc.religion.bahai, soc.culture.iranian soc.culture.israel soc.religion.christian, alt.religion.islam, soc.rights.human, talk.religion.misc, alt.religion.bahai, news.admin.censorship, talk.religion.misc and the following mailing lists: Academic discussion of Bahai faith Subscribe via: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai discussion list Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.unitarian-univ, soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis, soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism, soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.sikhism, soc.religion.vaishnava, soc.religion.atheism, talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage -- Proponent: Frederick Glaysher From - Fri Jun 06 07:44:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 5 05:00:33 1997 Received: (qmail 6283 invoked from network); 5 Jun 1997 12:00:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 1997 12:00:30 -0000 Message-ID: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 08:01:42 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,misc.mis c CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai terrorism Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 629 I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again how afraid, indeed almost terrorized many Bahais feel about expressing their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet people fear using it, those who have managed to get access to it.... Does it seem this way to anyone else? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jun 06 07:44:38 1997 >From airyanvich@aol.com Thu Jun 5 21:18:43 1997 Received: from ladder02.news.aol.com (ladder02.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.241]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA06666 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 00:16:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 00:16:09 -0400 Message-Id: <19970606041601.AAA27428@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian To: FG@hotmail.com From: airyanvich@aol.com (AiryanVich) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1293 Subject: Bahai terrorism From: FG Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 08:01:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again how afraid, indeed almost terrorized many Bahais feel about expressing their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet people fear using it, those who have managed to get access to it.... Does it seem this way to anyone else? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai KooK Freddy: Here we go again!!! What do you trying to say in the above post. Really now!! Everyday your old decrepit mind betrays you a bit more. The alt.religion.bahai is no longer. Does not exist. Yes, zip! Nothing! That is why you and your chums post at SCI to get a response. Any kind of response. what a desperate, lonely, petty man. There is no reason to bother with you any longer. You are so damn pathetic. Everyone should feel sorry for you. Period! A.V. From - Fri Jun 06 07:44:40 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 04:21:09 1997 Received: (qmail 12309 invoked from network); 6 Jun 1997 11:19:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 6 Jun 1997 11:19:29 -0000 Message-ID: <3397F290.660@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 07:20:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc.soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> <5n74np$3pd@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1573 tbsd@vial.com wrote: > > In article <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > >how afraid, indeed almost terrorized many Bahais feel about expressing > >their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > >"authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > >be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > > > >Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > >Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet people fear using it, those who have > >managed to get access to it.... > > > >Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > > > What's wrong, Fred, upset at other people exercising their "religious > freedom of conscience and free speech"? Shouldn't all people be allowed > to say their free mind in the manner in which they choose, without you or > anyone else telling them how they should communicate? Frankly, your reasoning is lost on me.... The manner in which they choose is one constrained by fear and terror of denunciation and ostracism.... That's my point, which you appear to have missed.... > > Free speech doesn't say that everything you say be as 'distributed' as > possible, does it? > > I'm shocked that you would try to stamp out this unalienable right! > > *Tsk*, *Tsk*, *Tsk*!!! > > You're starting to sound like a hypocrite... > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:20 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 9 04:03:07 1997 Received: (qmail 9463 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1997 11:03:06 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1997 11:03:06 -0000 Message-ID: <339BE335.300E@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 07:04:21 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism (the Glaysher view!) References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> <5n74np$3pd@drn.zippo.com> <3397F290.660@hotmail.com> <5n9g61$8q1@drn.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4881 tbsd@vial.com wrote: > > In article <3397F290.660@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > > > >tbsd@vial.com wrote: > >> > >> In article <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com>, Frederick says... > >> > > >> >I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > >> >how afraid, indeed almost terrorized many Bahais feel about expressing > >> >their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > >> >"authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > >> >be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > >> > > >> >Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > >> >Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet people fear using it, those who have > >> >managed to get access to it.... > >> > > >> >Does it seem this way to anyone else? > >> > > >> > >> What's wrong, Fred, upset at other people exercising their "religious > >> freedom of conscience and free speech"? Shouldn't all people be allowed > >> to say their free mind in the manner in which they choose, without you or > >> anyone else telling them how they should communicate? > > > >Frankly, your reasoning is lost on me.... The manner in which they > >choose > >is one constrained by fear and terror of denunciation and ostracism.... > >That's my point, which you appear to have missed.... > > > > Well, I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding this idea. The practice > of free speech can be confusing, even to some of its most staunch supporters. > > Your assumption that these e-mails are constrained by "fear" and "terror of > denunciation and ostracism" is really unfounded, unless this is what the > people are telling you directly. Except for a few cases, I don't think that > this is the same with everybody. Not unfounded at all.... Blatant even.... > > No, what you've most likely done is taken a couple people's comments regarding > fear of speaking outright *publicly* and attributed it to an entire group. Not the whole group but many "lurkers" I do believe are afraid to post.... > > You seem to want to prevent others from having private dialogue with you; > rather, you take people's messages to you and post them publically, usually > without first obtaining their permission. I really don't care what you do > with these messages (which, by the way, you could just delete and ignore them), > but why do you have a problem with people sending e-mail to you? Except in appropriate situations, I have no desire for private dialogue about what should be acceptable discussion in an open, public forum such as Usenet. It's the fear of the KGB or SS that is palapable in many of the postings I've received. I believe it defeats or undermines the validity of alt.religion.bahai if people make me into the moderator and complain to me behind the scences, as it were.... The only messages I've ever posted without permission have been ones from people privately attempting to intimidate or coerce me into silence.... I believe that's justifiable. The best advice I've ever read about email is that if you don't what everyone to read it, don't post it. It's people who want to coerce privately who are the loudest about netiquette prohibitions.... > > This is just another one of our great freedoms of speech! If I wanted to > call you to talk on the phone, I don't have to use a 'party line', making > the discussion open to everybody. Freedom of privacy certainly does > go along with freedom of speech. To assume that every private message is one > made in fear of retribution is silly. I don't and haven't assumed that everyone is. I definitely believe many are.... > > And if you truly are a supporter of "religious freedom of conscience and free > speech", then why question how people are communicating, regardless of > whether it is done out of fear, love, hate, joy, confusion, or righteous > indignation. In that sense you act hypocritical, denying others their choice > of medium when exercising their free speech. I'm not denying anyone anything.... I have the right not to receive a lot of email from people who don't have the courage of their own convictions.... Why tell me if you don't have the guts to speak your own mind in public.... After MONTHS of it, I'm tired of it.... > > Embrace free speech! > > >> > >> Free speech doesn't say that everything you say be as 'distributed' as > >> possible, does it? > >> > >> I'm shocked that you would try to stamp out this unalienable right! > >> > >> *Tsk*, *Tsk*, *Tsk*!!! > >> > >> You're starting to sound like a hypocrite... > >> > >> >-- > >> >Frederick Glaysher > >> >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 05:53:31 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 11 03:21:03 1997 Received: (qmail 308 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1997 10:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 1997 10:21:01 -0000 Message-ID: <339E7C57.5DD2@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:22:15 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: "lurkers" References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> <5n74np$3pd@drn.zippo.com> <3397F290.660@hotmail.com> <5n9g61$8q1@drn.zippo.com> <339BE335.300E@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1123 > tbsd@vial.com wrote: [clip] > > Your assumption that these e-mails are constrained by "fear" and "terror of > > denunciation and ostracism" is really unfounded, unless this is what the > > people are telling you directly. Except for a few cases, I don't think that > > this is the same with everybody. > I don't know why you'd assume it's only in a few cases.... It does not seem that way to me. Again, quite the reverse. I also believe there must be a considerable number of "lurkers" reading alt.religion.bahai who feel constrained by fear of denunciation at the hands of the fundamentalist Bahais who have been badgering me for months now.... Or they're afraid someone in the Bahai administration will write down their name and email address, a little black check somewhere, "posted to alt.religion.bahai, potential enemy of the faith," which seems to be the attitude.... I know I've heard from people who lurked and read for MONTHS.... How about if you're reading this you post a brief note of HELLO to alt.religion.bahai.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:12 1997 >From brentreed@aol.com Sat Jun 7 22:32:53 1997 Received: from ladder02.news.aol.com (ladder02.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.241]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA00938 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:32:51 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 01:32:51 -0400 Message-Id: <19970608053200.BAA02474@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian To: FG@hotmail.com From: brentreed@aol.com (BrentReed) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 136 Dear Mr. Glaysher: Do you have any ideas how I can gain access to alt.religion.bahai through AOL or MSN? Brent brentreed@aol.com From - Thu Jun 12 07:39:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 04:16:03 1997 Received: (qmail 7790 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 11:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 11:15:03 -0000 Message-ID: <339FDA60.371D@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:15:44 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BrentReed Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> <19970608053200.BAA02474@ladder02.news.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 729 I'm not sure I responded to this note earlier.... Forgive me if I have already.... www.reference.com permits reading and posting to alt.religion.bahai; www.dejanews.com offers reading only but soon should offer posting too; baracka.rz.uni-augsburg.de, a news reader, seems to work for posting and reading, as ftp.louisa.net may work too.... BrentReed wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher: > > Do you have any ideas how I can gain access to alt.religion.bahai through > AOL or MSN? Ask the AOL and MSN system people to just add it to the offered news groups, though, would be the easist way for you to go probably.... > > Brent > brentreed@aol.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jun 13 06:40:37 1997 >From kjherman@rt66.com Thu Jun 12 20:53:34 1997 Return-Path: kjherman@RT66.com Received: from valuedcu (pmf13.rt66.com [206.206.85.33]) by Rt66.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA00200; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 21:53:38 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199706130353.VAA00200@Rt66.com> From: "Karen Jo Herman" To: Cc: "Karen Jo Herman" Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:13:59 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3355 ---------- > From: FG > To: bahai-faith@bcca.org > Subject: Bahai terrorism > Date: Thursday, June 05, 1997 9:10 AM > > I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > > Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who > have managed to get access to it.... > > Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > Dear Frederick, I have just recently been informed of an individual who after much research and investigation, left the Bahai Faith and joined the Orthodox Bahai Faith. It was 2 or more weeks after he left the Bahai Faith that he was declared a covenant breaker. Then the word was out that Haifa was focusing in on his geographical area. (I do not know the original source of this information.) I appears that individuals from outside his area is being sent in and going to people he knows telling them that his business needs to fail. That he should be out on the street because as a covenant breaker he does not deserve to live like others. This brings up a few questions: 1) According to my understanding to be a covenant breaker one must first be a member of that covenant. This gentleman had left on his own accord. 2) Shunning: Is shunning the avoidance of an individual or is it attacking of and attempts to destroy a person's character and means of self support. As an Orthodox Bahai, I have heard of a number of similar stories from around the world. I find them to be reflecting a headless adminstrative order, that is an adminstrative order that is _not_ in accord with AbdulBaha's Will and Testament, which clearly states that the UHJ consists of the elected members _and_ the Guardian as its head. One just needs to study AbdulBaha's Will and Testament, Shoghi Effendi's World Order of Bahaullah (that which pertains to the Guardianship and Administrative Order) and located at the end of the World Order of Bahaullah, Shoghi Effendi's Dispensation of Bahaullah (which Shoghi Effendi had referred to as his testament). One interesting study method of these documents is to make a three column list of the responsibilities and duties of Hands of the Cause The Guardian The UHJ. I place the Guardian in the middle because according to the Will and Testament the Guardian is the head of of the spiritual and the administrative order - the twin pillars. I strongly incourage people to read AbdulBaha and Shoghi Effendi for there is where the truth will be found. I hope my writing to you have not made you feel uncomfortable. In His Will and Testament AbdulBaha made a list of things that are most greavious to the Faith (covenant breaking activities). If you find that anything I said here falls into his discription, please remember it is your duty let me know. I do appreciate your comments. Karen Jo From - Fri Jun 13 07:24:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 13 04:09:46 1997 Received: (qmail 12300 invoked from network); 13 Jun 1997 11:09:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 1997 11:09:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33A12ACC.7303@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 07:11:08 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Karen Jo Herman CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism References: <199706130353.VAA00200@Rt66.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4312 A month or two ago I posted to alt.religion.bahai a message, "covenant breakers," that explained my views on the subject. Basically, the man had no children, and I trust the Hands of the Cause did the right thing.... Please feel free to search dejanews.com for it, if you wish.... As an open, unmoderated forum all people are free to post to alt.religion.bahai, of which I am not the moderator.... I neither encourage nor deny that right to people who have been declared covenant breakers by the Bahai Administration. But please do not email me with private messages on the subject.... Please feel free to contact the appropriate person in the Bahai Administration.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Karen Jo Herman wrote: > > ---------- > > From: FG > > To: bahai-faith@bcca.org > > Subject: Bahai terrorism > > Date: Thursday, June 05, 1997 9:10 AM > > > > I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > > how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > > their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > > "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > > be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > > > > Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > > Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who > > have managed to get access to it.... > > > > Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > Dear Frederick, > > I have just recently been informed of an individual who after much research > and investigation, left the Bahai Faith and joined the Orthodox Bahai > Faith. It was 2 or more weeks after he left the Bahai Faith that he was > declared a covenant breaker. Then the word was out that Haifa was focusing > in on his geographical area. (I do not know the original source of this > information.) I appears that individuals from outside his area is being > sent in and going to people he knows telling them that his business needs > to fail. That he should be out on the street because as a covenant breaker > he does not deserve to live like others. > > This brings up a few questions: > 1) According to my understanding to be a covenant breaker one must first be > a member of that covenant. This gentleman had left on his own accord. > > 2) Shunning: Is shunning the avoidance of an individual or is it > attacking of and attempts to destroy a person's character and means of self > support. > > As an Orthodox Bahai, I have heard of a number of similar stories from > around the world. I find them to be reflecting a headless adminstrative > order, that is an adminstrative order that is _not_ in accord with > AbdulBaha's Will and Testament, which clearly states that the UHJ consists > of the elected members _and_ the Guardian as its head. > > One just needs to study AbdulBaha's Will and Testament, Shoghi Effendi's > World Order of Bahaullah (that which pertains to the Guardianship and > Administrative Order) and located at the end of the World Order of > Bahaullah, Shoghi Effendi's Dispensation of Bahaullah (which Shoghi > Effendi had referred to as his testament). > > One interesting study method of these documents is to make a three column > list of the responsibilities and duties of > > Hands of the Cause The Guardian The UHJ. > > I place the Guardian in the middle because according to the Will and > Testament the Guardian is the head of of the spiritual and the > administrative order - the twin pillars. > > I strongly incourage people to read AbdulBaha and Shoghi Effendi for there > is where the truth will be found. > > I hope my writing to you have not made you feel uncomfortable. In His Will > and Testament AbdulBaha made a list of things that are most greavious to > the Faith (covenant breaking activities). If you find that anything I said > here falls into his discription, please remember it is your duty let me > know. I do appreciate your comments. > > Karen Jo -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 9 03:50:28 1997 Received: (qmail 8431 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1997 10:50:27 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1997 10:50:27 -0000 Message-ID: <339BE043.7540@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 06:51:47 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Freedom of Expression in the Baha'i Community References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2003 Dean Martineau wrote: > > There has for some time been an undercurrent of mutterings about people's > fear to express criticism within the Baha'i community, and their dread of > some sort of ghastly repercussions should they do so. Your characterization here is highly slanted.... I am aware that > many who read and post to this newsgroup have already made up their minds > that the Baha'i order is flawed, and they are pleased to find others who > are inclined to believe in like manner. So be it. I, for one, have repeatedly stated that I regard individuals or human nature as flawed.... There's a significant difference.... > > However, for those of you who might otherwise be tempted to accept these > whisperings uncritically, or who might want to examine another point of > view, be aware that criticism of Baha'i institutions and expression of > individuals' views and concerns is encouraged within the Baha'i Faith. > Indeed, mechanisms have been built into the Administrative Order designed > by Baha'u'llah for just such expression of views. What are these "mechanisms"? The Universal House of > Justice has prepared a letter to the U.S. Baha'i community, entitled > Individual Rights and Freedoms in the World Order of Baha'u'llah, which > discuss the ramifications of this topic. For those unfamiliar with it, I > encourage you to delve into it. > > I will not engage in argumentation, which is forbidden to Baha'is. I will > help people find that document, and will discuss it with a view toward > learning about the truths it contains. My preferred forum for such > discussions may well be email. Your whole tone here is one of self-congratulatory piety and assumption of virtue, with an undercurrent of accusatory literal- mindedness, in my opinion.... > > Thanks for reading. > > Dean Martineau > deamar@eskimo.com > deamar's domain: https://www.eskimo.com/~deamar -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:20 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 02:59:34 1997 Received: (qmail 25090 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 09:56:52 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 09:56:52 -0000 Message-ID: <339D2534.29DD@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 05:58:12 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human Subject: Re: Freedom of Expression in the Baha'i Community References: <3396AAA6.16F0@hotmail.com> <5nh7e2$72h$1@info.cyf-kr.edu.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2026 Share with us your interpretation of this passage.... It's meaning is not evident, necessarily, in this context.... Note it refers to assemblies.... --- Miguel Watler wrote: > > Dean Martineau (deamar@eskimo.com) wrote: > > [snip...] > > : However, for those of you who might otherwise be tempted to accept these > : whisperings uncritically, or who might want to examine another point of > : view, be aware that criticism of Baha'i institutions and expression of > : individuals' views and concerns is encouraged within the Baha'i Faith. > > [snip...] > > "...it is not only the right, but the vital responsibility of every loyal > and intelligent member of the Community to offer fully and frankly, but > with due respect and consideration to the authority of the Assembly, any > suggestion, recommendation or criticism he conscientiously feels he should > in order to improve and remedy certain existing conditions or trends in > his local Community, and it is the duty of the Assembly also to give > careful consideration to any such views submitted to them by any one of > the believers. The best occasion chosen for this purpose is the Nineteen > Day Feast, which, besides its social and spiritual aspects, fulfils > various administrative needs and requirements of the Community, chief > among them being the need for open and constructive criticism and > deliberation regarding the state of affairs within the local Baha'i > community. > > But again it should be stressed that all criticisms and discussions of a > negative character which may result in undermining the authority of the > Assembly as a body should be strictly avoided. For otherwise the order of > the Cause itself will be endangered, and confusion and discord will reign > in the Community." > > (Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, 13 > December 1939; quoted in Issues Concerning Community Functioning, > page 17-18.) -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jun 06 07:44:30 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 5 05:02:56 1997 Received: (qmail 6293 invoked from network); 5 Jun 1997 12:02:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 1997 12:02:55 -0000 Message-ID: <3396AB3C.1679@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 08:04:12 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai terrorism Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 636 I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who have managed to get access to it.... Does it seem this way to anyone else? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jun 06 07:44:31 1997 >From news@lana.zippo.com Thu Jun 5 05:02:54 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA19372; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 05:02:52 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Bahai terrorism Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 08:04:12 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 15 Message-ID: <3396AB3C.1679@hotmail.com> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 636 I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who have managed to get access to it.... Does it seem this way to anyone else? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:04 1997 >From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Jun 6 15:06:22 1997 Received: from localhost by beta.tricity.wsu.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/15Jul96-0522PM) id AA11302; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:06:21 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism In-Reply-To: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 916 Fred, You are bringing this on yourself. Think of the tree that gives fruit without complaint regardless of who picks it or the earth we walk on ... Be nice, be nice, be nice!!! Tom Hodges On 5 Jun 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > > Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who > have managed to get access to it.... > > Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > From - Thu Jun 12 05:54:58 1997 >From smsmith@cybertrails.com Thu Jun 12 00:18:09 1997 Received: from 6 ([205.180.50.88]) by cliff.cybertrails.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA211; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:13:52 -0700 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: Cc: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:26:21 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19970612071351520.AAA211@6> X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2394 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I am returning it to you unposted as your comment is not in keeping with the charter of srb. Specifically, your comment is derogatory in tone and an invitation to further inflamatory comments. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith, co-moderator soc.religion.bahai srb-mods@bcca.org ---------- > From: FG > To: srb@bcca.org > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism > Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 5:56 AM > > Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > > > Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i > > forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach > > "terrorism". > > > > I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the > > security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely > > to be sent out. > > This sounds to me like the Jews kissing Hitler's hand.... > > > > > I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, > > I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting > > to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which > > I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of > > "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much > > freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. > > > > Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) > > > > "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth 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." > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:11 1997 >From hymanfam@samoatelco.com Sat Jun 7 12:46:32 1997 Received: from [208.136.102.74] (port74.samoatelco.com) by appsrv.samoatelco.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA2071; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 08:47:05 +1100 Message-ID: <3399AB03.72DA@samoatelco.com> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 08:40:06 -1000 From: "Bill & Jane Hyman" Reply-To: hymanfam@samoatelco.com Organization: Hyman family X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bahai-faith@bcca.org CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1516 Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach "terrorism". I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely to be sent out. I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth 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." From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:32 1997 >From news@lana.zippo.com Tue Jun 10 03:54:45 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA02287; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:56:06 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 37 Message-ID: <339D32C6.21B@hotmail.com> References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh346$5ag@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1730 Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i > forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach > "terrorism". > > I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the > security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely > to be sent out. This sounds to me like the Jews kissing Hitler's hand.... > > I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, > I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting > to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which > I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of > "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much > freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. > > Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) > > "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth 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." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 03:54:47 1997 Received: (qmail 25238 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 10:54:46 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 10:54:46 -0000 Message-ID: <339D32C6.21B@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:56:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh346$5ag@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1730 Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i > forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach > "terrorism". > > I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the > security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely > to be sent out. This sounds to me like the Jews kissing Hitler's hand.... > > I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, > I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting > to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which > I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of > "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much > freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. > > Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) > > "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth 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." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 04:04:17 1997 Received: (qmail 25257 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 11:02:36 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 11:02:36 -0000 Message-ID: <339D349C.5DD5@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:03:56 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh346$5ag@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2230 Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i > forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach > "terrorism". > > I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the > security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely > to be sent out. Prisoners coming to love the oppression of their jailers is a known phenomenon in human experience.... > > I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, > I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting > to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which > I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of > "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much > freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. I'm not at all surprised by the above.... It's a common attitude among many Bahais, or Iranian influenced Bahais.... > > Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) > > "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth 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." This passage quoted in this context is simply inappropriate, and you do not respond to my original observation that many Bahais have emailed me in fear of stating their opinions and beliefs openly.... I opine you are basically distorting this passage to present it as justifying oppression of others' ideas and thoughts.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:39 1997 >From news@lana.zippo.com Tue Jun 10 04:02:35 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA02452; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 04:02:33 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:03:56 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 48 Message-ID: <339D349C.5DD5@hotmail.com> References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh346$5ag@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2230 Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i > forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach > "terrorism". > > I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the > security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely > to be sent out. Prisoners coming to love the oppression of their jailers is a known phenomenon in human experience.... > > I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, > I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting > to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which > I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of > "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much > freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. I'm not at all surprised by the above.... It's a common attitude among many Bahais, or Iranian influenced Bahais.... > > Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) > > "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth 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." This passage quoted in this context is simply inappropriate, and you do not respond to my original observation that many Bahais have emailed me in fear of stating their opinions and beliefs openly.... I opine you are basically distorting this passage to present it as justifying oppression of others' ideas and thoughts.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 04:11:57 1997 Received: (qmail 12132 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 11:11:55 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 11:11:55 -0000 Message-ID: <339D36CA.64BE@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:13:14 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism#2 References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh3cv$5ig@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2478 Jason Roberts wrote: > > In article <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > > I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > > how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > > their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > > "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > > be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > > I think the above is more than a little bit unfair, the last sentence in > particular. Even if we accept this representation of the situation as > totally accurate (which I don't think we can), and accepted that there are > legions of Baha'is out there ready to condemn those who participate on > s.r.b, we could make no inferences regarding the truthfulness of Baha'i > teachings, only about the individual Baha'is who were doing the > "denouncing to authorities". "Condemn those who participate on s.r.b": I didn't imply that in any way.... I agree with you in regard to problem being individual Bahais.... However, I don't believe the above is unfair, sad to say.... > > > Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > > Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who > > have managed to get access to it.... > > > Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > Not at all. Fwiw, I also participated in the atempt to organize the > unmoderated Bahai discussion group in the soc.* hierarcy. (I was sad to > see it fail, but that is not really relevant here.) I think most people > just don't have access to it. Alt.* groups are not widely distributed. > A.r.b _still_ has not shown up on any of the newsfeeds that serve the > University of Wisconsin, so I can't imagine that people serviced by > smaller ISPs have a great chance of getting it. Talk.religion.bahai will be proposed again at the end of six months in September.... You'll have the opportunity to discuss it then.... Your comments here on distribution of alt.religion.bahai are most likely quite accurate, to the glee of many, apparently, yourself included.... > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > -- > For a glimpse of paradise see https://www.sit.wisc.edu/~jkrobert I have seen "paradise" and it looks more like ----.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:40 1997 >From news@lana.zippo.com Tue Jun 10 04:11:56 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA02634; Tue, 10 Jun 1997 04:11:53 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism#2 Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:13:14 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 57 Message-ID: <339D36CA.64BE@hotmail.com> References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh3cv$5ig@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2478 Jason Roberts wrote: > > In article <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net>, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > > I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > > how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > > their own opinions.... lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > > "authority" or other.... How incredible that a religion that claims to > > be God's new revelation to mankind could lead to such a situation.... > > I think the above is more than a little bit unfair, the last sentence in > particular. Even if we accept this representation of the situation as > totally accurate (which I don't think we can), and accepted that there are > legions of Baha'is out there ready to condemn those who participate on > s.r.b, we could make no inferences regarding the truthfulness of Baha'i > teachings, only about the individual Baha'is who were doing the > "denouncing to authorities". "Condemn those who participate on s.r.b": I didn't imply that in any way.... I agree with you in regard to problem being individual Bahais.... However, I don't believe the above is unfair, sad to say.... > > > Alt.religion.bahai was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > > Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who > > have managed to get access to it.... > > > Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > Not at all. Fwiw, I also participated in the atempt to organize the > unmoderated Bahai discussion group in the soc.* hierarcy. (I was sad to > see it fail, but that is not really relevant here.) I think most people > just don't have access to it. Alt.* groups are not widely distributed. > A.r.b _still_ has not shown up on any of the newsfeeds that serve the > University of Wisconsin, so I can't imagine that people serviced by > smaller ISPs have a great chance of getting it. Talk.religion.bahai will be proposed again at the end of six months in September.... You'll have the opportunity to discuss it then.... Your comments here on distribution of alt.religion.bahai are most likely quite accurate, to the glee of many, apparently, yourself included.... > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > -- > For a glimpse of paradise see https://www.sit.wisc.edu/~jkrobert I have seen "paradise" and it looks more like ----.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:26 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 03:29:44 1997 Received: (qmail 25176 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 10:29:42 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 10:29:42 -0000 Message-ID: <339D2CE5.638B@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:31:01 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.liberty-vs.conspira cy,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai Totalitarianism (was Re: Bahai terrorism) References: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> <5nh346$5ag@itchy.serv.net> <865903186.9245@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 6022 webmaster@iranvision.com wrote: > > In article <5nh346$5ag@itchy.serv.net>, > "Bill & Jane Hyman" wrote: > > > > Fred Glaysher wrote of Baha'is who are reluctant to post to Baha'i > > forums for fear of negative responses which he suggests approach > > "terrorism". > > > > I post to soc.religion.bahai because I know it is moderated and like the > > security that if I write anything too much off the wall it is unlikely > > to be sent out. > > You mean it is conveniently censored free of the opposing views by your > co-censors. > > > > > I have not yet posted to alt.religion.bahai for several reasons. First, > > I am satisfied with the challenges and information I experience posting > > to soc.religion.bahai. Second, I consider that alt.religion.bahai (which > > I did not vote for) is a manifestation of the American concept of > > "Freedom", rather than the Bahai concept of "moderation". Too much > > freedom promotes chaos and terrorism. > > > > "too much freedom promotes chaos"???!!!! hmmm... interesting that Saddam > Hussein said THE EXACT SENTENCE a few years back!!! > > goto https://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html the freespeech site, maybe it > will enlighten you about freedom. A cult that cries about being oppressed > by oppressive governments around the world, should be the last one trying > to censor and oppress others. How dare you try to define what freedom > should be? > > > Baha'u'llah states: (Bahai World Faith P136) > > > > "Consider the pettiness of mens 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 depth of ignorance. > > I am glad you quoted this from your "prophet". In my previous "Incident > with Bahais" article I was describing censorship and abuse by the Bahais > on IRC and on soc.religion.bahai. Now I see that it is an "order" from > your "prophet" to censor and shut the voices of freedom. God forbid you > get control of a country... you will probabely end up rounding up people > for anything they say against your "prophet" and have them > expelled/executed. This is my concern as well.... This type of fanatical fundmentalist mentality is very much evident in the thinking of some Bahais, though often concealed.... > > I am sorry if the following will ofend you and other Bahais BUT: > > If someone says "...some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves > therein. Such men are in the depth of ignorance." I would turn and reply > to him/her : "YOU ARE THE IGNORANT ONE... AN EXTREMELY IGNORANT ONE TO > CLAIM THAT ANYONE DESIRING LIBERTY IS IGNORANT". If Baha`ullah indeed say > the quote above (I have not verified it yet), then in my mind he is > another dictator wanna-be who never got anywhere, like many other > dictator wanna-be's, and got executed simply for his ignorance and self > proclaimed definition of freedom to gain control and rule over > un-educated people. > > "One World Government" and "One Language" sounds nice, but under what > doctorine? Hitler had a "one world Givernmnet" and "one world language" > as well: Aryan government and German. Anyone wanting such idealistic > visions under the condition "...men desiring liberty... are in depth of > ignorance...", is surely another would have been Hitler. > > > 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." > > hmmm... (if Baha`ullah said that) he must have been terified of liberty > and freedom, founding words of United States which George Washington > used. I would be scared of liberty and freedom too, if I had a vision of > a world under my rule and submission. > > I found another quote from him: "If such a person pronounces water to be > wine or heaven to be earth or light to be hell, it is without doubt all > true and no one has any right to object to him or to say why and > wherefore; and if anyone objects, he is of those who turn aside in the > book of God, the Lord of worlds, for he is not questioned of what he does > but all others shall be questioned of what they do.", proclaiming himself > the unquestionable messenger. > > This verified my doubts, that his vision, was a totalitarian one, hidden > under the shadow of baseless promisses and elegant words. David Koresh > claimed that noone has the right to object to him either, amusingly, he > found a nation objecting to his bahaviour and he paid for his actions. > > The world does not need another cult like David Koresh to make a scene and > redicule religion in general. > > Long Live FREEDOM... Long Live LIBERTY... Down with TOTALITARIANS. > > 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

) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jun 06 07:44:36 1997 >From blimber@capaccess.org Thu Jun 5 20:20:16 1997 Received: (from blimber@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id XAA20530; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:22:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:22:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Limber To: bahai-faith@bcca.org cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism <-- note slanted subject line :-( In-Reply-To: <5n6ksu$i3l@itchy.serv.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1942 > I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > their own opinions lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > "authority" or other. > [X.X] was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who have > managed to get access to it. > Does it seem this way to anyone else? In my case, not in the least. Even if we ignore your grossly inflammatory subject line, IME the group you're constantly "pushing," as well as the notorious list in Indiana that preceded it, are merely places designed to appeal to disaffected nominal Baha'is and enemies of the Faith, all of whom apparently mainly enjoy complaining about the Baha'i Faith--and in particular its administrative structure--, totally oblivious to the Covenant and its implications. And of course, with such an atmosphere, it doubtless also serves as a convenient recruiting ground for potential covenant-breakers. The constant carping posted here like that above--by an individual who also, please note, chose the nice, neutral subject line on this message --has made this very clear. And this impression has been very much reinforced by the fact that these full-time complainers totally ignored my earlier response, in which I reminded them of (and quoted) the passage in the _Aqdas_ (and _Gleanings_ CLIX) about proper and desireable limitations on freedom, and the difference between liberty and license. Their responding silence has been deafening. And I suggest that this fact speaks volumes. So, no, it _doesn't_ "seem that way to me," thankyouverymuch. I just wish you'd knock off playing the same tired, broken record. It gets old real, real quick. Or as my mother put it, If you don't have something good to say, don't say anything. From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:38 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Thu Jun 12 03:48:27 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA21266; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 03:47:22 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism <-- note slanted subject line :-( Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:48:45 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 43 Message-ID: <339FD40D.78C1@hotmail.com> References: <"N9DJbB.A.gvC.cv6nz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1287 Charles O'Hara wrote: > > Bruce Limber wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: {line added by > originator of this post} > > > >> I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > >> how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > >> their own opinions lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > >> "authority" or other. > >> > >> [X.X] was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > >> Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who have > >> managed to get access to it. > >> > >> Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > > >In my case, not in the least. > > Nor in my case. I happen to have responded to one of your posts > directly via e-mail, rather than to the group, but I do that with > responses to most newsgroup postings. [clip] > > All are welcome to post, just as you are welcome. No threat abides... My response to the original message on soc.religion.bahai was not welcomed.... It was censored so I have posted it on alt.religion.bahai.... > > [snip] > > +=+++++================================+ > Charles W. O'Hara n7lxo@olympus.TrAsHnet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:39 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Thu Jun 12 03:49:50 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA21304; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 03:49:46 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism <-- note slanted subject line :-( Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:51:10 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 43 Message-ID: <339FD40D.78C1@hotmail.com> References: <"N9DJbB.A.gvC.cv6nz"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1287 Charles O'Hara wrote: > > Bruce Limber wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: {line added by > originator of this post} > > > >> I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > >> how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > >> their own opinions lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > >> "authority" or other. > >> > >> [X.X] was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > >> Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who have > >> managed to get access to it. > >> > >> Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > > >In my case, not in the least. > > Nor in my case. I happen to have responded to one of your posts > directly via e-mail, rather than to the group, but I do that with > responses to most newsgroup postings. [clip] > > All are welcome to post, just as you are welcome. No threat abides... My response to the original message on soc.religion.bahai was not welcomed.... It was censored so I have posted it on alt.religion.bahai.... > > [snip] > > +=+++++================================+ > Charles W. O'Hara n7lxo@olympus.TrAsHnet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:41 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 03:49:50 1997 Received: (qmail 7727 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 10:49:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 10:49:49 -0000 Message-ID: <339FD40D.78C1@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:51:10 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism <-- note slanted subject line :-( References: <"N9DJbB.A.gvC.cv6nz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1287 Charles O'Hara wrote: > > Bruce Limber wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: {line added by > originator of this post} > > > >> I've received so many private emails lately it leads me to realize again > >> how afraid, indeed almost terrorized, many Bahais feel about expressing > >> their own opinions lest someone, somebody denounce them to some > >> "authority" or other. > >> > >> [X.X] was formed to provide an unmoderated newsgroup for > >> Bahais and non-Bahais, and yet many people fear using it, those who have > >> managed to get access to it. > >> > >> Does it seem this way to anyone else? > > > >In my case, not in the least. > > Nor in my case. I happen to have responded to one of your posts > directly via e-mail, rather than to the group, but I do that with > responses to most newsgroup postings. [clip] > > All are welcome to post, just as you are welcome. No threat abides... My response to the original message on soc.religion.bahai was not welcomed.... It was censored so I have posted it on alt.religion.bahai.... > > [snip] > > +=+++++================================+ > Charles W. O'Hara n7lxo@olympus.TrAsHnet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:04 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 05:13:55 1997 Received: (qmail 19314 invoked from network); 3 Jun 1997 12:13:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1997 12:13:54 -0000 Message-ID: <33940AD1.375C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:15:13 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai: "majority in my experience" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2965 > > >SOMEONE wrote: > > > > The Faith is not an Iranian religion. It was sent for the world. And > > > every cultural group is going to have to go through painful changes and > > > self examination before this is all worked out. > > Glaysher wrote: > > I completely disagree. The Bahai Faith, in my twenty-one years of > > experience of it, is not a world religion but definitely a narrow, > > stifling little would-be Iranian religion, through and through.... > > I'm not just attempting to be argumentative.... I believe this is > > the unignorable truth, carefully concealed under the image of > > liberal, progressive claims and propaganda.... > > But Frederick, you have also said you are in for the long haul, that you > can never see yourself leaving. The Faith I am speaking about is that > one, the one that keeps you up at night and posting here. I recognise > and acknowledge your love for that one. I can identify. Possibly my own > personal struggles have kept me preoccupied and I have not noticed these > things that disturb you so. Also it is not a major problem here. We have > only one Iraninan on our Assembly, and he is so remarkedly different > than any I have known. Stands out like a sore thumb, in a positive way. Maybe he's just better at deceiving you.... Ever consider that? > > Was the only person, when my little hyperactive boys would disrupt > feast, who went out of his way to set me at ease and reasure me that > they were just being children. > [clip] > This guy doesn't act like a westerner or an Iranian. He acts like a > Baha'i. > > So I know it can be done. Just like I know from being privy to personal > cases just how steeped in the negative aspects of Iranian culture some > Iranians can be. In fact unfortunately the majority in my experience. > > The Faith that you and I love is bigger than all this. I confess that I > was worried that alt.religion.bahai would be quickly taken over by > covenant breakers. This has not happened, which says to me 1) There is a > possiblilty that there is some Divine protection here because 2) This > stuff needs to be aired for the Faith to develope. > > They killed John Brown because he was a radical abolitionist. I am > understanding more and more where your frustration comes from. John Brown is not one of my heroes, though I admire Robert Hayden's finely nuanced poem on him.... Not for me, thank you.... > > I still have difficulty personally with the extremes of your language > but in the large sceme of things after all the dust settles, it may be > the kick in the pants we need. > > I can't follow suit, it is not in my nature. But hope you find some > support in my quieter way of saying things. Say them out in the open, where others can benefit from them too.... I'm not the moderator! Please don't make me into one.... > > [...] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:15 1997 >From mdadre1@umbc2.umbc.edu Tue Jun 3 17:03:36 1997 Received: from UMBC2.UMBC.EDU by UMBC2.UMBC.EDU (PMDF V5.0-6 #1) id <01IJNCEU9FEO0023QV@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU> for FG@hotmail.com; Tue, 03 Jun 1997 20:03:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 20:03:30 -0500 (EST) From: Mo Dadressan Subject: Re: Bahai: "majority in my experience" In-reply-to: <33940AD1.375C@hotmail.com> To: Frederick Glaysher Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 857 Dear Mr. Glaysher: I would appreciate an explanation on your insaturation with posting several Bahai messages on the soc.culture.iranian and soc.culture.israel newsgroup EVERY DAY. There are enough bandwith-wasting messages on these newsgroups, and your posting of every little bit of irrelevant inforamtion in the form of blatant, agenda-slanted propaganda is getting out of control. Rather than post 10 messages a day, simply have the courtesy to combine these into one or two. I am a Muslim, and consider myself very "religious." I don't believe I am stretching when I say that the overwhelming majority of Iranian Muslims -- both in and outside of Iran -- have no problem whatsoever with Bahais. They are Iranian just like us, and that is that. Frankly, we don't care if they are Bahai or not. You should not as well. From - Thu Jun 05 07:13:40 1997 >From airyanvich@aol.com Wed Jun 4 13:15:32 1997 Received: from ladder02.news.aol.com (ladder02.news-fddi.aol.com [172.16.30.241]) by ngeout01.news.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA14412 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:15:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:15:28 -0400 Message-Id: <19970604201500.QAA22302@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian To: FG@hotmail.com From: airyanvich@aol.com (AiryanVich) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <33940AD1.375C@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Bahai: "majority in my experience" Fred, the hypoctite!! X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4189 Subject: Bahai: "majority in my experience" From: FG Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:15:13 -0400 Message-ID: <33940AD1.375C@hotmail.com> > > >SOMEONE wrote: > > > > The Faith is not an Iranian religion. It was sent for the world. And > > > every cultural group is going to have to go through painful changes and > > > self examination before this is all worked out. > > Glaysher wrote: > > I completely disagree. The Bahai Faith, in my twenty-one years of > > experience of it, is not a world religion but definitely a narrow, > > stifling little would-be Iranian religion, through and through.... > > I'm not just attempting to be argumentative.... I believe this is > > the unignorable truth, carefully concealed under the image of > > liberal, progressive claims and propaganda.... > > But Frederick, you have also said you are in for the long haul, that you > can never see yourself leaving. The Faith I am speaking about is that > one, the one that keeps you up at night and posting here. I recognise > and acknowledge your love for that one. I can identify. Possibly my own > personal struggles have kept me preoccupied and I have not noticed these > things that disturb you so. Also it is not a major problem here. We have > only one Iraninan on our Assembly, and he is so remarkedly different > than any I have known. Stands out like a sore thumb, in a positive way. Maybe he's just better at deceiving you.... Ever consider that? > > Was the only person, when my little hyperactive boys would disrupt > feast, who went out of his way to set me at ease and reasure me that > they were just being children. > [clip] > This guy doesn't act like a westerner or an Iranian. He acts like a > Baha'i. > > So I know it can be done. Just like I know from being privy to personal > cases just how steeped in the negative aspects of Iranian culture some > Iranians can be. In fact unfortunately the majority in my experience. > > The Faith that you and I love is bigger than all this. I confess that I > was worried that alt.religion.bahai would be quickly taken over by > covenant breakers. This has not happened, which says to me 1) There is a > possiblilty that there is some Divine protection here because 2) This > stuff needs to be aired for the Faith to develope. > > They killed John Brown because he was a radical abolitionist. I am > understanding more and more where your frustration comes from. John Brown is not one of my heroes, though I admire Robert Hayden's finely nuanced poem on him.... Not for me, thank you.... > > I still have difficulty personally with the extremes of your language > but in the large sceme of things after all the dust settles, it may be > the kick in the pants we need. > > I can't follow suit, it is not in my nature. But hope you find some > support in my quieter way of saying things. Say them out in the open, where others can benefit from them too.... I'm not the moderator! Please don't make me into one.... > > [...] -- Frederick Glaysher Fred , you are a very very very sick man. A bitter old man disillusioned with life itself who is desperately trying to justify your misrable unproductive life by bashing Iranians and their culture. Bahai " religion" and Iranian bahais is your convenient back door into the permissive environment of hate and bigotry toward Iranians in the world today. As in 19th century, British empire promoted one world government -read Brithish world government- by promoting Bahai faith to counter the strength of Islam in West Asia. Today too, we hear talks of one world government "new order" etc. to expand the hegemony of the same anglo-american "values"--read domination of suppressed peoples for their resources and opening of their markets for vast profits-- and again the resistance emenates from Iran. Hence this intense campaign of demonization of Iran, Iranians and the Iranian culture(one of the most contributing culture in the world history.) Take my advice and get off this merry-go-around and tell your bosses it is futile and you quit!! From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 05:31:46 1997 Received: (qmail 19389 invoked from network); 3 Jun 1997 12:31:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1997 12:31:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33940EFE.62AF@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:33:02 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai: "problems with the Faith" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3323 SOMEONE wrote: > > > Dear Fred, > > I did post on [...] and [...], and it was a good experience. > I don't do it much any more because (1) I got a lot off my chest > there, though obviously not all and (2) I always feel it's a little > inappropriate for someone who is a nonbeliever to > be in these discussion; I question my own motives...am I > just trying to unconvert all the smart Baha'is? > > Just FYI, my main problems with the Faith are 1) the idea and uses > of the idea of Progressive Revelation, which I find an unoriginal, > historically false, and self-serving doctrine, 2) the idea and uses of the > idea of Covenant Breaking and the treatment of CBs, which is a true cancer > in the religion and completely unnecessary 3) a tortured relationship with > the truth, which appears in many ways, including self-serving sound-bites > (especially when it comes to "unity" of humanity, "truth" of all religions), > inconsistencies, hiding of dirty laundry, ulterior motive (of conversion) in > words and deeds, censorship and fear of free discussion, obsession > with making a good impression or converting others with selective > information, 4) focus on an individual (Baha'u'llah), who was imperious > and intolerant, and a "holy family" (a distinct subset of the > actual family), 5) miscellaneous individual issues, including > homophobia, anti-intellectualism, sexism, capital punishment and > the branding of thieves (talk about barbaric!), militaristic imagery, > superstition (e.g., miracles, omens, numerology), traces of anti-Semitism, > seeing animals as soulless, etc. 6) the collective expectation (delusion?) > of an "entry by troops" and associated theocratic visions and lavish > building projects. > > The Persian literary style is also not to my taste, and I think > its excesses may contribute to the growing fundamentalism. > > The whole thing just doesn't seem to be what "our day" needs, though I > agree that we need nonmaterialistic (spiritual, attitudinal) solutions to > many of our problems. This does not have to be religious or religion-specific. Values clarification? > > As you can see, the Baha'i Faith really pushes my buttons! Aaargh. > I hope I haven't pushed too many of yours in telling as it really is > between me and this religion! I very much do not want to offend you > personally or to hurt the feelings of anyone in [...] > by saying too much in public. The [...] are wonderful people in whom > I have never seen the problems described above. This is the main > thing that inhibits me; they have been very kind to me. Only [...] > knows how I groan when the "American Baha'i" arrives! It's a piece of trash.... I feel the same way.... > > If I were a Baha'i myself, I would be more vocal publically. Thank you > for seeing some value in my opinions. As long as you have the > spirit to fight, fight on!! (I know you will.) > > [...] > Member, Agnostics for Baha'i Free Speech, Midwest Chapter Please, please post your messages to alt.religion.bahai.... I do not wish to be a censor, moderator, etc.... Don't let the fundamentalists intimidate you into silence.... I think many people would appreciate hearing your opinions.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 03:37:54 1997 Received: (qmail 17668 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 10:37:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 10:37:52 -0000 Message-ID: <339FD1A1.600E@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:38:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc Subject: Bahai: baracka.rz.uni-augsburg.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 182 If you're reading this, this news reader works for reading and posting to alt.religion.bahai ftp.louisa.net works too... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 05:19:30 1997 Received: (qmail 12116 invoked from network); 3 Jun 1997 12:19:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1997 12:19:28 -0000 Message-ID: <33940C1F.4D2C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:20:47 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai: fundamentalists Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1131 > > glaysher wrote: > > Wow! What a great suggestion. That's it! Alcoholics Anon for Iranian > > Bahais detoxicing from their oppressive, fanatical culture.... Who > > knows, it might work.... > SOMEONE wrote: > Fred, > > In my observation, the problem in America is the meeting up of the > Iranian cultural legacy with the American fundamentalist lagacy > (or the forces that nourish it). The most obnoxious Bahai's I know > are not Iranians but rather Americans who could as easily be Christian > or Islamic fundamentalists in a different setting. They are the most > controlling people I have ever met. Several names come immediately to mind. Perhaps they occur to you too.... > > I think Iranian culture is a bit of a red herring in the discussion > of the ruination of the Baha'i religion, unless you are willing to see > it in the Faith's founders and scriptures as well. I think your > anger is somewhat misplaced. If I have offended you by saying this, > I apologize. You needn't.... You may be right.... But I don't think so.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Jun 04 07:20:10 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 3 05:44:55 1997 Received: (qmail 19440 invoked from network); 3 Jun 1997 12:44:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 1997 12:44:53 -0000 Message-ID: <33941211.33BE@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:46:09 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai: Not a moderator!!!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1013 Please post your messages directly to alt.religion.bahai.... Several people lately have taken to emailing me, and I must emphasize that I am not in charge of this newsgroup and am not responsible for filtering out postings to it.... Or shaping its discussion in one way or another.... I merely contribute what in my own limited opinion I think is worthwhile.... Please have the courage to state your own ideas and opinions here without worrying about the fundamentalists attacking you and tearing you to shreds, though they've perhaps been doing that to me for some time.... No, wait a minute, that doesn't sound too encouraging, now does it? All banalities aside about free speech, learning from each other, etc., this should be and is an open forum.... Feel free to enter it. If someone says something you don't like, stand up for yourself.... I just feel all discussion really should be out in the open where everyone can see it. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 07:39:09 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 04:20:23 1997 Received: (qmail 7797 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 11:20:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 11:20:22 -0000 Message-ID: <339FDBC6.7692@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:21:42 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human Subject: Bahai: rtcsrv5.realtech.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 149 If you're reading this, this news reader works for reading and posting to alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Aug 01 08:32:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 05:18:17 1997 Received: (qmail 26040 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 12:18:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 12:18:15 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1D467.3A97@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:19:51 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.hum an CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Baha'is & Racial Unity (in Diversity) References: <5rqc2h$pd0$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3140 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > = > Although no one would claim that Baha'is are perfect in race > relations, the long, consistent, and sincere efforts of Baha'is to > build unity in diversity among races in accordance with the teachings > of their religion is worth noting. Attached is a description of a > reaction by a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to her > encounter with Baha'is on Race Unity Day last month. DZO A perfect specimen of how duped many people are by the IMAGE Bahais present to others, not the reality of what takes place behind closed doors, so to speak.... > = > =91Dear President Clinton: If you and the rest of > America really want racial unity, try the Baha'i > Faith.' This was the opening line of a front-page > column, "Evans Online", written by Joyce Evans and > published in the 20 June 1997 edition of the `Milwaukee > Journal Sentinel' newspaper. Other excerpts are cited > below. The entire article can be read at: > https://www.jsonline.com/news/evans/970620bahaisofferamodelofra.stm > = > Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of learning > about the Baha'is on their Race Unity Day here, and > every day I think about that experience. > I didn't hear anything about conservatism or > liberalism during lengthy conversations there. What > was most beautiful about the Baha'is was that the > multicultural group of spiritual people didn't care > about what I wore or how dark my skin is. > They don't dance around the concept of racism. > They denounce it straight up. I saw T-shirts and > buttons that said "Racism is Stupid" and "Racism is a > Disease." They sing songs, such as "Racism, Just Undo > It." How refreshing. And naive.... > While society is often conflicted over race, the > Baha'is know where they stand: Racism is the most > challenging issue confronting America. = And the ENTIRE world, if you haven't noticed.... To ignore the > problem is to expose the country to physical, moral > and spiritual danger,' reads one Baha'i document, "The > Vision of Race Unity: America's Most Challenging > Issue." [This document can be read at: > https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/tvru.html ] > The 1991 document continues: "The world cannot > harbor prejudice against any racial or ethnic group > without betraying itself. Racism is an affront to > human dignity, a cause of hatred and division, a > disease that devastates society..." > = > Mrs. Evans continues to discuss affirmative action, > civil rights and discrimination, before concluding: In predictable mindless liberal fashion, I'm sure.... > = > Mr. President, I have often said it wasn't > possible, but the Baha'is have convinced me that we > can end racism in my lifetime: one person at a time. Another naive, meaningless address to the President.... full of simplistic solutions to endemic, innate really, problems.... > -- -- = 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 - Fri Jul 25 07:05:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 22 05:18:39 1997 Received: (qmail 23011 invoked from network); 22 Jul 1997 12:18:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 1997 12:18:37 -0000 Message-ID: <33D4A57C.647E@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:20:12 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahais & Salman Rushdie: (was Re: Covenant breaking, was Re: Bahai food & happy dance converts) References: <868958387.24755@dejanews.com> <19970716192101.PAA06326@ladder02.news.aol.com> <869238072.12767@dejanews.com> <33d33a3b.88742350@news.wwnet.com> <869406766.11999@dejanews.com> <5qtc0u$ht3@winter.news.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1094 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. From - Fri Jul 25 07:05:09 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 25 02:49:09 1997 Received: (qmail 7454 invoked from network); 25 Jul 1997 09:47:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 1997 09:47:49 -0000 Message-ID: <33D876A4.3F94@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 05:49:24 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahais & Salman Rushdie: (was Re: Covenant breaking, was Re: Bahai food & happy dance converts) References: <868958387.24755@dejanews.com> <19970716192101.PAA06326@ladder02.news.aol.com> <869238072.12767@dejanews.com> <33d33a3b.88742350@news.wwnet.com> <869406766.11999@dejanews.com> <5qtc0u$ht3@winter.news.erols.com> <33D4A57C.647E@hotmail.com> <5r5t3l$ok4@winter.news.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1870 farshad farhoumand wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > 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. > > Dear Mr. Glaysher > > Most people have no trouble making ends meet, their feet are always in > their mouth. Self expression is good, self control is better. Avoiding the whole issue, in typical Iranian Bahai fashion, pretending God's laid his hand on you? Such lame attempts at witticism fails to conceal the Middle Eastern fascism in your thinking above about Rushdie.... Basically the same fascism a lot of Bahais mindlessly accept.... -- 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 - Thu May 08 08:02:12 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 8 04:38:02 1997 Received: (qmail 8187 invoked from network); 8 May 1997 11:37:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 May 1997 11:37:24 -0000 Message-ID: <3371BB57.490A@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 07:39:03 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,soc.religi on.islam,alt.religion.islam Subject: Re: Bahais are TOTALLY BRAINWASHED References: <19970504202400.QAA02438@ladder01.news.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 7545 alt.religion.bahai is a new unmoderated forum that by definition accepts all postings and opinions.... YeIrooni wrote: > > Hello all, > > I just wanted to share something with everyone which I think will be of > interest. > I tried to post a message to soc.religion.bahai. It was not posted by the > moderator of that newsgroup until 4-5 days later and I also received an > e-mail from him saying that I should be more courteous and polite where > the only thing I said was accuse them of being brain washed and also told > them that they can't prove how the Bab and Bahullah fulfilled the > prophecies of both Prophet Mohammad and Jesus. Now, these are my opinions > and I want answer, why should my posting be kept out of this newsgroup. There has been a long discussion of exactly this kind of censorship on soc.religion.bahai for more than 4 months now. See back files on news.groups and alt.religion.bahai via www.dejanews.com or www.reference.com > And honestly, if they can prove to me that the Bab and Bahaullah fulfilled > every prophecy of Mohammad and Jesus, I would be crazy to not consider the > Bahai religion. Anyhow, my posting, which was finally posted, was taken > out after half a day, right after someone responded negatively to it. I > also tried to post two messages, none of which were posted. In those > messages I quoted the sayings of Prophet Mohammad regarding the > characteristics of the Mahdi. I also quoted the New Testament on the > condition of the world before the coming of the Savior. I then showed how > neither the times of the Bab and Bahaullah nor their characteristics > matched any of these prophecies. Now, you tell me if the moderator is > trying to keep the Bahai community away from all opposing ideas or what. > I think the moderator must be scared of my messages. My messages were the > follow up of another gentleman's postings (Jromero). He asked the > following questions from the Bahais: > 1. Quote the Bible and Prophet Mohammad's sayings and show word by word > how the Bab and Bahullah fulfilled those prophecies. > 2. Why does the Bahai community publicize its activities and religion so > much, instead of letting individuals concentrate on bettering themselves > and getting closer to God? Why publicize the religion if God is the > purpose? > And now I have a new question, > 3. Why does the moderator of the newsgroup keep my messages out of > soc.religion.bahai. Why not let the Bahais listen to both sides? If they > have answers for it, then their faith will be stronger, and if not, let > them chose. But the moderator is more concerned now, since the Bahai's > could neither quote the Bible or the Hadith and couldn't show how the Bab > and Bahaullah fulfilled those prophecies. The following is some of their > responses: > > >Dear Friends: Bahaullah fulfills prophecies on a colossal scale mankind > >has never experienced before, His proofs are evident in the 257 page Book > > >of Certitude with a thousand proofs; Nay ten thousand proofs. The world > >told Christ He couldn't do, the world told Muhammad, He couldn't do, and > >the world hailed Bahaullah, He could not do. Bahaullah promised that His > >true believers would establish the day where heaven would great earth. > >The proof, well some can read Bahaullah's Book of Certitude and see it, > >others meet Bahaullah and exclaimed, "If He is God, I am two gods." > >"Words are the property of all alike." Bahaullah. > >Rs > > Bahaullah was supposed to do what he is asking his followers to do: "His > true believers would establish the day where heaven would great earth." > The Heaven's Gate followers which killed themselves recently, thought the > same way. People are too easily fooled these days. > > >I think you may have the cart before the horse, so to speak, one > >doesn't first try to find Baha'u'llah through prophecy, prophecy can > >be twisted to mean almost anything, that's how these so called "cults" > >get started. I know of no one who became a Baha'i because of > >prophecy. > >Read Baha'u'llah writings, pray and meditate about it. Then, after > >you have come to understand who He is then look at the prophecies and > >you will see how He fits them. Otherwise we get into a war of words. > > One of the two subsequent postings which was not allowed to be posted by > the Bahai newsgroup moderator was an answer to the above quotation. So, > I will attempt to answer it here, where free speech is not as limited as > it is in soc.religion.bahai. First of all, words are easy to say, a true > judgement of a person's character are by his actions. I am sure all > Bahais would agree that convicted evangelists also said nice things and > simple people pondered over them and found solutions for their problems. > But these people didn't know the personality behind the words. The words > can be deep and can satisfy the spiritual needs of people and in some ways > give them hope which will make their pain, whatever it is, less and more > bearable. And so, neither the Bab nor Bahaullah are alive today and so I > cann't see them and judge their character by looking at their actions. I > have studied two books on cults. Let me tell you how they are. In cults, > abuse is taken as grace and not only does it stop the person from having > faith, it increases faith. Cult members tend to justify things in an > extraordinary way. For example, a cult leader in NY raped some women in > his cult, to the knowledge of everyone. People justified this by saying > to themselves that these women were holding too much sexual energy in > themselves and they had to release it. They came to this answer by > believing that the leader was pure, holy, and above human instincts. So, > what is the reason that the leader slept with the women? The answer they > came up with was that the women were having and holding their sexual > energy which was getting on their way of their spiritual exercises, etc. > and the leader did a favor to them by having sex with them and releasing > their sexual energy so that they can concentrate on God. Of course, the > leader had no sexual instincts. Another cult leader bought a Jacuzzi for > over 50 thousand dollars. His followers thought that he bought it to show > the followers to detach themselves from money. Of course, the cult leader > used the Jacuzzi and of course he was above human instincts and he really > didn't need the Jacuzzi. And if you talk to these people about the cult, > somehow, they never tell you that the leader raped the women or bought a > Jacuzzi for himself. So, I can't read the life of the Bab or Bahaullah, > since its been written by his followers. The only way to find out is to > see if he is really what he claims to be or is he lying? That would be > the only way for me to find out. If he is lying, then he is just like you > and I, imperfect. Actually, if he is lying, he is worst than you and me > for messing with so many people's minds and creating so much discomfort > for his followers, who have been executed, tortured, etc. > > I am sorry for writing so much, but I just wanted to share thse with you. > Please feel free to e-mail me with any responses. Better yet, post it for > the benefit of others. Much thanks for your time. > > Regards, > > Afshin. -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:30 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 03:51:58 1997 Received: (qmail 12095 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 10:51:57 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 10:51:57 -0000 Message-ID: <339D321C.7647@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 06:53:16 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.israel,soc.right s.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Bahais: No thank YOU and Mr.Faryar (was Re: Thank you) References: <865930011.27530@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4051 success1@octonline.com wrote: > > Thank you Mr.Faryar, > > You see Mr.Faryar, there have been many sects and cults in the history of > Islam whose founders also claimed to be messengers. They are non-existent > now. The same will go for Bahaism. They are no different. All of them try > to scare you into believing. Their founders all claim that the unbelievers > are ignorant and cannot see the truth. They all use the same old argument > that the previous true prophets and religions were also persecuted and > that nothing can stop them. They all give delusional hopes to their > followers of "future" (and the keyword is "future") successes. These are > age-old and tiresome arguments. Your email to me is typical of nearly all > the emails that I have received from Bahais. They use no logic and do not > answer the arguments but merely counter that they cannot be stopped. > Falsehood will perish my dear Mr.Faryar and Bahaism will too. Mark my > words and remember my words. Sects in the past history of religions have > lasted longer than the measly 150 years of Bahaism and they have all > perished. As a previous poster has mentioned, David Koresh who also > claimed to be "the promised one" has now got 80,000 followers a mere 5 > years after his death. No doubt he said the same thing to his followers > that you are telling me. At the same time as Bahaullah, in Pakistan, a man > by the name of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadian also claimed to be "the promised > one" and he has now got over 10 million followers (which is way more than > Bahaism) and are growing rapidly in Bosnia, Albania, Nigeria and many > other parts of the world . His followers are called the Ahmadiyas. They > too will soon be assimilated into Islam just like the Bahais will be. > Bahaism has Western converts who are ignorant of Islam and know only what > they have been spoon-fed by Bahais. Many, like the prominent Bahai, Ruth > White (who founded the Bahai World Union),convert to Islam when they know > the truth. So please, these sentimental arguments are starting to get > boring and tiresome. We shall see my friend.....we shall see.....as I see > it I am in a way happy for Bahaism for through Bahaism Islam will speed up > its already fastest rate of growth by Bahais converting to it. So in a way > Bahaullah has been useful after all. So in reply, I say to you Mr.Faryar > and to all Bahais and Bahaullah THANK YOU for all your help.In passing > : the success of the Bahai faith is laughable when compared to the awesome > and mighty success prophecied for the true Messiah, not only in Islam but > also Christianity and Judaism. Come to think of it Bahais have some nerve > after witnessing the dismal failure of Bahaullah compared with that of the > prophecied Messiah to STILL claim him as "the promised one". So please... With all respect for your opinions and beliefs, I believe Baha'u'llah is the Promised One.... of Islam, as well as Christianity, Judaism, and all the great religions.... While I applaud your expressing your views on the Bahai Faith or whatever, on your new www.site and so on, I reserve the right to express my own opinion.... I love Muhammad with all my heart and soul.... I am one who has spent many years of his life reading the Quran, history of Islam, its great poets, writers, and philosophers, from Rumi, Attar (whom I love most), Ibn Khaldun, Al-Junayd, and so on.... I invite you and all of Islam to convert to the Bahai Faith.... to recognize that Baha'u'llah is indeed Whom He claimed to be.... the Promised One of all ages and all religions.... > > Afshin Afrashteh > In God's coming salvation we rejoice! > > please see this site for the TRUTH about Bahaism : > > https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > > afrashteh@geocities.com > > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- > https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 05:54:36 1997 >From chris@spamguardbaha.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 11 12:51:15 1997 Received: from baha.demon.co.uk ([158.152.175.238]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1224163; 11 Jun 97 18:06 BST Message-ID: <3I2NPCAYdtnzEw76@baha.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:50:32 +0100 To: FG@hotmail.com From: Chris Subject: Re: Bahais: No thank YOU and Mr.Faryar (was Re: Thank you) In-Reply-To: <339D321C.7647@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 857 In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher wrote >I invite you and all of Islam to convert to the Bahai Faith.... to >recognize that Baha'u'llah is indeed Whom He claimed to be.... the >Promised One of all ages and all religions.... Well said, Fred. All the best, ________________________________________________________________________ Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 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 info goto https://www.miracles.win-uk.net/Bahai or https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html or my own, embryonic, site . From - Fri May 16 09:18:32 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Fri May 16 06:09:18 1997 Received: (qmail 918 invoked from network); 16 May 1997 13:06:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 May 1997 13:06:31 -0000 Message-ID: <337C5C1E.69D4@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:07:42 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.zoroastrianism,soc.c ulture.jewish,talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.misc,misc.misc,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Blasphemy: Its impact on the soul & spiritual growth? References: <5kl19c$3ip$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <01bc5bf3$73e1f520$38182299@ELN/darksongd> <5ktqb6$lqj@winter.erols.com> <5lcj3p$e80@argentina.earthlink.net> <5ldves$q27@winter.erols.com> <5lg67a$5c9@argentina.earthlink.net> <5lgq3o$fo4@winter.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 725 Odd how on Internet one can inadvertently start a thread that runs away from the initial idea.... Again, what I meant by blasphemy being healthy for the soul was in the sense Eli Wiesel meant when he alluded to rabbis writing that "Anything can be said to God if it is in defense of His creation." No one has responded along these lines yet.... I don't approve of blasphemy in the COMMON sense of the word at all.... More of a Jobean sense.... Or Ecclesiastes.... Any comments on the difference? Any interest in discussing blasphemy in this way? I conceive of it as a deeply pious act rightly understood.... Though I am appalled by its lower forms.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon May 19 06:49:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon May 19 03:34:42 1997 Received: (qmail 13415 invoked from network); 19 May 1997 10:34:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 May 1997 10:34:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33802D08.3F46@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 06:35:52 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.zoroastrianism,soc.culture.jewis h,talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.misc,misc.misc,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Blasphemy: Its impact on the soul & spiritual growth? References: <5kl19c$3ip$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <01bc5bf3$73e1f520$38182299@ELN/darksongd> <5ktqb6$lqj@winter.erols.com> <5lcj3p$e80@argentina.earthlink.net> <5ldves$q27@winter.erols.com> <5lg67a$5c9@argentina.earthlink.net> <5lgq3o$fo4@winter.erols.com> <337C5C1E.69D4@pop.hotmail.com> <5lp19e$4nl@winter.erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1677 meirman@erols.com wrote: > > In soc.culture.jewish on Fri, 16 May 1997 09:07:42 -0400 Frederick > Glaysher posted: > > >Odd how on Internet one can inadvertently start a thread that runs away > >from the initial idea.... > So so true. > >Again, what I meant by blasphemy being healthy for the soul was in the > >sense Eli Wiesel meant when he alluded to rabbis writing that "Anything > >can be said to God if it is in defense of His creation." > > >No one has responded along these lines yet.... I don't approve of > >blasphemy in the COMMON sense of the word at all.... More of a Jobean > >sense.... Or Ecclesiastes.... > > >Any comments on the difference? Any interest in discussing blasphemy in > >this way? I conceive of it as a deeply pious act rightly understood.... > There is a big difference between saying these things to G-d and to > the general public. If you can't discuss things with Him, how will > ever resolve them. Between husband and wife they alway say good > communication is important. Here too. You raise an important point.... There are things that can't be said, in a sense, to God.... The Voice out of the Whirlwind, if you will.... is the response, most eloquent.... beyond the murmur of words and syllables.... > > >Though I am appalled by its lower forms.... > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > meirman@erols.com > > I miss many posts so please e-mail > if you want me to see your answer. > > B'tsedek tishpot amitecho > You shall judge your neighbor > favorably. Lev 19:15 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon May 19 06:49:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon May 19 03:00:43 1997 Received: (qmail 13317 invoked from network); 19 May 1997 10:00:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 May 1997 10:00:42 -0000 Message-ID: <33802512.54DB@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 06:01:54 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Blasphemy: Its impact on the soul & spiritual growth? References: <5kl19c$3ip$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <3372bc95.11928129@news.fastlink.com.au> <33723AEE.1682@mit.edu> <5l2n5g$ba3$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <337f1eee.14619224@news.fastlink.com.au> <01bc6425$8dfbfac0$LocalHost@richard.szpyt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 778 Odd how on Internet one can inadvertently start a thread that runs away from the initial idea.... Again, what I meant by blasphemy being healthy for the soul was in the sense Eli Wiesel meant when he alluded to rabbis writing that "Anything can be said to God if it is in defense of His creation." No one has responded along these lines yet.... I don't approve of blasphemy in the COMMON sense of the word at all.... More of a Jobean sense.... Or Ecclesiastes.... Any comments on the difference? Any interest in discussing blasphemy in this way? I conceive of it as a deeply pious act rightly understood.... Though I am appalled by its lower forms.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sat Aug 16 06:19:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 03:07:37 1997 Received: (qmail 11239 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 10:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 10:07:35 -0000 Message-ID: <33F57C4B.3E9@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:09:15 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai CC: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Can you trust an atheist? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2264 FORWARDED BY REQUEST: >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Fri Aug 15 13:38:15 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA12473; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:41:58 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:41:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199708152041.PAA12473@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: please, please Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: YGKcDFAKxGgYu0HhWaAveQ== Fred, Can you please post this on SRB for me. I'm sorry to impose, but I need your help for the time being. Thanks, Fran > Article not accepted by server; not posted. > Postings to "soc.religion.bahai" are not allowed here./usr/local/lib/nn/inews failed > > Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter > > Your article follows: > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: Can you trust an atheist? > References: <"9luH7D.A.pRF.EWI9z"@bounty> > > "Carl Allen Brehmer" writes: > > > > > " Know thou for a certainty that whoso disbelieveth > >in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, > >is the truth, the undoubted truth. He that > >acteth treacherously towards God will, also, act > >treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can > >deter such a man from evil, nothing can hinder him > >from betraying his neighbor, nothing can induce > >him to walk uprightly." Gleanings p.232-233 > > >Carl > > This is a flagrantly ignorant and/or self-serving pronouncement. > The only grain of truth here is that someone > who is dishonest in one sphere is likely to be > dishonest in another, but this does not lead to the > conclusion in the first sentence, which makes many > other, far more debatable assumptions, e.g., not believing > in God is treachery toward God. > > Fran > -- 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 - Sat Aug 16 06:19:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 03:12:42 1997 Received: (qmail 11271 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 10:11:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 10:11:06 -0000 Message-ID: <33F57D19.2C64@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:12:41 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai CC: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Can you trust an atheist? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2946 FORWARDED BY REQUEST: >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Fri Aug 15 13:39:33 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA12476; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:43:21 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:43:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199708152043.PAA12476@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: please, one more Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: OiurKb/c3gA0dn3p0k7FjA== Fred, One more. I owe you!! Fran > > Article not accepted by server; not posted. > Postings to "soc.religion.bahai" are not allowed here./usr/local/lib/nn/inews failed > > Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter > > Your article follows: > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Subject: Re: Can you trust an atheist? > References: <"hPjm4.A.7VF.fYI9z"@bounty> > > "Dr. Hops" writes: > > >Hello Jean, > >I personally would have nothing to do with an atheists. I don't no, > >it's just my feelings on the matter. I may be wrong for this but now > >that I know there is something said of this from Bahaullah it confirms > >my thinking even more that I should stay away from that area. It's hard > >enough trying to teach or deal with people who believe in God. I would > >continue to teach the wife if she's Baha'i but would stay away from the > >husband completely. No, I don't think you can trust an Atheist. > >Debra/Los Angeles > > > > Oh, yes, well > you can't really trust or have as a spiritual partner > someone who doesn't believe in God; why, that > might just leave you with someone who loves justice for > its own sake...how impossible! how inferior! How can > the guy even begin to know what is right? From > reading history, philosophy, novels, poetry, other scriptures, scientific > writings, the newspaper? from listening to music, to other people? > from his experience, his gut, the example of his teachers or parents? > By thinking about consequences? By thinking ethics is about not making > yourself a special case or about having a good will rather than blind > obedience or "fear of God"? (I've always wondered what was so > morally admirable about being honest, etc., out of fear.) > And to top it all off, he's bound to change > his mind along life's journey! That's scary stuff. Life is hard enough. > > Sorry for the sarcasm, but shunning freethinkers and atheists > is such a pathetic and unworthy thing to do. As a Baha'i you > should be above it. > -- 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 - Tue Aug 19 07:23:21 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mon Aug 18 08:02:06 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA15319 for FG@hotmail.com; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:05:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:05:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199708181505.KAA15319@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Can you trust an atheist? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: 318AlYouu7n1xucSGMGCVw== X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 29 Thank, Fred, x 2. --Fran From - Tue Jun 03 07:30:34 1997 >From fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mon Jun 2 13:05:14 1997 Received: (from fran@localhost) by schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA13235; Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:08:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:08:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Fran Baker Message-Id: <199706022008.PAA13235@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Catholicism, other thoughts, a post Cc: fran@schubert.crhc.uiuc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-MD5: oc7VKT3nhQtYQzR12abC2Q== X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2531 Dear Fred, Thoughts on Catholicism: I think that Christianity (esp. RC) is in some ways a much more attractive religion than The Baha'i Faith. Take away the Crusades, misogyny, anti-Semitism, and a gloomy view of human nature...thanks, Paul, Augustine and others >: ... and you have an interesting, even compelling religion that has served human psychological needs, culture, and society admirably and has great potential for good. I would much sooner become a Catholic than a Baha'i, that's for sure, and I tend to feel more kinship with people of Catholic background than most others. Jews and Catholics really both understand the guilt thing, I guess! Judaism also has serious problems, but I love the emphasis on charity (for its own sake), a morally neutral afterlife, no proselytizing, free discussion and no worship of individuals (no one prays to Moses or Abraham; they are not considered divine; it is the law that is loved, there is little focus on the messenger, and I think this is very healthy as it keeps egos out of it). Also: I wanted to post the following in response to your posting, but it didn't work due to problems at my end. Please post if you would. Thanks, --Fran The quote you just put on a.r.b about consience...don't you think it portrays a rather self-deprecating view of humanity? All that groveling before God...doesn't that bother you? This sort of rhetoric often ties in with anti-intellectualism and fundamentalism, I think. You know, the idea that it's presumtuous to think a mere human being could be a good person without ..., that we can't understand anything about morality without religion. Interestingly, this view often goes along with an arrogance about being a human in relation to (other) animals. I guess some people just have to have a pecking order, a place in the hierarchy. I don't think that this particular metaphysical hierarchy exists, but rather that these notions spring from a kind of immature, ego-conflicted view of one's self in the cosmos. People with genuine (as opposed to histrionic) humility in relation to the universe and who are comfortable not being the center of it are more likely to be tolerant and cooperative and have more time for doing good. Religious zealots, on the other hand, too often hold human nature in contempt and then proceed to behave very contemptably, empowered by their self-declared place in relation to the universe and its awesome power and mysteries (God or whatever). From - Fri Aug 22 10:12:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:07:21 1997 Received: (qmail 22279 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 12:07:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 12:07:19 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD8157.6385@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:08:55 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com, trowe@uwsp.edu Subject: Caught in his own web! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3107 Rowe, Thomas wrote: > > Allah'u'Abha, Fred. > > Since I don't real alt.religion.bahai, perhaps you could forward the > followup to me? Thanks. My response is at the end.... > > > ---------- > > From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] > > Reply To: FG@hotmail.com > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 1997 8:15 AM > > To: Rowe; Rowe, Thomas > > Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) > > > > See followup on alt.religion.bahai since > > it has been censored by srb.... > > > > > > Rowe, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them > > > > of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their > > > > own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when > > > > they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > > > > > > > > It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the > > "suppression of > > > > > expression" for 157 people. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Okay, "time out." I don't like the tone of these posts. I remember > > the > > > discussion of the issue of voting for/against the formation of the > > > newsgroup. There were some hard feelings then by several people and > > > that has obviously carried over. > > > > > > I'm one of those misguided folks who voted "no" based on my > > > understanding of the issues. My understanding could have been > > faulty > > > and/or my logic for the vote could have been wrong. Nevertheless, I > > > don't apologize for my vote. It was not an attempt to censor free > > > discussion despite what any of the 157 positive voters may think. > > > Notice it became a non-issue when another avenue for an unmoderated > > > discussion list on the Baha'i Faith came into being (sorry - don't > > have > > > the address on the top of my head). > > > > > > It really doesn't help matters much to impugn the motives of either > > the > > > winning or losing side of any electoral issue. > > > > > > Tom Rowe > > trowe@uwsp.edu > > > ********************************************************** > > > They say that ignorance and apathy are the two great evils of > > > today's world. Well, I wouldn't know about that and I don't > > > care anyway. > > > ********************************************************** > > > https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/home1.htm > > > > -- > > 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. > > How incredibly ironic.... You vote NO for no good reason, deplore freedom of speech of others, and then become a VICTIM of your own censorship!!!! NO! I won't email you my censored response, which is posted on alt.religion.bahai.... Write the censors at soc.religion.bahai for it. See if they'll send to you. Think about it.... -- 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:48:48 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Tue Aug 12 05:07:54 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id FAA27947; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:07:46 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:09:30 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 67 Message-ID: <33F0527A.73D2@hotmail.com> References: <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2015 shahin nikjoo wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > usenet. I and others have basically been doing that for almost a year. Search www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for nearly 3000 messages to that effect. > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as > a 'joke' (It was a serious joke). Serious jokes aren't allowed, only frivolous ones.... > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > hostile to the group as a result. A topic of frequent discussion on alt.religion.bahai.... > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? An excellent question. I'm glad someone has finally had the prescence of mind to ask it.... > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines generally acceptable on UseNet. Alt.religion.bahai is now the only unmoderated forum for discussion on the Bahai Faith.... > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. I have been saying this for several months at least and so have other participants. It appears that those responsible for committing censorship have apparently convinced themselves that they, and they only, are "serving" the Faith.... A very old story in human history.... > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > Laws etc.? That's precisely the way it seems to me too.... > > -- > shahin nikjoo I for one appreciate your couragous, thoughtful comments on a very serious issue.... -- 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:48:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:08:29 1997 Received: (qmail 21221 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:07:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:07:54 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0527A.73D2@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:09:30 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2015 shahin nikjoo wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > usenet. I and others have basically been doing that for almost a year. Search www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for nearly 3000 messages to that effect. > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as > a 'joke' (It was a serious joke). Serious jokes aren't allowed, only frivolous ones.... > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > hostile to the group as a result. A topic of frequent discussion on alt.religion.bahai.... > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? An excellent question. I'm glad someone has finally had the prescence of mind to ask it.... > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines generally acceptable on UseNet. Alt.religion.bahai is now the only unmoderated forum for discussion on the Bahai Faith.... > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. I have been saying this for several months at least and so have other participants. It appears that those responsible for committing censorship have apparently convinced themselves that they, and they only, are "serving" the Faith.... A very old story in human history.... > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > Laws etc.? That's precisely the way it seems to me too.... > > -- > shahin nikjoo I for one appreciate your couragous, thoughtful comments on a very serious issue.... -- 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:49:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:11:53 1997 Received: (qmail 21274 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:11:50 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:11:50 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0536C.5E5A@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:13:32 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net> <5slih8$fnm@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1308 Robert J. Pease wrote: > > shahin nikjoo wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > usenet. > > > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as > > a 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > > hostile to the group as a result. > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > > Laws etc.? > > > > -- > > shahin nikjoo > * > I have found the moderators very fair. > Their main purpose seem to be to prevent flaming, rather than to stifle > opposing opinion > ( no to mention , stopping spam) This basically is the orthodox opinion, usually the only one allowed on soc.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 - Tue Aug 12 13:50:24 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Tue Aug 12 05:11:51 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id FAA28028; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:11:48 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:13:32 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 42 Message-ID: <33F0536C.5E5A@hotmail.com> References: <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net> <5slih8$fnm@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1308 Robert J. Pease wrote: > > shahin nikjoo wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > usenet. > > > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as > > a 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > > hostile to the group as a result. > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > > Laws etc.? > > > > -- > > shahin nikjoo > * > I have found the moderators very fair. > Their main purpose seem to be to prevent flaming, rather than to stifle > opposing opinion > ( no to mention , stopping spam) This basically is the orthodox opinion, usually the only one allowed on soc.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 - Tue Aug 12 13:50:01 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:23:01 1997 Received: (qmail 21387 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:22:58 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:22:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33F05606.17A8@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:24:39 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net> <5sm2p0$jn3@itchy.serv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4441 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > In article <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net>, > shahin nikjoo <106432.425@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > >usenet. > > Moderation is needed in areas where serious, sustained discussion is > desired on a subject. If you've been active in other, unmoderated > areas you know of the constant spams and ads. Perhaps you have also > had the unfortunate experience of seeing a group be rendered completely > useless by one or two individual. Sad but true. Moderation did not > form in a vacuum. It was developed as a means to keep groups useful > and on topic. > > > > >My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as > >a 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > > > If it is respectful of others, on topic, not repetitve, and not derogatory > or inflammatory, I have every confidence it would be posted. Perhaps your > joke contained something disrespectful or something which could be viewed > by some as derogatory or inflammatory? I have no confidence whatsoever that it would be posted under any conditions.... The actual practice is very arbitrary. And of course all of it comes down to the individual "moderator" in question, in her or his opinion.... > > >I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > >comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > >hostile to the group as a result. > > And if you would visit news.groups you would see that this newsgroup is > not alone in this regard. There are those who feel they should have the > license to say whatever they like whenever they like. When they are not > allowed to disparage or rant or take over discussions, they act the same > as any petulent child would. Such is life. These are exactly the > behaviors moderation was set up to curb. And apparently Mr. Detweiler (An SRB moderator often accused of censorship by many different people) is just the man to make all these judgments.... A frightful thought.... > > > > >Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > No, there is nothing official in any way about the moderation of this > group. This group was formed and remains available via the individual > initiative of a few. This may be dissimulation.... > > >Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > > > Yes, there is alt.religion.bahai. If your site does not carry it, you can > ask your news administror or, barring that, you can get it via the web > through DejaNews or other web based, newsgroup interfaces. > > >I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > >faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > I agree. However, peoples opinions are not being censored here. Speech > IS being moderated here. No doubt about that and I hope you can > appreciate the difference. This in my opinion is not true. You can find for yourself numerous messages on www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai that were censored by SRB moderators-- messages from me and at least 20 to 30 other individuals.... > > >I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > >questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > >Laws etc.? > > I agree. That is the beauty of this forum. It allows people to ask > questions no matter how challenging and get them answered without > worrying about starting flame wars, etc. Please take a look through > DejaNews or stick around several weeks. You will find that it isn't the > question or point a person has but how they want to go about asking or > stating it that is being moderated. There have been many, many hard > questions asked here and many voices of opposition that have been voiced. > They have always been welcome and I am sure they will continue to be > welcome. But those who wish to denigrate others or talk about something > other than the Baha'i Faith, well, that's what the unmoderated groups are > for! This is also in my opinion not the truth.... A very old ploy.... Many voices are being suppressed, not heard.... > > I hope you stick around and participate, > > Dick D. -- 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:49:22 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Tue Aug 12 05:22:58 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id FAA28277; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:22:55 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:24:39 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 110 Message-ID: <33F05606.17A8@hotmail.com> References: <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net> <5sm2p0$jn3@itchy.serv.net> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4443 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > In article <5sjqku$71j@itchy.serv.net>, > shahin nikjoo <106432.425@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > >usenet. > > Moderation is needed in areas where serious, sustained discussion is > desired on a subject. If you've been active in other, unmoderated > areas you know of the constant spams and ads. Perhaps you have also > had the unfortunate experience of seeing a group be rendered completely > useless by one or two individual. Sad but true. Moderation did not > form in a vacuum. It was developed as a means to keep groups useful > and on topic. > > > > >My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as > >a 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > > > If it is respectful of others, on topic, not repetitve, and not derogatory > or inflammatory, I have every confidence it would be posted. Perhaps your > joke contained something disrespectful or something which could be viewed > by some as derogatory or inflammatory? I have no confidence whatsoever that it would be posted under any conditions.... The actual practice is very arbitrary. And of course all of it comes down to the individual "moderator" in question, in her or his opinion.... > > >I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > >comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > >hostile to the group as a result. > > And if you would visit news.groups you would see that this newsgroup is > not alone in this regard. There are those who feel they should have the > license to say whatever they like whenever they like. When they are not > allowed to disparage or rant or take over discussions, they act the same > as any petulent child would. Such is life. These are exactly the > behaviors moderation was set up to curb. And apparently Mr. Detweiler (An SRB moderator often accused of censorship by many different people) is just the man to make all these judgments.... A frightful thought.... > > > > >Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > No, there is nothing official in any way about the moderation of this > group. This group was formed and remains available via the individual > initiative of a few. This may be dissimulation.... > > >Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > > > Yes, there is alt.religion.bahai. If your site does not carry it, you can > ask your news administror or, barring that, you can get it via the web > through DejaNews or other web based, newsgroup interfaces. > > >I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > >faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > I agree. However, peoples opinions are not being censored here. Speech > IS being moderated here. No doubt about that and I hope you can > appreciate the difference. This in my opinion is not true. You can find for yourself numerous messages on www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai that were censored by SRB moderators-- messages from me and at least 20 to 30 other individuals.... > > >I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > >questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > >Laws etc.? > > I agree. That is the beauty of this forum. It allows people to ask > questions no matter how challenging and get them answered without > worrying about starting flame wars, etc. Please take a look through > DejaNews or stick around several weeks. You will find that it isn't the > question or point a person has but how they want to go about asking or > stating it that is being moderated. There have been many, many hard > questions asked here and many voices of opposition that have been voiced. > They have always been welcome and I am sure they will continue to be > welcome. But those who wish to denigrate others or talk about something > other than the Baha'i Faith, well, that's what the unmoderated groups are > for! This is also in my opinion not the truth.... A very old ploy.... Many voices are being suppressed, not heard.... > > I hope you stick around and participate, > > Dick D. -- 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:53:27 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Tue Aug 12 05:33:36 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id FAA28530; Tue, 12 Aug 1997 05:33:27 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:35:10 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 84 Message-ID: <33F0587E.2023@hotmail.com> References: <"AvqUK.A.KuD.MB47z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3214 dmcadam wrote: > > [Note: Followups should address the Baha'i Faith. -- Mods] > > In answer to your last message : > > Dear friend- > > I can only speak from an individual point of view as a long time Baha'i > and my experience is that most folks today simply cannot handle a wide > open, no holds barred, let it all hang out type of discussion. These > open forums tend to be hostile and attack/defend type things where one > has great trouble achieving unity and discovering truth. "Achieving unity and discovering truth": Usually means thinking the same as the moderators who know how others should regard any given subject.... > > In time I feel we will be developed enough to be self regulating. Self-censoring is how I read that.... > Personally the moderators are not trying to censor anyone, just keep > things in perspective by applying principles of full, frank and honest > opinions, tempered with courtesy, tact and wisdom. I really appreciate > the wonderful job they do. I too have had submissions refused but they > always kindly and lovingly give their reason and most of the times I feel > it is valid. Course they and I both know that none of us is perfect. You too have been censored by them? "Most of the times" (note the plural) you think it's "valid"? "Not trying to censor anyone"? It appears to me there is much confused thinking here.... > > We Baha'is know how suppressing it can be for a soul to want to find the > truth and not be able to because of negative emotions clouding issues so > we want to create a safe and secure, loving atmosphere where freedom of > speech can be enjoyed in such a way that it will not distress anyone. A very frightening rationale, which horrible historical precedents.... > > My children are not allowed to use foul language, attack one another, use > put downs, categorize things by labelling people or showing racist or > other forms of divisiveness that impede soul relations. I feel to a > great extent we are all kind of like spiritual children and do need some > detached moderation. > > We have all sorts of wonderful teachings about speech and how we must > conduct ourselves in term of fulfilling our overall goal of love and > unity in the world and they all fit scientific findings. However not > everyone has read these or tried them on for size and we lapse back into > speech patterns that do not reflect our reality and cause disunity. "Scientific findings"? Ahhhmmmm.... Can you quote those for us? > > In addition we join this list knowing that it is moderated and we mostly > all agree that it should be. So our part of the agreement is to follow > these list guidelines and cooperate to make the world a better place. Or off with your head.... > > I believe it might be a good idea for the Moderators to post the List > guidelines. If you don't agree with them then say why and I am sure they > will listen. I am not so sure. > > with all due respect, > doug [clip] -- 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:52:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:33:33 1997 Received: (qmail 21565 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:33:29 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:33:29 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0587E.2023@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:35:10 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"AvqUK.A.KuD.MB47z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3216 dmcadam wrote: > > [Note: Followups should address the Baha'i Faith. -- Mods] > > In answer to your last message : > > Dear friend- > > I can only speak from an individual point of view as a long time Baha'i > and my experience is that most folks today simply cannot handle a wide > open, no holds barred, let it all hang out type of discussion. These > open forums tend to be hostile and attack/defend type things where one > has great trouble achieving unity and discovering truth. "Achieving unity and discovering truth": Usually means thinking the same as the moderators who know how others should regard any given subject.... > > In time I feel we will be developed enough to be self regulating. Self-censoring is how I read that.... > Personally the moderators are not trying to censor anyone, just keep > things in perspective by applying principles of full, frank and honest > opinions, tempered with courtesy, tact and wisdom. I really appreciate > the wonderful job they do. I too have had submissions refused but they > always kindly and lovingly give their reason and most of the times I feel > it is valid. Course they and I both know that none of us is perfect. You too have been censored by them? "Most of the times" (note the plural) you think it's "valid"? "Not trying to censor anyone"? It appears to me there is much confused thinking here.... > > We Baha'is know how suppressing it can be for a soul to want to find the > truth and not be able to because of negative emotions clouding issues so > we want to create a safe and secure, loving atmosphere where freedom of > speech can be enjoyed in such a way that it will not distress anyone. A very frightening rationale, which horrible historical precedents.... > > My children are not allowed to use foul language, attack one another, use > put downs, categorize things by labelling people or showing racist or > other forms of divisiveness that impede soul relations. I feel to a > great extent we are all kind of like spiritual children and do need some > detached moderation. > > We have all sorts of wonderful teachings about speech and how we must > conduct ourselves in term of fulfilling our overall goal of love and > unity in the world and they all fit scientific findings. However not > everyone has read these or tried them on for size and we lapse back into > speech patterns that do not reflect our reality and cause disunity. "Scientific findings"? Ahhhmmmm.... Can you quote those for us? > > In addition we join this list knowing that it is moderated and we mostly > all agree that it should be. So our part of the agreement is to follow > these list guidelines and cooperate to make the world a better place. Or off with your head.... > > I believe it might be a good idea for the Moderators to post the List > guidelines. If you don't agree with them then say why and I am sure they > will listen. I am not so sure. > > with all due respect, > doug [clip] -- 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:04 1997 >From boatright@cjnetworks.com Wed Aug 13 00:05:37 1997 Received: from rickboat (Port109.cjnetworks.com [199.240.71.64]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA28327; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:05:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199708130705.CAA28327@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher , FG@hotmail.com, FG@hotmail.com Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 02:14:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal In-reply-to: <33F0587E.2023@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4323 Frederick. This one is coming back to you. It's your fifth message tonight on the same subject saying the same thing. I let you accuse Dick and myself of being liers, censors, I let you accuse us of being unwilling to listen to suggestion and being hopelessly inconsistant. But just for the record, I am returning this one on the following grounds: 1) Does not address the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith 2) Repetative, does not move the discussion forward, fifth message tonight by the poster on the same subject. 3) abusive language Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > To: srb@bcca.org > From: FG > Subject: Re: censorship - moderators > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:35:10 -0400 > Organization: None > Reply-to: FG@hotmail.com > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > dmcadam wrote: > > > > [Note: Followups should address the Baha'i Faith. -- Mods] > > > > In answer to your last message : > > > > Dear friend- > > > > I can only speak from an individual point of view as a long time > > Baha'i and my experience is that most folks today simply cannot > > handle a wide open, no holds barred, let it all hang out type of > > discussion. These open forums tend to be hostile and > > attack/defend type things where one has great trouble achieving > > unity and discovering truth. > > "Achieving unity and discovering truth": Usually means > thinking the same as the moderators who know how others > should regard any given subject.... > > > > > In time I feel we will be developed enough to be self regulating. > > Self-censoring is how I read that.... > > > Personally the moderators are not trying to censor anyone, just > > keep things in perspective by applying principles of full, frank > > and honest opinions, tempered with courtesy, tact and wisdom. I > > really appreciate the wonderful job they do. I too have had > > submissions refused but they always kindly and lovingly give their > > reason and most of the times I feel it is valid. Course they and > > I both know that none of us is perfect. > > You too have been censored by them? "Most of the times" (note the > plural) you think it's "valid"? "Not trying to censor anyone"? It > appears to me there is much confused thinking here.... > > > > > We Baha'is know how suppressing it can be for a soul to want to > > find the truth and not be able to because of negative emotions > > clouding issues so we want to create a safe and secure, loving > > atmosphere where freedom of speech can be enjoyed in such a way > > that it will not distress anyone. > > A very frightening rationale, which horrible historical > precedents.... > > > > > My children are not allowed to use foul language, attack one > > another, use put downs, categorize things by labelling people or > > showing racist or other forms of divisiveness that impede soul > > relations. I feel to a great extent we are all kind of like > > spiritual children and do need some detached moderation. > > > > We have all sorts of wonderful teachings about speech and how we > > must conduct ourselves in term of fulfilling our overall goal of > > love and unity in the world and they all fit scientific findings. > > However not everyone has read these or tried them on for size and > > we lapse back into speech patterns that do not reflect our reality > > and cause disunity. > > "Scientific findings"? Ahhhmmmm.... Can you quote those for > us? > > > > > In addition we join this list knowing that it is moderated and we > > mostly all agree that it should be. So our part of the agreement > > is to follow these list guidelines and cooperate to make the world > > a better place. > > Or off with your head.... > > > > > I believe it might be a good idea for the Moderators to post the > > List guidelines. If you don't agree with them then say why and I > > am sure they will listen. > > I am not so sure. > > > > > with all due respect, > > doug > > [clip] > > -- > 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:09 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Wed Aug 13 04:41:16 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id EAA06994; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 04:40:51 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:42:34 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 111 Message-ID: <33F19DAA.5C68@hotmail.com> References: <"lCjjz.A.H5.lkV8z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com, 106432.425@compuserve.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4345 Isaac freeman wrote: > > [Moderators Note: While the moderators allowed the original post, > and will allow reasonable replys, please note that the subject of the > newsgroup as stated in the monthly introduction posting is "the > beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Followups to this > article should address the beliefs and teachings of the faith, or be > directed to talk.religon.misc, alt.religion.bahai or news.groups. How about the beliefs and teachings of the Bahai Faith ON censorship? I think that's a valid topic for discussion, not suppression as the above note intimates in my opinion. Using the charter as a means of silencing is not a legitimate use of it. "Reasonable replys [sic]" is a very suspicious construction in this context.... > > -- The Moderators] > > On 10 Aug 1997 00:29:34 shahin nikjoo wrote about "Re: censorship - > moderator": > > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > usenet. > > It's a subject worth discussing. Note that the moderators of > soc.religion.bahai haven't vetoed this post. They just vetoed a posting of mine in response to shahin nikjoo! I'll post on alt.religion.bahai titled "SRB Censored: 7-13-97" and cc shahin nikjoo in case he/she doesn't have access (for reasons we all know) to alt.religion.bahai. > > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as a > > 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > Perhaps you could rewrite, and resubmit it. > Was it a joke that might have caused offense (even if you didn't mean > it to)? That might explain it. The moderators are also expected to > veto posts that don't discuss the Baha'i Faith. It seems to me this "principle" is highly abused.... > > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > > hostile to the group as a result. > > I've read their posts. How if they were suppressed? > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > There's no official status to soc.religion.bahai - it has no > connection with the Baha'i administration. It operates as though it does, many believe it does, and one cannot help wondering whether there might not be a connection of some sort.... It seems to me that the long-term and consistent censorship imposed by the moderators sullies the reputation of the Bahai Faith and the institutions.... WHY is that being tolerated, if not supported? > > > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > There is now. A Baha'i who became frustrated at not getting his > messages posted has started the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup, to be > used for general unmoderated discussion about the Baha'i Faith. So > far, it doesn't propagate very far, but we can expect to see it > carried by more and more servers over time. > > Another option is talk.religion.misc. > > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > > Laws etc.? > > Personally, I think there's a difference between the tone of a message > and its content. If the content of messages was being vetoed by the > moderators, that would constitute censorship. Some people claim this > is happening, but I have yet to see any evidence I found convincing. > Many posts make it onto soc.religion.bahai that strongly challenge the > Baha'i Faith - they're welcomed. For vetoed CONTENT see my censored message mentioned above on alt.religion.bahai. Permit me to add you might find my censored message on the United Nations, currently reposted to alt.religion.bahai of interest in this regard. And MANY do not.... > > On the other hand, I don't think it's censorship if people are > required to write their messages in a polite tone, and not to give > undue offense. That's what the moderators are expected to do, and I > find it makes soc.religion.bahai very good reading. > > Isaac Freeman -- 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 04:40:57 1997 Received: (qmail 7454 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 11:40:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 11:40:55 -0000 Message-ID: <33F19DAA.5C68@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:42:34 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com, 106432.425@compuserve.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"lCjjz.A.H5.lkV8z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4345 Isaac freeman wrote: > > [Moderators Note: While the moderators allowed the original post, > and will allow reasonable replys, please note that the subject of the > newsgroup as stated in the monthly introduction posting is "the > beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Followups to this > article should address the beliefs and teachings of the faith, or be > directed to talk.religon.misc, alt.religion.bahai or news.groups. How about the beliefs and teachings of the Bahai Faith ON censorship? I think that's a valid topic for discussion, not suppression as the above note intimates in my opinion. Using the charter as a means of silencing is not a legitimate use of it. "Reasonable replys [sic]" is a very suspicious construction in this context.... > > -- The Moderators] > > On 10 Aug 1997 00:29:34 shahin nikjoo wrote about "Re: censorship - > moderator": > > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > usenet. > > It's a subject worth discussing. Note that the moderators of > soc.religion.bahai haven't vetoed this post. They just vetoed a posting of mine in response to shahin nikjoo! I'll post on alt.religion.bahai titled "SRB Censored: 7-13-97" and cc shahin nikjoo in case he/she doesn't have access (for reasons we all know) to alt.religion.bahai. > > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as a > > 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > Perhaps you could rewrite, and resubmit it. > Was it a joke that might have caused offense (even if you didn't mean > it to)? That might explain it. The moderators are also expected to > veto posts that don't discuss the Baha'i Faith. It seems to me this "principle" is highly abused.... > > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > > hostile to the group as a result. > > I've read their posts. How if they were suppressed? > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > There's no official status to soc.religion.bahai - it has no > connection with the Baha'i administration. It operates as though it does, many believe it does, and one cannot help wondering whether there might not be a connection of some sort.... It seems to me that the long-term and consistent censorship imposed by the moderators sullies the reputation of the Bahai Faith and the institutions.... WHY is that being tolerated, if not supported? > > > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > There is now. A Baha'i who became frustrated at not getting his > messages posted has started the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup, to be > used for general unmoderated discussion about the Baha'i Faith. So > far, it doesn't propagate very far, but we can expect to see it > carried by more and more servers over time. > > Another option is talk.religion.misc. > > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > > Laws etc.? > > Personally, I think there's a difference between the tone of a message > and its content. If the content of messages was being vetoed by the > moderators, that would constitute censorship. Some people claim this > is happening, but I have yet to see any evidence I found convincing. > Many posts make it onto soc.religion.bahai that strongly challenge the > Baha'i Faith - they're welcomed. For vetoed CONTENT see my censored message mentioned above on alt.religion.bahai. Permit me to add you might find my censored message on the United Nations, currently reposted to alt.religion.bahai of interest in this regard. And MANY do not.... > > On the other hand, I don't think it's censorship if people are > required to write their messages in a polite tone, and not to give > undue offense. That's what the moderators are expected to do, and I > find it makes soc.religion.bahai very good reading. > > Isaac Freeman -- 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:15 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Wed Aug 13 04:47:25 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id EAA07093; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 04:47:20 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:49:04 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 37 Message-ID: <33F19F30.7125@hotmail.com> References: <"TbJQzB.A.q6.snV8z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1099 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > [Moderators Note: While the moderators allowed the original post, and > will allow reasonable replys, please note that the subject of the > newsgroup as stated in the monthly introduction posting is "the > beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Followups to this article > should address the beliefs and teachings of the faith, or be directed > to talk.religon.misc, alt.religion.bahai or news.groups. > > -- The Moderators] > > shahin nikjoo wrote: > > > > Hi, [clip] > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > An excellent question. I'm glad someone has finally > had the prescence of mind to ask it.... > > [Answer: No. The moderators have no instruction from any elected > Baha'i administrative level. -- mods] Have the moderators been instructed by the NSA or anyone in the Bahai administration to respond to this question in this way? [clip] -- 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:14 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 04:47:27 1997 Received: (qmail 7490 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 11:47:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 11:47:23 -0000 Message-ID: <33F19F30.7125@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:49:04 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"TbJQzB.A.q6.snV8z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1099 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > [Moderators Note: While the moderators allowed the original post, and > will allow reasonable replys, please note that the subject of the > newsgroup as stated in the monthly introduction posting is "the > beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Followups to this article > should address the beliefs and teachings of the faith, or be directed > to talk.religon.misc, alt.religion.bahai or news.groups. > > -- The Moderators] > > shahin nikjoo wrote: > > > > Hi, [clip] > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > An excellent question. I'm glad someone has finally > had the prescence of mind to ask it.... > > [Answer: No. The moderators have no instruction from any elected > Baha'i administrative level. -- mods] Have the moderators been instructed by the NSA or anyone in the Bahai administration to respond to this question in this way? [clip] -- 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 05:03:42 1997 Received: (qmail 7603 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 12:03:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 12:03:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33F1A2FC.3CE9@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:05:16 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"Xws3FB.A.HcB.PHW8z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2624 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:15:22 -0600, dmcadam > wrote: > > >[Note: Followups should address the Baha'i Faith. -- Mods] > > > >In answer to your last message : > > > >Dear friend- > > > >I can only speak from an individual point of view as a long time > >Baha'i and my experience is that most folks today simply cannot > >handle a wide open, no holds barred, let it all hang out type of > >discussion. These open forums tend to be hostile and attack/defend > >type things where one has great trouble achieving unity and > >discovering truth. > > Doug is correct in saying that it would be hard to achieve unity and > discover truth in an open forum. I can testify to this from > experience, as I have been a regular participant in the open > alt.religion.bahai newsgroup. But it's not impossible. Even amidst > the din of "discussion", it is possible for the truth to shine forth. I must say that I believe it's even harder to achieve true unity, versus coerced, forced uniformity, and true truth versus received opinion and narrowly imposed interpretation.... Abdu'l-Baha talked about the spark of truth coming about through the conflict of very viewpoints. SRB, in my opinion, is dedicated to smothering varying perspectives and force-feeding its own on others.... [clip] > This approach can work. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here , > but I have had people say to me that they consider me one of the > saner, more reasonable voices on a.r.b. And I'm sure this is because > I'm trying to conduct myself in a manner worthy of Baha'u'llah and > 'Abdu'l-Baha. Now if everyone else would do the same .... I don't recall anyone saying that about you.... I certainly haven't, and wouldn't.... I don't believe conformity is worthy of either Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha. You seem to imagine "everyone else" should do and be and think the same as you. That's precisely the problem with you, the moderators, and indeed many individuals in the Bahai Faith now.... The Central Figures accepted human diversity and encourage human liberty and freedom of conscience.... > > One more thing about open groups like a.r.b: yes, it is possible for > Covenant breakers to post there. And they have done so. But it's > easy to set up a filter in your news reader so that you never see > their posts. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- 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 - Wed Aug 13 08:12:21 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Wed Aug 13 05:03:37 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id FAA07376; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 05:03:34 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:05:16 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 61 Message-ID: <33F1A2FC.3CE9@hotmail.com> References: <"Xws3FB.A.HcB.PHW8z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2624 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:15:22 -0600, dmcadam > wrote: > > >[Note: Followups should address the Baha'i Faith. -- Mods] > > > >In answer to your last message : > > > >Dear friend- > > > >I can only speak from an individual point of view as a long time > >Baha'i and my experience is that most folks today simply cannot > >handle a wide open, no holds barred, let it all hang out type of > >discussion. These open forums tend to be hostile and attack/defend > >type things where one has great trouble achieving unity and > >discovering truth. > > Doug is correct in saying that it would be hard to achieve unity and > discover truth in an open forum. I can testify to this from > experience, as I have been a regular participant in the open > alt.religion.bahai newsgroup. But it's not impossible. Even amidst > the din of "discussion", it is possible for the truth to shine forth. I must say that I believe it's even harder to achieve true unity, versus coerced, forced uniformity, and true truth versus received opinion and narrowly imposed interpretation.... Abdu'l-Baha talked about the spark of truth coming about through the conflict of very viewpoints. SRB, in my opinion, is dedicated to smothering varying perspectives and force-feeding its own on others.... [clip] > This approach can work. I'm not trying to toot my own horn here , > but I have had people say to me that they consider me one of the > saner, more reasonable voices on a.r.b. And I'm sure this is because > I'm trying to conduct myself in a manner worthy of Baha'u'llah and > 'Abdu'l-Baha. Now if everyone else would do the same .... I don't recall anyone saying that about you.... I certainly haven't, and wouldn't.... I don't believe conformity is worthy of either Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha. You seem to imagine "everyone else" should do and be and think the same as you. That's precisely the problem with you, the moderators, and indeed many individuals in the Bahai Faith now.... The Central Figures accepted human diversity and encourage human liberty and freedom of conscience.... > > One more thing about open groups like a.r.b: yes, it is possible for > Covenant breakers to post there. And they have done so. But it's > easy to set up a filter in your news reader so that you never see > their posts. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- 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 - Thu Aug 14 09:30:39 1997 >From boatright@topeka.cjnetworks.com Wed Aug 13 14:17:27 1997 Received: from rick.cjnetworks.com (Port239.cjnetworks.com [199.240.71.15]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22453; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:17:13 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199708132117.QAA22453@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:19:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal In-reply-to: <33F19F30.7125@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 686 > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > > > An excellent question. I'm glad someone has finally > > had the prescence of mind to ask it.... > > > > [Answer: No. The moderators have no instruction from any elected > > Baha'i administrative level. -- mods] > > Have the moderators been instructed by the NSA or anyone > in the Bahai administration to respond to this question > in this way? No. There is no conspiracy. No one has instructed us to say or not say anything. No board member, no assembly, not the House, no hand, no counceler, no one. Zip, nada nothing. It's all us. But I don't expect you to belive that either Rick From - Thu Aug 14 10:57:18 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 07:42:07 1997 Received: (qmail 20034 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 14:42:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 14:42:06 -0000 Message-ID: <33F319A5.2188@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 10:43:49 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <199708132117.QAA22453@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1042 This message is not a note addressed to the moderators but clearly a posting to soc.religion.bahai. Please post it and answered there. --- Rick Boatright wrote: > > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > > > > > An excellent question. I'm glad someone has finally > > > had the prescence of mind to ask it.... > > > > > > [Answer: No. The moderators have no instruction from any elected > > > Baha'i administrative level. -- mods] > > > > Have the moderators been instructed by the NSA or anyone > > in the Bahai administration to respond to this question > > in this way? > > No. There is no conspiracy. No one has instructed us to say or not > say anything. No board member, no assembly, not the House, no hand, > no counceler, no one. Zip, nada nothing. It's all us. > > But I don't expect you to belive that either > > Rick > -- 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 - Thu Aug 14 09:30:41 1997 >From boatright@topeka.cjnetworks.com Wed Aug 13 14:17:19 1997 Received: from rick.cjnetworks.com (Port239.cjnetworks.com [199.240.71.15]) by topeka.cjnetworks.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22435; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:17:10 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199708132117.QAA22435@topeka.cjnetworks.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:19:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Reply-to: boatright@cjnetworks.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Priority: normal In-reply-to: <33F19DAA.5C68@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.50) X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5040 Frederick, I am sure you expected that I would bounce this one to. It appears that you especially constructed it just so that I would have to. So here you are. An official rejection note. Have fun with it. It's kind of pointless to argue with you about your baseless conspiracy theories about the NSA somehow majically controlling the SRB mods, and the suspicious nature of the poor distribution of ARB, so I won't bother. Rick Boatright > Isaac freeman wrote: > > > > [Moderators Note: While the moderators allowed the original post, > > and will allow reasonable replys, please note that the subject of the > > newsgroup as stated in the monthly introduction posting is "the > > beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Followups to this > > article should address the beliefs and teachings of the faith, or be > > directed to talk.religon.misc, alt.religion.bahai or news.groups. > > How about the beliefs and teachings of the Bahai Faith ON > censorship? I think that's a valid topic for discussion, > not suppression as the above note intimates in my > opinion. Using the charter as a means of silencing is not > a legitimate use of it. "Reasonable replys [sic]" is a > very suspicious construction in this context.... > > > > > -- The Moderators] > > > > On 10 Aug 1997 00:29:34 shahin nikjoo wrote about "Re: censorship - > > moderator": > > > > > I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > > usenet. > > > > It's a subject worth discussing. Note that the moderators of > > soc.religion.bahai haven't vetoed this post. > > They just vetoed a posting of mine in response to shahin nikjoo! > I'll post on alt.religion.bahai titled "SRB Censored: 7-13-97" > and cc shahin nikjoo in case he/she doesn't have access (for > reasons we all know) to alt.religion.bahai. > > > > > > My own post was not accepted on thi usenet because it was seen as a > > > 'joke' (It was a serious joke). > > > > Perhaps you could rewrite, and resubmit it. > > Was it a joke that might have caused offense (even if you didn't mean > > it to)? That might explain it. The moderators are also expected to > > veto posts that don't discuss the Baha'i Faith. > > It seems to me this "principle" is highly abused.... > > > > > > I've had a number of non-Bahais who were q. upset that their > > > comments were not posted on this usenet, and have become very > > > hostile to the group as a result. > > > > I've read their posts. > > How if they were suppressed? > > > > > > Is the 'moderator' policy asked for by the NSA?? > > > > There's no official status to soc.religion.bahai - it has no > > connection with the Baha'i administration. > > It operates as though it does, many believe it does, > and one cannot help wondering whether there might > not be a connection of some sort.... It seems to > me that the long-term and consistent censorship > imposed by the moderators sullies the reputation of > the Bahai Faith and the institutions.... WHY is that > being tolerated, if not supported? > > > > > > Is there an unmoderated Bahai usenet? > > > > There is now. A Baha'i who became frustrated at not getting his > > messages posted has started the alt.religion.bahai newsgroup, to be > > used for general unmoderated discussion about the Baha'i Faith. So > > far, it doesn't propagate very far, but we can expect to see it > > carried by more and more servers over time. > > > > Another option is talk.religion.misc. > > > > > I think censorship decreases the regard non-bahais have for the > > > faith & irritates to the extreme Bahais who gets censored. > > > > > > I also don't think Bahais have anything to be afraid of w.r.t. > > > questions posed - surely there are Bahai scholars well versed in > > > Laws etc.? > > > > Personally, I think there's a difference between the tone of a message > > and its content. If the content of messages was being vetoed by the > > moderators, that would constitute censorship. Some people claim this > > is happening, but I have yet to see any evidence I found convincing. > > Many posts make it onto soc.religion.bahai that strongly challenge the > > Baha'i Faith - they're welcomed. > > For vetoed CONTENT see my censored message mentioned above > on alt.religion.bahai. Permit me to add you might find my > censored message on the United Nations, currently reposted > to alt.religion.bahai of interest in this regard. And MANY > do not.... > > > > > On the other hand, I don't think it's censorship if people are > > required to write their messages in a polite tone, and not to give > > undue offense. That's what the moderators are expected to do, and I > > find it makes soc.religion.bahai very good reading. > > > > Isaac Freeman > > -- > 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 - Sat Aug 16 07:59:27 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 04:21:13 1997 Received: (qmail 14196 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 11:21:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 11:21:07 -0000 Message-ID: <33F58D87.7580@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:22:47 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"pmauzC.A.FEF.WCI9z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4848 Brian Aull wrote: > > In article <"TbJQzB.A.q6.snV8z"@bounty>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my > > opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines > > generally acceptable on UseNet. Alt.religion.bahai > > is now the only unmoderated forum for discussion on > > the Bahai Faith.... > > As one of the 691 who voted against the creation of talk.religion.bahai, I > would like to explain why I voted the way I did. While I have explained > this previously on alt.religion.bahai, I repeat it here because it relates > both to this thread and to the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. I also add > that before I voted, I read through the posted voter guidelines, and could > find nothing to indicate that voting NO constituted any kind of abuse. An interesting new agrument by one opposed to the freedom of conscience UseNet stands for.... In point of fact the posted guidelines and common opinion on UseNet stated/states that the only valid reason for voting NO on any newsgroup proposal would be for technical reasons. No valid technical reason existed. > > I am NOT opposed to the creation of an unmoderated Bahai group on any sort > of general grounds. In fact, I think it might be a good idea. My > reasons for voting NO had more to do with the specific circumstances that > gave rise to the advocacy of this particular one. > > The Baha'i Faith is about unity, that is, about bringing people together, > about creating a climate in which we can BE DIFFERENT and WORK TOGETHER. > Freedom, and freedom of expression in particular, are indispensible MEANS > for achieving this END. This is how I see it too. Unfortunately, both were crushed by the intolerant Bahai majority.... [clip] > In this process, the Baha'i community is attempting to incubate a > political culture that is very different from most, because it is > characterized by a spirit of cooperation, rather than by heavy-handed > suppression of expression, on the one hand, or by unlimited freedom of > expression for its own sake, on the other. It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the "suppression of expression" for 157 people.... > > In the context of a moderated Baha'i newsgroup, the moderators play a > legitimate role - to keep posts relevant and to "censor", if you will, > personal attacks or posts whose tone amounts to personal attacks. Who > judges "tone"? The moderators and posters have a responsibility to consult > with each other so that we have neither heavy-handed censorship of ideas > by the moderators nor discussion that amounts to a flame war. One of the > very purposes of soc.religion.bahai, in my view, is to serve as an example > of how people with very different points of view could explore a topic > with both frankness and civility simultaneously. It's a very poor example in my opinion. It has failed utterly to provide a forum in which people can trust. The reality is "heavy-handed censorship," and many people have said so other than myself. I myself have been censored in trying to respond to this thread.... > > Some have recently been leveling charges of "censorship" at the moderators > of srb. And this sentiment was, in large part, the basis for advocating > the creation of trb. At some points, it seems to me, the consultation > process that should have happened between moderators and posters was > breaking down. Not being privy to the communications involved, I cannot > judge who was to blame for that. I believe your analysis is leaving many complexities out.... > > However, I believe that the solution to that problem is to find new ways > of making that process work better. I felt that creating a new group, at > least on that particular occasion, was simply taking the easy way out. So > I voted NO. The idea of reforming SRB was discussed endlessly at the time. It's continued practice proves in my opinion the futility of the effort.... The suggestion was and perhaps is still at times one made in bad faith. That is, by those who are still opposed to an unmoderated newsgroup but can't think of any legitimate to suppress it.... > > We have the potential to make srb a forum at once dynamic and friendly! I > propose that we work on that, rather than debating about whether there was > "censorship" in the past! I'm talking about the present, as well as the past.... My suppressed posting to this thread is currently on alt.religion.bahai, for those who can obtain access to the alt.* hierarchy, less accessible than the Big 8 proposed unmoderated newsgroup you voted against.... -- 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 - Sat Aug 16 07:59:25 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Sat Aug 16 04:21:08 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA09334; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:21:04 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:22:47 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 107 Message-ID: <33F58D87.7580@hotmail.com> References: <"pmauzC.A.FEF.WCI9z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.117 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4848 Brian Aull wrote: > > In article <"TbJQzB.A.q6.snV8z"@bounty>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my > > opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines > > generally acceptable on UseNet. Alt.religion.bahai > > is now the only unmoderated forum for discussion on > > the Bahai Faith.... > > As one of the 691 who voted against the creation of talk.religion.bahai, I > would like to explain why I voted the way I did. While I have explained > this previously on alt.religion.bahai, I repeat it here because it relates > both to this thread and to the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. I also add > that before I voted, I read through the posted voter guidelines, and could > find nothing to indicate that voting NO constituted any kind of abuse. An interesting new agrument by one opposed to the freedom of conscience UseNet stands for.... In point of fact the posted guidelines and common opinion on UseNet stated/states that the only valid reason for voting NO on any newsgroup proposal would be for technical reasons. No valid technical reason existed. > > I am NOT opposed to the creation of an unmoderated Bahai group on any sort > of general grounds. In fact, I think it might be a good idea. My > reasons for voting NO had more to do with the specific circumstances that > gave rise to the advocacy of this particular one. > > The Baha'i Faith is about unity, that is, about bringing people together, > about creating a climate in which we can BE DIFFERENT and WORK TOGETHER. > Freedom, and freedom of expression in particular, are indispensible MEANS > for achieving this END. This is how I see it too. Unfortunately, both were crushed by the intolerant Bahai majority.... [clip] > In this process, the Baha'i community is attempting to incubate a > political culture that is very different from most, because it is > characterized by a spirit of cooperation, rather than by heavy-handed > suppression of expression, on the one hand, or by unlimited freedom of > expression for its own sake, on the other. It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the "suppression of expression" for 157 people.... > > In the context of a moderated Baha'i newsgroup, the moderators play a > legitimate role - to keep posts relevant and to "censor", if you will, > personal attacks or posts whose tone amounts to personal attacks. Who > judges "tone"? The moderators and posters have a responsibility to consult > with each other so that we have neither heavy-handed censorship of ideas > by the moderators nor discussion that amounts to a flame war. One of the > very purposes of soc.religion.bahai, in my view, is to serve as an example > of how people with very different points of view could explore a topic > with both frankness and civility simultaneously. It's a very poor example in my opinion. It has failed utterly to provide a forum in which people can trust. The reality is "heavy-handed censorship," and many people have said so other than myself. I myself have been censored in trying to respond to this thread.... > > Some have recently been leveling charges of "censorship" at the moderators > of srb. And this sentiment was, in large part, the basis for advocating > the creation of trb. At some points, it seems to me, the consultation > process that should have happened between moderators and posters was > breaking down. Not being privy to the communications involved, I cannot > judge who was to blame for that. I believe your analysis is leaving many complexities out.... > > However, I believe that the solution to that problem is to find new ways > of making that process work better. I felt that creating a new group, at > least on that particular occasion, was simply taking the easy way out. So > I voted NO. The idea of reforming SRB was discussed endlessly at the time. It's continued practice proves in my opinion the futility of the effort.... The suggestion was and perhaps is still at times one made in bad faith. That is, by those who are still opposed to an unmoderated newsgroup but can't think of any legitimate to suppress it.... > > We have the potential to make srb a forum at once dynamic and friendly! I > propose that we work on that, rather than debating about whether there was > "censorship" in the past! I'm talking about the present, as well as the past.... My suppressed posting to this thread is currently on alt.religion.bahai, for those who can obtain access to the alt.* hierarchy, less accessible than the Big 8 proposed unmoderated newsgroup you voted against.... -- 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 - Sat Aug 16 07:59:32 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Sat Aug 16 04:34:40 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA09641; Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:34:33 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:36:17 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 33 Message-ID: <33F590B1.36C4@hotmail.com> References: <"88zZ4C.A.zTF.HXI9z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.117 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1207 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on soc.religion.bahai, shahin nikjoo > <106432.425@CompuServe.COM> wrote > >I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > >usenet. [clip] > 'Abdu'l-Baha was a strong supporter of the right to freedom of > expression but He always qualifies this right with the responsibility to > use that freedom wisely, so that others would not be hurt. In this day > there is a great emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, but the > responsibilities are quietly ignored. Some people are very selective in > their understading of the Writings. The "Some people are very selective" cuts both ways.... Many passages by Abdu'l-Baha are regularly ignored by those Bahais who have a pronounced authoritarian bent to their temperaments. The individual rights argument has become one of the most predictable cliches used by such Bahais to deprive others of their freedom of expression. [clip] > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- 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 - Sat Aug 16 07:59:36 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 04:34:44 1997 Received: (qmail 14595 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 11:34:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 11:34:37 -0000 Message-ID: <33F590B1.36C4@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:36:17 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"88zZ4C.A.zTF.HXI9z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1207 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on soc.religion.bahai, shahin nikjoo > <106432.425@CompuServe.COM> wrote > >I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > >usenet. [clip] > 'Abdu'l-Baha was a strong supporter of the right to freedom of > expression but He always qualifies this right with the responsibility to > use that freedom wisely, so that others would not be hurt. In this day > there is a great emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, but the > responsibilities are quietly ignored. Some people are very selective in > their understading of the Writings. The "Some people are very selective" cuts both ways.... Many passages by Abdu'l-Baha are regularly ignored by those Bahais who have a pronounced authoritarian bent to their temperaments. The individual rights argument has become one of the most predictable cliches used by such Bahais to deprive others of their freedom of expression. [clip] > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- 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 - Mon Aug 18 10:19:29 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:33:06 1997 Received: (qmail 16444 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:33:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:33:04 -0000 Message-ID: <33F84F74.3CE4@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:34:44 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators References: <"--WhpC.A.f-D.3609z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2882 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > >I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > > >usenet. > > > > > 'Abdu'l-Baha was a strong supporter of the right to freedom of > > > expression but He always qualifies this right with the > > > responsibility to use that freedom wisely, so that others would > > > not be hurt. In this day there is a great emphasis on individual > > > rights and freedoms, but the responsibilities are quietly ignored. > > > Some people are very selective in their understading of the > > > Writings. > > > > The "Some people are very selective" cuts both ways. Many > > passages by Abdu'l-Baha are regularly ignored by those Bahais > > who have a pronounced authoritarian bent to their temperaments. The > > individual rights argument has become one of the most predictable > > cliches used by such Bahais to deprive others of their freedom of > > expression. > > And the above merely evades the legitimate the respondent made. I am not evading it ("point" I suppose). I've repeatedly posted exerpts from Abdu'l-Baha expressing the highest respect for individual liberty and freedom of conscience on soc.religion.bahai only to have them completely ignored by the more fundamentalist minded Bahais.... To move beyond the "you're ignoring my text" level of discussion would require serious engagement with passages on both sides. Those of a more authoritarian bent consistently refuse to do that.... > Simply stating that something "cuts both ways" obviously fails to > address the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha's viewpoint did indeed stress a > _balanced responsibility_ and NOT non-stop negativism and > carping--especially, not continuing carping about something already > settled by majority vote/ consensus that didn't happen to go the way > you wanted. You apparently accuse me of "non-stop negativism and carping." I believe both characterizations are unfair and cut off discussion, often replaced by censorship in the past.... The majority vote, as you call it, typifies the tyranny of the majority the Bahai Writings condemn, in my opinion, and which Bahais should be especially sensitive about protecting.... You also neglect to recognize the unjust defeat of talk.religion.bahai constituted a serious violation of the UseNet process of interest polling for the creation of newsgroups. > If you have a legitimate grievance, take it to the appropriate elected > administrative body. If not, please give it a rest! I emailed the Universal House of Justice for clarification of the role of censorship in the Bahai Faith on March 31, 1997. The message can be found on www.dejanews.com. I have not yet received a response. -- 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 - Mon Aug 18 10:19:27 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Mon Aug 18 06:33:05 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id GAA08875; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:33:00 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:34:44 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 62 Message-ID: <33F84F74.3CE4@hotmail.com> References: <"--WhpC.A.f-D.3609z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2882 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > >I would like to question the wisdom of having moderators on this > > > >usenet. > > > > > 'Abdu'l-Baha was a strong supporter of the right to freedom of > > > expression but He always qualifies this right with the > > > responsibility to use that freedom wisely, so that others would > > > not be hurt. In this day there is a great emphasis on individual > > > rights and freedoms, but the responsibilities are quietly ignored. > > > Some people are very selective in their understading of the > > > Writings. > > > > The "Some people are very selective" cuts both ways. Many > > passages by Abdu'l-Baha are regularly ignored by those Bahais > > who have a pronounced authoritarian bent to their temperaments. The > > individual rights argument has become one of the most predictable > > cliches used by such Bahais to deprive others of their freedom of > > expression. > > And the above merely evades the legitimate the respondent made. I am not evading it ("point" I suppose). I've repeatedly posted exerpts from Abdu'l-Baha expressing the highest respect for individual liberty and freedom of conscience on soc.religion.bahai only to have them completely ignored by the more fundamentalist minded Bahais.... To move beyond the "you're ignoring my text" level of discussion would require serious engagement with passages on both sides. Those of a more authoritarian bent consistently refuse to do that.... > Simply stating that something "cuts both ways" obviously fails to > address the fact that 'Abdu'l-Baha's viewpoint did indeed stress a > _balanced responsibility_ and NOT non-stop negativism and > carping--especially, not continuing carping about something already > settled by majority vote/ consensus that didn't happen to go the way > you wanted. You apparently accuse me of "non-stop negativism and carping." I believe both characterizations are unfair and cut off discussion, often replaced by censorship in the past.... The majority vote, as you call it, typifies the tyranny of the majority the Bahai Writings condemn, in my opinion, and which Bahais should be especially sensitive about protecting.... You also neglect to recognize the unjust defeat of talk.religion.bahai constituted a serious violation of the UseNet process of interest polling for the creation of newsgroups. > If you have a legitimate grievance, take it to the appropriate elected > administrative body. If not, please give it a rest! I emailed the Universal House of Justice for clarification of the role of censorship in the Bahai Faith on March 31, 1997. The message can be found on www.dejanews.com. I have not yet received a response. -- 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 - Mon Aug 18 10:19:35 1997 >From news@lana.pathlink.com Mon Aug 18 06:53:00 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lana.pathlink.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) id GAA09276; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:51:22 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news2 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:53:04 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 76 Message-ID: <33F853C0.7DFC@hotmail.com> References: <"w43sdD.A.7YH.H159z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2680 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my > > opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines > > generally acceptable on UseNet. > > Yeah, right. I believe I wrote the passage above. To brush off an injustice, especially one involving voter abuse and perhaps fraud, seems highly alarming to me.... Bahais, I thought, were supposed to respect and appreciate the sanctity of casting ballots, not abuse them, as was done to suppress 157 people who voted YES for an unmoderated newsgroup. > > And if the vote had turned out the other way, I wonder if the > individual who posted this would now be saying "Talk.religion.bahai > was unfairly passed." This statement is completely illogical to me and lacks any sense of the gravity of the issue.... > > > > ... > > > An interesting new agrument by one opposed to the > > freedom of conscience UseNet stands for. > > UseNet, while a very useful tool, is a neutral entity and takes no > "stance" one way or the other. False. UseNet, through it's administration and voluntary vote takers, strives to make the Internet an equable place for people around the world of all opinions. UseNet does not support the kind of censorship that took place in regard to talk.religion.bahai.... > > > This is how I see it too. Unfortunately, both were crushed > > by the intolerant Bahai majority. > > What a nice way to talk about others! :-( If this isn't > backbiting, it's the next closest thing. An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > > It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the "suppression of > > expression" for 157 people. > > Funny how the losers usually say this. And I suppose if you had been > opposed and the measure had passed, then it would have been > "'heavy-handed' voting that resulted in 'license of expression?'" Again, this fails to take seriously a serious issue.... The serious discussion of which has repeatedly been brushed aside or suppressed on soc.religion.bahai itself.... > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people feel when censored and deprived of the right of free communication and religious conscience is disgraceful to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... -- 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 - Mon Aug 18 10:19:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:51:27 1997 Received: (qmail 16548 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:51:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:51:25 -0000 Message-ID: <33F853C0.7DFC@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:53:04 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) References: <"w43sdD.A.7YH.H159z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2680 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > Talk.religion.bahai was unfairly defeated in my > > opinion by an abuse of the voting guidelines > > generally acceptable on UseNet. > > Yeah, right. I believe I wrote the passage above. To brush off an injustice, especially one involving voter abuse and perhaps fraud, seems highly alarming to me.... Bahais, I thought, were supposed to respect and appreciate the sanctity of casting ballots, not abuse them, as was done to suppress 157 people who voted YES for an unmoderated newsgroup. > > And if the vote had turned out the other way, I wonder if the > individual who posted this would now be saying "Talk.religion.bahai > was unfairly passed." This statement is completely illogical to me and lacks any sense of the gravity of the issue.... > > > > ... > > > An interesting new agrument by one opposed to the > > freedom of conscience UseNet stands for. > > UseNet, while a very useful tool, is a neutral entity and takes no > "stance" one way or the other. False. UseNet, through it's administration and voluntary vote takers, strives to make the Internet an equable place for people around the world of all opinions. UseNet does not support the kind of censorship that took place in regard to talk.religion.bahai.... > > > This is how I see it too. Unfortunately, both were crushed > > by the intolerant Bahai majority. > > What a nice way to talk about others! :-( If this isn't > backbiting, it's the next closest thing. An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > > It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the "suppression of > > expression" for 157 people. > > Funny how the losers usually say this. And I suppose if you had been > opposed and the measure had passed, then it would have been > "'heavy-handed' voting that resulted in 'license of expression?'" Again, this fails to take seriously a serious issue.... The serious discussion of which has repeatedly been brushed aside or suppressed on soc.religion.bahai itself.... > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people feel when censored and deprived of the right of free communication and religious conscience is disgraceful to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... -- 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 - Tue Aug 19 07:23:24 1997 >From blimber@capaccess.org Mon Aug 18 17:26:17 1997 Received: (from blimber@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id UAA11102; Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:31:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 20:31:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Limber To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) In-Reply-To: <"tXGqKC.A.jvG.yOJ-z"@bounty> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1400 > > > ... the intolerant Baha'i majority. > > > > What a nice way to talk about others! :-( If this isn't > > backbiting, it's the next closest thing. > > An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them > of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their > own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when > they further state their opinions about not liking it.... Backbiting remains backbiting _regardless_ of what the other guy did or didn't do. Last I heard, two wrongs still didn't make a right. > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. > > To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people > feel when censored and deprived of the right of free > communication and religious conscience is disgraceful > to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... I stand by my point. Once again: If you feel you have a legitimate grievance, take it to the appropriate elected administrative body. If not, kindly spare us. I'm very sorry, but your opinions will start counting for more if and when 100% of your posts here aren't carping and complaining. I have yet to see you say _anything_ positive about anything or anybody, your special alt forum excepted. Permit me to remind you of the prayer that says I will be a happy and joyful person. ... I will not dwell on the unpleasant things of life. Peace. From - Wed Aug 20 07:56:01 1997 >From trowe@uwsp.edu Tue Aug 19 09:19:51 1997 Received: by EMS4.uwsp.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:19:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Rowe, Thomas" To: "'bahai-faith@bcca.org'" Cc: "'FG@hotmail.com'" Subject: RE: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:19:30 -0500 X-Priority: 3 Return-Receipt-To: "Rowe, Thomas" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2364 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > ---------- > > > An interesting new twist. Victimize 157 people, depriving them > of their right to express on a major Big 8 hierarchy their > own beliefs freely and then accuse them of backbiting when > they further state their opinions about not liking it.... > > > > > > It was "heavy-handed" voting that resulted in the "suppression of > > > > expression" for 157 people. > > > > Funny how the losers usually say this. And I suppose if you had > been > > opposed and the measure had passed, then it would have been > > "'heavy-handed' voting that resulted in 'license of expression?'" > > Again, this fails to take seriously a serious issue.... The > serious discussion of which has repeatedly been brushed aside > or suppressed on soc.religion.bahai itself.... > > > > > Sour grapes, pure and simple. > > To call "sour grapes" the legitimate indignation people > feel when censored and deprived of the right of free > communication and religious conscience is disgraceful > to the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... > Okay, "time out." I don't like the tone of these posts. I remember the discussion of the issue of voting for/against the formation of the newsgroup. There were some hard feelings then by several people and that has obviously carried over. I'm one of those misguided folks who voted "no" based on my understanding of the issues. My understanding could have been faulty and/or my logic for the vote could have been wrong. Nevertheless, I don't apologize for my vote. It was not an attempt to censor free discussion despite what any of the 157 positive voters may think. Notice it became a non-issue when another avenue for an unmoderated discussion list on the Baha'i Faith came into being (sorry - don't have the address on the top of my head). It really doesn't help matters much to impugn the motives of either the winning or losing side of any electoral issue. Tom Rowe trowe@uwsp.edu ********************************************************** They say that ignorance and apathy are the two great evils of today's world. Well, I wouldn't know about that and I don't care anyway. ********************************************************** https://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/tr/home1.htm From - Wed Aug 20 11:16:42 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Wed Aug 20 06:47:33 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA04538; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 06:47:26 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:49:06 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 29 Message-ID: <33FAF5D2.49DB@hotmail.com> References: <"OVpSvC.A.-UE.Lkd-z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1254 Earle, AC wrote: > > I've read many of the posts in this thread and find them > consistently negative and inharmonious. As I discovered years ago, > percieved injustice should ignored. If , in fact, it is unjust, then > God and Baha'u'llah will take care of it in the most just manner > possible. The key is to trust God an Baha'u'llah implicitly. The > negativity of this entire thread, the bickering amongst ourselves, is > something we all ought to be ashamed of. If we, as Baha'is, can not be > unified, how can we teach others the principle to others? We do what is > within our power and lead by example. Leave injustice to the One who is > best equipped to deal with it. Why then do the Bahai institutions concern themselves with the injustices perpetrated against the Iranian Bahais? Following your reasoning, why not leave that up to God? Abdu'l-Bahai says somewhere we should be concerned about the issues of our time. If injustice and censorship are a few of them, it stands to reason we should not look the other way, pretending they don't exist. -- 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 - Wed Aug 20 11:16:40 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 06:47:31 1997 Received: (qmail 7168 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 13:47:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 13:47:29 -0000 Message-ID: <33FAF5D2.49DB@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:49:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) References: <"OVpSvC.A.-UE.Lkd-z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1254 Earle, AC wrote: > > I've read many of the posts in this thread and find them > consistently negative and inharmonious. As I discovered years ago, > percieved injustice should ignored. If , in fact, it is unjust, then > God and Baha'u'llah will take care of it in the most just manner > possible. The key is to trust God an Baha'u'llah implicitly. The > negativity of this entire thread, the bickering amongst ourselves, is > something we all ought to be ashamed of. If we, as Baha'is, can not be > unified, how can we teach others the principle to others? We do what is > within our power and lead by example. Leave injustice to the One who is > best equipped to deal with it. Why then do the Bahai institutions concern themselves with the injustices perpetrated against the Iranian Bahais? Following your reasoning, why not leave that up to God? Abdu'l-Bahai says somewhere we should be concerned about the issues of our time. If injustice and censorship are a few of them, it stands to reason we should not look the other way, pretending they don't exist. -- 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 - Wed Aug 20 11:16:48 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Wed Aug 20 07:18:40 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA05577; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:20:11 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 177 Message-ID: <33FAFD1B.3E43@hotmail.com> References: <"M4A2tD.A._CF.CQe-z"@bounty> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.119 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) CC: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8086 Mac0000013 wrote: [clip] > Greetings; > > Whoever this F. Glaysher is, he makes some assumptions which appear not to > be proven. > > He appears to claim, without evidence, that there is censorship in > regards to talk.religion.bahai ---- he then claims that the majority of > the Baha'i's are intolerant, as when he claims that "...both were crushed > by the intolerant Baha'i majority." I and others have posted numerous censored messages to alt.religion.bahai as evidence. They may be found on www.dejanews.com by searching for "SRB Censored" from January 1, 1997 to the present under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai. Well over 30 other people have stated they have been censored and their messages too may be found on www.dejanews.com. In terms of an "intolerant Bahai majority," I am clearly referring to the 691 majority who voted NO for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai--in clear excess of what usually takes place on UseNet where technical NO votes are the only legitimate ones.... > > Before addressing some other issues, if I remember correctly, the > moderators have explained the policy of the newsgroup. If one wishes to > engage in the flame wars, the catcalling, the ad homin. attacks far too > prevalent in other newsgroups, then one's posting is returned with a > comment as to where one may wish to employ some degree of courtesy. One > is then free to resubmit the posting: a posting that should be on topic, > address the issues, and not make personal attacks. This neglects that many people have stated their posts were innocuous and relevant to discussion. An umoderated Big 8 newsgroup on the Bahai Faith would provide a place where people can discuss it with confidence that no one is suppressing their opinions. Soc.religion.bahai has lost its credibility for good reasons. > > ALSO, I believe that there was this particular individual quite loudly > declaring that there was "trouble in RiverCity" and demanding a vote be > taken. The vote was taken. The proposal was defeated: I believe that > under two hundred voted for it and more than five or six hundred voted > against it... Rather than abide by the decision and accept the outcome, > within a short time, a newsgroup was formed by this same person. All of the above is based on misperception and misunderstanding of the UseNet voting guidelines. First of all it's an interest poll. If 100+ people are interested in forming a newsgroup, they should be allowed to do so on any topic they choose. No ideological reasons are valid. NO votes should only be cast for technical reasons, i.e., the proposed group is in the wrong hierarchy of UseNet, which was not a problem with talk.religion.bahai, it was definitely in the right one, the talk.* hierarchy. I did not form alt.religion.bahai. A member of the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers did. I believe he did because he perceived the manifest injustice of what Bahais did.... > > Perhaps I am mistaken by there was a vote, the vote went against the > person, and the person then implemented a Newsgroup meeting the parameters > of his particular wishes and that Newsgroup was not, to my limited > knowledge, opposed by any one of the establishment. Alt.religion.bahai does not meet the parameters of what 157 YES votes wanted: a Big 8 unmoderated newsgroup, open and highly accessible by all.... > > And now this individual claims that there is censorship when he is still > touting his statements publicly upon his own little Newsgroup and in this > newsgroup? I am not the only person making that claim. I am surprised, somewhat, that you and others are still claiming that to be the case. Please read the record via www.dejanews.com where you'll find many people saying so.... > > At the same time this person now claims that 157 people were suppressed > --- not, I hope, as has been done in Cambodia, or in parts of South > America---- and he now claims that there was fraud but in re-reading that > particular post I was unable to read of any specific evidence documenting > such an assertion. Using www.dejanews.com you can find many postings under "NO vote campaign" that I believe will document my accusation of voter fraud.... > > With all due respect to all concerned, it would appear that this > particular individual is demanding that everyone halt all activities and > heed his declarations, his opinions and accord him wondrous status of > knowledge and that we accept his statement of censorship (self-defined) > and fraud and intolerance. You, like others, continue to attempt to present me as an isolated, aberrant individual with an unjust axe to grind. I believe that is tantamount to character assassination and very old and tiresome strategem for anyone who has followed the discussion all along these several months. I am not alone in believing censorship exists on soc.religion.bahai. Why do you and others continue to insist otherwise? > > I must apologize that I haven't been in his particular country for as many > years as he has, nor do I have the bounty of his vast education and > attainments, HOWEVER, many of the Baha'i's I have met in this country and > others have not been intolerant nor do they claim others are when a vote > goes against them. I find it interesting that the moderators permit you to sarcastically attack and insult me in very personal terms but routinely reject much milder posts from myself and other Bahais and non-Bahais. I believe it is unfair and inconsistent of them and that they owe me an apology, as you do, and the decency of this response.... I respond above to the "intolerant" allegation. > > Over the years I have met many Baha'i's who strive to submerge the ego > that they might serve others... for some it is an easier contest than for > others. Few wish to be so embroiled in battles and contests as to have > little energy for personal transformation that will help their > communities. THUS, I find myself at a loss to understand the statement > that, even in this alleged instance, so many Baha'i's were intolerant --- > as defined by F. Glaysher within the parameters of a proposal being > defeated. Again, with all respect, you are ignoring what UseNet voting guidelines are and that they were ignored and abused by many Bahais.... Instead, you are in the above passage, I believe, blaming the victim of injustice and censorship and you seem to be intimating I'm a megalomaniac in the maw of my ego.... Unfair, I believe. > > I lack the vast experience F. Glaysher must have so I can not make the > comments he has regarding others, but perhaps we might all practice > something I learned from two wonderful Baha'i ladies in Columbus, Ohio ( > Olivia Kelsey and Emily Chavez ) who stated that if I managed to keep my > mouth shut and my eyes open and my ears attentive, then perhaps I might > learn something --- and especially, learn how good others are. Your opening sentence seems quite derisive to me. The rest of the passage is irrelevant to the censorship issue. > > There is not a day that goes by that I surely could take that injunction > to heart more and more: and especially when trying to learn some of the > foundations of patience and courtesy and submerging ego to serve others so > I might learn something of the Baha'i Faith. Does the Bahai Faith support, stand for, and encourage censorship? That is the question.... Many have said YES. Many have experienced it. The first vote for talk.religion.bahai proved for most fair-minded observers. The next vote approaches come late September. You and other Bahais will have the opportunity once again to live up to the high ideals of the Bahai Writings on liberty and freedom of religious conscience.... -- 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 - Wed Aug 20 11:16:44 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 07:18:49 1997 Received: (qmail 7338 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 14:18:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 14:18:46 -0000 Message-ID: <33FAFD1B.3E43@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:20:11 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) References: <"M4A2tD.A._CF.CQe-z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8086 Mac0000013 wrote: [clip] > Greetings; > > Whoever this F. Glaysher is, he makes some assumptions which appear not to > be proven. > > He appears to claim, without evidence, that there is censorship in > regards to talk.religion.bahai ---- he then claims that the majority of > the Baha'i's are intolerant, as when he claims that "...both were crushed > by the intolerant Baha'i majority." I and others have posted numerous censored messages to alt.religion.bahai as evidence. They may be found on www.dejanews.com by searching for "SRB Censored" from January 1, 1997 to the present under talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai. Well over 30 other people have stated they have been censored and their messages too may be found on www.dejanews.com. In terms of an "intolerant Bahai majority," I am clearly referring to the 691 majority who voted NO for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai--in clear excess of what usually takes place on UseNet where technical NO votes are the only legitimate ones.... > > Before addressing some other issues, if I remember correctly, the > moderators have explained the policy of the newsgroup. If one wishes to > engage in the flame wars, the catcalling, the ad homin. attacks far too > prevalent in other newsgroups, then one's posting is returned with a > comment as to where one may wish to employ some degree of courtesy. One > is then free to resubmit the posting: a posting that should be on topic, > address the issues, and not make personal attacks. This neglects that many people have stated their posts were innocuous and relevant to discussion. An umoderated Big 8 newsgroup on the Bahai Faith would provide a place where people can discuss it with confidence that no one is suppressing their opinions. Soc.religion.bahai has lost its credibility for good reasons. > > ALSO, I believe that there was this particular individual quite loudly > declaring that there was "trouble in RiverCity" and demanding a vote be > taken. The vote was taken. The proposal was defeated: I believe that > under two hundred voted for it and more than five or six hundred voted > against it... Rather than abide by the decision and accept the outcome, > within a short time, a newsgroup was formed by this same person. All of the above is based on misperception and misunderstanding of the UseNet voting guidelines. First of all it's an interest poll. If 100+ people are interested in forming a newsgroup, they should be allowed to do so on any topic they choose. No ideological reasons are valid. NO votes should only be cast for technical reasons, i.e., the proposed group is in the wrong hierarchy of UseNet, which was not a problem with talk.religion.bahai, it was definitely in the right one, the talk.* hierarchy. I did not form alt.religion.bahai. A member of the UseNet Volunteer Votetakers did. I believe he did because he perceived the manifest injustice of what Bahais did.... > > Perhaps I am mistaken by there was a vote, the vote went against the > person, and the person then implemented a Newsgroup meeting the parameters > of his particular wishes and that Newsgroup was not, to my limited > knowledge, opposed by any one of the establishment. Alt.religion.bahai does not meet the parameters of what 157 YES votes wanted: a Big 8 unmoderated newsgroup, open and highly accessible by all.... > > And now this individual claims that there is censorship when he is still > touting his statements publicly upon his own little Newsgroup and in this > newsgroup? I am not the only person making that claim. I am surprised, somewhat, that you and others are still claiming that to be the case. Please read the record via www.dejanews.com where you'll find many people saying so.... > > At the same time this person now claims that 157 people were suppressed > --- not, I hope, as has been done in Cambodia, or in parts of South > America---- and he now claims that there was fraud but in re-reading that > particular post I was unable to read of any specific evidence documenting > such an assertion. Using www.dejanews.com you can find many postings under "NO vote campaign" that I believe will document my accusation of voter fraud.... > > With all due respect to all concerned, it would appear that this > particular individual is demanding that everyone halt all activities and > heed his declarations, his opinions and accord him wondrous status of > knowledge and that we accept his statement of censorship (self-defined) > and fraud and intolerance. You, like others, continue to attempt to present me as an isolated, aberrant individual with an unjust axe to grind. I believe that is tantamount to character assassination and very old and tiresome strategem for anyone who has followed the discussion all along these several months. I am not alone in believing censorship exists on soc.religion.bahai. Why do you and others continue to insist otherwise? > > I must apologize that I haven't been in his particular country for as many > years as he has, nor do I have the bounty of his vast education and > attainments, HOWEVER, many of the Baha'i's I have met in this country and > others have not been intolerant nor do they claim others are when a vote > goes against them. I find it interesting that the moderators permit you to sarcastically attack and insult me in very personal terms but routinely reject much milder posts from myself and other Bahais and non-Bahais. I believe it is unfair and inconsistent of them and that they owe me an apology, as you do, and the decency of this response.... I respond above to the "intolerant" allegation. > > Over the years I have met many Baha'i's who strive to submerge the ego > that they might serve others... for some it is an easier contest than for > others. Few wish to be so embroiled in battles and contests as to have > little energy for personal transformation that will help their > communities. THUS, I find myself at a loss to understand the statement > that, even in this alleged instance, so many Baha'i's were intolerant --- > as defined by F. Glaysher within the parameters of a proposal being > defeated. Again, with all respect, you are ignoring what UseNet voting guidelines are and that they were ignored and abused by many Bahais.... Instead, you are in the above passage, I believe, blaming the victim of injustice and censorship and you seem to be intimating I'm a megalomaniac in the maw of my ego.... Unfair, I believe. > > I lack the vast experience F. Glaysher must have so I can not make the > comments he has regarding others, but perhaps we might all practice > something I learned from two wonderful Baha'i ladies in Columbus, Ohio ( > Olivia Kelsey and Emily Chavez ) who stated that if I managed to keep my > mouth shut and my eyes open and my ears attentive, then perhaps I might > learn something --- and especially, learn how good others are. Your opening sentence seems quite derisive to me. The rest of the passage is irrelevant to the censorship issue. > > There is not a day that goes by that I surely could take that injunction > to heart more and more: and especially when trying to learn some of the > foundations of patience and courtesy and submerging ego to serve others so > I might learn something of the Baha'i Faith. Does the Bahai Faith support, stand for, and encourage censorship? That is the question.... Many have said YES. Many have experienced it. The first vote for talk.religion.bahai proved for most fair-minded observers. The next vote approaches come late September. You and other Bahais will have the opportunity once again to live up to the high ideals of the Bahai Writings on liberty and freedom of religious conscience.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on