From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:58 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 1 03:47:59 1997 Received: (qmail 7272 invoked from network); 1 Jul 1997 10:47:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 1997 10:47:57 -0000 Message-ID: <33B8E0B5.826@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:49:25 -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: The Baha'i Faith References: <19970618045000.AAA11977@ladder02.news.aol.com> <866643217.5494@dejanews.com> <01bc7bf8$44158c60$7044c280@nader.tamu.edu> <866666093.28553@dejanews.com> <01bc7c38$7e420540$7044c280@nader.tamu.edu> <5oeofp$cn0$1@orthanc.reference.com> <01bc7f2c$347e1ce0$a5e893cf@oemcomputer> <867173093.29149@dejanews.com> <01bc80e6$53cb5840$7cda169d@afshar.sfsymphony.org> <33B4ECD7.2F66@hotmail.com> <33b54269.294088@news.online.no> <33B632B9.56F2@hotmail.com> <867716274.3061@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5719 webmaster@iranvision.com wrote: > > In article <33B632B9.56F2@hotmail.com>, > FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > Hallaj wrote: > > > > har dam az in bAq bari miresad > > > tAzeh tar az tAzeh tari miresad. > > > > > > If we suppose you are right. I mean if really Iranian Baha'is have no > > > tolerance for any opposing view, then what type of religion is this? > > > If we suppose the Baha'i faith as the latest religion which claims to > > > be forefront of humanitarian efforts, the religion of modern age and > > > so on it should have enough strength to learn it's followers to be > > > tolerants. But according to you it has failed when it concerns it's > > > founders and first followers. > > > > > > You dislike Iranians and it gets a racistic form sometimes. One > > > example is this. You say to be Persian is synonymous with being > > > intolerant. Where have you learned to think like this? In Baha'i > > > school? Is racism the message of your religion? > > > > From 20 years of observing Iranian Bahais operate.... Yes, it's > > the same in Bahai "schools" too.... Worse, umitigated > > indoctrination and propaganda are force-fed in those "noble" > > institutions.... I long ago decided, as many Bahais have, never > > to take my sons anywhere near one of them.... Racism is the > > message implicit in the thinking and "teaching" of the Iranian > > Bahais.... It's inescapable to conclude otherwise, in my > > opinion. I myself don't feel racism against the culture itself, > > in a sense, but do not admire its penchant towards oppression > > and coercion of others.... i.e., profound lack of respect for > > freedom of religious conscience and individual liberty.... > > > > > > > > You claim Iranian Bahai's are intolerants because they are Persians. > > > Needless to say that this sentence of yours shows how ignorant you are > > > when it concerns Iran. Iran is a land with several different > > > ethnicities. Iranian Baha'is come from different parts of the country > > > and therefore not all of them are persians. But again if we suppose > > > you are right. I mean if being persian hinders one to be tolerant then > > > conclusion is that my great ethnicity (Persian) is stronger than > > > Baha'i faith. Thanks. > > > > Personally, I wouldn't conclude that either, having followed the news > > these many years since spending a year of my life studying Farsi back > > in 1979-1980.... > > > > > > > > Hallaj > > > > > > Persian and tolerant > > > > -- > > Frederick Glaysher > > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > Dear Mr. Glaysher; > > Did it ever occur to you that Iranian Bahais are intolerable of > opposition and discussions against Bahaism because they are "Bahais" and > not because they are "Iranian"? I mean a simple examination of posting by > Bahais (none-Iranian) and Non-Bahai Iranians revealed to me that Iranians > in general are open minded and very tolerant people. On SCI for instance, > with exception of few, most Iranians have responded in a tolerable and > clever fassion to postings full of hatred and nonesense against Iranians. > On the other hand when I look at Bahai postings, Iranina and none > Iranian, I come to a conclusion that they are intolerable of any > criticism in general, if not impolite and rude at times. > > Take Mr. Afrashteh's postings for instance. He is an Iranian, whose site > examines Bahai claims in a fair and polite fassion. He has given an > enlightning prespective regarding Bahai faith and history in his site. > While similra sites of Bahais are usually leaflet-like propaganda. Mr. > Afrashteh's responses to insults and labellings against him on SCI by > Bahais has been commendable, while Bahais (of Iranian and none Iranian > origin) have used every method including threats, death wishes, insults > and labelling to rid of him. Mr. Afrashteh is an Iranian, as obvious by > the name. > > Now tell me this. Is it not that the intollerance by Iranian-Bahais is > result of their Bahai side and not Iranian side? After all it was mainly > non-Iranian and Iranian Bahais who stood against a free unmoderated Bahai > newsgroup, not "Iranians" right? I would say it's both.... I can't say for sure how many Muslims, Iranians or otherwise, voted against talk.religion.bahai I do believe at least some did. I assume the majority of NO votes were from Bahais, a very large number of whom were Iranian Bahais.... > > It is easy to point a finger at others, and Iranians in particular and > blame all your problems on them. The facts is, that Bahaism, is a cult > with failed ideas and it stems from itself and not from Iran. Some Bahai "ideas" are failed ones.... Mostly the Iranian side of the religion, as I have experienced it.... What's failed is the Iranian revolution and it's reversion to medieval Islam.... All the world, really, thinks so.... > > 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 - Sun Jun 29 05:50:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Jun 28 04:00:04 1997 Received: (qmail 21008 invoked from network); 28 Jun 1997 11:00:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 1997 11:00:03 -0000 Message-ID: <33B4EF08.508A@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:01:28 -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,alt.religion.islam,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The Baha'i Faith References: <01bc7b03$83d7af40$0599f7cc@default> <866573006.22672@dejanews.com> <01bc7bf7$680492c0$7044c280@nader.tamu.edu> <866671808.900@dejanews.com> <01bc7c3a$07bceaa0$7044c280@nader.tamu.edu> <867104560.11796@dejanews.com> <01bc80b1$945e3560$7044c280@nader.tamu.edu> <33B19B87.41C6@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 798 reza wrote: > [clip] > * I belive all religions are man-made. Looking back at the history of > man(most recently in IRAN); we killed and commited crime in the name of > God and religion. > Let a beliver to belive what ever he/she wants to belive as long as > that person does not harm any body else. Permit me to quote Thomas Jefferson: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are seventy gods, or no god. . . . Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal. . . . > > RezaKhan Words, not a sword or crime, was Baha'u'llah's counsel too.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Jun 29 07:07:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jun 29 03:14:52 1997 Received: (qmail 3687 invoked from network); 29 Jun 1997 10:14:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Jun 1997 10:14:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33B635E6.7429@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 06:16:06 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The Baha'i Faith References: <867104560.11796@dejanews.com> <33bb7a95.17250621@newsfull.abq.com> <5p1dnq$r8s@smash.gatech.edu> <33B4EF08.508A@hotmail.com> <5p3i4f$jae$1@news2.i-2000.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3026 Harry Duran wrote: > > In article <33B4EF08.508A@hotmail.com> Frederick Glaysher, > FG@hotmail.com writes: > >> > >> RezaKhan > > > >Words, not a sword or crime, was Baha'u'llah's counsel > >too.... > > > >-- > >Frederick Glaysher > >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > Yes, but these were not the words of the Bab, otherwise why would > Bahaullah, in the Kitab i Aqdas, have "abrogated" the call for jihad and > for the destruction of texts among Babis? Yes, you're the Bab, in his fanaticism, supported both.... A fact carefully concealed by many Bahais.... > > This is an issue which has not been adequately addressed. Among Bahais, > the tendency to gloss over such inconsistencies is apparent in any > serious discussion. Nevertheless, the same insurrectionist Babis are > regarded as heroes in the Bahai religion are they not? Not by me.... I've always found them revolting.... > > In the Bahai hagiographies and histories, the Shah and "persians" of the > time, as well as muslims are vilified, regarded as blind and following > "vain imaginings" when in fact they were trying to maintain social order > in the face of a cultish upheaval.The fact remains that there was > violence among Babis themselves as well as among the early Bahais. Why > was the family split up sending the party of Azalis to Cyprus and the > party of Bahaullah to Palestine, if not for violence in Edirne? Or am I > wrong? This I know nothing about. Perhaps someone else by shed a little light here. I do agree there is a more complicated situation in early Babi history than allowed in the propaganda.... I too have at times thought what else could the shah and authorities have done.... > > Both sides of the issue have not been investigated. Bahais don't investigate both sides of any issue--only one, and then manipulate and control all information about it in order to call it the truth.... > > How do we really know that Bahaullah was not acting in an incitatory > manner? I don't know what you mean here or are alluding to. Could you expand on your thought here a little more.... > Those who asked this question in the past were labeled "covenant > breakers" and ultimately silenced. This silence speaks volumes about the > advocacy of "independent investigation of the truth" by Bahais. Again, I've been kept in the dark, perhaps.... I do agree that the "independent" investigation of truth is often a fraud in Bahai circles.... > > Yes, open investigation of the truth but please answer the hard questions > too. It is not enough to rely upon exhortations and lamentations by "this > Wronged One" to substantiate his claims. Like Clara Peller, I ask > "where's the beef?" Where's the beef when it comes to Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, etc.... How do we weigh it? I think, too, with Baha'u'llah, there's a more complicated reality that you neglect.... > > HLD -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Aug 14 09:30:19 1997 >From sundayw@aol.com Wed Aug 13 05:57:03 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id IAA16727 for FG@hotmail.com; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:57:02 -0400 (EDT) From: SundayW@aol.com Message-ID: <970813085701_754976923@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: question for you X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1016 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. 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. 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. From - Tue Jun 24 07:51:24 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Tue Jun 24 04:46:59 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA12960; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:46:54 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: Question of Schism Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 07:48:14 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 76 Message-ID: <33AFB3FE.4F4@hotmail.com> References: <"9rnJrD.A.87C._-6nz"@bounty> <5ogoim$4e6@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: 0014 Content-Length: 3117 Anne Furlong wrote: [clip] > Within the Baha'i community, there are indeed many varieties of thoughts - > what there are not, in fact, are "schools". Let me explain. > [clip] > However, a "school" means that a group of people has collected around one > opinion or variety of thought. This is contrary to the Baha'i Faith in > many ways, not the least being that it immediately contravenes the > responsibility of each individual to investigate truth for himself. > Baha'u'llah links this search with justice itself - the "best beloved of > all things" in His sight, through which we will see with our own eyes and > think with our own minds, and not through the eyes and with the minds of > others. It seems to me that a "school" has indeed developed, historically, in the Bahai Faith.... the school of Iranian interpretation of the Bahai Writings.... And perhaps another "school" exists as well, conflated oddly with the former.... A largely liberal, progressive old school party that merely regurgitates prevailing pieties in secular liberal circles.... The upshot of both schools is stasis and boredom, nay, indeed, atrophy, spiritual and intellectual, within the Bahai Faith.... > > Furthermore, a school must inevitably have a leader, and again such a > concept is utterly contrary to the Baha'i Faith. Authority in the Faith > is given, not to individuals, but to institutions, on which individuals > serve both selflessly and to the best of their individual capacities. As > you can see, the very notion of "schools" of thought is repugnant to the > spirit and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. This argument has become mere rhetoric.... Institutions are composed of individuals who consciously or unconsciously express and exert their understanding.... [clip] > And how did it come about? Through two very simple, and apparently > harmless processes: the formation of "schools" of followers clustering > around the opinions and ideas of another, and through the failure to > adhere to the teachings of the Prophet. Religious history is full of the well-intention servants of truth going awry.... Alas, human experience.... The oppressed become the oppressors.... > > In the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, we have been promised that the unity > of His Faith will never be divided in this manner - while at the same > time, diversity of thought and opinion will be cherished and protected as > never before in religious history. This diversity among the believers is > necessary so that we may see truth in all its fullness; but it can only be > channelled if we are at the same time perfectly faithful to the teachings > and laws of Baha'u'llah. "Cherished and protected": It simply hasn't happened yet, and I'm not convinced that it ever will, in this religion.... "Perfectly": in whose opinion, yours, or Iranian Bahai school of interpreting the Bahai Faith? [clip] > All the best, > > Anne Furlong > afurlong@ganymede.cs.mun.ca > St John's Newfoundland Canada -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Aug 19 08:59:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 19 05:09:51 1997 Received: (qmail 29001 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1997 12:08:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 1997 12:08:13 -0000 Message-ID: <33F98D10.48BD@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:09:52 -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,news.admin.censorship,news.groups CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Questions for Fredrick Glaysher References: <5t9suc$hp1$2@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3622 Guy Macon wrote: > > Fredrick, I raised some questions aboutyour intended path lat week, > and you never answered me. I am trying to help you. I suspect that > you are about to repeat past mistakes, that you are about to be once > again defeated by your own behavior, and that once again you will blame > others for a defeat that you caused. Please answer these questions: I never saw a post from you last week.... > > In article <33F313EA.6EEA@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > alt.religion.bahai > talk.religion.misc > news.admin.censorship ( bogus newsgroup - does not exist on most servers ) > news.admin.net-abuse.misc ( about net abuse, not usenet vote abuse ) > news.admin.misc ( for newsadmins, not about votetaking ) > soc.culture.iranian ( about a natioality (iranian) not a religion. ) > soc.culture,israel ( at least learn the difference between "," and "."! ) > soc.rights.human (about REAL human rights issues, not usenet disputes. ) > > Here we go again.... None of the above was written by me.... I did respond a few days ago to a message from Emma Pease that someone above has distorted for their own reasons.... > > WARNING! WARNING! > > The FIRST time you post your fight to soc.religion.quaker, I will > actively campaign againts the newsgroup that you propose, on the > grounds that you do not have the self control to stop spamming all > over the internet despite abundant evidence that doing so hurts > your cause. > > JUST ONCE can we try an honest vote without you generating so much > ill will with your rude crossposting that the proposal is doomed? Well, you want to blame me for the failure of the vote last time and I'm afraid it's more complicated than that.... > > If you can only control yourself enough to keep your posts in > news.groups and alt.religion.bahai, you have an excellent chance > of getting lots of folks like me to vote for your newsgroup just > in case there are a lot of no votes based on trying to shut up > your religious views. Keep up the off-topic crossposting all over > usenet like you did last time, and you *will* get so many enemies > that your newsgroup will not pass. Now I don't believe I'm posting incorrectly to any newsgroups. News.admin.censorship and news.groups, someone this morning states are on topic. Others have thought news.admin.misc and news.admin.net-abuse.misc/usenet were appropriate. I'm open to discussing what newsgroups are the right ones.... > > Look, your shenanegans didn't get you a passing vote last time. > what makes you think that they will work this time? Last time > I ignored you. Do your crosspost/newsgroup flood trick again and > I will be right behind you, generating 'no' votes. And I won't be alone. Well, I don't believe crossposting is necessarily inappropriate. My group-mentor last time suggested a number of newsgroups which I have continued to post to. What's wrong with that? > > This is your chance. Prove that you are a worthy moderator and > not a net abusing, crossposting, trolling, flaming net.kook. I'm not a moderator.... I'm a participant like anyone else.... > > You may not get another chance if you screw up again. > > Don't be stupid. The path you are on leads to certain defeat. I'm open to discussing procedure for getting talk.religion.bahai passed this fall. Any other suggestions? Other than beating up on me? -- 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 11:16:24 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 05:49:43 1997 Received: (qmail 6870 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 12:48:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 12:48:04 -0000 Message-ID: <33FAE7EA.7C66@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:49:46 -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,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Questions for Fredrick Glaysher References: <5t9suc$hp1$2@news01.deltanet.com> <33F98D10.48BD@hotmail.com> <5tciek$p04$3@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3812 Emma Pease wrote: > > In <5tciek$p04$3@news01.deltanet.com> guymacon@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) writes: > > >In article <33F98D10.48BD@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >>I did respond a few days ago to a message from Emma Pease that someone > >>above has distorted for their own reasons.... > > >Don't crosspost off-topic articles even when replying to someone > >else who does crosspost off-topic articles. It still makes people mad. > > >Alas, Pease is incorrect about what is on-topic for various groups. > > Well I never claimed to be perfect. Note that my original message > said possibly legit (taking a very broad definition of legit). Also > the other half of my message which Mr. Glaysher has ignored is to > state that any discussion should be held in ONE group only. I'm not trying to ignore it. I'm trying to figure out what it is you think I'm ignoring.... "Discussion should be held in ONE group only": that doesn't make any sense in this context because the matter of soc.religion.bahai definitely transcends more than one newsgroup. Many Muslims from soc.religion.iranian and elsewhere have expressed their experience of censorship there for instance. Many others on alt.religion.bahai have too. Talk.religion.misc makes sense from the scope of its readers' religious background. So to isolate discussion on only news.admin.censorship would miss much of the concerned and interested parties. > > >news.admin.censorship DOESN'T EXIST! > > It does exist at Stanford so I assumed it was legit (especially since > Russ Allbery has just done a major overhaul of our newsgroups). > > news.admin.censorship Censorship issues in news administration. > > So I double checked in the usenet archives > > On 13 Oct 1995 > unmoderated group news.admin.censorship passes 213:30 Notice that voting score! talk.religion.bahai was defeated 157: 691.... Obviously for ideological, not technical, reasons. > > Given that news.admin.censorship exists, it is the appropriate place to > discuss accusations of censorship. I agree that it's one of the appropriate places in this case. > > During the RFD/CFV time (but not before) it may also be appropriate to > discuss in news.groups. I agree with that too. > > Note to Mr. Glaysher, > > Continually repeating your accusations in all and sundry news groups > is likely to cause people to put you in kill files or even worst from > your point of view to vote against any news group you want. One > suggestion might be is to set up a web page with the full information > supporting your allegations then just point people who read your posts > to that web page (you could even do this in your signature in posts > that are addressing other issues). If your opponents are breaking the > rules, don't descend to their level. You win points (and votes) if > you are seen to be following the rules when others are not. Setting up a web page is technically more than I can do.... I have repeatedly pointed people to the archives of past discussion on www.dejanews.com, often even specifying what to look for and how. Anyone else out there capable of setting up a web page? I believe I followed all the rules last time as far as I knew them. It's not my intention to violate them. Where are they written down so that I can read them and know what they are? I mean that as a serious question and appreciate your help and advice, Emma. > > Emma > -- > \---- > |\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster > |_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht -- 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 08:43:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 05:18:03 1997 Received: (qmail 15685 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 12:18:01 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 12:18:01 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC325E.3480@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:19:42 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Questions for Fredrick Glaysher References: <5t9suc$hp1$2@news01.deltanet.com> <33F98D10.48BD@hotmail.com> <5tciek$p04$3@news01.deltanet.com> <33FAE7EA.7C66@hotmail.com> <5tggjn$4ma$1@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3304 Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <33FAE7EA.7C66@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >I'm not trying to ignore it. I'm trying to figure out what it > >is you think I'm ignoring.... "Discussion should be held in > >ONE group only": that doesn't make any sense in this context > >because the matter of soc.religion.bahai definitely transcends > >more than one newsgroup. Many Muslims from soc.religion.iranian > >and elsewhere have expressed their experience of censorship > >there for instance. Many others on alt.religion.bahai have too. > >Talk.religion.misc makes sense from the scope of its readers' > >religious background. So to isolate discussion on only > >news.admin.censorship would miss much of the concerned and > >interested parties. > > O.K. I give up. I can't convince you that crossposting makes > people angry at you. Post after post from angry people does not > convince you that crossposting makes people angry at you. Fine. > All I can do is to sit back and watch as your crossposting makes > so many more people angry that you will lose by a wider margin > this time. Sigh. I really wanted to see your newgroup created. > I really thought that there was a place for such a newsgroup. > I guess that it's not to be though. I can't see any way, given > the amount of folks who will vote no because of *your* behavior. You're being quite unfair. I explained why each newsgroup I've posted to makes sense; I explained why I posted to the Quaker one in the past and you some Quakers felt it was all right; I did not suggest I was going to post there again; and yet you respond back with a really nasty attitude throughout this message.... > > All I can offer you is this: you have my personal promise that the > very first time you decide in your own wisdom that my favorite > newsgroup is also a fine place to post your stuff, I will personally > start campaining for NO votes on your proposal. Do I make myself > clear? I don't like your crossposting. Do it in soc.religion.quaker > like you did last time, and I will try to generate as many NO votes > as I can while still following the rules spelled out in news.groups. Again, you're ignoring the fact that some Quakers WERE interested in what was going on. You don't owned soc.religion.quaker.... Who appointed you to speak for it? What's your problem? Did you used to be a Bahai? > > Have a nice meltdown, Fredrick. It looks like bahais who want to > post without the control imposed by the srb moderators will have > to wait until you dry up and blow away, and some nice bahai fellow > who has the brains to listen to public opinion floats a proposal. It sounds to me like you're the one so hot under the collar you're about to melt down.... You're the one doing all the attacking here.... > > Sad, really. I really do think that you could have suceeded. Be fair, would you. I asked you for help and tried to explain my reasoning. You've clipped most of that message and ignored it. I haven't posted to soc.religion.quaker in more than four or five months for heaven's sake.... -- 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 10 06:26:27 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 05:05:03 1997 Received: (qmail 10429 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1997 12:04:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 1997 12:04:59 -0000 Message-ID: <33C37EC1.74B3@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 08:06:25 -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, peterjensen314@hotmail.com Subject: Re "commentary" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 18384 j bau wrote: > > Fred, if I may call you that. > I sympathize with your running commentary on Usenet, and agree with > most(about 95%) of it. It is not necessarily the Persians' fault that > things in the Faith could be a lot better, but then when they used to > put forth Farsi as world aux lang, they were begging for criticism. > I've enough experience with other cultures, that, in your case > (American), your culture might give you a blind spot, in the sense most > Americans think they're the best, and after WWII to about 1990, very few > in the world would disagree with Americans, save maybe the French. > By the way, I know the UHJ address is wrong. > > It is not necessarily the Persian's "fault", in the sense that most > Baha'is have some responsibility for present screw-ups, you included. > While a case for their having greater responsibility if you consider > they're supposed to know all about Baha'i and have been Baha'i longer > than anyone else exists. Then, so too most US Baha'is will go around > claiming to know all about the Faith, and the Covenant, too. They're > not responsible for everything. > > I look at it(having been Baha'i about as long as you have), if the > Faith isn't doing much, then certainly the NSA-US for one, and you for > another, can continue doing whatever you do. You get to complain. So > too, others and Persians doing whatever they do. In that respect NSA-US > is not competent either, nor for that matter, UHJ. The question is what > exactly do you do, different and better than whatever NSA-US, your LSA, > the various Institutions or Persians do? Consider: You fail to understand what I'm doing.... > > Yes, I'd noticed the Baha'i system has some problems. No, the Faith > is not corrupt, nor generally are the Baha'is or IN faithless, BUT there > are enough screw ups, perhaps to the mass of unbiased non-Baha'is might > agree it looks like something's wrong, And possibly there might be a > handful corrupt. The issue I see, is a matter of justice. Let's say > there is some corrupt or damned Baha'i being wrong or even > Covenant-Breaking, what to do? One of my disagreements with the > Institutions was the Writings clearly say the Guardian(in whose absence > the House) decides what is CB, yet large numbers of believers going > around saying "That's CB!", which is the disobedience of (basically) > Rulers(more often Assemblies). That expected on declaration, no > surprise there of Baha'i proclivities(deciding what's Baha'i is > perogative of Assemblies). But as Baha'is have a definition of CB, then > should not the House decide the various Assemblies disobey and are > therefore CB if not damned? None too lucid, I fear.... > > I agree trb/arb has a certain utility, and expected 300-400 "no" > votes. Mark Towfigh for example is more typical of a more competent > Baha'i Youth(one more average Youth loudly proclaimed "Baha'u'llah is So > Holy, that He Never Had Sex!" as in Abdul'Baha was of Immaculate > Conception?) Whether or not NSA-Iceland or someone using their > address/name to vote "no", is kinda immaterial since the Assembly has > sovereign rights. The Faith has been encouraging Assemblies to > demonstrate initiative(only more recently has(I was told) the House > "liberalize" enough that Assemblies are supposed to let individuals go > out and do things(like teach), without "Permission"). The only thing > you can do about NSA-Iceland(and questionable whether khosher or a good > idea) to prevent future Assemblies from doing so again, is to go be an > Icelander; ask whether some idiot did something wrong, or ask the House, > your Assembly(N/LSA) or NSA-Iceland what the hell happened? And if your > NSA acts as others I've dealt with, at best you'll get some guidance on > the rights of a Ruler(and most likely, answer: "sovereignty"). > > While 600 "no" votes was a bit high, it was plausible, since if > Baha'i are the meek who will inherit the earth, more Baha'is are going > to "lurk" than normal. The meek can be as "fanatic" as anyone else! I > never expected(contrary to popular representation) that Baha'is, or you > for that matter, are so bahai as not to do something really stupid as > Mark did. It is very possible that was Mark's only lifetime royal > screwup, since he certainly wasn't such an idiot when he lived at home. > > Sure, you have the right to do whatever you do, and someone ought to, > if only to demonstrate a variety of Baha'i views(or to be more crass, to > see if/when/how some Ruler removes Your rights). I studied Communism > for about a decade(probably better than deepening on Baha'i, since I > don't really care about most traditional Baha'i forms, my declaration > had not much to do with most of the Writings cited for deepening. the CB > Remey arguments as rational as Shi'i or Ahmaddiya). I am surprised your > arguments for Persian whatever, that you don't bother quoting > Baha'u'llah or Ruhiyyih Khanum of how bad Persians are. Since you have some choice words in mind, please post them for us all to learn from.... > Paraphrasing the Hand Furutan: Communism is just like the Faith, > except for the secret ballot and belief in God. Or if you like, > Baha'is aren't competent enough to be fascists(nor racist enough to be > Nazis. The Faith is probably communistic in that the Books' ideal > society is communal. When Persians speak of apres-vous at a stop sign? > only under communism could Baha'is spend all day encouraging the other > to proceed first. > > Certainly there's a lot to criticize Persians for, were Americans > that obedient, there'd be a helluva lot more Baha'is in America, too. Oh yeah, sure.... > Persians esp. in Iran have periodic pograms ie martyrdoms; Baha'u'llah > changing the Babis, Told them not to go out to get themselves killed, > their behavior Eastern, to a large extent. If the tradition for a > millennium was to prepare that horse, the white one for the Imam, to > ride out to death and glory, and your Lord spends about a generation > telling you not to get yourself killed, your behavior is going to > change. I'd also note a bunch of Jews and Zoroastrians also became > Baha'i, and you are aware only half the Iranians are Persian? > > Yes, Persians in general have some problems, but probably not all > Persians that screwed up, though there appeared to be a few willing to > attack you in order to preserve the Faith. I've hung around some Shi'i > and Iranians, there is a distinct difference between Baha'i and those > who aren't. And if you haven't noticed, most US Baha'i behavior is not > typically American; well, no alcohol or sex. I've known Iranian Bahais who indulged, heavily, in both, and then attended Feast.... Let's not idealize.... (Persians, esp. recently > from Iran, can speak of how dangerous it is, teaching) What's the US > reason not to go out and Teach? You have heard(used?) excuses not to? > And if y'all not teaching, that gives plenty of time to do other things; > for Assemblies, Administering. > > I've heard of some Baha'is detached of material problems. Very > spiritual; but there are some material problems besides meeting material > goals, money appears to be half the Assemblies' concern. My view is, > most Rulers are immersed in Administration, focused on Funds, ignor what > is essential to bringing in large numbers. And guess who gets to pay > for most of it, when there aren't large numbers? The issue isn't really > money, rather doing the impossible; as the House Writes, it would be a > good idea to get more numbers. > > The Dialogue/Talisman fiasco(problem) some had their rights removed. > As far as I've heard NSA-US at least learned not to remove your rights > given their earlier fiasco. It appears at worse formally some Learned > didn't communicate with you well; then half of that is your fault, isn't > it? I wouldn't bother saying "grow up", since there are a lot of > Baha'is(now and in times to come) out there less mature than you, and > someone gets to be the "goat" that the Rulers, community get to learn > how to deal with varieties of situations, better you than me. >From "where" did you "hear" that? It's more complex than you realize.... > > We look at it from other perspectives. Since y'all aren't doing > much, even if the American Baha'i community has improved(has any Ruler > suggested your Breaking the Covenant?), the problem is not what the > Faith/Baha'is now do, rather what can or should be done. Yes, trb or > arb, a good idea. Certainly when srb edits/reviews/censors posts, the > trend is toward censorship and existence of Usenet/Internet should not > support that, but when a not very Baha'i/disagreeable post occurs, > should not you or other Baha'is in good standing be able to defend or > mitigate opposing posts? In that sense I agree that srb is probably > censoring, if not now, eventually. Their issue is not their right to > censor, rather the quality of the site. And more recently, in part > thanks to you, sci is more vocal than srb, congrads. > > Is any of this a problem? not really. When I declared I hypothesized > a "Baha'i Letter" where the primary reason believers don't communicate > to Haifa much, that doing so is supposed to write baha'i. Talisman is > also supposed to have simular communication problems. Over the long run > in terms of generations or centuries these problems are growing pains, > experience for believers and Institutions, and a pain in the butt for > those who get to experience being on the receiving end of > Administration. If there is any consolation, your experiences is as > much as result of the American Faith as the Persian, your ability is as > much testing to the Institutions as it is to yourself. The analogy is > of those Baha'is who pray for tests, tend do something like suicide on > receiving them, you create most of your problems(I'd say Mark and the > other coupla Persians assisting). Yes, someone should in order that > Assemblies (usually)get to be tested and not just business as usual > Administration. I'd suggest you ignor the few who flame you whom I > haven't seen for a while. If your objective is to promote arb, then > everytime you answer a commentary, raise 2 new controversial(topics srb > wouldn't ever bother discussing; besides women on the House or > homosexuals). Baha'is claiming to be competent usually take 2 yrs to > get around to changing. be patient. > > My opinion is the Faith is barely mature enough to defend its > positions against Islam(though I might be wrong, since there are > allegedly Eastern Baha'is who know more than I've heard), let alone the > Remey CB, or in the US against Christians. In that sense, many Baha'is > come across as fanatics, however about half your material does too, even > if your rationale is as good as those you are opposing. The srb > "censorship" is already coming to a head, when you consider the amount > of messages related to the numbers of reviewers reviewing, that issue is > as Ruler claims to the efficacy of Administering with regard to teaching > or enrollments, who are they kidding(no or little declarations, not much > need for those Administering)? Though I'm not expecting srb to > eliminate review for at least 3-5 years(in favor of a quick scan of the > posts), and a decade to generation before total lack of review. > > I would suggest you review what is your objective relative to what > you want to do. Some Baha'is who would agree with you, quit trying to > change which is also not good. While there is propaganda in the Faith > which effectively the Guardian Wrote and probably the House and other > Write, and there isn't really such a thing as Baha'i Culture(since there > isn't much of a Baha'i Civilization ie not enough "numbers" or society > for any of it to exist), then there's also not much Baha'i Art either. > There is such a thing as Baha'i art/baha'i art, and Rulers can decide > whether something isn't Baha'i Art. Certainly much of it is propaganda, > but is that also not the case for much or most of Muslim/Christian/etc > Art, not to mention advertisements? You are aware most, if not all > Baha'is do whatever in their belief of serving the Faith or obeying > their Lord? Using Christian(Western) logic, if you are not > "saved"(Baha'i or whatever), then you are damned? right? You, most > Persians and competent Baha'is ought to know the fallacies inherent in > logic, the best one being just before the moment of death you can recant > to save your soul; the Persian one being the guy on his deathbed said > the Guardian was a "whippersnapper"(hence "doomed" to hell) before > dying. > > I'd use the Guardian definition of CB, where so long as you don't > hate the Faith while claiming to be Baha'i, it's not likely you're CB. > On the other hand, claiming to be Baha'i, what are you trying to do, > where quite a few express disparaging remarks? For other than the > couple of assholes, I'd point out most often the majority of Baha'is > will vote against change, are not Baha'is "the meek who will inherit the > earth"? Certain various Institutions have said it's dangerous to teach, > much as trb is also dangerous, since you've committed an aweful lot(and > we're proud you do so), is it not a good idea you make it comfortable > there? Say the CB will post to arb, being not moderated, would you > comment or respond to them?(hell, if more competent Baha'is > don't(Counselors or other Learned), you may as well.) You're being on > the receiving end of attention, srb in effect forbids controversy, can > arb do better(by being so, validates the claim no moderating required.)? > > Your cry might be you're being picked on. I'd note your position is > simular to the typical NSA-Secretary who elected because he's the only > native knowing English(I know one), you grow into being competent. My > criticism of generally Rulers is, the situation sucks, yet everyone > claims they're doing everything right. There is no complaint of what is > done right, much as you're doing doing anything seriously as wrong as > Mark did. Mark shouldn't have posted what he did(I've seen him do some > stupid things, but nothing that idiotic), neither should you merely > answer complaints or not explain your attacks. You can do better. Well, I appreciate the vote of confidence.... > > The more recent Muslim attacks and CB expositions are more in line > with what I'd do, were I trying to attack or persuade the Faith and it's > believers. It is not my goal to attack the Bahai Faith. I've said that before.... There's a Siyyih Housayn?Nasr, probably the most famous > living Siyyid(was a professor at Georgetown and Harvard/Yale) > (Shi'i)edited a book on the expectant millennium which totally ignors > and goes around Babi/Baha'i. That's the cheapest way to attack the > Faith, totally ignor it. > > You are somewhat right to defend yourself, and I'd refer back to > previous post lists, except when something new occurs(as it looks like > you're doing). In essence the complaint ought to center on you being > Baha'i, specifically on how Baha'i you are. Taking Mark as an example , > if he only screwed up royally once, and you get the blunt of it (lucky > you), certainly you get to use him as the example. It would be a better > idea to have more and other examples of Baha'i 'perfidity'. Yes, there > are other examples, and I won't bother giving them to you, how many can > you document in sufficient detail that demonstrate a trend of > questionable Baha'iness? by OWO stds? Our guess is the Faith gets to be > held to higher stds, and indirectly so too are Baha'is. Now socially, > it would be advisable not to expect others of the Faith to be so Baha'i, > with the understanding that you're not held to such high stds(and yes, > some Persians can be more a pain expecting stds non-Persians are > supposed to maintain.) At this point in time and conditions, it might > be a good idea to try doing different things, hopefully competent and > Baha'i that as you do things you do better as time progresses, when the > Faith is still in relative obscurity. In that respect better that Mark > screwed up before, than a couple years from now when Opposition actively > looking for signs of perfidity. Hey, if you're lucky in a couple years > if arb/trb isn't popular, srb will cease reviewing(not likely). > > Eventually I'll get around to emailing this to UHJ. You don't have > permission to do anything but read/reply(ie no quotes/attributions > either). If you had no idea what you were getting into with trb > (congrads on your test), hopefully you learned more about our Faith. Oh I've learnt more about the Bahai Faith, believe me, I've learnt more from the experience.... > What you do Is important, merely you can probably do so better. And > since I don't want to, you have my $.02 worth of support(and not my > vote). Then you're a fraud and a two-faced liar.... No better than those you claim to deplore.... The long view is eventually all Baha'is will be tested as you > were. What is at issue is how the Faith will function as a result of > tests, not necessarily how well you do; merely better for you that you > improve as a result of those tests, hopefully will do better than > getting your reward in heaven. > > While I'm in MI every few years, and my relations have brought me to > Oakland College? it is more likely within a generation to meet at some > Baha'i affair. Good luck, don't let the bastards get you down, don't > let the bedbugs bite either. I consider you one of the bastards if all you can do is ramble and complain, hiding behind your "friendly" advice, and then DO nothing constructive such as voting YES for an uncensored forum.... > > _______________________________________________________ > Get Private Web-Based Email Free https://www.hotmail.com -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:24 1997 >From brentmreed@aol.com Wed Jul 9 11:17:35 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 OAA19550 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 14:17:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 14:17:34 -0400 Message-Id: <19970709181700.OAA13482@ladder02.news.aol.com> Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian To: FG@hotmail.com From: brentmreed@aol.com (BrentMReed) Organization: AOL https://www.aol.com References: <33C37EC1.74B3@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Re "commentary" X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1009 Dear Frederick: You stated: >One of my disagreements with the >> Institutions was the Writings clearly say the Guardian(in whose absence >> the House) decides what is CB, yet large numbers of believers going >> around saying "That's CB!", which is the disobedience of (basically) >> Rulers(more often Assemblies). Please tell me where the Will and Testament gives the Universal House of Justice the authorization to declare someone a Covenant-breaker? Keep in mind that the Will and Testament and The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah: Administrative Section, written by Shoghi Effendi, describe ONLY a Universal House of Justice that has a living appointed Guardian as its permanent executive, and as one of its nine members. Thus, the UHJ always has a Guardian. Visit the Orthodox Baha'i Website to find out what the heterodox Baha'is loyal to the Universal House of Justice are attempting to hide from you: https://www.rt66.com/~obfusa/council.htm From - Thu May 22 19:34:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu May 22 13:47:31 1997 Received: (qmail 2483 invoked from network); 21 May 1997 13:48:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 May 1997 13:48:58 -0000 Message-ID: <3382FD8C.6A9D@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:50:04 -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 "lowborn Christian Woman" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4789 sborndo@pilot.msu.edu wrote: > > On Thu, 15 May 1997 06:01:10 -0600, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > In article <5lci4f$l5s$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, > > Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > > > On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:21:08 -0600 FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > >Fare well, Donald. You've been an interesting voice, more > > > >intelligent than most Bahais who have participated.... > > > > > > Thank you for your conciliatory remarks, but even if I were > > > worthy of the compliment I cannot accept it as it puts others in > > > a negative light. This is a matter of principle about what I > > > have for some time referred to as a "gratuitous remark"-- i.e., > > > something which could just as easily not be said and leave every > > > one better off (e.g., if A says to B "You're doing a great job, > > > much better than C" the negative comparison to C is gratuitous: > > > 1) it does not help B, 2) it may hurt C when it gets back to > > > him/her, 3) if B accepts the remark uncritically, it could be a > > > source of misunderstanding with C, and 4) if B is perceptive, > > > he/she will realize that A could just as easily say the same sort > > > of thing about him/her to someone else later and therefore will > > > trust A less). Gratuitous remarks are not specifically > > > prohibited in the Baha'i Writings as far as I'm aware, but my > > > personal understanding is that they are against the spirit of the > > > teachings and thus try to avoid using them. > > > Shoghi Effendi refers to a non-Bahai someplace as a "low-born > > Christian woman." In the Priceless Pearl, Abdu'l-Baha is > > reported to have called passers-by in the street "gilded dirt." > > Are these gratuitous remarks? I've never said such things.... > Shoghi Effendi was referring to a woman married "under obscure > circumstances" by a Covenant breaker descended from Baha'u'llah. > You can find the reference by searching "lowborn" in the > writings of Shoghi Effendi at: > > https://sunsite.unc.edu/Bahai/TrueSeeker/ > > It does sound almost pejorative, but literally means "born in > low condition or rank." Therefore it could be read as > descriptive in this context. Reading it together with the > brief mention of the circumstances of the marriage, one might > also wonder if the Guardian is in this way avoiding saying > worse? Limp justification of a nasty, gratuitous, embittered remark.... It also reveals quite well, for lack of a better word, the "royalty" complex of some Iranians and the contempt of Islam for other religions that seems implicit at times.... Anyone who's been a Bahai for a while and is at all perceptive should have witnessed this kind of thing on the part of many Iranians Bahais.... > I didn't find the passage in which Abdu'l-Baha used the term > "gilded dirt," but it seems rather interesting. I'm not digging around for it. It's in there. First of all, > we are referred to as "dust" or "clay" in several places in the > Writings--a reminder of our humble origins and the transience > of our existence. "Gilding" it reminds me of the French term, > "oignon dore" (gilded onion), meaning something rather > ridiculous--something commonplace given more importance than > it's worth. Without seeing the context, I would guess that > Abdu'l-Baha captured the essence of people, perhaps somewhat > self-importantly, too preoccupied with the vainglories of this > world to see the true purpose of this earthly existence. > Neither in my estimation qualifies as a "gratuitouss remark," > which is one category of utterance I'm still working on defining > which lies just "this side" of backbiting. Another is "white > backbiting" (or "backwhiting"?) where people may comment > negatively on others in context of consultation, but not in the > true spirit of consultation. There may be others. THe purpose > is educational--since the Baha'i Writings give so much attention > to the importance of words and qualities of utterance, it is > worthwhile, I think, to find ways of raising consciousness about > what kinds of speech are deleterious to social relations and > spiritual development. No, Frederick, not for censorship, but for refinement & enhancement of communication in a shrinking > world. What about the "gilded dirt"? Should we Bahais support a new affirmative action program for them? Pity the rich and decadent.... They need love and encouragement too! > > Your remark was not so bad, but it was in my estimation, still > gratuitous: you do not have to mention the supposed lack of > a quality in one party(ies) to praise it in another(s). > > DZO > > -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Aug 05 07:35:49 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 4 04:13:05 1997 Received: (qmail 7175 invoked from network); 4 Aug 1997 11:13:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 1997 11:13:03 -0000 Message-ID: <33E5B9A1.EC8@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 07:14:41 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com CC: talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re "reinstatement" on Talisman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2011 >From jrcole@umich.edu Sat Aug 2 21:54:33 1997 Received: from pm113-26.dialip.mich.net by gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) id AAA21000; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708030454.AAA21000@gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu> X-Sender: jrcole@j.imap.itd.umich.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:54:26 -0400 To: FG@hotmail.com From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: reinstatement on Talisman Dear Frederick: Josh asked me to say that Talisman is up in the air for the foreseeable future because of a number of recent events, and that this is probably not a good time to reopen the question of reinstatements, which would raise issues far beyond your case. He is also persuaded by those talismanians who followed alt.religion.bahai that there hasn't been good evidence on your part of being ready to join in a gentle and kindly unmoderated list quite yet. Basically, the message was, 'don't call us, we'll call you.' Please understand that he does have to worry about the good of the list, and that he's taken this sysop role on only as a favor, so please don't bother him about it. ONCE AGAIN, FOUL PLAY.... I WAS DICTATORIALLY BANISHED TO SIBERIA LAST DECEMBER.... WITHOUT A PROPER WARNING.... AND THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE SAME HEAVY-HANDED CENSORSHIP THAT TOOK PLACE THEN.... NO TRIAL, NO JURY, NO APPEAL, OR REPRESENTATION OF MY OWN POSITION.... CONVICTED AND RESENTENCED ON HEARSAY, BY UNIDENTIFIED ACCUSSORS.... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY "JUSTICE" OPERATES ON TALISMAN AND IN IRAN.... AND APPARENTLY IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... AND THEN YOU ALL STYLE YOURSELVES THE "LIBERALS" IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... cheers Juan -- 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 05 07:35:53 1997 >From amadeustoo@rocketmail.com Mon Aug 4 07:20:18 1997 Message-ID: <19970804141714.3620.rocketmail@send2.rocketmail.com> Received: from [152.127.47.139] by web1; Mon, 04 Aug 1997 07:17:14 PDT Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT) From: No name Subject: Re "reinstatement" on Talisman To: FG@hotmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 583 Dear Frederick, There is more than a grain of truth to what you say about standard operating procedures on talisman. As you very well know, the list is not a Baha'i list in any sense of the word; it was not started by a Baha'i and the current list-owner is not a Baha'i either. Regards. ---Frederick Glaysher wrote: > THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY "JUSTICE" OPERATES ON > TALISMAN AND IN IRAN. > Frederick Glaysher _____________________________________________________________________ Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at https://www.rocketmail.com From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:11 1997 >From bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Jul 11 16:59:06 1997 Received: from freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (bn872@freenet2.carleton.ca [134.117.136.22]) by freenet1.carleton.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA00686 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:58:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (bn872@localhost) by freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA02389; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707112358.TAA02389@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> From: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca (McKenny Michael) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Alt.Religion.Bahai etc Reply-To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2399 Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. I tried today, on receipt of your message, and find that I am still unable to obtain alt.religion.bahai on normal freenet. I'm rather incompetent when it comes to using www which I may access, at least in part, through freenet. Possibly in a week or so I'll make a sustained effort. However, there's a lot on my plate. Still, I completely support freedom of the press, and hold that this is completely in accord with the Baha'i principle of the independent investigation of truth. I'm glad to hear that there's lively discussion on the "underground" newsgroup. If it's agreeable to you I'd be happy to support you by sending you a few posts that you could place on the group. At present, I've been suggesting on three different lists (H- BAHAI, Irfan1 and Talisman) that there are fundamental principles established by the Prophets of the past and confirmed by Baha'u'llah (Who has also presented additional ones, such as the equality of men and women, in keeping with our approach to a more mature society) against which specific points assumed to sanction the abrogation of principle would have to be assayed, and that the individual has personal responsibility for ethical action. One of my main projects just now is my response to the letter I received on April 10th from the Universal House of Justice. God willing, soon I will send them what I hope will be effective comments connecting freedom of the press etc to the fundamental Baha'i principle of independent investigation of truth etc. This would be my reply to that portion of the letter on rights and freedoms which formed one of three appendices in their letter to me. I hope all is going well with you, and that it long continues to do so. It occurs to me that we ought to be nearing the end of the six month suspension from Talisman. I think it will be great to see you back, if you wish to come back. I look forward to trb getting fully established as it ought to have the first time, so I may read it. I look forward to things opening up at the top so it becomes unnecessary. Peace, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) From - Tue Jul 15 07:12:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 04:10:38 1997 Received: (qmail 23824 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 11:10:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 11:10:36 -0000 Message-ID: <33CB5B08.4D56@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:12:08 -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: Re: Re Alt.Religion.Bahai etc References: <199707112358.TAA02389@freenet2.carleton.ca.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3109 McKenny Michael wrote: > > Greetings, Frederick, from Ottawa. > I tried today, on receipt of your message, and find that I am > still unable to obtain alt.religion.bahai on normal freenet. I'm > rather incompetent when it comes to using www which I may access, > at least in part, through freenet. Possibly in a week or so I'll > make a sustained effort. However, there's a lot on my plate. > Still, I completely support freedom of the press, and hold > that this is completely in accord with the Baha'i principle of the > independent investigation of truth. I can't imagine it isn't in accord either. See Abdu'l-Baha in Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 197.... I'm glad to hear that there's > lively discussion on the "underground" newsgroup. If it's agreeable > to you I'd be happy to support you by sending you a few posts that > you could place on the group. Sure, I'd be happy to relay anything you would like posted.... > At present, I've been suggesting on three different lists (H- > BAHAI, Irfan1 and Talisman) that there are fundamental principles > established by the Prophets of the past and confirmed by > Baha'u'llah (Who has also presented additional ones, such as the > equality of men and women, in keeping with our approach to a more > mature society) against which specific points assumed to sanction > the abrogation of principle would have to be assayed, and that the > individual has personal responsibility for ethical action. > One of my main projects just now is my response to the letter > I received on April 10th from the Universal House of Justice. God > willing, soon I will send them what I hope will be effective > comments connecting freedom of the press etc to the fundamental > Baha'i principle of independent investigation of truth etc. This > would be my reply to that portion of the letter on rights and > freedoms which formed one of three appendices in their letter to > me. There are no individual rights or freedoms, is how I read it.... > I hope all is going well with you, and that it long continues > to do so. It occurs to me that we ought to be nearing the end of > the six month suspension from Talisman. I think it will be great > to see you back, if you wish to come back. Actually, I'd forgotten about that given many other demands. Thanks for mentioning it.... I look forward to trb > getting fully established as it ought to have the first time, so > I may read it. I look forward to things opening up at the top so > it becomes unnecessary. That's my dearest hope.... but I am quite pessimistic, really.... > Peace, > Michael > > > > -- > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > All good to you too, Michael.... -- 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 08:29:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Jul 20 04:49:46 1997 Received: (qmail 2346 invoked from network); 20 Jul 1997 11:49:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Jul 1997 11:49:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33D1FBB7.6C8F@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 07:51:19 -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.mis,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Art in the Bahai Faith Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1435 CharlesJ31@aol.com wrote: > > 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. A directive, just what artists need and have always responded to.... I recall Mao's worthless advice on the arts.... 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." More Philistine advice, probably, as usual, in the Bahai Faith, from someone who knows nothing of the subject but is full of trite advice.... Typically, in the Bahai Faith, from a MD, an electrical engineer, etc.... God has inspired their souls, they know what artists ought to be doing.... The typical ignorant bunch of Bahai "administrators." Little vision and no sense of pathos.... > Regards, Charlie Jennison -- 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 07:05:02 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 22 05:07:54 1997 Received: (qmail 22946 invoked from network); 22 Jul 1997 12:07:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 1997 12:07:52 -0000 Message-ID: <33D4A2F6.2E03@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:09:26 -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: Re Art in the Bahai Faith References: <33D1FBB7.6C8F@hotmail.com> <33d46da4.167450879@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 909 Roger Reini wrote: > > Groups trimmed -- RR > > On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 07:51:19 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > [snips] > > >trite advice.... Typically, in the Bahai Faith, from a MD, > >an electrical engineer, etc.... God has inspired their souls, > >they know what artists ought to be doing.... The typical ignorant > > And who says MD's and engineers can't also be artists? I am an > engineer by profession. I am also a musician who plays for our local > Baha'i gospel choir. The choir performs one of my songs (actually, a > Hidden Word set to a tune I wrote). > > Just making a comment.... I rest my case, as they say.... > > 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 - Tue Jul 08 08:47:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:31:51 1997 Received: (qmail 27158 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:31:49 -0000 Message-ID: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:33:21 -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.religion.israel,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Bahai Art Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3202 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 - Wed Jul 09 07:13:27 1997 >From thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca Tue Jul 8 08:59:14 1997 Received: by freenet.calgary.ab.ca (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA22122; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:58:17 -0600 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:58:17 -0600 From: thodges@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (T Hodges) Message-Id: <9707081558.AA22122@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Bahai Art In-Reply-To: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> Organization: Calgary Free-Net Cc: X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3811 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 - Wed Jul 09 07:13:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 03:54:54 1997 Received: (qmail 10232 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1997 10:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 1997 10:54:52 -0000 Message-ID: <33C36E58.1602@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:56:24 -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 References: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> <33c265d2.71632015@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1951 Roger Reini wrote: > > Groups trimmed -- followups set -- RR > > On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:33:21 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > >RMckin6046 wrote: > >> 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 > > > >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 do you mean? I get the feeling you are implying sinister motives > behind RMckin6046's problems in accessing a.r.b. (if I've misread > your note, I apologize) I see nothing sinister about it; AOL's news > administrator has merely been slow to add the group. Perhaps he/she > has not been asked to add it. The sinister motives belonged to the 691 who unethically voted against talk.religion.bahai and thereby deprived RMckin of the possibility of easily accessing an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai faith. I'm implying nothing in regard to AOL. I have been emailed by several individuals though, using AOL, and have always advised them to ask the systems person to add it. If they haven't, I don't know what to make of it. > > IMHO, the propagation difficulties of a.r.b stem from either > incompetance or ignorance on the part of news administrators > (ignorance of the group is far more likely, so don't flame me, you > admins !) or system capacity limitations. The propagation difficulties really stem from the 691 who suppressed the will of 157 people who wanted a major hierarchy.... > > On the subject of art: what do you mean by articulate and > inarticulate art? Art that uses words or other mediums.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 03:09:40 1997 Received: (qmail 15847 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 10:09:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 10:09:38 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4B53E.62E6@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:11:10 -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 Subject: Re: Accessing alt.religion.bahai, was Re: Re Bahai Art References: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> <33c265d2.71632015@news.wwnet.com> <33C36E58.1602@hotmail.com> <33c39e85.64230802@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1618 Roger Reini wrote: > > Followups set, groups trimmed -- please respect this in replying. > > On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:56:24 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > >Roger Reini wrote: > > >> What do you mean? I get the feeling you are implying sinister motives > >> behind RMckin6046's problems in accessing a.r.b. (if I've misread > > >The sinister motives belonged to the 691 who unethically voted against > >talk.religion.bahai and thereby deprived RMckin of the possibility of > >easily accessing an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai faith. I'm > > I do not wish to discuss that again. > > >implying nothing in regard to AOL. I have been emailed by several > >individuals though, using AOL, and have always advised them to > >ask the systems person to add it. If they haven't, I don't know > >what to make of it. > > This may not work for AOL, since I'm not familiar with their news > reading setup. But for people using newsreaders like Netscape's or > Agent or tin or whatever, it may help to refresh your reader's list of > available newsgroups. It may be that your server is, in fact, > carrying a.r.b. But since it doesn't show up in your list, you can't > access it. > > I've used this successfully to access other newsgroups I was > interested in. > > Another tactic is to subscribe to a news service like Zippo. Their > coverage is pretty thorough. WWW.ZIPPO.COM: $12.00 a year for basically ALL of UseNet.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 10 06:26:40 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 03:07:37 1997 Received: (qmail 15841 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 10:07:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 10:07:35 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4B4C3.4383@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:09:07 -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: Re Bahai Art:particularly Chris and Fred References: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> <33c265d2.71632015@news.wwnet.com> <33C36E58.1602@hotmail.com> <33C3E2D6.4765@bcgrizzly.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1189 Maureen Atkinson wrote: > > Honestly, the dog is chasing its tail here I think, ART stimulates many > sides to a human being. Whether it's a passive sentimentality or wailing > negativity - it still has created a response. Animals will respond to > changes in sound volume and colour, does this make it ART. I doubt that > Fred's obvious disregard for the principals of the Faith (personal choice > and intellectual freedom) show that he's just out for an arguement. I > really don't care how ART is defined with or without the FAITH. Taste > and definitions are all based on personal choice and how it moves > you. Enough already I don't consider myself merely "out for an argument." There is art and then there is slock.... Yes, you are right, slock produces an effect too.... "Obvious disregard for the principals [sic] of the Faith": In your opinion; in mine, it's because I respect the principles of the Bahai Faith, Abdu'l-Baha's advocacy of freedom of conscience, for instance, that I have attempted to oppose the censorship of soc.religion.bahai and fanatical, literal-minded Bahai zealots..... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 03:19:38 1997 Received: (qmail 9956 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 10:19:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 10:19:37 -0000 Message-ID: <33C60914.7474@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:21:08 -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.religion.israel,soc.religion.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: your ART replay References: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> <5q2nu5$27p4@news.doit.wisc.edu> <33C50C28.1F9B@bcgrizzly.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1107 Maureen Atkinson wrote: > > Sheltering Sky wrote: > > what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said > > >and done.... > > > > > > > I resent your attack on Philistines. The Ancient Philistines were > > much more technologically advanced than the Ancient Israelites, and > > had greater artistic diversity. The Israelites lived in the hills in > > small villages, the Philistines along the coast in large cities. > > > > What's wrong? Are you tired of insulting Baha'is and looking for new > > targets? > > Dear Sheltered sky, > > I find your reponse to above a bit juevenille. I think Frank would > probably repsond that ancient Isrealites were not very artistic either. > What's the point in engaging this fellow in this topic any longer... As > the Borg from starttrek would say," resistance is futile"... let him have > his soap box and move onto more intelligent conversations shall we? Would it be interrupting your "intelligent" conversation to point out you might want to try using a dictionary.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 17 07:49:47 1997 >From sky@persia.com Wed Jul 16 08:13:21 1997 Received: from audumla.students.wisc.edu by mail5.doit.wisc.edu; id KAA138536; 8.7.5/50; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:13:15 -0500 Received: from F180-090.net.wisc.edu by audumla.students.wisc.edu; id KAA35180; 8.6.9W/42; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:12:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 10:12:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199707161512.KAA35180@audumla.students.wisc.edu> To: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.religion.israel,soc.religion.iranian Subject: Re: your ART replay From: sky@persia.com (Sheltering Sky) Organization: Light of Persia X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5 References: <33C23391.2719@hotmail.com> <5q2nu5$27p4@news.doit.wisc.edu> <33C50C28.1F9B@bcgrizzly.com> <33C60914.7474@hotmail.com> X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1628 So your excuse for insulting a group of people is that the expression is in use? The I suppose you support the expressions "Chinaman's Chance" and "jew somebody down" too? They also appeared in te dictionary... In article <33C60914.7474@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com says... > >Maureen Atkinson wrote: >> >> Sheltering Sky wrote: >> > what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said >> > >and done.... >> > > >> > >> > I resent your attack on Philistines. The Ancient Philistines were >> > much more technologically advanced than the Ancient Israelites, and >> > had greater artistic diversity. The Israelites lived in the hills in >> > small villages, the Philistines along the coast in large cities. >> > >> > What's wrong? Are you tired of insulting Baha'is and looking for new >> > targets? >> >> Dear Sheltered sky, >> >> I find your reponse to above a bit juevenille. I think Frank would >> probably repsond that ancient Isrealites were not very artistic either. >> What's the point in engaging this fellow in this topic any longer... As >> the Borg from starttrek would say," resistance is futile"... let him have >> his soap box and move onto more intelligent conversations shall we? > >Would it be interrupting your "intelligent" conversation to point out >you might want to try using a dictionary.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:46:49 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:53:37 1997 Received: (qmail 2996 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:53:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:53:35 -0000 Message-ID: <33BBA129.41C1@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:55:05 -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 Bahai Arts Forum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 576 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 03:47:45 1997 Received: (qmail 5304 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 10:47:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 10:47:43 -0000 Message-ID: <33C21B2A.6DBA@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 06:49:14 -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: Re Bahai Arts Forum References: <33BBA129.41C1@hotmail.com> <33bd5d37.101183148@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1487 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:55:05 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrotg: > > >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.... > > > > I don't agree. By any chance, have you ever heard the Baha'i Gospel > Singers' album WE HAVE COME TO SING PRAISES? Truly, this is a fine > disc/tape with some magnificent singing. It's VERY inspirational -- > no propaganda here. I've performed some songs from this collection, > along with our choir. And they always get a good response. > > As 'Abdu'l-Baha says: > > The art of music is divine and effective. It is the food of the soul > and spirit. Through the power and charm of music the spirit of man is > uplifted. > (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, page 52) > > I haven't looked at the Forum yet, though I suppose I should. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://www.wwnet.com/~rreini/ The Bahai Faith is a narrow-minded, philistine environment in which true art cannot develop, let alone flourish.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 08 08:47:10 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 03:54:11 1997 Received: (qmail 5368 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 10:54:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 10:54:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33C21CAC.19EC@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 06:55:40 -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.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Bahai Arts Forum References: <33BBA129.41C1@hotmail.com> <33bd5d37.101183148@news.wwnet.com> <7KvCBDAYkmvzEwqB@baha.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3615 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Roger Reini > wrote > >I don't agree. By any chance, have you ever heard the Baha'i Gospel > >Singers' album WE HAVE COME TO SING PRAISES? Truly, this is a fine > >disc/tape with some magnificent singing. It's VERY inspirational -- > >no propaganda here. I've performed some songs from this collection, > >along with our choir. And they always get a good response. > > > >As 'Abdu'l-Baha says: > > > >The art of music is divine and effective. It is the food of the soul > >and spirit. Through the power and charm of music the spirit of man is > >uplifted. > >(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, page 52) > > > >I haven't looked at the Forum yet, though I suppose I should. > > Got that one. It isn't my favourite, though it went down well with the > children -- who are usually into heavy metal. My own personal > favourites are the Songs of the Ancient Beauty (especially the first > one) and, without a doubt, the music from the World Congress in New > York, though I do have problems with some of the singers. Much of the > other music available I find OK, but not much of it really moves me. > And some of it I would bin! But in the end, of course, it is important > that we have diversity of music -- there was even a Rap band in the UK, > and why not? > > OK, most of what I've mentioned is internal to the Faith -- most of the > purchasers will be Baha'is, though copies are often given to friends. > But there is that other category, music by composers who are Baha'is. > One friend of mine had had several works performed by one of the > Scottish national orchestras. His works are inspired by the Faith and > he is gaining recognition. What little I have heard of his music is > pleasant to listen to and I look forward to hearing more. > > As for the other arts, I have seen some beautiful paintings by Baha'i > artists -- one of which moved me to tears (very embarassing), others > were fine works of art in their own right, whatever the subject matter. > Some visual arts material, like some of the music, I don't feel is worth > the paper it is printed on. And so I could go on....... You both here are talking about the "inarticulate" arts, if you will.... Easy for Bahais to distort and control and debase into propaganda.... > > So, what it comes down to is that, at the present time, most art by > artists who are Baha'is is like all other art, except that some of it is > inspired directly by the Faith. Art is, at any one moment in time, as > good as the impression it gives to the person experiencing it. Trash, is what "Bahai" inspired art is in the Bahai Faith.... The Bahai Faith stands irrevocably opposed to art beyond the kindergarten stage.... beyond the age of innocence when children begin to develop a mind and conscience of their own.... > > Anyway, where's that Sibelius CD? .. . . . . . . . > > 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 - Wed Jul 09 07:13:41 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 03:45:37 1997 Received: (qmail 10184 invoked from network); 9 Jul 1997 10:45:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jul 1997 10:45:36 -0000 Message-ID: <33C36C27.79D2@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 06:47:04 -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: Re Bahai Arts Forum References: <33BBA129.41C1@hotmail.com> <33bd5d37.101183148@news.wwnet.com> <7KvCBDAYkmvzEwqB@baha.demon.co.uk> <33C21CAC.19EC@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3346 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Trash, is what "Bahai" inspired art is in the Bahai Faith.... The > >Bahai Faith stands irrevocably opposed to art beyond the > >kindergarten stage.... beyond the age of innocence when children > >begin to develop a mind and conscience of their own.... > > Ok, Fred, so you do not like 'Baha'i' art, of whatever discipline as it > is at this time. That is your right and I won't argue with you as to a > certain extent I am in agreement with you. But, what sort of art do you > like? Art that is alive, experiencing, questioning, and confronting the fullness of the human condition.... Those things aren't allowed in the Bahai Faith.... There are "moderators" and third-rate "administrators" who know better.... Do you dislike all the music, paintings, dance etc. that has been > created and interpreted by Baha'i artists of all disciplines? Just about.... The only two artists, who happened to be Bahai, I can genuinely feel any respect for would be the painter Mark Tobey and the poet Robert Hayden. After that it's Bahai old maid sentimentality.... You're thinking above primarily about the performing arts, less threatening historically to fascists of every stripe, religious or other.... > Personally, I derive greatest consistent pleasure from the large > orchestral works of the mid to late 19th century. I love symphonies by > Mahler, Bruckner and Brahms (not to mention Sibelius) and many of the > great oratorios, again especially those witten in the late 19th century. > But when it comes to playing, I also enjoy chamber music, music for > small groups, be it woodwind or brass. However, in the end the purpose > of music (and any kind of art) is to uplift. It does not matter whether > I like what I am playing. What I have to ask myself is 'am I giving > pleasure to my audience?' If not, then I have failed them. One must, as Horace said, delight and teach, but "pleasure" is a very modern word.... "Uplift" is a Bahai conception not always appropriate to art. It leads to maudelin, nauseating sentimentality.... The pathetic efforts of dilettantes, really.... Tragedy transpires on a more profound level of the human psyche than the usual Bahai mind can even remotely understand, especially the Iranian one, given the narrow range literature was always limited to in that culture.... > > It is my hope that one day Baha'i composers will match the grandeur of > these works that move me, but, like you, I fear we have a long way to > go. Given the present stifling atmosphere in the Bahai Faith, a thousand years, at best.... > > 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 10 06:26:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 02:55:23 1997 Received: (qmail 15810 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 09:55:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 09:55:21 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4B1DE.2C60@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 05:56:47 -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.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Bahai Arts Forum References: <33BBA129.41C1@hotmail.com> <33bd5d37.101183148@news.wwnet.com> <7KvCBDAYkmvzEwqB@baha.demon.co.uk> <33C21CAC.19EC@hotmail.com> <33C36C27.79D2@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 7253 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Chris wrote: > >> Ok, Fred, so you do not like 'Baha'i' art, of whatever discipline as it > >> is at this time. That is your right and I won't argue with you as to a > >> certain extent I am in agreement with you. But, what sort of art do you > >> like? > > > >Art that is alive, experiencing, questioning, and confronting the > >fullness of the human condition.... > > How right you are. But one of the problems I see with art today (I'm > not addressing 'Baha'i' art here) is that the intellectual, the > technical, has taken over from the spiritual. The desire to shock, to > look clever, to be, as my mother once put it, 'conventionally un- > conventional' has taken over from great art. I grant that occasionally > great works do surface that ARE alive, but most of what I see and hear > these days is tawdry. In fact (stage whisper) I feel that most art > today is a con trick pulled on the general public by artists and > critics. But then, when it comes to art, I am conservative and, > therefore, very suspect. In another words, it's postmodern.... > > >Those things aren't allowed > >in the Bahai Faith.... There are "moderators" and third-rate > >"administrators" who know better.... > > I've not found this in the UK where the arts are flourishing. In a > couple of week's time there will be the Arts Academy down in England. I > went to this a couple of years ago and was just amazed at what was being > produced by most of the groups there. Not great art, there was not time > for that and most people were tyros, but certainly way above my > expectations. We have several world class artists in the Faith, mainly > in the performing arts, and several up and coming young artists. (Me, > I've always remained strictly amateur, and have I feel, had the best of > both worlds by being able to choose when I want to practice my art. One > of my lasting memories was playing Mozart's Horn Quintet, with four > professional musicians, to a wrapt audience at a winter school. > However, I am getting older and these things are becoming less possible > as time goes by.) > > >Do you dislike all the music, paintings, dance etc. that has been > >> created and interpreted by Baha'i artists of all disciplines? > > > >Just about.... The only two artists, who happened to be Bahai, > >I can genuinely feel any respect for would be the painter Mark > >Tobey and the poet Robert Hayden. After that it's Bahai old > >maid sentimentality.... > > I have heard of Mark but not come across any of his work to date. That > is partly because anything really good tends to be down south. However, > I will keep an eye open for prints in books etc. You mentioned Robert > Hayden before. I do not know the name so cannot comment. Mostly, I am > not 'into' poetry, though there are a few poems that move me, or which I > like to read occasionally. Most of them are a bit on the light side, > though and originate from my school poetry books. I even tried writing > poetry myself once (I was getting over a nervous breakdown at the time) > and did get to read one epic a couple of times in public. But that is > well in the past. > > Your right about the sentimentality bit. But that applies to a lot of > Christian stuff as well. I guess that some people like it (otherwise how > do explain the success of so many otherwise poor singers in the 'pop' > market) and I have nothing against that -- just don't expect me to go > into raptures over it. What I like is something you really can get your > teeth into! > > >You're thinking above primarily about > >the performing arts, less threatening historically to fascists > >of every stripe, religious or other.... > > Don't you believe it. It's just easier to kill or imprison a performer > than a painting. But that which is performed can still exist in > manuscript and be performed another day. > > >>What I have to ask myself is 'am I giving > >>pleasure to my audience?' If not, then I have failed them. > > > >One must, as Horace said, delight and teach, but "pleasure" is a very > >modern word.... > > So, I discovered the other day, is the concept of boredom -- and the one > goes with the other as opposite conditions. When I used the word > 'pleasure', I used it in the broadest sense of making people feel it was > worthwhile paying their money to hear a concert. If people leave > feeling that they have wasted their time (and sometimes money) coming to > hear then we have failed them. I guess that the same applies to other > disciplines as well. But, it is a very thin line between real art and > mere technical manipulation. You're quite right. I read you too hastily.... > > >"Uplift" is a Bahai conception not always appropriate > >to art. It leads to maudelin, nauseating sentimentality.... > > Except that 'maudelin, nauseating sentimentality' does not uplift. It > may make people feel nice (in the derogatory sense) but uplifting it is > not. Actually, in my case I can get very irritated with the mediocre, > especially if I know that the artist didn't care about being that way, > but that's my problem. On the other hand, we all have to start > somewhere. There are very few genii who are able to produce a > masterpiece at the first attempt. An atmosphere of censorship and suppression of freedom of conscience can only produce and encourage the mediocre in art.... > > >The > >pathetic efforts of dilettantes, really.... Tragedy transpires on a > >more profound level of the human psyche than the usual Bahai mind > >can even remotely understand, especially the Iranian one, given the > >narrow range literature was always limited to in that culture.... > > I regret to say that tradegy I just cannot take -- ever since, at about > the age of eight, I had to play the part of Hector's son in 'Trojan > Women' by I know not whom. The experience has left me scar(r)ed for > life. By Euripides, of course.... Alas, "postmodern" in Greek terms, in a sense too though.... Sophocles is the master of the art.... The sentimentality of the Iranian interpretation could never produce either one.... > > >> It is my hope that one day Baha'i composers will match the grandeur of > >> these works that move me, but, like you, I fear we have a long way to > >> go. > >Given the present stifling atmosphere in the Bahai Faith, a > >thousand years, at best.... > > Well, it was well over a thousand years in the Christian Faith so there > is hope yet. > > All the best, > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of > My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved > on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. [Baha'u'llah] > For more information go to , > or . -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:13 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 03:08:54 1997 Received: (qmail 9905 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 10:08:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 10:08:52 -0000 Message-ID: <33C6068A.93E@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:10:18 -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,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Bahai Arts Forum References: <33BBA129.41C1@hotmail.com> <33bd5d37.101183148@news.wwnet.com> <7KvCBDAYkmvzEwqB@baha.demon.co.uk> <33C21CAC.19EC@hotmail.com> <33C36C27.79D2@hotmail.com> <33C4B1DE.2C60@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3505 Chris wrote: > > Just a quick reply, it isa after midnight. > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Chris wrote: > >> How right you are. But one of the problems I see with art today (I'm > >> not addressing 'Baha'i' art here) is that the intellectual, the > >> technical, has taken over from the spiritual. The desire to shock, to > >> look clever, to be, as my mother once put it, 'conventionally un- > >> conventional' has taken over from great art. I grant that occasionally > >> great works do surface that ARE alive, but most of what I see and hear > >> these days is tawdry. In fact (stage whisper) I feel that most art > >> today is a con trick pulled on the general public by artists and > >> critics. But then, when it comes to art, I am conservative and, > >> therefore, very suspect. > > > >In another words, it's postmodern.... > > Now that was exactly the term used by one artist who would have me think > his rather nonentical works were art. If it needs that much explaining > then forget it. I have a theory, when listening to the classical music > channel, that the more interesting I find the explanation of modern > music, the more I cannot understand the cacophony I quickly turn off. > > [CUT] > > >> So, I discovered the other day, is the concept of boredom -- and the one > >> goes with the other as opposite conditions. When I used the word > >> 'pleasure', I used it in the broadest sense of making people feel it was > >> worthwhile paying their money to hear a concert. If people leave > >> feeling that they have wasted their time (and sometimes money) coming to > >> hear then we have failed them. I guess that the same applies to other > >> disciplines as well. But, it is a very thin line between real art and > >> mere technical manipulation. > > > >You're quite right. I read you too hastily.... > > That's OK. > > [CUT] > > >> I regret to say that tradegy I just cannot take -- ever since, at about > >> the age of eight, I had to play the part of Hector's son in 'Trojan > >> Women' by I know not whom. The experience has left me scar(r)ed for > >> life. > > > >By Euripides, of course.... Alas, "postmodern" in Greek terms, in > >a sense too though.... Sophocles is the master of the art.... > >The sentimentality of the Iranian interpretation could never > >produce either one.... > > Ta. My mother was in the theatre and did her best to put me off it so > my interest waned quite rapidly. There was a time when I could quote > the whole of Shakespear's Henry V and one of Anouiy(cant even spell his > name)'s plays. But I was only about 9 at the time and now I have > problems with even Ogden Nash's "Middle aged life is merry...." I recall Hotspur in Henry IV: "O, while you live, tell the truth, and shame the devil!" > > [CUT] > > 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 10 05:47:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 9 04:50:05 1997 Received: (qmail 9658 invoked from network); 9 Jun 1997 11:50:03 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 Jun 1997 11:50:03 -0000 Message-ID: <339BEE34.9AE@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 07:51:16 -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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3586 Bruce Limber 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. > > > [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. That's alt.religion.bahai.... > > > 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. I assume you're alluding to Talisman I, of which I know very little.... Hence, the "notorious" may be exaggerating.... and for what? "Disaffected" is a common label used to dismiss anyone in the Bahai Faith who can still think for themselves.... What you are basically intimating here is that anyone who doesn't share your opinions must be a covenant breaker.... A common method of intimidation and coercion.... > > And of course, with such an atmosphere, it doubtless also serves as a > convenient recruiting ground for potential covenant-breakers. A further insinuation.... > > 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. I believe it is tantamount to spiritual terrorism to frighten people into silence and I have observed and experience this with many literal-minded, intolerant Bahai fanatics who think as you apparently do.... 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. I may have missed it.... Repost it, please, to alt.religion.bahai, and I will carefully read it and attempt to respond to the passage.... > > Their responding silence has been deafening. And I suggest that this fact > speaks volumes. Whenever you posted it, I simply never saw it. It's hard to keep up with everything on Usenet.... Send it again! > > 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. Others might feel that way about YOUR opinions.... Ever occur to you? > > Or as my mother put it, > If you don't have something good to say, don't say anything. There are some things about which it is very difficult to find anything good to say.... such as apparently Bahai censorship and manipulation of every source of information and communication.... And rigid, literal-minded Bahais who think everything is so, so simple, if everybody would just.... This message, incidentally, was apparently censored by soc.religion.bahai. The version posted there was highly edited, should I call it? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:36 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 04:03:27 1997 Received: (qmail 25263 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 11:03:25 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 11:03:25 -0000 Message-ID: <339D34CE.277A@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:04:46 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Subject: Re Bahai terrorism Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2285 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:44 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 04:14:04 1997 Received: (qmail 25309 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 11:14:02 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 11:14:02 -0000 Message-ID: <339D374B.C4B@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:15:23 -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.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Bahai terrorism#2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2534 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 hell.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 03:51:50 1997 Received: (qmail 7744 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 10:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 10:51:48 -0000 Message-ID: <339FD516.6FDD@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:53:10 -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.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel Subject: Re Bahai terrorism: SRB Censored 6-12-97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1342 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sat Aug 16 07:59:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 04:36:00 1997 Received: (qmail 14641 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 11:35:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 11:35:57 -0000 Message-ID: <33F59102.4735@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:37:38 -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 censorship - moderators Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1233 POSTED TO SRB 8-16-97: 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 07:59:30 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 04:25:00 1997 Received: (qmail 14288 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 11:24:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 11:24:57 -0000 Message-ID: <33F58E6E.1378@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:26:38 -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,news.admin.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abus e.misc Followup-To: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.misc,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abus e.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Censorship - moderators Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 5047 This posting was posted to SRB 8-16-97: 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. -- 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 13:49:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:10:28 1997 Received: (qmail 21268 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:10:24 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:10:24 -0000 Message-ID: <33F05315.7462@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:12:05 -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 censorship (from SRB) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 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 13:51:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:24:23 1997 Received: (qmail 21406 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:24:20 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:24:20 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0565A.178C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:26:02 -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.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re censorship (from SRB) References: <33F05315.7462@hotmail.com> 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 13:52:59 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 05:34:58 1997 Received: (qmail 21585 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 12:34:50 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 12:34:50 -0000 Message-ID: <33F058CD.A87@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 08:36:29 -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: Re censorship (from SRB) References: <33F05315.7462@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3218 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 - Fri Aug 01 08:33:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 05:28:35 1997 Received: (qmail 26077 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 12:28:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 12:28:33 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1D6D3.6673@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:30:11 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Fairness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2552 dmcadam wrote: > > In answer to your last message : > > Dear Fred- > I appreciate your thoughts and "brutal honesty" but don't find anything > in your argument to sway my opinions. To respond would maybe be > misconstrued as hair-splitting arguments and possibly lead to a lack of > respect and dignity of the soul and fear of God. Wow! All THAT in a response.... > > To sum up I would say that feeling guilty or a blame attitude for what > befalls us is rather sophmoric and something I cast off long ago when I > looked in the mirror and took responsibility. The Faith is moving from > unmitigated obscurity into active oppression but nobody can diminish my > spirit, not even an army of intellectuals. To acquaint [sic] our religion to > the conditions of former ones and society in decline to me is > anti-intellectual for in reality we can only be suppressed if we give > power to suppressors. The real oppressor is the ego and I do fear this > in myself and am constantly on guard lest its subtle and devious ways > infect my higher powers of perception and cause me to express my opinion > in other than humbleness and diginity coupled with the fear of God. I'm not sure it's possible to respond to any of the above, given all the assumptions.... > > I do feel some pain at times from what happens in the community but > suppression never. In fact the oppression is delicious and proves once > again the infallibility of the Central Figures to me. I'm sure there are many Bahais who feel this way about "oppression," since it's so pervasive.... I have never felt > stronger than today when the forces of materialism and superstitions > assault us on all sides and relish in the Justice and Mercy of God, not > the fairness of individuals, although I will admit it would be perhaps > more serene if we all learned to express our opinions with courtesy, tact > and wisdom. But alas, this is our state at the moment and we must be > patient with one another and with our community insitutions as was > advised in the Indiv. Rights and Freedoms message so long ago. And you hold the high ground.... > > May your prayers be answered and you find that freedom you long for and > which I feel constantly from being able to set forth my conscience. None too lucidly, if you'll permit me to say so.... > > peace, > doug -- 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 Aug 01 08:32:39 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 29 06:08:47 1997 Received: (qmail 21961 invoked from network); 29 Jul 1997 13:08:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 1997 13:08:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33DDEBBB.2386@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:10:19 -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 Fairness (from Juan Cole's posting on SRB) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 6502 dmcadam wrote: > > In answer to your last message : > > > fglaysher wrote: > >Why should one suppose the Bahai Faith is any different from the > >past? On their deepest level, I don't believe Baha'u'llah's writings > >make such an assumption, and yet it prevails in certain quarters.... > > From my limited perspective I would favor that the Writings do > indicate that the Baha'i Faith is different than any previous Dispensation. I don't believe Baha'u'llah Himself taught human nature itself would change.... Again, on the deepest level.... Anybody out there living in THIS world, as Baha'u'llah was? The context of my quoted comment above was in response to Juan Cole on fairness and justice.... Your shifting the context a little.... My > own personal belief is that Religion is One and it came in seed form, > with gradual developmental stages being motivated by each new > Revelation. > Now we have the complete fruit. Each stage is different yet part of > the > same religion of God. A received metaphor.... > > If I had to make a choice I would favor what the Manifestation says > rather than what an individual says. Alas, as individuals, we are limited in our perception of what they say.... What happens when many misperceive or fail to perceive the meaning of a Manifestation? To go back to Cole's original context, what then of the rare individual's conscience? As Baha'is I believe we need to > have this bias somehow put in the form of a postulate that we can > validate by our indpendent search for truth and reality. It is the > spirit of faith that is important for this is the faculty that enables > us to be taught by and enlightener. Indeed without the spirit of > faith we could not learn anything. This spirit is the major means of > learning by small children who believe everything their parents (God > to them) say and later, depending on their experiences and development > of rational consciousness, will either validate or invalidate what > parents teach. I would not argue this is "rational consciousness." No derogatory nuances intended.... Another subject in itself. > > Two researchers can take two different views and approaches and still > find the same truth eventually. One may simply be faster. > > This whole business of applying the principle of independent > investigation is quite tricky in that we all are conditioned to see, > feel and act in certain ways, some of which are highly irrational and > full of error. Once we acquire the needed virtues and develop to a > higher degree those conditions of purity of heart, chastity of soul > and freedom of spirit, we probably will begin to see, grasp, > understand and apply the Writings more realistically. Which makes freedom of religious conscience and opinion all the more essential. Otherwise, herd-like oppressive thinking takes over lowering and debasing everything it touches.... > > >From my perspective our main purpose in discussions, consultations, > >etc. > is to achieve love and unity. Truth is more important than love or unity.... Neither love nor unity, properly called, can exist with the truth, no matter how painful.... But if we keep on insisting on right > and wrong arguments we can easily fall into pro/con arguments and > become divisive. God cleaved the soul, not I.... So I accept what the Manifestation has revealed and > as interpreted by official interpretations of the Beloved Master and > the Guardian, and further expounded upon by the Counsellors as being > more closer to the the truth than my own perspective and then I seek > to validate what has been explained from this unified knowledge > between these Central Figures. No academic treatise thus far has > deterred my feelings about anything that has been revealed and > explained by this core body of knowledge derived from these Central > Figures. The Counsellors are not "Central Figures" to my knowledge.... To conceive of them as such is a serious error in my opinion.... Abdu'l-Baha says somewhere there is a difference between the innocent faith of little children and more mature, experienced faith. Cole's original post also touched on this fact. Your comments above seem to me to be more on the puerile side of the spectrum.... > > I realize that this is truly and act of faith, but in final analysis > faith is conscious knowledge and good deeds, not just dependent on > some academic view, as renowned as certain academics may be. Anti-intellectualism is a poison eating into the vitals of the Bahai Faith.... > > I mean no disrespect for academic opinions but I just don't see how > our limited minds, (the surrounders) can emcompass the totality of > existence and Revelation (the Surrounder) The Beloved Master said > that, "It is incumbent for men of understanding to translate that > which hath been written into reality and action." I don't recall any > Writings that say we should conclude from our limited minds that what > has been written is in error. Having become thoroughly confused in my > early Baha'i research from a purely intellectual approach I must, > after the last twenty years of faith, conclude that the postulates > derived from study of the Writings are true, beyond a shadow of a > doubt. This is because I tested them on myself and therefore cannot > prove them to others. It is our job to make knowledge accessible to > all hearts, serve all hearts and allow each to be independent. It is > not my position to say, Yea, or Nay about an interpretation of the > Central Figure of the Faith. I can only test them for myself, on > myself and having done so and proven they work I must accept them as > valid. I believe this kind of reasoning is woefully confused. The issue is not either/or.... And yet it has become so for many Bahais, like other fundamentalists.... > > Our station is one of Servitude not of authority. More of the same.... Cole's whole point revolved around a much more excruciatingly demanding conception of Servitude.... > > regards, > doug -- 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. From - Fri Aug 01 08:32:41 1997 >From nf6y@faraday.clas.virginia.edu Tue Jul 29 15:48:51 1997 Received: from faraday.clas.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa06171; 29 Jul 97 18:14 EDT Received: (from nf6y@localhost) by faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.6) id SAA310786 for FG@hotmail.com; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:14:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:14:56 -0400 From: Nafeh Fananapazir Message-Id: <199707292214.SAA310786@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Fairness (from Juan Cole's posting on SRB) Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel Organization: uva X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 605 Dear Mr. Glaysher, I was impressed with the tone of your last posting. I agree that love and unity are rendered more and more meaningless without desire for 'the truth.' I also agree that when the search for truth is combined with love and 'the servitude' that you referred to at the end of your posting, then and only then will 'human nature begin to change' so to speak. As long as we are true to the Writings of the Central figures and to the guidance of the beloved Universal House of Justice, we need not be concerned with 'offending' anyone. Thanks again. sincerely, nafeh From - Fri Aug 01 08:32:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 04:58:32 1997 Received: (qmail 25929 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 11:58:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 11:58:31 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1CFC8.5497@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:00:08 -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,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Truth & Love & Unity (was Re: Fairness ...) References: <33DDEBBB.2386@hotmail.com> <33DF8509.6A44@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4017 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > = > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > dmcadam wrote: > > > >From my perspective our main purpose in discussions, consultations= , > > > >etc. > > > is to achieve love and unity. > > > > Truth is more important than love or unity.... Neither love nor > > unity, properly called, can exist with the truth, no matter how > > painful.... Are "love" and "unity" love and unity if based on lies, falsehoods, distortions, manipulation of information, censorship, suppression, coercion, cynical exploitation of innocent idealism????? THAT was the full context of my comments above.... > = > IMHO truth, love, and unity go together. One cannot effectively pursue= > one without the others; our challenge is to step beyond linear, > either-or > thinking in our words & actions. The attached excerpts from > Abdu'l-Baha's final talk in Paris may be of interest. DZO > = > (8) "There are many souls who have turned to the Kingdom of God, and > who are attracted to unity, love and truth." > = > "13. The only real difference that exists between people is that they= > are at various stages of development. Some are imperfect -- these must > be brought to perfection. Some are asleep -- they must be awakened; som= e > are negligent -- they must be roused; but one and all are the children > of God. Love them all with your whole heart; no one is a stranger to th= e > other, all are friends. Tonight I come to say farewell to you -- but > bear this in your minds, that although our bodies may be far apart, in > spirit we shall always be together. > = > 14. I bear you one and all in my heart, and will forget none of you -- > and I hope that none of you will forget me. > = > 15. I in the East, and you in the West, let us try with heart and soul > that unity may dwell in the world, that all the peoples may become one > people, and that the whole surface of the earth may be like one country= > -- for the Sun of Truth shines on all alike. > = > 16. All the Prophets of God came for love of this one great aim. > = > 17. Look how Abraham strove to bring faith and love among the people; > how Moses tried to unite the people by sound laws; how the Lord Christ > suffered unto death to bring the light of love and truth into a > darkened world; how Muhammad sought to bring unity and peace between th= e > various uncivilized tribes among whom he dwelt. And last of all, > Bah=E1'u'll=E1h has suffered forty years for the same cause -- the sing= le > noble purpose of spreading love among the children of men -- and for th= e > peace and unity of the world the B=E1b gave up his life. > = > 18. Thus, strive to follow the example of these Divine Beings, drink > from Their fountain, be illumined by Their Light, and to the world be a= s > symbols of the Mercy and Love of God. Be unto the world as rain and > clouds of mercy, as suns of truth; be a celestial army, and you shall > indeed conquer the city of hearts. > = > 19. Be thankful unto God that Bah=E1'u'll=E1h has given us a firm and s= olid > foundation. He left no place for sadness in hearts, and the writings of= > His sacred pen contain consolation for the whole world. He had the word= s > of truth, and anything that is contrary to His teaching is false. The > chief aim of all His work was to do away with division. > = > 20. The testament of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h is a Rain of Goodness, a Sun of Tr= uth, > Water of Life, the Holy Spirit. Thus open your hearts to receive the > full power of His Beauty, and I will pray for you all that this joy may= > be yours." > = > From _Paris Talks_, by `Abdu'l-Bah=E1, pp. 169-172, "The Last Meeting,"= 15 > Rue Greuze, Paris, December 1st > https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/PT/PT-53.html#Page 169 -- = 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 15 07:10:04 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Thu May 15 03:55:04 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id DAA14349; Thu, 15 May 1997 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 03:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705151054.DAA14349@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re for the record.... Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2714 I responded to this post more fully yesterday. I do have one further comment.... In article <5lci4f$l5s$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Just wanted to clear the air on a couple of items, for the > record. > > On 26 Apr 1997 13:56:53 GMT FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > . . . . Your carrying > >of that parties' line so conscientiously, Donald, . . . > > I'm not aware of any party (or parties) or any (party) line. In > any event, I have like others contributed what I believed to be > true and relevant on these issues, not what anyone else told me > or encouraged me in any way to write. Any implication to the > contrary is, well, inappropriate... > > On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:21:08 -0600 FG@hotmail.com wrote: > >Fare well, Donald. You've been an interesting voice, more > >intelligent than most Bahais who have participated.... > > Thank you for your conciliatory remarks, but even if I were > worthy of the compliment I cannot accept it as it puts others in > a negative light. This is a matter of principle about what I > have for some time referred to as a "gratuitous remark"-- i.e., > something which could just as easily not be said and leave every > one better off (e.g., if A says to B "You're doing a great job, > much better than C" the negative comparison to C is gratuitous: > 1) it does not help B, 2) it may hurt C when it gets back to > him/her, 3) if B accepts the remark uncritically, it could be a > source of misunderstanding with C, and 4) if B is perceptive, > he/she will realize that A could just as easily say the same sort > of thing about him/her to someone else later and therefore will > trust A less). Gratuitous remarks are not specifically > prohibited in the Baha'i Writings as far as I'm aware, but my > personal understanding is that they are against the spirit of the > teachings and thus try to avoid using them. Shoghi Effendi refers to a non-Bahai someplace as a "low-born Christian woman." In the Priceless Pearl, Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have called passers-by in the street "gilded dirt." Are these gratuitous remarks? I've never said such things.... > > I apologize both for bringing this up and for not having done so > sooner. Anyway, this voice will finally *really* be off Usenet > soon enough... > > DZO 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 07:10:15 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Thu May 15 04:06:01 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id EAA14728; Thu, 15 May 1997 04:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 04:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705151105.EAA14728@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re For the record.... alt.religion.bahai Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3721 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Just wanted to clear the air on a couple of items, for the > record. > > On 26 Apr 1997 13:56:53 GMT FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > . . . . Your carrying > >of that parties' line so conscientiously, Donald, . . . > > I'm not aware of any party (or parties) or any (party) line. In > any event, I have like others contributed what I believed to be > true and relevant on these issues, not what anyone else told me > or encouraged me in any way to write. Any implication to the > contrary is, well, inappropriate... I'm not convinced.... It seems to me there has definitely been a narrowly defined set of acceptable ideas that you have adhered to quite predictably.... I don't believe it is "inappropriate" to point out rigidity of of thinking when it seems to be there.... Your comments, to my mind, usually reflect what I've thought of lately as basically a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Faith.... One that dismisses the more enlightened ideas of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha in favor of totalitarian control over people's lives and thoughts. > > On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:21:08 -0600 FG@hotmail.com wrote: > >Fare well, Donald. You've been an interesting voice, more > >intelligent than most Bahais who have participated.... > > Thank you for your conciliatory remarks, but even if I were > worthy of the compliment I cannot accept it as it puts others in > a negative light. This is a matter of principle about what I > have for some time referred to as a "gratuitous remark"-- i.e., > something which could just as easily not be said and leave every > one better off (e.g., if A says to B "You're doing a great job, > much better than C" the negative comparison to C is gratuitous: > 1) it does not help B, 2) it may hurt C when it gets back to > him/her, 3) if B accepts the remark uncritically, it could be a > source of misunderstanding with C, and 4) if B is perceptive, > he/she will realize that A could just as easily say the same sort > of thing about him/her to someone else later and therefore will > trust A less). Gratuitous remarks are not specifically > prohibited in the Baha'i Writings as far as I'm aware, but my > personal understanding is that they are against the spirit of the > teachings and thus try to avoid using them. Against "the spirit of the teachings" according to you.... One should never hurt anyone's feelings? It's all right to intimate or accuse others of being covenant breakers or call them "crud" but you won't comment on that.... Tacitly, you accept it, as long they're on your "side"? I've been a Bahai for twenty years, Donald, and know, like you, that there are an awful lot of stupid, literal-minded, fanatical Bahais.... It's time somebody speak up, instead of letting them run (ruin) the show, so to speak.... > > I apologize both for bringing this up and for not having done so > sooner. Anyway, this voice will finally *really* be off Usenet > soon enough... For the record, Donald, and you realize it, I made the above statements several weeks ago.... I don't retract them though. There are a lot of unintelligent Bahais in my experience.... It has often seemed to me that they are the only ones some individuals in the Bahai Faith like to have around.... compliant sheep, easily malleable.... > > DZO -- 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 07:50:01 1997 >From panuser@reference.com Fri May 16 03:58:31 1997 Received: (from panuser@localhost) by shadowfax.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id DAA01557; Fri, 16 May 1997 03:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 03:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199705161058.DAA01557@shadowfax.reference.com> From: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.rights.human,talk.religion.misc Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re For the Record....alt.religion.bahai Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3843 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 -- 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 Jul 11 06:45:05 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Thu Jul 10 04:28:09 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA23460; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 04:27:57 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re More Bahai "art" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:29:30 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 77 Message-ID: <33C4C79A.1137@hotmail.com> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.118 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: 2872 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, if you don't mind my gently saying so, 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 06:45:11 1997 >From smsmith@cybertrails.com Fri Jul 11 00:23:15 1997 Received: from 6 ([205.180.50.89]) by cliff.cybertrails.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA44; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:41:49 -0700 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: Cc: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Subject: Re: Re More Bahai "art" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:47:26 -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: <19970711064148027.AAA44@6> X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3546 Dear Mr. Glaysher, Again, I am returning this to you unposted with the request that you pay more attention to what has and has not been posted to srb. The message that you are responding to has not yet been posted to srb as it was not clearly identified as a submission to srb. Therefore, your response to this private e-mail will not be posted unless fruther clarification is received. Thank you. 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 More Bahai "art" Date: Thursday, July 10, 1997 6:29 AM 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, if you don't mind my gently saying so, 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 06:45:01 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 04:29:59 1997 Received: (qmail 16209 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 11:27:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 11:27:59 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4C79A.1137@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 07:29:30 -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 More Bahai "art" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2872 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, if you don't mind my gently saying so, 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 - Sat Aug 02 07:14:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 06:03:45 1997 Received: (qmail 26308 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 13:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 13:03:42 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1DF0F.6087@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 09:05:19 -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,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re Non-sense Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2680 Kavian Sadeghzade Milani wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > This email is between you and I and I humbly request that it > remain between the two of us. What is the nature of this > dislike for Persian Baha'is or Baha'is in general? Has your > soul not been touched with the heat of the Revelation. Has not > the rust of the soul been rubbed off with the burnish of the > word of God? I feel your pain and I want to experience it with > you. Please, let me into your concerns. I was born in Chicago > but have lived in Iran for a few years, in between. I remain > very interested in your thought. Why would you email me supposedly in private? Is it your intention to "reeducate" me in the truth you imagine you have about Iranian Bahais? A clandestine attempt to manipulate, control, and silence me? Done in the private silence of email? You imply my soul has not been touched by the "heat of the Revelation." A contemptible tactic in my opinion, and a common one for Iranian Bahais to use in suppressing others.... You imply I'm spiritually "rusty," when to my mind and observation, the corrosion has gone deep into many Machiavellian Iranian Bahai souls.... Read THE PRINCE, the favorite reading of a "prominent" Iranian Bahai I once knew.... One whose name many would recognize.... It occurs to me that perhaps in true Machiavellian style you intend for me to reply to your "private" email in public.... Achieving some dubious goal, exposing me, as others have tried, as not even respecting the privacy of email, etc., as though I should allow fascists and deceitful, power-hungry Bahai oppressors to insult me in private with impunity.... As Rilke wrote, echoing Rodin, "To live is to suffer." My pain is that of the human condition.... I seek nor deserve no more pity than the next person.... And certainly wouldn't share my little griefs with the likes of you.... You have no respect or interest in my thought or you wouldn't try to abuse it in private.... Like all the fascist totalitarians, religious and secular, of human history.... > > Warmest Regards, > Kavian > Of course, you understand that I ask that this be confidential. > Otherwise I prefer that you should not reply. I'm quite accustomed now to Iranian Bahais and non-Iranian Bahais prefering I not reply unless they can distort and co-opt my soul and conscience.... Those who are fair-minded will read and see your message here for what it is.... You are the purveyor of "non-sense." -- 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 Aug 08 07:17:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 8 03:14:32 1997 Received: (qmail 20045 invoked from network); 8 Aug 1997 10:14:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 1997 10:14:31 -0000 Message-ID: <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 06:16:06 -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,soc.rights.human,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: More SRBahai censorship (Re: Re Non-sense) References: <33E27845.42F@best.com> <33E9029F.66FF@comtrol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1749 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > Now, pehaprs, you can answer me one question. How come everytime I quote > Quran/hadith of the prophet indicating no Religion will be (accepted) > after Islam and post these to soc.religion.bahai, they are quietly > discarded? I wish the list owners had the decency to tell me they are > rejecting the posting and the reason for it... They even rejected this > posting (which overall you did not dislike)! Is it an article of faith > of Bahais to reject all discorse? Or are the moderators of > soc.religion.bahai are looking for a list where they can quietly > brainwash people without anyone being subjected to opposing views/proofs. I'm sorry to hear you too have had this experience with soc.religion.bahai.... > > I invite you to visit soc.religion.islam and post anything about Islam > (no profanity); we regularly answer these... This is a lesson the Bahai > moderators have yet to learn... Unfortunately, the moderators at soc.religion.islam refused last February and March to post several messages from me regarding the proposal for talk.religion.bahai, which some Muslims would have been interested in judging by the contributions now here on alt.religion.bahai. I'm not accusing them of censorship, which is very much what takes place on soc.religion.bahai, in my opinion, but it did seem to me to be rather narrowly defining what would be relevant to other Muslims.... In fairness too, I should mention a number of the Christian newsgroups refused to post the proposal and any discussion about it. > > 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 14 10:57:09 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 06:49:40 1997 Received: (qmail 19612 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 13:49:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 13:49:39 -0000 Message-ID: <33F30D3E.602F@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:50:54 -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,soc.rights.human,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abus e.misc,news.admin.misc,soc.religion.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship References: <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> <33ec2c45.4599976@news.wwnet.com> <33f6b558.22899994@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <5slhvp$o1j@nntp02.primenet.com> <33F0E3E4.8B6@miningco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1186 Bahai.Guide wrote: > > As an extension of Dick's comments, what is interesting and ignored by > most is the number of these same individuals who have been kicked off > other moderated email lists run by non-Baha'is. I monitor a number of > these lists (ie. I am a determined lurker) and have witnessed the > objection to the type of postings that are being rejected by s.r.b. You present yourself as a "determined lurker" and suggest that that gives you some kind of special status or insight on the truth.... You are actually minimizing a serious breach of commonly accepted UseNet principles, abused by the email lists in question, ignored by yourself, while placing yourself and apparently other Bahai and non-Bahai censors on the high ground.... > > Don C > -- > https://bahai.miningco.com - an annotated index to the best Baha'i > internet resources and a weekly column on Baha'i topics. > New directories: Poets, Arts Articles > This week's topic "Economic Justice: A reaction to the UPS Strike" -- 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 06:19:24 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 15 05:05:27 1997 Received: (qmail 707 invoked from network); 15 Aug 1997 12:05:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 1997 12:05:24 -0000 Message-ID: <33F44663.6830@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:06:59 -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.religion.iranian,news.admin.censorship,ne ws.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Freedom of Expression References: <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> <33ec2c45.4599976@news.wwnet.com> <33f6b558.22899994@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <5slhvp$o1j@nntp02.primenet.com> <33F0E3E4.8B6@miningco.com> <33F30D3E.602F@hotmail.com> <33F370CE.3682@miningco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3669 Bahai.Guide wrote: > > Michael - > You claim > > You are actually minimizing a serious breach of > > commonly accepted UseNet principles, abused by the email lists > > in question > You obviously are a newcomer on the I'net. Within the last 3 years I > have seen several people banned not merely from UseNet Groups and email > lists but from the Internet for making the type of posts that you have. A vague accusation you fail to substantiate.... > Five years ago, there would be no question but what you would loose all > internet privileges, and if your connection was via a University > account, you might well have rcvd sanctions from that body. Ditto.... > > Believe what you will, there has never been an unequivocal right to > self-expression on the I'net, in the Faith, or in any society with which > I am familiar, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I've made no claim that freedom of speech is "unequivocal." There are acceptable limits to mind and I've indicated that in the past. My observation and experience has been that soc.religion.bahai transgresses all acceptable limits in terms of barring speech the moderators choose to suppress. Many others have experienced it too and agree.... The core > statement within the Faith is "Individual Rights and Freedom of > Expression". Note the title is not, as is often claimed, "Individual > Rights and Freedoms". While the latter is on the cover of the print > edition, it is the former phrase that is used by the Universal House of > Justice. The major point in the statement is that there *are* limits on > the freedom of expression within the Faith. Perhaps you should contact the publisher and correct them. No Bahai can soon fail to understand there are definitely limits to freedom of expression within the Faith.... > > While in some respects the Faith has ideas that are consistent with the > progressive ideas of western liberal philosophy, it does not consider > the dogma of secular American society a standard to which the Faith > should conform. The Faith is, after all, a religion, not a progressive > social movement. Its primary purpose is to enable the individual to > gain a closer relationship with God. A secondary purpose is to enable > this relationship to be expressed thru' an ever-advancing civilization. > The Writings are very explicit that this secondary purpose is possible > only to the extent that the primary purpose is achieved. Explicit to your mind.... Where in the Bahai Writings is this stated? I've been reading them for twenty years and recall no such passage.... The penchant for thought-control comes out of the cultural milieu of Iran, not the Bahai Faith, in my opinion.... > > Your posts have seemed to assumed that the opposite is the case, that a > person can come into a closer relationship with God only to the extent > that they have certain freedoms. If this were true, then how did > Christianity manage to survive to the conversion of Constantine? How > did the early Babis and Baha'is survive the periodic pogroms of Persia? > In neither case did they dream of the freedoms you take for granted. Your questions are non sequiturs.... > > Don C > > -- > https://bahai.miningco.com - an annotated index to the best Baha'i > internet resources and a weekly column on Baha'i topics. > New directories: Poets, Arts Articles > This week's topic "Economic Justice: A reaction to the UPS Strike" -- 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 07:15:59 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 05:31:42 1997 Received: (qmail 12889 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 12:31:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 12:31:38 -0000 Message-ID: <33EF0687.2DEB@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:33:11 -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,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.huma n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship (and Detweiler's censoring of my message on the United Nations) References: <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> <33ec2c45.4599976@news.wwnet.com> <33f6b558.22899994@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <5slhvp$o1j@nntp02.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 11540 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > In article <33f6b558.22899994@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, > Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote: > >On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 15:49:38 GMT, rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) wrote: > > > >The complaint about SRB has been voiced by many people. That means the > >judgment of the moderators in that NG is flawed, or they have to follow a > >higher authority. > > > >Don't users in that NG have the right to replace the moderators? > > Rights? Usenet? Now there is an interesting juxtaposition. :-) > > > > >>Now, if alt.religion.bahai didn't exist, then there would have been > >>more justification for posting to SRB. Even then, it would have been > >>a close call. Now that ARB exists, it can serve as a forum for posts > >>deemed off-topic in SRB, yet are still revelant to the Baha'i Faith. > > > >The argument above is irrelevant. ARB was created because of the > >censorship at SRB. Now they use ARB to justify their action? A typical > >Baha'i logic to gloss over the facts with twisted logic! > > > >>Censorship? No, I don't think so. > > > >If it talks like a duck, and it walks like a duck... > > As a former moderator of SRB... Well, as a former moderator, I ought to > keep my mouth shut! But hey, let's throw caution to the wind. > > My creed always was You can say anything you like about the Faith on > SRB as long as you say it with a smile on your face. Keep personal > attacks out of it, respect others right to an opinion, talk about the > Baha'i Faith and there shouldn't be a problem. > > For instance, you Joseph. You wanted to talk about the Bab and the > validity of Baha'u'llah's succession. Let the record (DejaNews) show > that indeed you were allowed to discuss that topic. Now, when it got > to the point where you wanted to state your claim to the successorship, > the topic soon became Emmanualism instead of the Baha'i Faith. Perhaps > that still has bees in your bonnet? > > Now Kavosh, Fred Glaysher, and the webmaster, et al. Many times they just > can't bring themselves to deal respectfully with those who differ in their > opinions. Sometimes this leads to rejection. They cry censorship without > noting that others such as the Virk brothers, K. Paul Johnson, and many > others have been able and continue to post objections because they don't > find it necessary to denigrate those they communicate with or wish to discuss. > > Also, many times a question is asked, an answer is provided, the original > poster rejects the answer and asks the question again assuming that an > answer they don't like is no answer at all. When I moderated, I would > allow things like this to go around 2 or 3 times and then ask the > participants - both Baha'i and non-Baha'i to move the discussion along. > Again, the same cries of censorship. But really, just attempts to keep > discussions from degenerating. As Audil Virk can tell you, after several > months, even these same discussions which had gotten repetitive are once > again allowed. > > In any case, the charge of censorship is a cheap and easy one to make for > those who are not used to having to respect those they disagree with and > the chronically paranoid. As is now endemic in many cultures these days, > it allows one to free themselves of responsibility for their actions. > > The fact remains, if you want to post something to SRB, keep it relevant > to the Faith, say it respectfully and keep the discussion moving and you > won't run into problems. > > For instance, try this: > > "To the readership of SRB, > > I have read many Baha'i books and have come to the conclusion that > Baha'u'llah was a utopian dreamer with a great ability to manipulate > the weak minded around him. How can the Baha'is on this forum justify > their belief in this charlatan?" > > or this: > > "I recently read a news article which exposed the efforts of the United > States Baha'i authorities to stamp out intellectual dissent within > their religious community. I know Baha'is claim that independant > investigation of the truth is a hallmark of their religion. However, > this article shows that to be a hypocritical position in my opinion. > How does a Baha'i justify such actions?" > > If either of these gets rejected, I will gladly take back all that I > have said here. > > Cheers, > > Dick D. ----------------------------- Here's evidence of Detweiler's censorship, supported by other "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai. The original exists on www.dejanews.com in late March, 1997: Subject: SRB Censored: 4-23-97: Boatright From: FG@hotmail.com Date: 1997/04/23 Message-Id: <5jl689$ami$1@bilbo.reference.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage [More Headers] Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 3-20-97 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:11:49 -0600 From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: FG@hotmail.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Rick Boatright wrote: > > Oh Please!!!! Stalin killed millions. Dick D. returned a mail > message. Hardly comparable. You remind me of the High School > debators I judge from time to time who try to convince me that a > change in the sentencing guidlines for juviniles in New York will > lead to a nuclear war with China. Get some perspective Frederick. You fail here to confront the tyranny of his act. Hyperbole on my part? Yes. Does that justify denying myself and other Bahais a hearing? No.... Your high school comparison is cute Mr. Boatright, but I assure you I am not in high school nor playing a trivial forensic game.... > > Oh yeah, I presume you'll cross post this everywhere too. Here, I'll > make it official: Osborn posted the United Nations statement on Bahais everywhere. Why should I not post my opinion in the same places? Are you and he now in control elsewhere too? Or want to be? God save us.... > > I am returning the below to you due to it being off charter, and it > will not be posted to soc.religion.bahai You are hiding behind your charter and using it again to justify shameful suppression of opinions you don't want to hear. It's precisely this type of thing that led me to state on alt.religion.bahai in the day or two that Mr. Osborn's suggestion of a "charter" were merely another attempt to control the speech and the consciences of others. Your intolerance and hypocrisy are blatant.... > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator and Jack Booted Thug As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it.... > soc.religion.bahai > > > To: srb@bcca.org > > From: FG > > Subject: SRB Censored: 3-20-97 > > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:03:26 -0400 > > Organization: None > > Reply-to: FG@hotmail.com > > > [Sure, no censorship at soc.religion.bahai.... Mr. Detweiler is only > > doing his holy duty of "protecting" other Bahais from my "fractured > > logic".... It seems to me that while destroying millions, Stalin > > thought he was doing about the same thing....] -- > > > > Subject: Re: Situation of Bahais in Iran (UN) > > Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 07:27:42 -0600 (MDT) > > From: "Richard C. Detweiler" > > To: FG@hotmail.com > > CC: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > > > > Fred, > > > > Equating the systematic denial of basic human rights to a group of > > people by a government simply bacause of their religious beliefs > > with the practice of Baha'i review and your personal experience with > > the moderators of this group is completely beyond the pale. > > > > You are not being denied access to work, your children are not being > > denied an education, you are not being denied your inheritance, your > > marriage is not being annulled, you are not being threatened with > > imprisonment, your home is not being destroyed and you are not being > > sentenced to death nor executed simply for your convictions. > > > > Posting the fractured logic below would only lead to a lot of pain > > and rancor. It is pointlessly provocative. While browsing the > > newsgroups, I noticed this note was crossposted to many newsgroups > > so your point has been made. This is being returned to you unposted > > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > Dick Detweiler > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > > From news@reference.com Sun Apr 20 04:31:45 1997 > > > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) > > > by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA25359 > > > for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:31:43 -0700 > > > (MST) > > > Received: from hekla.switch.ch by bcca.org with smtp > > > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0wIuqE-0003kuC; Sun, 20 Apr 97 07:31 > > > EDT > > > Received: from bilbo.reference.com by hekla.switch.ch with SMTP > > > (PP); Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:31:21 +0200 Received: (from > > > news@localhost) > > > by bilbo.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) > > > id EAA19068; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:31:08 -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: Situation of Bahais in Iran (UN) > > > Date: 20 Apr 1997 11:31:08 GMT > > > Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service > > > Lines: 145 > > > Message-ID: <5jcups$ijn$1@bilbo.reference.com> > > > NNTP-Posting-Host: shadowfax.reference.com > > > Originator: panuser@reference.com () > > > Content-Length: 7609 > > > > > > [I tried to crosspost this to soc.religion.bahai a few days ago > > > but I may have made a mistake in the header that prevented it from > > > reaching you.] > > > > > > Subject: Re: Situation of Baha'is in Iran (from report to the UN > > > Commission on > > > Human Rights, 11 Feb. 97) > > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:50:50 -0400 > > > From: FG > > > > > > > > > As a Bahai, I fail to see why I should be so terribly concerned > > > about oppression of Bahais in Iran, while I'm supposed to condone > > > it here in the "evil, decadent" United States.... It has often > > > seemed to me contradictory that Bahais use the free speech and > > > human rights provided for in international instruments to curry > > > favor from the government of the United States, and the United > > > Nations, while depriving their own members those same rights in > > > the West and elsewhere. It can't be both ways.... > > > -- 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. ---------------------------- I ask you to decide for yourself whether censorship exists on soc.religion.bahai.... This censored message by Mr. Detweiler is incontestable evidence to my mind of it.... I can post another message that clearly is indicative of censorship if others would like.... -- 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 13:47:29 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 04:29:48 1997 Received: (qmail 21037 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 11:29:41 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 11:29:41 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0498B.2CEE@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 07:31:23 -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.misc,misc.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship References: <33f6b558.22899994@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <5slhvp$o1j@nntp02.primenet.com> <33EF0687.2DEB@hotmail.com> <5snit8$jbb@nntp02.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 364 Richard C. Detweiler wrote: > > Exactly my point Fred. Thanks for helping me prove it. I couldn't > have chosen a better example. As far as I'm concerned, nor could I. > > Cheers, > > 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 07:15:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 04:45:54 1997 Received: (qmail 12647 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 11:45:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 11:45:47 -0000 Message-ID: <33EEFBCF.7C5B@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:47:27 -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,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship (Re: Re Non-sense) References: <33E27845.42F@best.com> <33E9029F.66FF@comtrol.com> <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2260 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > I'm sorry to hear you too have had this experience with > > soc.religion.bahai.... > > Real Characters, aren't they?! > > > > I invite you to visit soc.religion.islam and post anything about Islam > > > (no profanity); we regularly answer these... This is a lesson the Bahai > > > moderators have yet to learn... > > > > Unfortunately, the moderators at soc.religion.islam refused last > > February and March to post several messages from me regarding the > > proposal for talk.religion.bahai.... > > Naturally, there is a reason for having a moderated list: > soc.culture.islam deals with issues dealing with Islam (including > questioning its doctrine in a civilized manner), I can understand why > they might not have allowed a request not dealing with Islam on their > forum... > > However, the problem I have with soc.culture.bahai is much more > fundamental! They refuse to post anything that questions Bahaism. They go > on with their misguided interpretation of Quran (refute verses which > clearly state the finality of prophethood), and all of my contributions > (with the correct interpretation and additional verses) are rejected!!; > ... Mind you, I am not discussing unrelated issues, I am trying to > discuss Bahaism... Well, I'm sorry to hear this.... I feel you and other Muslims should be allowed to express your beliefs without the interference of a "moderator" at soc.religion.bahai.... I have found your and other Muslims' postings interesting and informative, at least in regard to what your opinions actually are.... Opinions worthy of respect and consideration.... though I often don't agree with them.... > > I can only compare their action to a cult which has set a trap and when > someone falls in the trap, they rush into closing the entrance for the > fear that person may see the truth... Just despicable! Unfortunately, I think your characterization is quite accurate.... It is the manner in which they operate.... > > 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 - Tue Aug 12 13:47:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 04:25:47 1997 Received: (qmail 21027 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 11:25:45 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 11:25:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0489A.64D@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 07:27:22 -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,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship (Re: Re Non-sense) References: <33E27845.42F@best.com> <33E9029F.66FF@comtrol.com> <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> <33EEFBCF.7C5B@hotmail.com> <33EF6C15.5506@comtrol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1339 Abir Majid wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > >[...] > > > ... Mind you, I am not discussing unrelated issues, I am trying to > > > discuss Bahaism... > > > > Well, I'm sorry to hear this.... I feel you and other Muslims > > should be allowed to express your beliefs without the > > interference of a "moderator" at soc.religion.bahai.... I have > > found your and other Muslims' postings interesting and > > informative, [....] > > I don't disagree. Many Muslim postings on s.r.b. have actually been very > interesting and informative. I am only surprised that this statement > came from a person who for a long time expressed nothing but despise > towards Muslims, especially Shii'a Muslims, Iranian people in general, > and many others. Recently Mr.Glaysher issued apologies to his new-found > friends. A few expressions come to mind,... Anyway, enjoy your new > company. To whom are you speaking? It's not clear to me. Perhaps you suggest I'm now in cahoots with the Muslims.... I genuinely apologized to Muslims, upon further reflection, for perhaps unkind words.... What's wrong with that? > > Abir Majid -- 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 06:19:26 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 15 05:08:28 1997 Received: (qmail 724 invoked from network); 15 Aug 1997 12:08:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 1997 12:08:24 -0000 Message-ID: <33F4471D.79DF@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:10:05 -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,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship (Re: Re Non-sense) References: <33E27845.42F@best.com> <33E9029F.66FF@comtrol.com> <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> <33EEFBCF.7C5B@hotmail.com> <33EF6C15.5506@comtrol.com> <33F0489A.64D@hotmail.com> <33F1D33A.7CC@comtrol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1560 Abir Majid wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > Abir Majid wrote: > [...] > > > I don't disagree. Many Muslim postings on s.r.b. have actually been very > > > interesting and informative. I am only surprised that this statement > > > came from a person who for a long time expressed nothing but despise > > > towards Muslims, especially Shii'a Muslims, Iranian people in general, > > > and many others. Recently Mr.Glaysher issued apologies to his new-found > > > friends. A few expressions come to mind,... Anyway, enjoy your new > > > company. > > > > To whom are you speaking? It's not clear to me. Perhaps you > > suggest I'm now in cahoots with the Muslims.... I genuinely > > apologized to Muslims, upon further reflection, for perhaps > > unkind words.... What's wrong with that? > [...] > I was actually speaking to you. If you say that that your apology to > Muslims was genuine, then this is great. I'll take your word for it, and > apologise to you myself. > > There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking back unkind words. Please > accept my apology. No problem, whatsoever.... I truly do love Islam and many cultural achievements of it and felt as a few days went by that I had been untrue to myself and was simply ashamed of having gone a little too far.... Best wishes. > > Abir Majid > https://www.geocities.com/heartland/prairie/1958 -- 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 08:12:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 04:43:11 1997 Received: (qmail 7464 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 11:43:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 11:43:08 -0000 Message-ID: <33F19E31.7150@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:44:49 -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,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: More SRBahai censorship (Re: Re Non-sense) References: <33E27845.42F@best.com> <33E9029F.66FF@comtrol.com> <33EAF1E6.5578@hotmail.com> <5slm2q$bd2$3@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5812 Isaac Freeman wrote: > > In article , Kavosh Soltani writes: > > However, the problem I have with soc.culture.bahai is much more > > fundamental! They refuse to post anything that questions Bahaism. > > A look at soc.religion.bahai on just about any day of the week will show > that this is not so. I've seen many, many posts that question the Baha'i > Faith. > > >They go > > on with their misguided interpretation of Quran (refute verses which > > clearly state the finality of prophethood), > > I'm afraid there's not much you can do about this. We simply don't agree > that God's revelation ended with Muhammad. > > > and all of my contributions > > (with the correct interpretation and additional verses) are rejected!!; > > ... Mind you, I am not discussing unrelated issues, I am trying to > > discuss Bahaism... > > I can't comment on that, since I'm not a moderator, and I haven't seen your > contrbutions. The charter specifies the conditions under which the moderators > can reject a post. Did they go outside that? Did they tell you why your post > was rejected? > > Besides all that, you still have complete freedom to post anywhere else, > including alt.religion.bahai, and talk.religion.misc (where I'm reading this). > Lots of Baha'is read these groups, so you're sure to find an audience. > > Isaac Freeman FROM SRB: 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 02 07:14:41 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 2 04:01:37 1997 Received: (qmail 11073 invoked from network); 2 Aug 1997 11:01:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 1997 11:01:35 -0000 Message-ID: <33E313ED.1975@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 07:03:09 -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,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Non-sense References: <33E1DF0F.6087@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4190 Kavian Sadeghzade Milani wrote: > > > Kavian Sadeghzade Milani wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > > This email is between you and I and I humbly request that it > > > remain between the two of us. What is the nature of this > > > dislike for Persian Baha'is or Baha'is in general? Has your > > > soul not been touched with the heat of the Revelation. Has not > > > the rust of the soul been rubbed off with the burnish of the > > > word of God? I feel your pain and I want to experience it with > > > you. Please, let me into your concerns. I was born in Chicago > > > but have lived in Iran for a few years, in between. I remain > > > very interested in your thought. > > > > Why would you email me supposedly in private? Is it your intention > > to "reeducate" me in the truth you imagine you have about > > Iranian Bahais? A clandestine attempt to manipulate, control, > > and silence me? Done in the private silence of email? > > I will just quote from DSM IV psychiatric manual some of the > criteria for Paranoid Personality Disorder: > > A pervasive distrust and suspiciciousness of others such that > their motives are interpreted as malevolent...suspects w/out > sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming,or > deceiving him...is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about > the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates...reads > hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign events or > remarks. My, you're quite with this quotation.... Did you already have it picked out before emailing me???? > > > You imply my soul has not been touched by the "heat of the > > Revelation." A contemptible tactic in my opinion, and a common > > one for Iranian Bahais to use in suppressing others.... You > > imply I'm spiritually "rusty," when to my mind and observation, > > the corrosion has gone deep into many Machiavellian Iranian > > Bahai souls.... Read THE PRINCE, > > You mean like openning other peoples letters to the public, etc. Only those who attempt to coerce and control me in private.... If you have something sincere to say, why can't you be honest enough to say it in public? What are hidden motives? Why do you want, like so many Iranian Bahais, to keep hiding them? > > > It occurs to me that perhaps in true Machiavellian style > > you intend for me to reply to your "private" email in > > public.... Achieving some dubious goal, exposing me, as > > others have tried, as not even respecting the privacy of > > email, etc., as though I should allow fascists and deceitful, > > power-hungry Bahai oppressors to insult me in private with > > impunity.... > > This is the level of delusion that those with anti-Baha'i > comments manifest. What a state. What a living hell. Now I'm "anti-Bahai." Oh woe is me.... Alas, as Milton wrote, "I myself am Hell." Perhaps too subtle of a Western allusion for you.... Given your simple minded conception of what a Bahai should be.... > > > As Rilke wrote, echoing Rodin, "To live is to suffer." My > > pain is that of the human condition.... I seek nor deserve > > no more pity than the next person.... And certainly wouldn't > > share my little griefs with the likes of you.... > > > You have no respect or interest in my thought or you > > wouldn't try to abuse it in private.... Like all the > > fascist totalitarians, religious and secular, of human > > history.... > > > > Warmest Regards, > > > Kavian > > > Of course, you understand that I ask that this be confidential. > > > Otherwise I prefer that you should not reply. > > Alas! > > I'm quite accustomed now to Iranian Bahais and non-Iranian > > Bahais prefering I not reply unless they can distort and > > co-opt my soul and conscience.... Those who are fair-minded > > will read and see your message here for what it is.... > > I will be leaving for W.Va today but I will be back in a weeks > time. For now, > Khoda negahdar > Kavian Something to look forward to.... -- 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 02 07:14:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 2 04:04:47 1997 Received: (qmail 11078 invoked from network); 2 Aug 1997 11:04:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 1997 11:04:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33E314AF.2C8A@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 07:06:23 -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.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Re Non-sense References: <33E1DF0F.6087@hotmail.com> <33E2547B.1970@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1947 Farshad Farhoumand wrote: > > Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > > Kavian Sadeghzade Milani wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > > > This email is between you and I and I humbly request that it > > > > remain between the two of us. What is the nature of this > > > > dislike for Persian Baha'is or Baha'is in general? Has your > > > > soul not been touched with the heat of the Revelation.... > > > > > > Why would you email me supposedly in private? Is it your intention > > > to "reeducate" me in the truth you imagine you have about > > > Iranian Bahais? A clandestine attempt to manipulate, control, > > > and silence me? Done in the private silence of email? > > > ....... > > > You are the purveyor of "non-sense.".... > > > > Now, you are getting it right! But it is not only Iranian Bahais who are > > doing this; the entire Bahai faith is based on a distorted version of > > Islam. Some Iranian Bahais are well acquitanted with the truth and this > > is why they want to indoctrinate people privately and using the same > > style of mesmerizing speach that Hitler, David Koresh, Jim Jones and > > others used to mislead the masses... > > > > A lot of words, very little substance, no divine guidance -> Hell! > > > > Peace. > > My dear friend; > He who knows and knows that he knows, is a master. He who knows > and does not know that he knows, needs a teacher. He who does not know > and knows that he does not know, needs love. He who does not know and > knows that he does not know, is lost. > > Discussion is an exchange of knowledge, argument is an exchange of > ignorance. Apparently, all you can exchange is worthless, trite pseudo-aphorisms.... > > Farshad -- 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 10 07:02:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 10 03:35:59 1997 Received: (qmail 3908 invoked from network); 10 Jul 1997 10:35:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 1997 10:35:57 -0000 Message-ID: <33C4BB68.2DED@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:37:28 -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: Re Propaganda? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2258 Dan Jensen wrote: > > ZwqzEwAw@baha.demon.co.uk> <01bc7f2c$347e1ce0$a5e893cf@oemcomputer> <867173093.29149@dejanews.com> <01bc80e6$53cb5840$7cda169d@afshar.sfsymphony.org> <33B4ECD7.2F66@hotmail.com> <33b54269.294088@news.online.no> <33B632B > 9.56F2@hotmail.com> <867716274.3061@dejanews.com> <33B86755.4E526CB7@interport.net> > Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc. - 415 964 BEST > Cc: jensen@atlas.arc.nasa.gov > Bcc: > > Wow, there are some ANGRY folks on this newsgroup! > > Let me tell you, I am an ex-Baha'i. I had a pretty good life as a Baha'i; > don't get me wrong. I studied Arabic for awhile, and I worked at the > Baha'i World Centre in Israel. I left the Baha'i Faith primarily for > the same reason I rejected other religions as a Baha'i; I don't think > the Baha'i Faith is any better or worse than other faiths. > > I just had to follow my soul. > > That being said, I have witnessed ugly power struggles in Baha'i > communities, I have been sexually molested at a Baha'i institute, > and I have watched an upstanding Baha'i use Baha'i scripture to > help him seduce my friend's wife. I also have been sensored on > occasion by SRB, for what I think were weak reasons. > > I still don't think the Baha'i Faith is any worse than any other > faith. > > I've seen some fairly controversial messages archived by SRB, > but I wouldn't be surprised if they trim the least "desirable" > postings off of their archives on occasion. I don't think it's > the worst case of censorship in the world, but this is beside > my point. > > Newsgroups like alt.religion.bahai can be used for a more free > discussion of the Baha'i Faith, but this one is so chaotic and > full of name calling that I would prefer that it be moderated > by a non-Baha'i, non-Muslim group. Well, I have my moments too.... However, they're only moments.... And I defend the right of the Muslims to express their views on the Bahai Faith if they wish.... Are Bahais just supposed to pretend they don't exist? > > ... certainly not by me! ;-) > > Ciao, > dan -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jun 24 07:51:27 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 24 04:48:47 1997 Received: (qmail 2887 invoked from network); 24 Jun 1997 11:48:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 24 Jun 1997 11:48:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33AFB46C.36C5@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 07:50:04 -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 Question of Schism Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3117 Anne Furlong wrote: [clip] > Within the Baha'i community, there are indeed many varieties of thoughts - > what there are not, in fact, are "schools". Let me explain. > [clip] > However, a "school" means that a group of people has collected around one > opinion or variety of thought. This is contrary to the Baha'i Faith in > many ways, not the least being that it immediately contravenes the > responsibility of each individual to investigate truth for himself. > Baha'u'llah links this search with justice itself - the "best beloved of > all things" in His sight, through which we will see with our own eyes and > think with our own minds, and not through the eyes and with the minds of > others. It seems to me that a "school" has indeed developed, historically, in the Bahai Faith.... the school of Iranian interpretation of the Bahai Writings.... And perhaps another "school" exists as well, conflated oddly with the former.... A largely liberal, progressive old school party that merely regurgitates prevailing pieties in secular liberal circles.... The upshot of both schools is stasis and boredom, nay, indeed, atrophy, spiritual and intellectual, within the Bahai Faith.... > > Furthermore, a school must inevitably have a leader, and again such a > concept is utterly contrary to the Baha'i Faith. Authority in the Faith > is given, not to individuals, but to institutions, on which individuals > serve both selflessly and to the best of their individual capacities. As > you can see, the very notion of "schools" of thought is repugnant to the > spirit and teachings of the Baha'i Faith. This argument has become mere rhetoric.... Institutions are composed of individuals who consciously or unconsciously express and exert their understanding.... [clip] > And how did it come about? Through two very simple, and apparently > harmless processes: the formation of "schools" of followers clustering > around the opinions and ideas of another, and through the failure to > adhere to the teachings of the Prophet. Religious history is full of the well-intention servants of truth going awry.... Alas, human experience.... The oppressed become the oppressors.... > > In the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, we have been promised that the unity > of His Faith will never be divided in this manner - while at the same > time, diversity of thought and opinion will be cherished and protected as > never before in religious history. This diversity among the believers is > necessary so that we may see truth in all its fullness; but it can only be > channelled if we are at the same time perfectly faithful to the teachings > and laws of Baha'u'llah. "Cherished and protected": It simply hasn't happened yet, and I'm not convinced that it ever will, in this religion.... "Perfectly": in whose opinion, yours, or Iranian Bahai school of interpreting the Bahai Faith? [clip] > All the best, > > Anne Furlong > afurlong@ganymede.cs.mun.ca > St John's Newfoundland Canada -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sat Aug 02 07:14:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 05:43:54 1997 Received: (qmail 26157 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 12:43:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 12:43:50 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1DA68.3B29@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:45:28 -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 Re Re Fairness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1239 Nafeh Fananapazir wrote: > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > I was impressed with the tone of your last posting. I agree > that love and unity are rendered more and more meaningless > without desire for 'the truth.' I also agree that when the > search for truth is combined with love and 'the servitude' that > you referred to at the end of your posting, then and only then > will 'human nature begin to change' so to speak. Fundamentally, I don't believe Baha'u'llah ultimately teaches human nature can change.... Alas.... > > As long as we are true to the Writings of the Central figures > and to the guidance of the beloved Universal House of Justice, > we need not be concerned with 'offending' anyone. "True" in whose opinion? Which "guidance"? In what context? Has the context changed? Does it fit the situation? You make it sound so simply.... To many literal-minded Bahais, perhaps you haven't noticed, anyone who doesn't repeat their favorite ignorant, narrow-minded cliches, is offensive.... > > Thanks again. > > sincerely, > > nafeh -- 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 05 07:35:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 4 04:14:29 1997 Received: (qmail 7181 invoked from network); 4 Aug 1997 11:14:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 1997 11:14:27 -0000 Message-ID: <33E5B9F7.16C9@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 07:16:07 -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: Re reinstatement on Talisman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2018 FYI >From jrcole@umich.edu Sat Aug 2 21:54:33 1997 Received: from pm113-26.dialip.mich.net by gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) id AAA21000; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708030454.AAA21000@gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu> X-Sender: jrcole@j.imap.itd.umich.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:54:26 -0400 To: FG@hotmail.com From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: reinstatement on Talisman Dear Frederick: Josh asked me to say that Talisman is up in the air for the foreseeable future because of a number of recent events, and that this is probably not a good time to reopen the question of reinstatements, which would raise issues far beyond your case. He is also persuaded by those talismanians who followed alt.religion.bahai that there hasn't been good evidence on your part of being ready to join in a gentle and kindly unmoderated list quite yet. Basically, the message was, 'don't call us, we'll call you.' Please understand that he does have to worry about the good of the list, and that he's taken this sysop role on only as a favor, so please don't bother him about it. ONCE AGAIN, FOUL PLAY.... I WAS DICTATORIALLY BANISHED TO SIBERIA LAST DECEMBER.... WITHOUT A PROPER WARNING.... AND THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE SAME HEAVY-HANDED CENSORSHIP THAT TOOK PLACE THEN.... NO TRIAL, NO JURY, NO APPEAL, OR REPRESENTATION OF MY OWN POSITION.... CONVICTED AND RESENTENCED ON HEARSAY, BY UNIDENTIFIED ACCUSSORS.... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY "JUSTICE" OPERATES ON TALISMAN AND IN IRAN.... AND APPARENTLY IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... AND THEN YOU ALL STYLE YOURSELVES THE "LIBERALS" IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... cheers Juan -- 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 May 18 19:34:46 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat May 17 05:07:16 1997 Received: (qmail 6093 invoked from network); 17 May 1997 12:07:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.130) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 17 May 1997 12:07:07 -0000 Message-ID: <337D9FAE.8CA@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 08:08:14 -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: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom References: <"t6OCGC.A.20B.bLTfz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4727 Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > I have seen much posted about backbiting but very little about > > > calumny. > fglaysher wrote: > > Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this view is > > fundamentally a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings--a > > common one, indeed.... > > And therefore? And therefore I think it's worth considering where the "script" that's often repeated comes from.... > > Even if this is true, so what? Is this guilt by asociation, or what? It's intellectual history, if you will.... Usually considered helpful in understanding the background to various ideas, religious or otherwise. > > > > Might I add a few more quotes to ... 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.... > > Fine. > > Then list's dispense with interpretations _entirely_--"Shiite" or > otherwise. Let's stick to the Writings, and see what the _Most Holy > Book_ itself has to say about what these values _are_: It's not possible.... Even to quote a passage as you do is to offer an interpretation based on your choice of what you believe is relevant to the topic at hand. Human beings cannot escape the burden and responsibility of interpretation. > > Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask > for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing > that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are > far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and > priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths > of ignorance. A significant passage, one Juan Cole has insightful commented on in his article published some years ago.... Your interpretation here, implied by your quoting it, is flawed.... "Liberty" here is more in the sense of "license." Elsewhere, and indisputably, Abdul-Baha speaks highly of liberty without such connotation.... > > Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose > flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is > the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the > embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. > That which beseemeth man is submission unto such > restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, > and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. > Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of > propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. > It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and > wickedness. The Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings delights in this passage.... It reveals a brilliant insight into modern culture, East as well as West, I might add, having lived in Japan and traveled extensively in China.... This insight in the Writings does not gainsay the value of proper liberty and responsibility.... > > Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a > shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, > the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain > circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, > verily, are the All-Knowing. Here is a point Shiite Bahais often neglect.... "We approve of liberty in certain circumstances...." They leaped over that weighty statement, given perhaps their own cultural background at times, and relish the last phrase.... > > Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission > unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were > men to observe that which We have sent down unto > them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a > certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man > that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever > He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that > pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that > profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete > servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath > tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the > dominion of earth and heaven. > (_The Kitab-i-Aqdas_, pages 63-64) > > This is no "interpretation." So how any Baha'i has can ignore, > belittle, or "dismiss" it is beyond me. Your quoting it is certainly an interpretation since you advance it as evidence shoring up your views.... Influenced by Shiite Bahaism in my view.... which has suppressed or failed to give proper regard to much that is also in the Bahai Writings.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri May 23 06:19:53 1997 >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Thu May 22 19:59:05 1997 Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA05147; Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Teri Rhan To: FG@hotmail.com cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5720 I am returning your submittal unposted to soc.religion.bahai and respectfully request that it be resubmitted without labling Baha'is as this type or that type. For example you may consider changing Shiite Baha'is to "some Baha'is". Use of such a term is derogatory to Baha'is and probably the Shiite's as well. I would also like to remind you that our charter does not allow ad-homineum attacks but instead perhaps mentioning that it is your opinion that some Baha'is manifest the things you're speaking of is fine. I just want to emphasize that I am not asking you to change your opinions, just the way you express them:-) Thank you for your participation, Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 08:08:14 -0400 From: FG Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > I have seen much posted about backbiting but very little about > > > calumny. > fglaysher wrote: > > Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this view is > > fundamentally a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings--a > > common one, indeed.... > > And therefore? And therefore I think it's worth considering where the "script" that's often repeated comes from.... > > Even if this is true, so what? Is this guilt by asociation, or what? It's intellectual history, if you will.... Usually considered helpful in understanding the background to various ideas, religious or otherwise. > > > > Might I add a few more quotes to ... 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.... > > Fine. > > Then list's dispense with interpretations _entirely_--"Shiite" or > otherwise. Let's stick to the Writings, and see what the _Most Holy > Book_ itself has to say about what these values _are_: It's not possible.... Even to quote a passage as you do is to offer an interpretation based on your choice of what you believe is relevant to the topic at hand. Human beings cannot escape the burden and responsibility of interpretation. > > Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask > for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing > that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are > far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and > priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths > of ignorance. A significant passage, one Juan Cole has insightful commented on in his article published some years ago.... Your interpretation here, implied by your quoting it, is flawed.... "Liberty" here is more in the sense of "license." Elsewhere, and indisputably, Abdul-Baha speaks highly of liberty without such connotation.... > > Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose > flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is > the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the > embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. > That which beseemeth man is submission unto such > restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, > and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. > Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of > propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. > It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and > wickedness. The Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings delights in this passage.... It reveals a brilliant insight into modern culture, East as well as West, I might add, having lived in Japan and traveled extensively in China.... This insight in the Writings does not gainsay the value of proper liberty and responsibility.... > > Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a > shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, > the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain > circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, > verily, are the All-Knowing. Here is a point Shiite Bahais often neglect.... "We approve of liberty in certain circumstances...." They leaped over that weighty statement, given perhaps their own cultural background at times, and relish the last phrase.... > > Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission > unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were > men to observe that which We have sent down unto > them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a > certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man > that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever > He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that > pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that > profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete > servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath > tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the > dominion of earth and heaven. > (_The Kitab-i-Aqdas_, pages 63-64) > > This is no "interpretation." So how any Baha'i has can ignore, > belittle, or "dismiss" it is beyond me. Your quoting it is certainly an interpretation since you advance it as evidence shoring up your views.... Influenced by Shiite Bahaism in my view.... which has suppressed or failed to give proper regard to much that is also in the Bahai Writings.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun Aug 03 10:05:16 1997 >From jrcole@umich.edu Sat Aug 2 21:54:33 1997 Received: from pm113-26.dialip.mich.net by gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) id AAA21000; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708030454.AAA21000@gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu> X-Sender: jrcole@j.imap.itd.umich.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:54:26 -0400 To: FG@hotmail.com From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: reinstatement on Talisman X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 727 Dear Frederick: Josh asked me to say that Talisman is up in the air for the foreseeable future because of a number of recent events, and that this is probably not a good time to reopen the question of reinstatements, which would raise issues far beyond your case. He is also persuaded by those talismanians who followed alt.religion.bahai that there hasn't been good evidence on your part of being ready to join in a gentle and kindly unmoderated list quite yet. Basically, the message was, 'don't call us, we'll call you.' Please understand that he does have to worry about the good of the list, and that he's taken this sysop role on only as a favor, so please don't bother him about it. cheers Juan From - Sun Aug 03 10:05:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Aug 3 06:51:47 1997 Received: (qmail 27061 invoked from network); 3 Aug 1997 13:51:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.126) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 1997 13:51:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33E48D4D.3030@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 09:53:17 -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.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com, jrcole@umich.edu Subject: reinstatement on Talisman (Bahai listserv at talisman@umich.edu) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2009 >From jrcole@umich.edu Sat Aug 2 21:54:33 1997 Received: from pm113-26.dialip.mich.net by gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) id AAA21000; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199708030454.AAA21000@gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu> X-Sender: jrcole@j.imap.itd.umich.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:54:26 -0400 To: FG@hotmail.com From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) Subject: reinstatement on Talisman Dear Frederick: Josh asked me to say that Talisman is up in the air for the foreseeable future because of a number of recent events, and that this is probably not a good time to reopen the question of reinstatements, which would raise issues far beyond your case. He is also persuaded by those talismanians who followed alt.religion.bahai that there hasn't been good evidence on your part of being ready to join in a gentle and kindly unmoderated list quite yet. Basically, the message was, 'don't call us, we'll call you.' Please understand that he does have to worry about the good of the list, and that he's taken this sysop role on only as a favor, so please don't bother him about it. ONCE AGAIN, FOUL PLAY.... I WAS DICTATORIALLY BANISHED TO SIBERIA LAST DECEMBER.... WITHOUT A PROPER WARNING.... AND THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE SAME HEAVY-HANDED CENSORSHIP THAT TOOK PLACE THEN.... NO TRIAL, NO JURY, NO APPEAL, OR REPRESENTATION OF MY OWN POSITION.... CONVICTED AND RESENTENCED ON HEARSAY, BY UNIDENTIFIED ACCUSSORS.... THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY "JUSTICE" OPERATES ON TALISMAN AND IN IRAN.... AND APPARENTLY IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... AND THEN YOU ALL STYLE YOURSELVES THE "LIBERALS" IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... cheers Juan -- 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 05 07:35:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 04:08:02 1997 Received: (qmail 23144 invoked from network); 5 Aug 1997 11:08:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 1997 11:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <33E709F2.5BBD@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 07:09:38 -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.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com, jrcole@umich.edu, talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: reinstatement on Talisman (Bahai listserv at talisman@umich.edu) References: <33E48D4D.3030@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3281 >From amadeustoo@rocketmail.com Mon Aug 4 07:20:18 1997 Message-ID: <19970804141714.3620.rocketmail@send2.rocketmail.com> Received: from [152.127.47.139] by web1; Mon, 04 Aug 1997 07:17:14 PDT Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 07:17:14 -0700 (PDT) From: No name Subject: Re "reinstatement" on Talisman To: FG@hotmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Frederick, There is more than a grain of truth to what you say about standard operating procedures on talisman. As you very well know, the list is not a Baha'i list in any sense of the word; it was not started by a Baha'i and the current list-owner is not a Baha'i either. Regards. ---Frederick Glaysher wrote: > THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY "JUSTICE" OPERATES ON > TALISMAN AND IN IRAN. > Frederick Glaysher _____________________________________________________________________ Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at https://www.rocketmail.com Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > From jrcole@umich.edu Sat Aug 2 21:54:33 1997 > Received: from pm113-26.dialip.mich.net by gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu > (8.8.5/2.2) > id AAA21000; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 00:54:41 -0400 (EDT) > Message-Id: <199708030454.AAA21000@gimantis.rs.itd.umich.edu> > X-Sender: jrcole@j.imap.itd.umich.edu > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:54:26 -0400 > To: FG@hotmail.com > From: jrcole@umich.edu (Juan R. I. Cole) > Subject: reinstatement on Talisman > > Dear Frederick: > > Josh asked me to say that Talisman is up in the air for the foreseeable > future > because of a number of recent events, and that this is probably not a > good > time to reopen the question of reinstatements, which would raise issues > far > beyond your case. He is also persuaded by those talismanians who > followed > alt.religion.bahai that there hasn't been good evidence on your part of > being > ready to join in a gentle and kindly unmoderated list quite yet. > Basically, > the message was, 'don't call us, we'll call you.' Please understand > that he > does have to worry about the good of the list, and that he's taken this > sysop role on only as a favor, so please don't bother him about it. > > ONCE AGAIN, FOUL PLAY.... I WAS DICTATORIALLY BANISHED TO > SIBERIA LAST DECEMBER.... WITHOUT A PROPER WARNING.... AND THIS > IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE SAME HEAVY-HANDED CENSORSHIP THAT TOOK > PLACE THEN.... NO TRIAL, NO JURY, NO APPEAL, OR REPRESENTATION > OF MY OWN POSITION.... CONVICTED AND RESENTENCED ON HEARSAY, > BY UNIDENTIFIED ACCUSSORS.... > > THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY "JUSTICE" OPERATES ON > TALISMAN AND IN IRAN.... AND APPARENTLY IN THE BAHAI FAITH.... > > AND THEN YOU ALL STYLE YOURSELVES THE "LIBERALS" IN THE BAHAI > FAITH.... > > cheers Juan > > -- > 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. From - Thu Jun 12 05:54:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jun 11 03:37:47 1997 Received: (qmail 373 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1997 10:37:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 1997 10:37:46 -0000 Message-ID: <339E8046.48C0@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:39:02 -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.asatru,alt.pagan,alt.censorship,alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan,alt.religio n.buddhism.theravada,alt.religion.all-worlds,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.druid,alt.religion.eckank ar,alt.religion.gnostic,alt.religion.goddess,alt.religion.hindu,alt.religion.shamanism,alt.religion.sub genius,alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.zoroastrianism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.nationalism.bla ck Subject: Re: Religious Freedom and SB206 References: <5nhvjh$s1j@flood.xnet.com> <339CB2F9.7A64@geocities.com> <339CB8A9.5890@c2i2.com.spam-not> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 89 Religious freedom? What's SB206? -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Aug 01 08:32:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Jul 30 05:16:30 1997 Received: (qmail 1940 invoked from network); 30 Jul 1997 12:16:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.125) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 1997 12:16:28 -0000 Message-ID: <33DF30F6.1AEB@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:17:58 -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,alt.religion.islam,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.israel,soc.right s.human,alt.religion.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rereading Baha'i quotes (was Re: Anti-Persian ...) References: <868319295.1864@dejanews.com> <5rikra$1re$3@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 7106 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > webmaster@iranvision.com wrote: > >"Most" Bahais, as evident on sci, have hidden hatred and anti-Persian > >feelings in their articles. I wondered what the source of these were and > > I am sorry if you have perceived anything less than the love and respect > that Baha'is are enjoined to observe for their fellow humans, whatever > their race, nationality, etc. From my experience, Baha'is do not > have any negative feelings toward Persian/Iranians (any exception perhaps > proving the rule). >From my experience, many Bahais tolerate Iranian Bahais much more than Iranian Bahais tolerate others.... What you're neglecting is the arrogant racism Iranians feel for other peoples and cultures.... > > >alas I came to a few quotes from Abdu`l-Baha, son of Bahullah and > >according to Bahaullah, "the interpretor" of his writings and Bahaism. > [clip] > >2) In another racist statement, giving his version of the period during > >Islam, Abdulbaha states: > > > > "These Arab tribes were in the lowest depth of savagery and > > barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa > > and wild Indians of America were as advanced as Plato... even > > down to the present time Arabs dread having daughters" Actually, Arab cultures are still pretty much this way.... They've made very little progress since Abdu'l-Baha wrote this passage in my opinion.... Anyone who knows anything about HOW foreigners are ACTUALLY treated by the Saudis, especially women, ought find this quotation timeless.... > > Others have commented on this quote, so I will be brief. Abdu'l-Baha is > referring to the Arab practices before Islam, which included female > infanticide and a practice of male-female relations which amounted to > polyandry. Such things never existed even among the least advanced > cultures in most other parts of the world such as Africa or the Americas. > > >3) Speaking about Bab, the founder of Babism and thus Bahaism, AbdulBaha > >states: > > > > "He upheld the cause among the Persians, who are renowned for > > their religious fenaticism." Exactly! And they havent' changed since, whether they've become Bahais or not.... They bring their apparently innate fanaticism with them to the West and indoctrinate ignorant, deracinated, innocent Westerners into it.... > > Although I personally would not make such a comment, I respect Abdu'l-Baha's > perogative in making it (as I do remarks in the writings about America, > which point out its shortcomings). And there's no Iranian fanaticism influencing those passages? Just eternal Truth? Baha'u'llah clearly states that the revelation is influenced by its cultural background. Here Abdu'l-Baha incontestably acknowledges the appalling fanaticism of Iranians. All I've ever said about Iranian Bahais is that they're still carrying that baggage with them on the plane and hamstringing the growth of the Faith here.... A fact that MANY Bahais know is true; a fact that THOUSANDS of Bahais and former Bahais have recognized by either withdrawing from the Bahai Faith, or voting with their feet, so to speak, by having eventually nothing more to do with the Bahai Faith once they convert and begin to realize how oppressive of a religion it really is behind all the facade of "love" and "unity." I believe that it can be best understood > in light of the bloody persecution of Babis and Baha'is, especially in the > 19th century (~20,000 killed). > > >4) Abdulbaha also states about coming of Bahaullah: > > > > "Baha`u`llah appeared at a time when the Persian Empire was > > immersed in profound obscurantism and ignorance and lost in the > > blindest fanaticism. In the European histories, no doubt, you have > > read detailed accounts of the morals, customs and ideas of the > > Persians during the last centuries." And Iran hasn't change one God-damn tittle.... Anyone who imagines the Iranian Bahais coming out of that milieu aren't tainted by it should have their heads examined.... > > I have elsewhere (the "Frustration" thread) responded to the notion that > this represents a declamation of Iran: 1) it has to be seen in the context > of other Writings which mention the glorious past & future of Iran, and 2) > every nation has its ups & downs, and the 19th century was arguably Iran's > nadir. Oh bullshit! Baha'u'llah knew Iran is a cesspool! And it still is! > [clip] > >As it was seen from view paragraphs of Bahai writings, from their holiest > >of people, they indeed are not what they claim to be. And their cult has > >hidden racism within its boundaries designed to appeal to the Europeans > >and Westerners, to gain support and power. this has further been proven by > >postings by [name deleted] and other Bahais on SCI. Let me volunteer my name! Oh horrible racist me!!!! Nothing racist though in YOU or Iranian Bahais who can do nothing but trash Western culture like the mobs in the streets of Tehran.... > > IMHO these paragraphs cannot be interpreted in the way you imply. Regarding > racism, the Baha'i teachings are explicit in condemning it. Moreover, > Baha'is actively work to overcome racism & build racial unity. I believe it's utterly false to present the Bahai Faith as working to overcome racism.... In theory, in the Writings, yes.... In reality, the Bahai Faith does nothing but regurgitate the wornout thinking of liberalism, while denying and failing to confront the profound implications of Baha'u'llah's vision of the oneness of humankind.... The Bahai Faith has become a religion for minorities and Westerners who suffer from a guilt complex of some sort.... Part of the problem, not the solution at this point.... > > As far as Usenet postings by Baha'is, only one Baha'i to my knowledge has > made negative remarks about Iranians, which are IMHO not in keeping with the > Baha'i teachings. Baha'u'llah once said that His enemies could never do Him > the harm that those who called themselves His friends could. Baha'u'llah didn't lie about the Iranians, why should I? Mr. Osborn you typify quite nicely the liberal breast beating mentality I allude to above.... Alas, all races are racist.... That is Baha'u'llah's vision.... Grievous and chastening to us all.... A sober reality withheld by nannies and the well-intentioned.... Distortions fobbed off as truth.... Having taught "multicultural literature" for over four years, I know the cliches in and out and can only puke when I hear them anymore.... The next time you're on your knees praying meditate on your last sentence long and hard.... A complex utterance, replete with many meanings.... Religious history is full of misguided piety.... > > Hope this helps! 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 - Fri Aug 01 08:32:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 04:49:00 1997 Received: (qmail 25860 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 11:48:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 11:48:59 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1CD87.305C@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 07:50:31 -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,alt.religi on.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rereading Baha'i quotes (was Re: Anti-Persian ...) References: <868319295.1864@dejanews.com> <5rikra$1re$3@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <33DF30F6.1AEB@hotmail.com> <5rqkel$1e3$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5341 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >From my experience, many Bahais tolerate Iranian Bahais much more than > >Iranian Bahais tolerate others.... What you're neglecting is the > >arrogant racism Iranians feel for other peoples and cultures.... > > I'm not neglecting it - as I've indicated in earlier postings, I haven't > noticed any such pattern as you suggest. Actually, I've found Baha'is > of whatever background to be quite open and friendly - this includes > many Baha'is of Iranian origin who have opened their homes to others, > sacrificed their personal comfort, and associated with people of other > racial & ethnic backgrounds in the spirit of fellowship (as well as many > who have married people of other backgrounds). > > I'd suggest again that it would be more helpful to discuss specific behaviors > than to attempt to (presume to) characterize an entire group. As Roger > suggested, perhaps it's best to cease discussion of this kind or that kind > of Baha'i. > > But for a second, let's assume that you are correct. THe next question is > then what would be the course of action most likely to effect/encourage > a positive change? How would Abdu'l-Baha respond to such a thing? > > [snip] > >Let me volunteer my name! Oh horrible racist me!!!! . . . Let me point out that I am not the only person to have noticed the pronounced racism of Iranian Bahais.... During the last several months, throughout the discussion for talk.religion.bahai, a number of people have commented on it. Any Bahai with any perceptiveness at all can't help but see and experience it.... > > Public confession is not necessary in the Baha'i religion. > > > . . . Nothing racist > >though in YOU or Iranian Bahais who can do nothing but trash > >Western culture like the mobs in the streets of Tehran.... > > Where have I or anyone else claimed to be free of racism? I think I'm > working on whatever racist inheritance I may have, but don't presume to > judge either my own progress or much less that of others. > > >I believe it's utterly false to present the Bahai Faith as working > >to overcome racism.... In theory, in the Writings, yes.... In > >reality, the Bahai Faith does nothing but regurgitate the wornout > > In reality there are many activities in this area. Rather than > minimize them, what constructive ideas & actions could you provide in > your area to enhance them? You're not answering me above but changing the subject.... > > >thinking of liberalism, while denying and failing to confront the > >profound implications of Baha'u'llah's vision of the oneness of > > Actually I think a lot of Baha'is are confronting the issue. For > instance in the many institutes for the "Healing of Racism" in the > US. You're utterly ignoring my comments here above, which you've clipped down in order to dismiss.... > > >humankind.... The Bahai Faith has become a religion for minorities > >and Westerners who suffer from a guilt complex of some sort.... > > I don't see how you got this idea. All you and other Bahais can do, like most ignorantly liberal people when it comes to race these days, is blame the US, the West, while idealizing the other hateful racist people who live in absolutely every other culture on the face of this earth and hate, just as fiercely as any bigot in the US.... > > >Part of the problem, not the solution at this point.... > > I don't agree (see also my separate posting under "Baha'is & Racial Unity"). > Granted there's always improvement to be made, but however small the > Baha'i community may be, the world would be worse off without its varied > race unity efforts over the years. Non sequiters do not answer in any way whatsoever my comments here, most of which you've deleted since you can't answer them with anything but Bahai and liberal cliches.... > > [snip] > >above.... Alas, all races are racist.... That is Baha'u'llah's > >vision.... > > Where in the world did that come from? Such a statement really seems like > calling the rose a thorn. If you can produce a quote showing that was His > vision, then please do so ... but there aren't any. All I've read are many, > many passages and references which explicitly and implicitly say exactly > the opposite: "Ye are the leaves of one branch and the fruit of one tree." All secular and religious laws presuppose their opposite.... Hence, their very existence or need.... You have a very literal mind, as most Bahais do.... That's a significant part of the problem.... > > >The next time you're on your knees praying meditate on your last > >sentence long and hard.... A complex utterance, replete with many > >meanings.... Religious history is full of misguided piety.... > > Baha'u'llah asks each of us to "bring ourselves to account" at the end > of each day. Indeed, he does.... Don't forget it the next time you're clipping what you simply want to ignore, and distorting for "the good of the Faith".... > > 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 - Fri Aug 01 08:32:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 04:53:45 1997 Received: (qmail 25910 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 11:53:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 11:53:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1CEAA.4E23@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 07:55:22 -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: Rereading Baha'i quotes (was Re: Anti-Persian ...) References: <868319295.1864@dejanews.com> <5rikra$1re$3@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <33DF30F6.1AEB@hotmail.com> <5rqkel$1e3$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <5rr9as$ntq$1@europa.frii.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4898 renton@frii.com wrote: > > It seems to me that Fred Glaysher had some very negative interactions > with some Persians, overgeneralized them to all Persians, and now > operates on the stereotype his mind has created for them. I have > personally found most Persians to be charming and hospitable people, > whether they were Muslims, Baha'i,s Chrisitians, Jews, or > Zoroastrians. I do know a few that are real creeps, but then, I know > real creeps from several different countries. Nationality has nothing > to do with it. > Mac I wish I could believe I have "overgeneralized them" to all Iranians.... I have know charming and hospitable people of Iranian extraction.... It is true that Evil is not limited to racial origin.... Actually, this is basically all I'm really saying.... > Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>From my experience, many Bahais tolerate Iranian Bahais much more than > >>Iranian Bahais tolerate others.... What you're neglecting is the > >>arrogant racism Iranians feel for other peoples and cultures.... > > >I'm not neglecting it - as I've indicated in earlier postings, I haven't > >noticed any such pattern as you suggest. Actually, I've found Baha'is > >of whatever background to be quite open and friendly - this includes > >many Baha'is of Iranian origin who have opened their homes to others, > >sacrificed their personal comfort, and associated with people of other > >racial & ethnic backgrounds in the spirit of fellowship (as well as many > >who have married people of other backgrounds). > > >I'd suggest again that it would be more helpful to discuss specific behaviors > >than to attempt to (presume to) characterize an entire group. As Roger > >suggested, perhaps it's best to cease discussion of this kind or that kind > >of Baha'i. > > >But for a second, let's assume that you are correct. THe next question is > >then what would be the course of action most likely to effect/encourage > >a positive change? How would Abdu'l-Baha respond to such a thing? > > >[snip] > >>Let me volunteer my name! Oh horrible racist me!!!! . . . > > >Public confession is not necessary in the Baha'i religion. > > >> . . . Nothing racist > >>though in YOU or Iranian Bahais who can do nothing but trash > >>Western culture like the mobs in the streets of Tehran.... > > >Where have I or anyone else claimed to be free of racism? I think I'm > >working on whatever racist inheritance I may have, but don't presume to > >judge either my own progress or much less that of others. > > >>I believe it's utterly false to present the Bahai Faith as working > >>to overcome racism.... In theory, in the Writings, yes.... In > >>reality, the Bahai Faith does nothing but regurgitate the wornout > > >In reality there are many activities in this area. Rather than > >minimize them, what constructive ideas & actions could you provide in > >your area to enhance them? > > >>thinking of liberalism, while denying and failing to confront the > >>profound implications of Baha'u'llah's vision of the oneness of > > >Actually I think a lot of Baha'is are confronting the issue. For > >instance in the many institutes for the "Healing of Racism" in the > >US. > > >>humankind.... The Bahai Faith has become a religion for minorities > >>and Westerners who suffer from a guilt complex of some sort.... > > >I don't see how you got this idea. > > >>Part of the problem, not the solution at this point.... > > >I don't agree (see also my separate posting under "Baha'is & Racial Unity"). > >Granted there's always improvement to be made, but however small the > >Baha'i community may be, the world would be worse off without its varied > >race unity efforts over the years. > > > >[snip] > >>above.... Alas, all races are racist.... That is Baha'u'llah's > >>vision.... > > >Where in the world did that come from? Such a statement really seems like > >calling the rose a thorn. If you can produce a quote showing that was His > >vision, then please do so ... but there aren't any. All I've read are many, > >many passages and references which explicitly and implicitly say exactly > >the opposite: "Ye are the leaves of one branch and the fruit of one tree." > > >>The next time you're on your knees praying meditate on your last > >>sentence long and hard.... A complex utterance, replete with many > >>meanings.... Religious history is full of misguided piety.... > > >Baha'u'llah asks each of us to "bring ourselves to account" at the end > >of each day. > > >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 - Tue Aug 12 07:15:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 04:40:03 1997 Received: (qmail 12622 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 11:40:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 11:40:01 -0000 Message-ID: <33EEFA74.2CBA@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:41:40 -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: Re: Rereading Baha'i quotes (was Re: Anti-Persian ...) References: <5rikra$1re$3@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <33e28e7f.23837168@news.wwnet.com> <5s02fd$9sv$1@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3ABF6.8A973911@wwnet.com> <5s5heb$7tn$1@news2.i-2000.com> <33eeb678.49185344@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <33EAE153.287332A5@wwnet.com> <343757e5.119909291@netnews.worldnet.att.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1135 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, "Joseph M. Emmanuel" > wrote > >He (Abdul-Baha) refered to Buddhism and Hinduism as religions which are not > >worth investigating, or something to that effect. I read something like > >that in a message in soc.bahai.religion! > [clip] > However, you do bring up an interesting point -- In the early days of > her faith, my wife asked a long standing Persian Baha'i about some > problems she had encountered whilst reading up on Hinduism (from non- > Baha'i sources) and his response was similar to what you indicated, > which, at the time, upset her. The truth is that many Iranian Bahais really have very little respect for Hinduism and Buddhism.... They reflect very much the same cultural contempt of Shiism for the East Asian religions in this regard.... [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 - Tue Jul 08 08:47:39 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 05:44:06 1997 Received: (qmail 5804 invoked from network); 8 Jul 1997 12:44:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 1997 12:44:04 -0000 Message-ID: <33C2366C.4449@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:45:32 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.religion.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Response to Afshin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 984 SOMEBODY SAID: >> >> 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? > fglaysher wrote: >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 Well, I suppose you're probably right, Afshin.... It's probably safe to say reciprocity will not be forthcoming from those circles.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 07:48:18 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 03:52:50 1997 Received: (qmail 25434 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 10:52:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 10:52:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33C610D9.1916@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:54:17 -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: Resubmission: Bahai "art" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4180 ubject: Re: More Bahai "art" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:39:27 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. However, it is being returned to you unposted as it is obviously a response to a private message, the entire contents of which were not posted to this newsgroup. In future, if you would take the time to read what is and is not posted to the newsgroup and respond accordingly, it would be appreciated. I JUST READ THIS MESSAGE ONLINE. I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE CONFUSED BY THE BACKLOG OF SUBMISSIONS YOU HAVE TO CENSOR YOUR WAY THROUGH.... I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU'D ALLOW ME THE COURTESY OF A RESPONSE. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith, co-moderator soc.religion.bahai srb-mods@bcca.org ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: More Bahai "art" Date: Thursday, July 10, 1997 6:17 AM BEGIN POSTING:-------------- Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff wrote: > > 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 idea that our thought is our reality is a very old one, preceding Abdu'l-Baha by several centuries at least.... Found, for instance, in medieval Xian theology.... It's precisely this idea that concerns me. Your characterization of my "reality" is unfortunately colored by your own.... I certainly neither expect you nor anyone else to accept anything "without argument" or the free assent of your own conscience.... > > 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. You're not as "free" in your exploration as you imagine.... > > 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. (soc.religion.bahai) which has yet to publish either.... > > +----------------------------------------+ > | 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 | > +----------------------------------------+ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Jul 11 07:48:20 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 03:56:29 1997 Received: (qmail 10042 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 10:56:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 10:56:28 -0000 Message-ID: <33C611B8.398F@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:58:00 -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: Resubmission: Bahai "art" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4019 THE MESSAGE HERE THAT I RESPOND TO WAS ALSO POSTED ON SRB.... PLEASE POST MY REPLY. THANK YOU. ---- ubject: Re: Re More Bahai "art" Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:47:26 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Again, I am returning this to you unposted with the request that you pay more attention to what has and has not been posted to srb. The message that you are responding to has not yet been posted to srb as it was not clearly identified as a submission to srb. Therefore, your response to this private e-mail will not be posted unless fruther clarification is received. SEE ABOVE. Thank you. 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 More Bahai "art" Date: Thursday, July 10, 1997 6:29 AM BEGIN MESSAGE----------- 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, if you don't mind my gently saying so, 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:16 1997 >From smsmith@cybertrails.com Fri Jul 11 22:49:15 1997 Received: from 6 ([205.180.50.87]) by cliff.cybertrails.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA161; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:44:15 -0700 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: Cc: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Subject: Re: Resubmission: Bahai "art" Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:50:45 -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: <19970712054414207.AAA161@6> X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8230 Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am returning this resubmission to you unposted as it still contains materials that were deleted by the author from the post to which you are responding. The post that appeared on srb had the last paragraph deleted. As I do not have a "backlog of submissions to censor my way through" it took no time to review the week's postings and verify that the entirety of the original message was not, in fact, posted. Perhaps you have mistakenly confused your private e-mail with that of srb. What you and Ms. Bohnoff say to each other privately does not always appear in full on srb. Therefore, I am requesting that you edit your response accordingly. Below you will find a copy of the entire message as it was posted to srb. If you will check it against what you have submitted, you will see the difference. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith, co-moderator soc.religion.bahai srb-mods@bcca.org -------------Begin posted message----------------------- From: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff To: S. Michele Smith Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 7:11 PM > > 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. +----------------------------------------+ | 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 | +----------------------------------------+ -- +----------------------------------------+ | 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: FG > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Resubmission: Bahai "art" > Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 5:54 AM > > ubject: > Re: More Bahai "art" > Date: > Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:39:27 -0500 > From: > smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) > To: > > CC: > "Baha'i SRB Moderators" > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. However, it is > being > returned to you unposted as it is obviously a response to a private > message, the entire contents of which were not posted to this newsgroup. > In > future, if you would take the time to read what is and is not posted to > the > newsgroup and respond accordingly, it would be appreciated. > > I JUST READ THIS MESSAGE ONLINE. I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE CONFUSED > BY THE BACKLOG OF SUBMISSIONS YOU HAVE TO CENSOR YOUR WAY > THROUGH.... I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU'D ALLOW ME THE > COURTESY OF A RESPONSE. > > Sincerely, > S. Michele Smith, co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > srb-mods@bcca.org > > ---------- > From: FG > To: srb@bcca.org > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: More Bahai "art" > Date: Thursday, July 10, 1997 6:17 AM > > > BEGIN POSTING:-------------- > > Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff wrote: > > > > 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 idea that our thought is our reality is a very old one, > preceding Abdu'l-Baha by several centuries at least.... Found, > for instance, in medieval Xian theology.... It's precisely this > idea that concerns me. Your characterization of my "reality" is > unfortunately colored by your own.... I certainly neither expect > you nor anyone else to accept anything "without argument" or the > free assent of your own conscience.... > > > > > 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. > > You're not as "free" in your exploration as you imagine.... > > > > > 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. > > (soc.religion.bahai) which has yet to publish either.... > > > > > +----------------------------------------+ > > | 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 | > > +----------------------------------------+ > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:14 1997 >From smsmith@cybertrails.com Fri Jul 11 22:28:44 1997 Received: from 6 ([205.180.50.87]) by cliff.cybertrails.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA186; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:23:44 -0700 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: Cc: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Subject: Re: Resubmission: Bahai "art" Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:29:18 -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: <19970712052342987.AAA186@6> X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4765 Dear Mr. Glaysher, While you may well have "just read" this message on srb, the response that you submitted came in to the moderator _before_ the original was posted by the moderator. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith, co-moderator soc.religion.bahai srb-mods@bcca.org ---------- > From: FG > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > Cc: FG@HOTMAIL.COM > Subject: Resubmission: Bahai "art" > Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 5:58 AM > > THE MESSAGE HERE THAT I RESPOND TO WAS ALSO POSTED ON SRB.... > PLEASE POST MY REPLY. THANK YOU. > ---- > > ubject: > Re: Re More Bahai "art" > Date: > Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:47:26 -0500 > From: > smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) > To: > > CC: > "Baha'i SRB Moderators" > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Again, I am returning this to you unposted with the request that you pay > more attention to what has and has not been posted to srb. The message > that > you are responding to has not yet been posted to srb as it was not > clearly > identified as a submission to srb. Therefore, your response to this > private > e-mail will not be posted unless fruther clarification is received. > > SEE ABOVE. > > Thank you. > > 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 More Bahai "art" > Date: Thursday, July 10, 1997 6:29 AM > > > > BEGIN MESSAGE----------- > > 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, if you don't mind my gently saying so, 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 > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Aug 13 08:12:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 13 05:06:42 1997 Received: (qmail 7612 invoked from network); 13 Aug 1997 12:06:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 1997 12:06:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33F1A3B5.3DE5@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:08:21 -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: Roger Reini's "saner, more reasonable voice" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 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 10:57:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 06:58:05 1997 Received: (qmail 19685 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 13:58:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 13:58:03 -0000 Message-ID: <33F30F43.310C@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:59:31 -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.iranian,soc.rights.human,news.admin.ce nsorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Roger Reini's "saner, more reasonable voice" References: <33F1A3B5.3DE5@hotmail.com> <33f2c912.291308804@news.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3794 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 08:08:21 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >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.... > > I would say there are certainly varying viewpoints on SRB, even now. > There is an active discussion about 'Abdu'l-Baha and His > infallibility, especially as it regards science. There's a fairly > active discussion on the nature of ether and ethereal matter, as > mentioned by 'Abdu'l-Baha on several occasions. > > So I don't agree at all with your statements on SRB. > > >[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.... > > It was said in private correspondence, which I will NOT publish here. > As I said before, I'm not trying to promote myself in saying this. I > am just pointing out that conducting oneself in accordance with the > teachings of Baha'u'llah and the example of 'Abdu'l-Baha will have an > effect. People will notice. Oh please.... I don't consider such self-righteousness "conducting oneself in accordance with the teachings of Baha'u'llah" thank you just the same.... Or as when you accused me twiced of being a covenant breaker??? People have noticed. > > As a few people have suggested here, we should prepare our notes as > though Baha'u'llah/Muhammad/Whoever had to personally approve them. > > > 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. > > Not at all -- I have no problem with reasoned, reasonable discussions > carried out in a dignified manner. They could involve the profoundest > of disagreements, but there's no reason for them to be conducted in an > atmosphere of ridicule or hostility. > > 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 27 15:41:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 27 07:44:10 1997 Received: (qmail 4387 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 14:44:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.125) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 14:44:08 -0000 Message-ID: <34043DA1.5358@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:45:53 -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,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Rough Draft for talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4364 THIS IS MERELY A 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. 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. 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, 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 - Thu Aug 28 07:02:57 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 28 03:39:46 1997 Received: (qmail 14464 invoked from network); 28 Aug 1997 10:39:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 1997 10:39:45 -0000 Message-ID: <340555DB.2446@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:41:31 -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: Rough Draft for talk.religion.bahai References: <34043DA1.5358@hotmail.com> <3409635c.65924299@news.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3498 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:45:53 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >THIS IS MERELY A 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. > > > >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. > > Somewhere in the rationale, there should be a statement about the > traffic on alt.religion.bahai -- a few message counts, posting rates, > etc. -- which, even though it is somewhat poorly propagated, justify > its promotion into the talk.* hierarchy. Good idea. Thanks for mentioning it. Which numbers should we use? The general 2200+ since April 1st? Daily averages? Both? > > >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, special-format files, pornography, and any postings of > >a purely commercial nature. > > I would include a more explicit statement on excessively cross-posted > articles (as defined by the net-abuse people). It should also say > that binaries are prohibited, except for PGP signatures. Perhaps when > you said "special-format files", you meant binaries. We can spell that out about binaries. "Excessively cross-posted articles" is more difficult, I fear. In whose opinion? Obviously, there are messages so ladened with crossposting, especially irrelevant, most people would agree on it. Then there are those others where someone might just not want to see a message posted there.... I don't think the latter kind should be banned.... Hence, I revised the posting of articles, not the crossposting of.... > > [remainder of RFD snipped for space -- no objections to it] Thanks for commenting. > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~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 - Fri Aug 29 10:55:15 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 29 07:37:34 1997 Received: (qmail 653 invoked from network); 29 Aug 1997 14:37:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.129) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 1997 14:37:33 -0000 Message-ID: <3406DF13.4E27@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:39:15 -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: Rough Draft for talk.religion.bahai References: <34043DA1.5358@hotmail.com> <3409635c.65924299@news.zippo.com> <340555DB.2446@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1355 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >Good idea. Thanks for mentioning it. Which numbers should > >we use? The general 2200+ since April 1st? Daily averages? > >Both? > I would suggest both. Also, I feel that you should mention the poor > propagation of alt news-groups (don't limit the statement to a.r.b) and > suggest that better propagation COULD POSSIBLY increase the number of > posts. Okay, both. And it makes sense to link the better propagation with a possible increase. Appreicate your mentioning it. I'll revise these ideas into the rough draft. 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 - Tue Sep 02 08:18:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Aug 31 13:44:18 1997 Received: (qmail 25872 invoked from network); 31 Aug 1997 20:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.127) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 1997 20:43:26 -0000 Message-ID: <3409D7D0.5333@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:45:04 -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,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rough Draft for talk.religion.bahai References: <34043DA1.5358@hotmail.com> <3409635c.65924299@news.zippo.com> <340555DB.2446@hotmail.com> <3406DF13.4E27@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4126 x@x.x wrote: > > In article <34043DA1.5358@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >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 > > > > >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 > > Are you planning on setting followups on any of these posts? Sure. I would think they should all be set to news.groups, right? > > How often will you post the RFD and the pointers? Whatever is recommended by the UUV. I think it's once or twice for pointers, once for the RFD, though the RFD can be posted elsewhere if in its entirety. I never did that on the first vote and have no plans to do it this time around though it is acceptable if others wish to post the RFD to newsgroups other than those that appear on the Rough Draft RFD. That's my understandin, at least. > > Are you planning on crossposting your side of the discussion > to the newsgroups where you are posting the pointer? No, definitely not. Just the pointer to news.groups and the full RFD there. Will > these newsgroups get on pointer, or a long crossposted thread? Just a pointer if I understand you correctly. The main groups can receive crossposts. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the followups, by and large, are set for news.groups. > > Have you looked at other RFDs and CFVs? How many of them are > crossposted to twenty newsgroups? I have looked at a lot of RFDs and CFVS on news.groups. I'm not crossposting to twenty newsgroups, only nine by my count, all of which are highly relevant groups. > > (That's FOUR Questions, Fredrick. When you reply, count the > answers: Are there less than four of them? Go back and answer > all four questions. Not three. Not Two. One is way off. Four. > You can do it!!) Your postings are not reaching alt.religion.bahai for some reason. Or at least my server at www.zippo.com. I appreciate your suggestions, advice, and questions. Thanks for your comments. Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > > wrote > > >Good idea. Thanks for mentioning it. Which numbers should > > >we use? The general 2200+ since April 1st? Daily averages? > > >Both? > > I would suggest both. Also, I feel that you should mention the poor > > propagation of alt news-groups (don't limit the statement to a.r.b) and > > suggest that better propagation COULD POSSIBLY increase the number of > > posts. > > Okay, both. And it makes sense to link the better propagation > with a possible increase. Appreicate your mentioning it. I'll > revise these ideas into the rough draft. 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. -- 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 Aug 29 10:55:14 1997 >From aull@ll.mit.edu Thu Aug 28 07:57:43 1997 Received: by ll.mit.edu (4.1/LL-1.3) id AA07571; Thu, 28 Aug 97 11:02:53 EDT Return-Path: Message-Id: <9708281052.AA09082@LL.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 97 10:52:25 -0400 From: aull@ll.mit.edu (Brian Aull) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rough Draft for talk.religion.bahai References: <34043DA1.5358@hotmail.com> Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 666 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 lead me to the conclusion that people generally vote for whatever kind of reason they feel like. It also seems to me that if the flaw in a proposed newsgroup were merely "technical" (whatever that means), then voting seems like a slow and inefficient way of handling it. Any references you can give to clarify this matter would help the second trb process. -Brian Aull From - Wed Aug 27 10:38:01 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 27 05:14:06 1997 Received: (qmail 3678 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 12:14:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 12:14:04 -0000 Message-ID: <340419CE.3ED1@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:15:51 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Rough Draft RFD for talk.religion.bahai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4351 THIS IS MERELY A 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 IT 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. A FEW OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALSO MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS HERE. 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. 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, 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 - Sat Aug 16 07:59:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 03:56:03 1997 Received: (qmail 13638 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 10:56:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 10:56:01 -0000 Message-ID: <33F587A7.3070@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:57:43 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai References: <33F32297.202C@miningco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2319 Bahai.Guide wrote: > > V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote: > > > > Linda Brown wrote: > > > > > Just a note about Rushdie; > > > Although I believe in freedom of speech, that doen't mean I > > > think > > > that it is proper to slander the dead; that is what Rushdie did in > > > Satanic > > > Verses. What he did speaks volumes about his ethics. > > > > Does it mean we should not speak ill of Hitler, Stalin or Genghiz Khan > > or Timur or Churchill or for that matter who is dead now. > > > > This is ridiculous > > As a matter of fact, I believe the position of the Baha'i Writings would > support Linda on this. Idle talk and speculation on the claimed > problems of another, no matter how famous, are at the least > inappropriate. This is the type of Bahai "mind" I was thinking of in my other post this morning on Rushdie.... Typifies it really.... I notice too how philistine this thinking is.... This does not mean of course that such statements are > never made by Baha'is, however gossip, backbiting and idle talk are > condemned by Baha'i Scripture for their divisive effect on the > community. Today, that community may well be world-wide. Unfortunately > much of what passes for literature and social research in the west has > many examples of the same attitude. One way to get noticed is to make > an un-substantiated controversial statement about a well-known figure. > In the case of books, this translates into sales; and sales translate in > money for someone. In other words, many of these incidents are driven > by a desire for fame and fortune, not truth. > > Regarding the Rushdie affair, I think the reaction of the Iranian clergy > was ill-concieved at best. Just as with the controversy over > Kazantzakis' "Last Temptation of Christ", they have done more to > popularize the work than to discourage its dissemination. > > Don C > > -- > https://bahai.miningco.com - an annotated index to the best Baha'i > internet resources and a weekly column on Baha'i topics. > New directories: Poets, Arts Articles > This week's topic "Economic Justice: A reaction to the UPS Strike" -- 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 Aug 22 10:12:30 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 04:48:35 1997 Received: (qmail 14118 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 11:48:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 11:48:32 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD7CF3.99A@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 07:50:12 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5139 Svend White wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > The call for the death sentence and your "holding him accoutable" > > reasoning seems to be about the same. > > This is ludicrous, knee-jerk bigotry. I stressed that, as a Muslim, I > was completely against the death sentence, yet you still pretend that > I'm howling for his death. I was referring to the fatwa as the call for death; I do believe your "holding him accountable" suggests the same thing, basically.... > > > > Are all Muslims just innately less civilized than you, regardless of > > > what they actually believe? > > > > I didn't say that. > > Well what else are we to conclude from your preceding statement?? Since > I am a vociferous critic of the fatwa (and Khomeini, for that matter), > your equating me with the mob in Bradford boils down to the same thing, > even if you don't come out and say it openly. There have many mobs, in India, Pakistan, and elsewhere, not only Bradford.... You have in common with them, I believe, the failure to respect someone's else's opinion, even when it's one you don't necessarily share or like.... Rushdie says nothing about Islam that might not be true and certainly nothing he deserves to have been condemned to death for and now hounded for the rest of his life.... > > In your narrow secular fundamentalist worldview, anybody who dares to > disagree with your understanding of liberty and freedome of expression. You've left something out of the above, but I get the drift.... I consider myself a modern soul, not a secular mind.... The thinking you display, held in common really by many Iranian Bahais and other fundamentalist Bahais, belongs to the premodern period.... > > One of the 20th century's most brilliant filmakers happened to work for > Hitler? Despite of its artistic quality, her work is boycotted for the > most part in the West. > > Do you think this is justified? Should Jews stop being "hysterical" and > accept the genius of an apologist for genocide? Oh please, have some sense of proportion and shame.... > > Or do you only champion free speech when it's against "alien" > non-Western religions? I don't consider Islam "alien" or, anymore, necessarily, non-Western. I do consider it premodern thoughh for its ostrich-like refusal to confront the modern experience, the one Rushdie evokes so brilliantly.... > > > > This exemplifies the wooly-headed reasoning which surrounded the Western > > > media's coverage of Rushdie. Any attempt by a Muslim to demand that his > > > feelings be heeded in this supposed multi-cultural world is interpreted > > > as call for hit squads! > > > > Only when the call actually goes out, as did with Rushdie.... > > Please stop trying to impress the crowd and address what ***I** have > said and done. I did not call for his head, so this is a non sequiteur. Your reasoning is tantamount to the same thing.... It's THAT that you fail to understand, I fear.... You may want to think of yourself as an "enlightened" Muslim but you're no different from the intolerant mob.... > > > I quite realize Islam is a diverse culturally as any other > > religion. The striking truth of the Rushdie affair is how > > fast Islamic fanatics throughout much of the Islamic world > > denounced him and began killing and rioting.... > > Thanks for that display of singular insight into world events. Well, you claimed there was a difference when there wasn't.... > > How about explaining instead why you equate me with Khomeini just > because I'm a Muslim who finds Rushdie's book offensive. You say you want to hold him "accountable." What is that but a veiled threat? He and others shouldn't be allowed to say and think what they do? Fear and intimidation, (Bahai-like) should be brought to bear? Premodern intolerance and sanctimony.... > > Or is that too much nuance to expect from you when dealing with the > Islamic boogie-man? You are the one thinking in racist terms. I.e., it seems to your mind a Western white man can't be anything but bigoted against Islam and any objections to it can only be dismissed, not discussed.... Quite Bahai too, really.... > > s v e n d > > -- > > ****Svend|A|White**************> > ****4401|W|Street|NW***********> > ****Washington|DC|20007********> > ****+1|202|338|6498************> > ****svend@erols.com************> > ****svend_white@compuserve.com*> > *****https://www.erols.com/svend> > > "Hated by Fools and Fools to Hate. > Be that ever my Motto and my Fate." > - - - Jonathan Swift In regard to human nature, Muslim, Bahai, and secular, permit me to quote Swift: "I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth." -- 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 18 07:02:53 1997 >From winters@gold.interlog.com Thu Jul 17 08:01:56 1997 Received: from gold.interlog.com (winters@gold.interlog.com [198.53.145.2]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id KAA08710 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:59:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (winters@localhost) by gold.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15546 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:59:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Jonah Winters To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Scholars survey part 1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1448 Dear Frederick, ]I posted this to a.r.b., but it never appeaqred. so my mailer must not have done it right. could you please post these two to the group? thanks. -Jonah =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Dear friends, Please refer to the online version of this posting at https://www.interlog.com/~winters/survey.html. The Research Office of the US Baha'i National Center is compiling a database of American and Canadian Baha'is who have academic training and/or active scholarly pursuits. We wish to use this database to compile and maintain a mailing list of those interested in academic topics and events; to help network the community of those participating in Baha'i studies; to be able to solicit essays, letters, or other assistance; and to know who and where our scholarly resources are. We have designed this survey to be of most interest and utility to the scholar, but are not limiting it to those with formal academic training. We ask that all those with a committed interest in Baha'i Studies participate in the survey. An email version of the survey will follow this letter. Our preference, though, is that the online version, at https://www.interlog.com/~winters/, be used instead. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, -Jonah Winters =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jonah & Kari Winters/33 Endean Avenue/Toronto, ON/M4M-1W5/(416)461-3527 Baha'i Academics: https://www.interlog.com/~winters From - Fri Jul 18 07:46:04 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 18 04:03:22 1997 Received: (qmail 3142 invoked from network); 18 Jul 1997 11:03:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 1997 11:03:21 -0000 Message-ID: <33CF4DD8.29F4@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:04:56 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonah Winters Subject: Re: Scholars survey part 1 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1794 Jonah Winters wrote: > > Dear Frederick, > > ]I posted this to a.r.b., but it never appeaqred. so my mailer must not > have done it right. could you please post these two to the group? thanks. Ask your ISP to add alt.religion.bahai to its available newsgroups. That might help. > -Jonah > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Dear friends, > > Please refer to the online version of this posting > at https://www.interlog.com/~winters/survey.html. > > The Research Office of the US Baha'i National Center is compiling a > database of American and Canadian Baha'is who have academic training > and/or active scholarly pursuits. We wish to use this database to compile > and maintain a mailing list of those interested in academic topics and > events; to help network the community of those participating in Baha'i > studies; to be able to solicit essays, letters, or other assistance; and > to know who and where our scholarly resources are. > > We have designed this survey to be of most interest and utility to the > scholar, but are not limiting it to those with formal academic training. > We ask that all those with a committed interest in Baha'i Studies > participate in the survey. > > An email version of the survey will follow this letter. Our preference, > though, is that the online version, at https://www.interlog.com/~winters/, > be used instead. > > Thank you for your help. > Sincerely, -Jonah Winters > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Jonah & Kari Winters/33 Endean Avenue/Toronto, ON/M4M-1W5/(416)461-3527 > Baha'i Academics: https://www.interlog.com/~winters -- 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 07:02:51 1997 >From winters@gold.interlog.com Thu Jul 17 08:00:12 1997 Received: from gold.interlog.com (winters@gold.interlog.com [198.53.145.2]) by smtp.interlog.com (8.8.3/8.7.6) with ESMTP id LAA08765 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (winters@localhost) by gold.interlog.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA15645 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 21:09:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Jonah Winters To: bahai-faith@bcca.org cc: bahai-announce@bcca.org Subject: Scholars survey part 2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ReSent-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:59:55 -0400 (EDT) ReSent-From: Jonah Winters ReSent-To: FG@hotmail.com ReSent-Message-ID: X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2413 ---This survey is also available in a graphical version, at https://www.interlog.com/~winters/survey.html. Please forward this email or the above URL to any who might be interested and who might not have received a copy of this notice. As well, a hard copy of the survey can be obtained by writing to winters@interlog.com, or Jonah Winters / Research Office / Baha'i National Center / Wilmette, IL / 60091, or 847) 733-3415. If using this email version of the form, please forward the entire body of the survey back to us and simply insert your answers after each question. (NOTE: return form to winters@interlog.com, NOT to the listserv.) Please enter "n/a" or "none" for questions that don't apply. We will make both a public and private version of this database. Please make sure to note whether you wish that we keep either your entire response or any aspect of it private. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jonah Winters * * DATABASE * * OF BAHA'I SCHOLARS IN NORTH AMERICA 1) Name: 1b) Title (Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Prof.) 2) Do you wish to keep your submitted survey private?: [yes or no] If yes, please indicate whether you wish to keep the entirety of your response private. If we may list any of your information, then simply mark which answers must be kept private and the rest will be included in our public database. [indicate which answers must be kept private as you answer the survey] 3) Ethnicity: 4) Mailing address: 5) Email address and/or website address: 6) Phone number: [list any of your home, business, cell, or fax numbers] 7) Gender (foreign names may be misunderstood): 8) Degrees received, in what, and where: [list degrees received, in which fields, at which institutions, and date received] 9) Teaching posts held, in what, and where: [list positions, fields, places, and dates] 10) Publications: [list title of piece and place and date of publication] 11) Fields of expertise: [list areas you have taught or published in] 12) Fields of interest: [list areas you have studied or intend to study] 13) Occupation or profession: [list business or profession title and give a description if needed] 14) Other [provide any relevant information we have forgotten to ask. Please feel free to add as much as you wish] From - Mon Aug 18 10:19:31 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:35:57 1997 Received: (qmail 16452 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:35:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:35:55 -0000 Message-ID: <33F8501C.7950@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:37:32 -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,news.ad min.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Selective Bahai Censorship Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3038 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. -- 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 Jul 15 06:16:55 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jul 14 05:43:19 1997 Received: (qmail 6333 invoked from network); 14 Jul 1997 12:41:10 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Jul 1997 12:41:10 -0000 Message-ID: <33CA1EC1.3E58@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 08:42:41 -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: Self-censorship: SRB 7-13-97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 9167 [I don't have time to play all the games soc.religion.bahai is given to.... Judge for yourself. I believe they've used trivial pretexts here to prevent me from responding properly to messages posted on srb. It should also be noted Bohnoff apparently self-censored what she emailed to me, or srb hacked away at her original message to me which was emailed to srb simultaneously and from which I responded sending it to srb.... If you can't beat me, wear 'em down seems to be the approach.] Subject: Re: Resubmission: Bahai "art" Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:50:45 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am returning this resubmission to you unposted as it still contains materials that were deleted by the author from the post to which you are responding. The post that appeared on srb had the last paragraph deleted. As I do not have a "backlog of submissions to censor my way through" it took no time to review the week's postings and verify that the entirety of the original message was not, in fact, posted. Perhaps you have mistakenly confused your private e-mail with that of srb. What you and Ms. Bohnoff say to each other privately does not always appear in full on srb. Therefore, I am requesting that you edit your response accordingly. Below you will find a copy of the entire message as it was posted to srb. If you will check it against what you have submitted, you will see the difference. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith, co-moderator soc.religion.bahai srb-mods@bcca.org -------------Begin posted message----------------------- From: Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff To: S. Michele Smith Subject: Re: Baha'i Arts Forum Date: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 7:11 PM > > 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. +----------------------------------------+ | 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 | +----------------------------------------+ -- +----------------------------------------+ | 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: FG > To: srb-mods@bcca.org > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: Resubmission: Bahai "art" > Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 5:54 AM > > ubject: > Re: More Bahai "art" > Date: > Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:39:27 -0500 > From: > smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) > To: > > CC: > "Baha'i SRB Moderators" > > > Dear Mr. Glaysher, > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. However, it is > being > returned to you unposted as it is obviously a response to a private > message, the entire contents of which were not posted to this newsgroup. > In > future, if you would take the time to read what is and is not posted to > the > newsgroup and respond accordingly, it would be appreciated. > > I JUST READ THIS MESSAGE ONLINE. I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE CONFUSED > BY THE BACKLOG OF SUBMISSIONS YOU HAVE TO CENSOR YOUR WAY > THROUGH.... I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU'D ALLOW ME THE > COURTESY OF A RESPONSE. > > Sincerely, > S. Michele Smith, co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > srb-mods@bcca.org > > ---------- > From: FG > To: srb@bcca.org > Cc: FG@hotmail.com > Subject: More Bahai "art" > Date: Thursday, July 10, 1997 6:17 AM > > > BEGIN POSTING:-------------- > > Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff wrote: > > > > 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 idea that our thought is our reality is a very old one, > preceding Abdu'l-Baha by several centuries at least.... Found, > for instance, in medieval Xian theology.... It's precisely this > idea that concerns me. Your characterization of my "reality" is > unfortunately colored by your own.... I certainly neither expect > you nor anyone else to accept anything "without argument" or the > free assent of your own conscience.... > > > > > 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. > > You're not as "free" in your exploration as you imagine.... > > > > > 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. > > (soc.religion.bahai) which has yet to publish either.... > > > > > +----------------------------------------+ > > | 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 | > > +----------------------------------------+ > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- 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 07:18:02 1997 >From aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us Fri Jun 6 07:37:47 1997 Received: from pm102-11.dialip.mich.net (pm102-11.dialip.mich.net [35.9.14.172]) by scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA09668 for ; Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:37:39 -0400 (EDT) From: aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us (Andrea) To: FG@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Subject: Servers that carry alt.religion.bahai Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 14:37:25 GMT Organization: Waverly High School Reply-To: aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us Message-ID: <33981fcb.509539371@news.idt.net> X-Mailer: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 527 Hi everyone :), I've been looking around, and the following public (open) nntp servers appear to carry alt.religion.bahai (and I'm sure there're more): baracka.rz.uni-augsburg.de news.idt.net ftp.louisa.net news.tln.lib.mi.us These servers may not work for everyone, but anyone who's interested can at least give them a try. I'll probably be posting more servers when I've got more time to look, but for now this might get some people easier access :). -Andrea :) aenglish@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us From - Tue Jun 10 07:59:18 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jun 10 02:50:30 1997 Received: (qmail 25070 invoked from network); 10 Jun 1997 09:50:29 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 1997 09:50:29 -0000 Message-ID: <339D23B1.717@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 05:51:45 -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 Subject: Re: Servers that carry alt.religion.bahai References: <33981fcb.509539371@news.idt.net> <339820df.509815359@news.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 304 Andrea wrote: > > Oops, > Here's one more: > rtcsrv5.realtech.de > -Andrea :) Have you found one that let's people post back to alt.religion.bahai? There may be lots of lurkers as it is.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 06:12:14 1997 >From i.freeman@math.canterbury.ac.nz Sun May 25 13:48:20 1997 Received: from math.canterbury.ac.nz ("port 3725"@math.canterbury.ac.nz) by csc.canterbury.ac.nz (PMDF V5.1-7 #17207) with SMTP id <01IJBIHWB5WA8WXHK7@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> for FG@hotmail.com; Mon, 26 May 1997 08:48:16 +1200 Received: from ssp5-07.math.canterbury.ac.nz by math.canterbury.ac.nz (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04654; Mon, 26 May 1997 08:48:14 +0000 (NZS) Received: by ssp5-07.math.canterbury.ac.nz (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14663; Mon, 26 May 1997 08:48:13 +1200 Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:48:13 +1200 From: I.Freeman@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Isaac Freeman) Subject: Re: Shiite Interpretations of the Bahai Faith -- IS LIBERTY AN EVIL? In-reply-to: <33842B47.3570@hotmail.com> To: FG@hotmail.com Message-id: <199705252048.IAA14663@ssp5-07.math.canterbury.ac.nz> X-Mailer: xrn 8.02 X-Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 724 In article <33842B47.3570@hotmail.com>, you write: > sam wrote: > > You weren't censored. You were prevented from speaking in certain areas that > > had a specific charter, which you decided to ignore. And this was not on all > > postings, it was on those that went beyond the level of reason. Is it the > > charter you have something against, or the particular moderators who made these > > decisions? If it's the moderators, you still have yet to show that their > > decisions were blatantly at odds with the charter. If it's the charter - well, > > sorry, bub, that's the rules. > > Are you the Sam in New Zeeland? You sound like him.... He's not me, if that's who you're thinking of. Isaac Freeman From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 17:19:21 1997 Received: from hotmail.com ([205.161.129.79]) by basement.replay.com (8.8.5/RePlay, Inc.) with SMTP id CAA20564 for FG@hotmail.com; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:17:40 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:17:40 +0200 (MET DST) From: FG@hotmail.com Message-Id: <199706070017.CAA20564@basement.replay.com> Subject: So! The truth comes out... X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 67 I know what you are. You will be exposed. You have been warned. From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 17:17:51 1997 Received: from hotmail.com ([205.161.129.79]) by basement.replay.com (8.8.5/RePlay, Inc.) with SMTP id CAA20584 for FG@hotmail.com; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:17:49 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:17:49 +0200 (MET DST) From: FG@hotmail.com Message-Id: <199706070017.CAA20584@basement.replay.com> Subject: So! The truth comes out... X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 67 I know what you are. You will be exposed. You have been warned. From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jun 6 17:18:00 1997 Received: from hotmail.com ([205.161.129.79]) by basement.replay.com (8.8.5/RePlay, Inc.) with SMTP id CAA20617 for FG@hotmail.com; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:17:58 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 02:17:58 +0200 (MET DST) From: FG@hotmail.com Message-Id: <199706070017.CAA20617@basement.replay.com> Subject: So! The truth comes out... X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 67 I know what you are. You will be exposed. You have been warned. From - Mon Jun 09 07:18:08 1997 >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... X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 65 I know what you are. You will be exposed. You have been warned. From - Fri Aug 01 08:32:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 1 05:06:50 1997 Received: (qmail 25973 invoked from network); 1 Aug 1997 12:06:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 1997 12:06:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 08:08:21 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33df6290.53949847@news.wwnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1823 Roger Reini wrote: > > "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -- Baha'u'llah > > O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy > thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of > Me. > (Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, page 26) > > All religions teach that we should love one another; that we should > seek out our own shortcomings before we presume to condemn the faults > of others, that we must not consider ourselves superior to our > neighbours! We must be careful not to exalt ourselves lest we be > humiliated. > (`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, page 147) > > ---------------------- > > Let's set aside this talk about Iranian Baha'is and such-and-such > Baha'is, etc. For such talk as this can only prove to be divisive. > It does not promote unity. It does none of us any good. What you're really saying here is that we ought to ignore the fact that many Iranian Bahais apparently think of the Bahai Faith as basically THEIRS and run the whole show for themselves.... Sort of like an international corporation, Bahai Faith, Inc.... Promoting "unity" would entail supporting company policy more unquestioningly, mindlessly, that would make the Board of Directors very happy indeed.... That's the way they like it.... Face it, it's basically an IRANIAN religion.... As far from becoming a world religion, as Mars is from the Moon.... Haven't you notice yet, Roger, how Iranian Bahais USE newly converted idealists like you to fight their battles for them? To repeat the script for them.... > > 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 - Sat Aug 02 07:14:39 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 2 03:50:55 1997 Received: (qmail 11050 invoked from network); 2 Aug 1997 10:50:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 1997 10:50:53 -0000 Message-ID: <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 06:52:31 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1543 Harry Duran wrote: > > In article <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> Frederick Glaysher, > FG@hotmail.com writes: > > > >Face it, it's basically an IRANIAN religion.... As far from > >becoming a world religion, as Mars is from the Moon.... > > > > Bravo and well said. Now let us get to the real issue, why not embrace > the true universal religion, Islam, which belongs neither to the east nor > the west? Because Islam is defunct.... It's narrow, stifling, oppressive, and limited in scope.... It's not the final Word of God, sealed for the ages, etc.... It's become as Naguib Mahfouz and Salman Rushdie rightly recognize a fanatical religion.... The Bahai Faith, I acknowledge, may be no better, indeed, seems on the same path.... Culturally speaking, I find Islam nauseating.... Even more so than the Bahai Faith, which is basically warmed-over Islam with a few vague (the vaguer the better for some) flourishes in the direction of other religions.... > > I invite you to Islam, to success. For me, Islam would be a complete dead end and failure of imagination and spiritual struggle and growth.... That the Bahai Faith in my opinion is not yet a world religion does not preclude the possibility that it might one day (vague and in the future) become one.... Often I feel there is little EVIDENCE encouraging that hope.... > > Harry -- 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 Aug 03 10:05:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Aug 3 06:59:47 1997 Received: (qmail 27071 invoked from network); 3 Aug 1997 13:59:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.126) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 1997 13:59:46 -0000 Message-ID: <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 10:01:17 -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,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4377 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > Because Islam is defunct.... It's narrow, stifling, oppressive, > > and limited in scope.... > > And would you share you knowledge of Islam with us? Do you actually have > any knowledge of Islam or are you just nauseated by what your friends in > the Media have spoon-fed you? I've read the entire Quran, most of the major poets, three different definitive histories of Islam, widely used in universities by Muslim and secular scholars, numerous modern writers and commentators on Islam, taken four university courses on Islam and Farsi, etc.... > > There is a reason why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world; > and that's its true message and simplicity. Oh, please.... > > Here is what a few non-Muslims who have taken the trouble of doing a > little investigation have had to say about Islam: > (And I remind you of the portrait of an Arab with Quran on the Mural of > the Supreme Court representing Justice...) > ===================================================================== ==== > > "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential > persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he > was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the > religious and secular level." > Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL > PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. > 33. > > "His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral > character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, > and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental > integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it > solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly > appreciated in the West as Muhammad." > W. Montgomery Watt, MOHAMMAD AT MECCA, Oxford, 1953, p. 52. Incidentally, I've read Watt.... > > "It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the > great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to > feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great > messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say > many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I > re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that > mighty Arabian teacher." > Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, > Madras,1932, p. 4. > > "He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's > pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, > without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever > any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was > Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without > its supports." > Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, > 1874, p. 92. > > "Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, > restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty > terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As > regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may > well ask, is there any man greater than he?" > Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277. > > ===================================================================== ====== > "Whoever works righteousness benefits his own soul; whoever works evil, > it is against his own soul: nor is thy Lord ever unjust (in the least) to > His Servants." [The Holy Quran 41:46] > > And who is more unjust as to reject the faith followed by billion without > due investigation? You can't make that accusation of me.... Naguib Mahfouz and Salman Rushdie understand what you need to meditate on the next time you're on your knees.... Islam has become a religion of oppressive fanatics, dreaming about restoring the past.... It may be the Bahai Faith is no better.... > > 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 - Tue Aug 12 07:15:53 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 04:33:17 1997 Received: (qmail 12592 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 11:33:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 11:33:15 -0000 Message-ID: <33EEF8DF.7BF4@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:34:55 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1973 Massoud Ajami wrote: > > X-no-archive: yes > In article <33EB0279.6120@hotmail.com> Frederick Glaysher writes: > >From: FG > >Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} > >Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:26:49 -0400 > > >Linda Brown wrote: > >> > >> Just a note about Rushdie; > >> Although I believe in freedom of speech, that doen't mean I think > >> that it is proper to slander the dead; that is what Rushdie did in Satanic > >> Verses. What he did speaks volumes about his ethics. > > >I don't believe it's fair to say he slandered the dead. That > >many people, Muslim and otherwise, revere Muhammad and his > >companions does not automatically add up to slander. We are > >talking about a LITERARY genre, an art, that has more than > >the literal communication of a newspaper in mind.... > > Would you mind if I write some "art" about Bahaulla and post it? Go ahead, it won't bother me, but watch out for the Bahai fanatics at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere.... > > >> > >> Many people familiar with Rushdie feel that he was our of touch > >> with his own culture that he "forgot where he came from." > > >"Out of touch with his own culture": What is that but to > >say that he is a modern soul.... THAT is part of the > >meaning of his brilliant Satanic Verses, which, if you > >can get past the title, is a very rich reflection on > >Middle Eastern and Indian experience with Islam.... And > >indeed modern and Western experience. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You said it right! The Truth is, it's world experience, East and West, indeed, Middle East as well, as Naguib Mahafouz and other intelligent Muslims have recognized.... -- 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 14:24:43 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 11:05:55 1997 Received: (qmail 25279 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 18:05:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 18:05:49 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0A650.2F85@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:07:12 -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,misc.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.irania n CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70C <33EEF8DF.7BF4@hotmail.com> <33EF3C98.7406@erols.com> <33f04887.217830154@news.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2150 Roger Reini wrote: > > Followups set -- RR > > On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 12:23:52 -0400, Cyrus Raafat > wrote: > > >Dear Sirs: > > > >I have read some of these debates between various groups of opinions, > >regarding certain issues, such as the so called Salman Rushdie affair, > >which in my humble opinion is nothing more than a oversensationalized > >issue bent on the discreditation of the Iranian based Muslim clergy's > >outlook on independent-authors. I think the media, controlled by those > >who, obviously, are against Iranian national interests, has gained > >little. A few points, inspite of the facts just presented: > > > [snip] > > >2.Why would any truly sincere religious organization expend so much > >resources and energy to get mixed up with such a trivial issue as the > >"Rushdie Affair"--what is gained spiritually, religiously by insulting > >the Islam of millions inorder to support an athiest like Rushdie? > > FYI, the institutions of the Baha'i Faith are NOT involved in this > discussion. There are individual Baha'is who are participating in it, > but the opinions they express are their own. They are not necessarily > the opinion of any Baha'i institution. > > >3.How does this discussion help the Bahai cause or ideology? Isn't it > >simply in bad taste and tasteless? > > Beats me -- but I haven't participated in it, other than this note. > Personally, now that the focus is on Rushdie, I believe it's off-topic > for alt.religion.bahai and should be moved elsewhere. It's not at all off-topic for alt.religion.bahai since the same oppressive fanaticism, emanating from Shiism, which has condemned Rushdie to death, seems to hold sway with many Iranian Bahais who exert a similar stranglehold over all discussion and thought in the Bahai Faith. The Rushdie affair offers quite appropriate matter for discussion, in my opinion. > > 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 08:12:02 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 11:30:18 1997 Received: (qmail 25391 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 18:28:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 18:28:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33F0ABBB.DDB@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:30:19 -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.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.irania n,alt.religion.islam CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70C <33EEF8DF.7BF4@hotmail.com> <33EF3C98.7406@erols.com> <33f04887.217830154@news.zippo.com> <33F0A650.2F85@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 706 Ehmadhh wrote: > > Assalamu alaikum. > > Baha'is and followers of Rashad Khalifa are all agents of the Jews, and > they are desperately trying to weaken the faith of Muslims in the sources > of their religion of Islam - i.e. Qur'an, Sunnah & Hadeeth. Islam and modern life itself are doing that.... As with all the once-great religions.... Alas.... > > The common thing between the Baha'is and RKhlafites is the number 19. I > will present evidence here soon, insha'aalh. > > Wasalaam. > > Giving U The Facts -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. From - Thu Aug 14 10:57:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 14 06:36:44 1997 Received: (qmail 19546 invoked from network); 14 Aug 1997 13:36:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Aug 1997 13:36:42 -0000 Message-ID: <33F30A35.5AB@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:37:57 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70C <33EEF8DF.7BF4@hotmail.com> <33EF3C98.7406@erols.com> <33f04887.217830154@news.zippo.com> <33F0A650.2F85@hotmail.com> <33f0dcb4.238392218@news.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1157 Roger Reini wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:07:12 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > > >It's not at all off-topic for alt.religion.bahai since the > > [remainder snipped] > > I must disagree. Salman Rushdie was not and is not a Baha'i, to the > best of my knowledge. Therefore, IMHO, discussions involving him do > not belong in any Baha'i newsgroup. And it's debatable whether they > belong in the other newsgroups, either. You're entitled to your opinion. I believe it fails to perceive the fundamental similarity between the denial of right to life and freedom of conscience in regard to Rushdie and the censorship many people have stated exists on soc.religion.bahai.... To say it doesn't belong on "other newsgroups" sounds merely like more of the same dogmatic censorship in Bahai circles I refer to above.... > > Take it to talk.religion.misc. Followups set there. > > 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 - Tue Aug 05 07:35:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 5 04:20:59 1997 Received: (qmail 23212 invoked from network); 5 Aug 1997 11:20:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 1997 11:20:56 -0000 Message-ID: <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 07:22:32 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2037 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > > > > > And would you share you knowledge of Islam with us? Do you actually have > > > any knowledge of Islam or are you just nauseated by what your friends in > > > the Media have spoon-fed you? > > > > I've read the entire Quran, most of the major poets, three different > > definitive histories of Islam, widely used in universities by Muslim > > and secular scholars, numerous modern writers and commentators on > > Islam, taken four university courses on Islam and Farsi, etc.... > > Then, please (with references) justify your views and accusations against > ISLAM, that it teaches violence, it is .... I'm interested in practice, not theory.... Nevertheless, I'll cite the recent text of nail bomb in Israel.... Then there's recent gang of Islamic hoodlums caught in New York.... The World Trade Center.... etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.,etc., etc., etc., etc.... > > By the way, Muslims come from all walks of life and backgrounds; Salmon > Rushdie is not an spokesman for the Muslims and a bad Muslim (like Salmon > Rushdie) does not represent the doctrines of ISLAM... Rushdie has repeatedly pointed out to the dim-wit clerics in Iran and elsewhere that he does not even consider himself a Muslim.... > > Let the truth stand on its own merits! Please quote Quran, as you > mentioned originally to substantiate your claims... In this day and age, the Quran isn't worth quoting, not worth the paper it's written on.... The Modern Age.... Rushdie understands the Quran infinitely better than literal-minded Muslims hunkered down in the past.... > > 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 - Fri Aug 08 07:17:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 8 02:48:44 1997 Received: (qmail 19802 invoked from network); 8 Aug 1997 09:48:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 1997 09:48:43 -0000 Message-ID: <33EAEBDF.7006@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 05:50:23 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: An Apology (Re: Something for us to remember) References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 754 Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Culturally speaking, I find Islam nauseating.... Mr. Soltani, I feel I should apologize for writing the above some days ago. I respect Islam, by and large, and its teachings (so many things are worse in this world). Islam has done much to elevate human consciousness. I think of Attar and Ibn Khaldun, for instance, whom I feel fortunate to have read and studied.... I'm grateful too for your and other Muslims' contributions here on alt.religion.bahai. You have all added worthwhile ideas to the discussion that I for one am grateful for. Sincerely, Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. From - Wed Aug 06 07:23:22 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 6 04:13:06 1997 Received: (qmail 12247 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1997 11:13:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 1997 11:13:03 -0000 Message-ID: <33E85C9C.5E5@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 07:14:36 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 7110 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Rushdie has repeatedly pointed out to the dim-wit clerics in Iran > > and elsewhere that he does not even consider himself a Muslim.... > > > Kavosh Soltani wrote: > Good! One more person who agrees he is no Muslim... > > > In this day and age, the Quran isn't worth quoting, not worth > > the paper it's written on.... The Modern Age.... Rushdie understands > > the Quran infinitely better than literal-minded Muslims hunkered > > down in the past.... > > Since Rushdie is not a Muslim, I suggest, he undrestands Islam less than > a 12 year old Muslim. Simply because he wrote down some nonsense, it does > not make him a Muslim nor an authority on Islam. There are many > Christian/Jews who also have written books against Islam - many are clear > lies - should we call them all Muslims and authority on Islam? Kavosh, permit me to cite a lengthier response of mine on Rushdie, one written with more time for reflection, but still appropriate to the topic of Islam.... ...Growing up in a Muslim family in Bombay, Pakistan, and London, Salman Rushdie asserts in his 1980 novel Midnight's Children the freedom and dignity of the human intellect. The narrator Saleem Sinai reflects on the magical, telepathic children born in 1947, the night of independence from Britain: Midnight's children can be made to represent many things, according to your point of view; they can be seen as the last throw of everything antiquated and retrogressive in our myth-ridden nation, whose defeat was entirely desirable in the context of modernizing, twentieth-century economy; or as the true hope of freedom. . . . Their lives become, as Jawaharlal Nehru congratulates Baby Saleem, "the mirror of our own." Rushdie weaves together the tensions and ambiguities of "antiquated" and modern India to form a myth of the new nation "in the Age of Darkness, Kali Yuga," identified by some Indian writers with T. S. Eliot's wasteland. Qualifying and complicating "the disease of optimism" at every turn, Rushdie dramatizes the rare moment in history "when we step out from the old to the new; when an age ends." Even as Saleem's mind progressively deteriorates throughout the novel, the midnight children remain more than "the bizarre creation of a rambling, diseased mind. . . . illness is neither here nor there." The antinomies of his skeptical modern grandfather and religious grandmother, one with "a hole in him, a vacancy in a vital inner chamber," the other given to "credulity," connect him or sever him from the past, wrench him, deepen his perception of modern India, Pakistan, and Bengal. Cognizant of all the upheavals of twentieth century India, Rushdie posits a fragile hope for freedom passed on through Saleem's son to the next generation. Reading Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, I often found myself recalling Thomas Jefferson's words, "It does me no harm whether a man says there are seventy gods or no God." Indeed, I cannot understand what all the fuss is about since the book is such a finely crafted work of art. Rushdie does for Islam no more than what Ernest Renan's Life of Jesus accomplished in 1863. To say with Nietzsche, upon looking around at this modern world, that God is existentially dead seems honest, apropos, and harmless enough. I believe it is one of the great achievements of Western civilization and the Enlightenment that a person should be allowed the sanctity of his or her own conscience. The fanatics who condemned Rushdie to death damaged and discredited Islam in the eyes of the world far more than he ever did in The Satanic Verses. Through ambiguous literary technique, Rushdie undermines and calls into question the dreams of Gibreel Farishta, including his treatment of the character Mahound. When Gibreel succumbs to paranoia schizophrenia at the end of the novel, Rushdie unequivocally states, "he is moving through several stories at once," as many leading actors in India work simultaneously on several Bombay Talkies or popular movies. Similarly, Rushdie appears to leave space for religious faith when the dreamy radical poet Bhupen states, "We can't deny the ubiquity of faith. If we write in such a way as to prejudge such belief as in some way deluded or false, then are we not guilty of elitism, of imposing our worldview on the masses?" Rushdie, true to his own conscience, undercuts these words through the scorn of Swatilekha, a young radical woman: "Battle lines are being drawn up in India today . . . Better you choose which side you are on." This exchange confirms Rushdie's own intellectual position eloquently articulated in his essays and interviews that his is a secular rational mind, not that of a Muslim at all, let alone a traditional one. Nor should Rushdie be condemned to death for his socialist, Marxist thinking. If the twentieth century has proven anything, it is that the democratic value of the freedom of speech must allow the expression of even the most unpalatable notions, provided they do not incite acts of violence and social disorder. I often think of Milton's great words, "Let Truth and Falsehood grapple." That a man wishes to cling to a dead radical ideology, while hundreds of millions have awakened from the failed, murderous dream, must also be defended. At the end of The Satanic Verses, Rushdie seriously introduces Salahuddin's involvement with Bhupen and Swatilekha in a remarkable political demonstration: the formation of a human chain, stretching from the Gateway of India to the outermost northern suburbs of the city, in support of "national integration." The Communist Party of India (Marxist) had recently organized just such a human chain in Kerala, with great success. Though "political activity of a type that had always been abhorrent to him," Salahuddin participates, and the demonstration turns out "a pretty fair success." Salahuddin himself "could not deny the power of the image. Many people in the chain were in tears," proclaiming their "positive message," what Zeeny calls "a Communist show." Rushdie then indicts the "government-supporting" media for not covering such a display of outdated credulity and sentimentality. It will be interesting to see whether the several years and enormous resources the Western democratic government of Great Britain has spent protecting his gifted life will ever manage to penetrate Rushdie's leftist radical ideology and result in a more intelligent political philosophy than the one he has thus far exhibited in his essays and fiction.... -- 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 Aug 08 07:17:32 1997 >From lbrown3@tiger.towson.edu Thu Aug 7 18:30:29 1997 Received: from localhost (lbrown3@localhost) by tiger.towson.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA02678 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:27:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Linda Brown To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} In-Reply-To: <33E85C9C.5E5@hotmail.com> Message-ID: References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> <33E85C9C.5E5@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 414 Just a note about Rushdie; Although I believe in freedom of speech, that doen't mean I think that it is proper to slander the dead; that is what Rushdie did in Satanic Verses. What he did speaks volumes about his ethics. Many people familiar with Rushdie feel that he was our of touch with his own culture that he "forgot where he came from." I'd like feedbak from newgroup readers on this. L. B. From - Sat Aug 16 07:59:19 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 03:46:42 1997 Received: (qmail 13399 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 10:46:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 10:46:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33F58575.6762@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:48:21 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> <33E85C9C.5E5@hotmail.com> <33F2E52D.4B16FCD4@vossnet.co.uk> <33F53FC8.79D3@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3769 Svend White wrote: > > First off, I note that as a Muslim I do not support the death sentence > against him, nor do I think it is anybody's right to harm him in any > way, as the Quran clearly protect his right to safety. > > Nonetheless, that doesn't mean he has carte blanche to intentionally > denigrate the founder of a religion followed by nearly a billion people. What difference does it make whether a religion has one or a billion people? None whatsoever in my opinion. "Denigrate" is the wrong word. Rushdie was writing a piece of fiction literal-minded Muslims failed to understand. It's the same literal-mindedness of Bahais that concerns me since it clearly comes out of the Islamic milieu of the Bahai Faith. > > Anyone familiar with the classical works of Seerah (the study of the > life of the Holy Prophet) can see that Rushdie intentionally paralleled > the Holy Prophet's life--evening quoting whole paragraphs verbatim--with > strategic alterations (e.g., his resurrection of the Crusader slander, > MAHOUND; the "touch" of naming a brothel's prosititutes after the > Prophet's wives; etc.) to mock Islam. Too bad for Islam if it has no sense of humor or satire.... > > I am arguing for accountability, not lynching. There's no difference, don't kid yourself. What's happened to Rushdie reveals quite well how crippled morally Islam really is in the modern world.... I doubt intended to get > himself put on the Muslim world's most wanted list, Rushdie did not > write that book entirely innocently, either. There's nothing wrong with > holding him accountable for his actions. Disgraceful claim.... Made all the more disgraceful by the frequent making of it by Muslims.... > > We Muslims have the right to be outraged and to demand that society be > aware of our sensibilities (as it is with Jews, blacks, etc.). AHHHHHH.... Poor Muslims.... the latest addition to the endless list of the victimized....? > > I'm not sure where I stand on the censorship issue, but I do not accept > the Western media's lionization of him as "Saint Salman, Innocent Matyr > of Muslim Ignorance". He's a victim, but he's also an instigator. I believe you do not quite "get it." > > By the way, when people attack Hitler, et al., they are dealing with > historical facts, so your analogy doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. The treatment of Rushdie by Muslims is a historical fact.... I might add, if his fate were left up to many Bahais, he'd probably have gone through the same kind of thing, though most of them don't have the honesty to say so forthrightly.... > > > s v e n d > > V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote: > > > > Linda Brown wrote: > > > > > Just a note about Rushdie; > > > Although I believe in freedom of speech, that doen't mean I > > > think > > > that it is proper to slander the dead; that is what Rushdie did in > > > Satanic > > > Verses. What he did speaks volumes about his ethics. > > > > Does it mean we should not speak ill of Hitler, Stalin or Genghiz Khan > > or Timur or Churchill or for that matter who is dead now. > > > > This is ridiculous > > -- > > ****Svend|A|White**************> > ****4401|W|Street|NW***********> > ****Washington|DC|20007********> > ****+1|202|338|6498************> > ****svend@erols.com************> > ****svend_white@compuserve.com*> > *****https://www.erols.com/svend> > > "Hated by Fools and Fools to Hate. > Be that ever my Motto and my Fate." > - - - Jonathan Swift -- 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 10:19:22 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:02:14 1997 Received: (qmail 16299 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:02:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:02:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33F8483A.6FA2@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:03:54 -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,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> <33E85C9C.5E5@hotmail.com> <33F2E52D.4B16FCD4@vossnet.co.uk> <33F53FC8.79D3@erols.com> <33F58575.6762@hotmail.com> <33F5CBA7.2729@erols.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2234 Svend White wrote: > > I'm amazed by Frederick Glaysher 's response, > which is doubly surprising coming from a purported advocate of tolerance > and freedom. > > How is it that I am no different from the bloodthirsty mobs when I have > stressed that I am completely against the death sentence?? I dislike > him personally, but I would defend his life in the Voltairean tradition. The call for the death sentence and your "holding him accoutable" reasoning seems to be about the same. > > Are all Muslims just innately less civilized than you, regardless of > what they actually believe? I didn't say that. > > This exemplifies the wooly-headed reasoning which surrounded the Western > media's coverage of Rushdie. Any attempt by a Muslim to demand that his > feelings be heeded in this supposed multi-cultural world is interpreted > as call for hit squads! Only when the call actually goes out, as did with Rushdie.... > > As disturbed as you may be by Muslims' philistine sensibilities, Mr. > Glaysher, you cannot seriously argue that criticizing Rushdie is the > same as calling for his head on a platter. Criticism is one thing, a fatwa something else.... > > Thus, I would appreciate it if you stopped painting all Muslims with the > same, knee-jerk liberal brush. We are no less diverse than Christians > or Jews. I quite realize Islam is a diverse culturally as any other religion. The striking truth of the Rushdie affair is how fast Islamic fanatics throughout much of the Islamic world denounced him and began killing and rioting.... > > s v e n d > > -- > > ****Svend|A|White**************> > ****4401|W|Street|NW***********> > ****Washington|DC|20007********> > ****+1|202|338|6498************> > ****svend@erols.com************> > ****svend_white@compuserve.com*> > *****https://www.erols.com/svend> > > "Hated by Fools and Fools to Hate. > Be that ever my Motto and my Fate." > - - - Jonathan Swift -- 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 07:15:48 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 8 04:25:09 1997 Received: (qmail 20688 invoked from network); 8 Aug 1997 11:25:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 1997 11:25:08 -0000 Message-ID: <33EB0279.6120@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 07:26:49 -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,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Rushdie, Islam, & Bahai {was Re: Something for us to remember} References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> <33E85C9C.5E5@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1299 Linda Brown wrote: > > Just a note about Rushdie; > Although I believe in freedom of speech, that doen't mean I think > that it is proper to slander the dead; that is what Rushdie did in Satanic > Verses. What he did speaks volumes about his ethics. I don't believe it's fair to say he slandered the dead. That many people, Muslim and otherwise, revere Muhammad and his companions does not automatically add up to slander. We are talking about a LITERARY genre, an art, that has more than the literal communication of a newspaper in mind.... > > Many people familiar with Rushdie feel that he was our of touch > with his own culture that he "forgot where he came from." "Out of touch with his own culture": What is that but to say that he is a modern soul.... THAT is part of the meaning of his brilliant Satanic Verses, which, if you can get past the title, is a very rich reflection on Middle Eastern and Indian experience with Islam.... And indeed modern and Western experience. > > I'd like feedbak from newgroup readers on this. > L. B. Have you read any of Rushdie's books? -- 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 07:15:52 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 04:30:11 1997 Received: (qmail 12571 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 11:30:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 11:30:10 -0000 Message-ID: <33EEF822.5EFD@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:31:46 -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 Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33df6290.53949847@news.wwnet.com> <33ea52e6.125586518@news.wwnet.com> <33EAEBDF.7006@hotmail.com> <33EB0279.6120@hotmail.com> <5sg3bi$pfe$1@news2.i-2000.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 546 Ellowen Deeowen wrote: > > In article <33EB0279.6120@hotmail.com> Frederick Glaysher, > FG@hotmail.com writes: > > > >Have you read any of Rushdie's books? > > > > Uh like what books Fred? > > Ellowen Deeowen Well, let me look around me here at my bookshelves and pull them down.... Midnight's Children; East, West; Imaginary Homelands (essays); Satanic Verses.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. From - Wed Aug 06 07:23:20 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 6 03:52:21 1997 Received: (qmail 12123 invoked from network); 6 Aug 1997 10:52:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 1997 10:52:19 -0000 Message-ID: <33E857C4.12B2@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 06:53:56 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4048 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > > > > > Then, please (with references) justify your views and accusations against > > > ISLAM, that it teaches violence, it is .... > > > > I'm interested in practice, not theory.... Nevertheless, I'll cite > > the recent text of nail bomb in Israel.... Then there's recent > > gang of Islamic hoodlums caught in New York.... The World Trade > > Center.... > > I remember the crusades, world wars, vietnam war, ..., David Koresh, > Abortion clinic bombing, Atlanta, ..., Isreal bombing refugee camps, > Isreally government assassinating opposition leaders in Europe, ... > > It is unproductive to look at specific cases and try to judge a religion > or way of life based on those instances. Comprared to the ones I > mentioned, the ones you gave are child play. I think you are mistaken in > trying to judge Islam in light of what a few people (who are less than > .05% of the Muslims) do... If you insist, still Islam and Muslims would > look much better than any other group of people (purely based on what > people "do" and not the teachings of the faith)... Only to you and some other Muslims.... To the rest of the world.... Maybe "child's play," for some Muslims.... > > > > By the way, Muslims come from all walks of life and backgrounds; Salmon > > > Rushdie is not an spokesman for the Muslims and a bad Muslim (like Salmon > > > Rushdie) does not represent the doctrines of ISLAM... > > > > Rushdie has repeatedly pointed out to the dim-wit clerics in Iran > > and elsewhere that he does not even consider himself a Muslim.... > > Good! One more person who agrees he is no Muslim... Who in their right mind would want to be one.... That's what Rushdie has had the courage to say. > > > In this day and age, the Quran isn't worth quoting, not worth > > the paper it's written on.... The Modern Age.... Rushdie understands > > the Quran infinitely better than literal-minded Muslims hunkered > > down in the past.... > > Since Rushdie is not a Muslim, I suggest, he undrestands Islam less than > a 12 year old Muslim. Simply because he wrote down some nonsense, it does > not make him a Muslim nor an authority on Islam. There are many > Christian/Jews who also have written books against Islam - many are clear > lies - should we call them all Muslims and authority on Islam? What's interesting and instructive in Rushdie's case is that the response from some Muslims is so revealing of their insecurities and self-delusions.... Now, I don't necessarily compare myself to Rushdie, but consider the response I've received, undeservedly in my opinion, from many Bahais.... > > If you are looking at application, then I can provide you case history of > atrocities of people belonging to any major "religion". In comparison, > Islam looks much better. Oh please.... If you want to compare "religions", then I > suggest you only consider the teachings of the faiths (and the further > you go in history the better! after all, the people who knew the prophets > first hand knew religions the best), regardless of what people decide to > do with them... Wasn't it the third or forth iman, can't recall his name, who killed the second or third, while he was reading the Quran? > > It is laughable to even suggest that Salmon Rushdie has any clue of what > Islam is. He is like everyone else who has read a few pages of Quran - > without understaning it - and a few anti-Islamic books and then written a > book claiming to be an expert... or those who set up web pages about > Islam, without knowing the first thing about it.. A typical strategy. Deny he KNOWS anything about the TRUE essence, your brand of interpretation of the subject. A common ploy. > > 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 - Tue Aug 12 07:15:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 04:15:45 1997 Received: (qmail 12488 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 11:15:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 11:15:43 -0000 Message-ID: <33EEF4BD.2DF9@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:17:17 -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,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,alt.religion.islam,soc.rights.human ,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Something for us to remember References: <33E1D1B5.1590@hotmail.com> <5rtgq1$t51$2@news2.i-2000.com> <33E3116F.565D@hotmail.com> <33E48F2D.68E3@hotmail.com> <33E70CF8.433C@hotmail.com> <33E857C4.12B2@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3169 Kavosh Soltani wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > If you want to compare "religions", then I > > > suggest you only consider the teachings of the faiths (and the further > > > you go in history the better! after all, the people who knew the prophets > > > first hand knew religions the best), regardless of what people decide to > > > do with them... > > > > Wasn't it the third or forth iman, can't recall his name, who killed > > the second or third, while he was reading the Quran? > > No! (and it is imam and not iman, "Mr. I am very informed about Islam"!!!) An obvious typo.... > > > > It is laughable to even suggest that Salmon Rushdie has any clue of what > > > Islam is. He is like everyone else who has read a few pages of Quran - > > > without understaning it - and a few anti-Islamic books and then written a > > > book claiming to be an expert... or those who set up web pages about > > > Islam, without knowing the first thing about it.. > > > > A typical strategy. Deny he KNOWS anything about the TRUE essence, > > your brand of interpretation of the subject. A common ploy. > > You got one thing right: "anything"! But, "anything" includes > misinformation and lies. Salmon Rushdie is not a qualified Muslim > Scholar, nor is he a Muslim; what next? We are going to get an Atheist > to come and tell us what "TRUE" Islmic faith is all about? Rushdie is not writing misinformation or lies but fiction.... A subtle genre fanatics of all religions have often failed to understand.... So either he regurgitates herd opinion or he's condemned to death.... > > Yours is a common and tired ploy! Your comments have no substance, but > you insist in them by just changing the topic or trying to mislead the > people. You still have not substantiated your wild claims about "Islam"; > and when I remind you of all the atrocities of other "religions", you > just decide to ignore them and change the subject... Where have I just changed the topic? I don't believe I have. I am not trying to mislead anyone; such a claim too is a common ploy of the self-righteous orthodox of all religions.... What "wild claims"? That Islam is a deteriorated religion in the modern world? That is a fact to any truly intelligent and perceptive mind with a historical perspective.... I have and no not ignore the atrocities of other religions. Islam just produces regularly so many more of them.... > > Sorry! But, my time is very valuable. When you like to discuss issues > based on proofs and facts, I'll be glad to participate. Until then, I am not > eager to engage in meaningless chatter... What you mean is when I decide to only accept what you consider proofs and facts.... To me, meaningless chatter would be to believe citing the Quran is relevant in the late twentieth century, or that an ex-Catholic, Western, American Bahai should care about what modernity has marginalized.... > > 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 - Fri May 23 07:48:27 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 23 03:48:53 1997 Received: (qmail 15736 invoked from network); 23 May 1997 10:48:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 23 May 1997 10:48:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3385765B.15E8@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 06:50:03 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com, trhan@serv.net, srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: SRB Censored: 5-22-97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 6519 [Censored by soc.religion.bahai 5-22-97.] >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Thu May 22 19:59:05 1997 Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA05147; Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Teri Rhan To: FG@hotmail.com cc: srb moderators Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I am returning your submittal unposted to soc.religion.bahai and respectfully request that it be resubmitted without labling Baha'is as this type or that type. For example you may consider changing Shiite Baha'is to "some Baha'is". Use of such a term is derogatory to Baha'is and probably the Shiite's as well. I would also like to remind you that our charter does not allow ad-homineum attacks but instead perhaps mentioning that it is your opinion that some Baha'is manifest the things you're speaking of is fine. I just want to emphasize that I am not asking you to change your opinions, just the way you express them:-) Thank you for your participation, Teri Rhan trhan@serv.net Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 08:08:14 -0400 From: FG Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > I have seen much posted about backbiting but very little about > > > calumny. > fglaysher wrote: > > Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this view is > > fundamentally a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings--a > > common one, indeed.... > > And therefore? And therefore I think it's worth considering where the "script" that's often repeated comes from.... > > Even if this is true, so what? Is this guilt by asociation, or what? It's intellectual history, if you will.... Usually considered helpful in understanding the background to various ideas, religious or otherwise. > > > > Might I add a few more quotes to ... 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.... > > Fine. > > Then list's dispense with interpretations _entirely_--"Shiite" or > otherwise. Let's stick to the Writings, and see what the _Most Holy > Book_ itself has to say about what these values _are_: It's not possible.... Even to quote a passage as you do is to offer an interpretation based on your choice of what you believe is relevant to the topic at hand. Human beings cannot escape the burden and responsibility of interpretation. > > Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask > for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing > that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are > far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and > priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths > of ignorance. A significant passage, one Juan Cole has insightful commented on in his article published some years ago.... Your interpretation here, implied by your quoting it, is flawed.... "Liberty" here is more in the sense of "license." Elsewhere, and indisputably, Abdul-Baha speaks highly of liberty without such connotation.... > > Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose > flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is > the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the > embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. > That which beseemeth man is submission unto such > restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, > and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. > Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of > propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. > It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and > wickedness. The Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings delights in this passage.... It reveals a brilliant insight into modern culture, East as well as West, I might add, having lived in Japan and traveled extensively in China.... This insight in the Writings does not gainsay the value of proper liberty and responsibility.... > > Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a > shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, > the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain > circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, > verily, are the All-Knowing. Here is a point Shiite Bahais often neglect.... "We approve of liberty in certain circumstances...." They leaped over that weighty statement, given perhaps their own cultural background at times, and relish the last phrase.... > > Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission > unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were > men to observe that which We have sent down unto > them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a > certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man > that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever > He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that > pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that > profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete > servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath > tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the > dominion of earth and heaven. > (_The Kitab-i-Aqdas_, pages 63-64) > > This is no "interpretation." So how any Baha'i has can ignore, > belittle, or "dismiss" it is beyond me. Your quoting it is certainly an interpretation since you advance it as evidence shoring up your views.... Influenced by Shiite Bahaism in my view.... which has suppressed or failed to give proper regard to much that is also in the Bahai Writings.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 06:12:04 1997 >From rdetweil@usr08.primenet.com Fri May 23 06:29:34 1997 Received: (from rdetweil@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA28973; Fri, 23 May 1997 06:28:05 -0700 (MST) From: "Richard C. Detweiler" Message-Id: <199705231328.GAA28973@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 5-22-97 To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 07:28:03 -0600 (MDT) Cc: trhan@serv.net, srb-mods@bcca.org In-Reply-To: <3385765B.15E8@hotmail.com> from "Frederick Glaysher" at May 23, 97 06:50:03 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8478 Fred, While we understand you have a need to let people know when we have requested you to soften your tone on the newsgroup, there is no need to remind us of our own actions. Feel free to send our rejection notices - which ask you to tone your submittals down and are not saying you can't be heard - to as many newsgroups as you like but you don't need to resend them to us. We already get copied on them by the moderator on duty and have, more than likely, already consulted on the post together. regards, Dick Detweiler > From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 23 03:49:11 1997 > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) > by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA09081 > for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 03:49:10 -0700 (MST) > Received: from hotmail.com by bcca.org with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0wUru4-0003lGC; Fri, 23 May 97 06:48 EDT > Received: (qmail 15736 invoked from network); 23 May 1997 10:48:51 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) > by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 23 May 1997 10:48:51 -0000 > Message-ID: <3385765B.15E8@hotmail.com> > Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 06:50:03 -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 > CC: FG@hotmail.com, trhan@serv.net, srb-mods@bcca.org > Subject: SRB Censored: 5-22-97 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Length: 6353 > > [Censored by soc.religion.bahai 5-22-97.] > > >From trhan@itchy.serv.net Thu May 22 19:59:05 1997 > Received: from localhost (trhan@localhost) > by itchy.serv.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA05147; > Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT) > Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT) > From: Teri Rhan > To: FG@hotmail.com > cc: srb moderators > Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom (fwd) > Message-ID: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > I am returning your submittal unposted to soc.religion.bahai and > respectfully request that it be resubmitted without labling Baha'is as > this type or that type. For example you may consider changing Shiite > Baha'is to "some Baha'is". Use of such a term is derogatory to Baha'is > and probably the Shiite's as well. I would also like to remind you that > our charter does not allow ad-homineum attacks but instead perhaps > mentioning that it is your opinion that some Baha'is manifest the things > you're speaking of is fine. I just want to emphasize that I am not > asking you to change your opinions, just the way you express them:-) > Thank you for your participation, > > Teri Rhan > trhan@serv.net > Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 08:08:14 -0400 > From: FG > Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org > Subject: Re: Recent extremism about freedom > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc > > Bruce Limber wrote: > > > > > > I have seen much posted about backbiting but very little about > > > > calumny. > > > > fglaysher wrote: > > > > Upon further reflection, it seems to me that this view is > > > fundamentally a Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings--a > > > common one, indeed.... > > > > And therefore? > > And therefore I think it's worth considering where the "script" that's > often repeated comes from.... > > > > > Even if this is true, so what? Is this guilt by asociation, or what? > > It's intellectual history, if you will.... Usually considered helpful > in understanding the background to various ideas, religious or > otherwise. > > > > > > > Might I add a few more quotes to ... 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.... > > > > Fine. > > > > Then list's dispense with interpretations _entirely_--"Shiite" or > > otherwise. Let's stick to the Writings, and see what the _Most Holy > > Book_ itself has to say about what these values _are_: > > It's not possible.... Even to quote a passage as you do is to offer > an interpretation based on your choice of what you believe is relevant > to the topic at hand. Human beings cannot escape the burden and > responsibility of interpretation. > > > > > Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask > > for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing > > that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are > > far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and > > priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths > > of ignorance. > > A significant passage, one Juan Cole has insightful commented on > in his article published some years ago.... Your interpretation > here, implied by your quoting it, is flawed.... "Liberty" here is > more in the sense of "license." Elsewhere, and indisputably, > Abdul-Baha speaks highly of liberty without such connotation.... > > > > > Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose > > flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is > > the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the > > embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. > > That which beseemeth man is submission unto such > > restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, > > and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. > > Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of > > propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. > > It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and > > wickedness. > > The Shiite interpretation of the Bahai Writings delights in this > passage.... It reveals a brilliant insight into modern culture, > East as well as West, I might add, having lived in Japan and > traveled extensively in China.... This insight in the Writings > does not gainsay the value of proper liberty and responsibility.... > > > > > Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a > > shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, > > the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain > > circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, > > verily, are the All-Knowing. > > Here is a point Shiite Bahais often neglect.... "We approve > of liberty in certain circumstances...." They leaped over > that weighty statement, given perhaps their own cultural > background at times, and relish the last phrase.... > > > > > Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission > > unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were > > men to observe that which We have sent down unto > > them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a > > certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man > > that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever > > He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that > > pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that > > profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete > > servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath > > tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the > > dominion of earth and heaven. > > (_The Kitab-i-Aqdas_, pages 63-64) > > > > This is no "interpretation." So how any Baha'i has can ignore, > > belittle, or "dismiss" it is beyond me. > > Your quoting it is certainly an interpretation since you advance > it as evidence shoring up your views.... Influenced by Shiite > Bahaism in my view.... which has suppressed or failed to give > proper regard to much that is also in the Bahai Writings.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai > From - Thu Jun 12 07:06:32 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jun 12 03:03:19 1997 Received: (qmail 7631 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1997 10:03:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 1997 10:03:17 -0000 Message-ID: <339FC9A8.3E4F@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:04:24 -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: SRB Censored: 6-12-97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2777 [I'll let you figure out what the offending comment was....] Subject: Re: Bahai terrorism Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:26:21 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" 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 -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Wed Aug 13 08:21:51 1997 >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 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 5210 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. From - Thu Aug 14 10:57:20 1997 >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 X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 6560 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. From - Sat Aug 16 07:59:21 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 03:52:20 1997 Received: (qmail 13564 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 10:52:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 10:52:17 -0000 Message-ID: <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:53:59 -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.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.cens orship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-97 References: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1419 Russ Allbery wrote: > > Gah. Here we go again. > > Look, Mr. Glaysher, I understand your concerns. I know you don't like the > moderators of soc.religion.bahai and you think they're censoring you. Let > me, however, make something massively clear to you. > > THE PEOPLE IN news.admin.* CAN'T AND WON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!! > > *PLEASE* get this through your head. You're being amazingly dense about > this. They're the moderators of the newsgroup, and if they want to reject > your posts, they're going to. If you would like to form a new newsgroup, > use alt.religion.bahai, or use talk.religion.misc, they can't censor you > there. > > Now kindly *stop posting this stuff to news.admin.misc*! You aren't > winning any friends by doing so, you're just adding to the noise, and it > isn't going to accomplish anything at *all* for you. I'm befuddled by your response.... Others, Emma Pease, for example, has acknowledged it makes sense to discuss the censorship of talk.religion.bahai and so on on the news.* hierarchy newsgroups.... Sorry to irritate you. I don't understand why it should. > > Sigh. > > Note followups. > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) -- 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 10:19:23 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 18 06:07:08 1997 Received: (qmail 16315 invoked from network); 18 Aug 1997 13:07:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 1997 13:07:06 -0000 Message-ID: <33F84960.2DA7@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:08:48 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.admin.censorship,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-97 References: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1823 Emma Pease wrote: > > In <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> Frederick Glaysher writes: > > >I'm befuddled by your response.... Others, Emma Pease, > >for example, has acknowledged it makes sense to discuss > >the censorship of talk.religion.bahai and so on on the > >news.* hierarchy newsgroups.... > > It is appropriate to discuss it in one group. It is not appropriate > to discuss it in multiple groups at the same time. My guess would be > news.admin.censorship is the group you want. It seems to me most censorship issues are crossposted to all the above newsgroups. > > It may just be appropriate to mention it sometimes in other groups if > a followup-to line is always set to the group where discussion to take > place. Note that news.admin.misc is only suppose to be for discussion > of news administration issues which don't have a specific group. Including censorship and voter abuse which took place. > News.admin.net-abuse.misc is not exactly suppose to be for accusations > of moderator censorship (unless the moderator is doing something like > cancelling articles in other newsgroups). People did abuse the voting process by posting campaigns for NO votes. > > news.admin.censorship Censorship issues in news administration. > > seems to be right on target for what you want to discuss though check > what the articles there are about just to confirm this. It seems to me that it's legitimate to post to each of the newsgroups I have.... > > Emma > -- > \---- > |\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster > |_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht -- 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 11:17:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 08:07:41 1997 Received: (qmail 7651 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 15:07:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 15:07:38 -0000 Message-ID: <33FB089D.36C9@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:09:17 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.admin.misc,news.groups,soc.rights.human,news.admin.censorship,news.ad min.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Bahai vote: technical help, please? ( Re: Ahem... (was Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-97)) References: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> <33F84960.2DA7@hotmail.com> <5teu96$3bi$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 3788 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >People did abuse the voting process by posting campaigns for > >NO votes. > > I think that was "a person," not "people." I hate having to > try to clarify this *yet again*, but wouldn't want this to > become a widely believed "Usenet myth." What actually happened > was that one person unfortunately posted an inappropriate > appeal for "no" votes on t.r.b. to three lists (not even to the > Usenet - Frederick disseminated it widely there), and quickly > that person retracted his message on those same lists. The person was Mark Towfiq. No evidence was every seen or presented to any forum within which discussion was taking place for talk.religion.bahai that he actually did retract his message. The real "myth," without the evidence, is that he ever did. To accuse me of "disseminating" his message, when I was attempting to inform others of what was going on is rediculous.... It's vintage blame-the-victim thinking and distortion of events. Relevant messages may be found on www.dejanews.com under "NO vote campaign" and "Mark Towfiq" or just "Towfiq" in talk.religion.bahai and perhaps alt.religion.bahai.... > Frederick, if memory serves me, also made suggestions about > so-called "back-channel" campaigns, but if there ever were any > such thing I was never heard or saw anything of it. How could you or anyone else if they were all on a back-channel? The only reason Towfiq's campaign came to light was that a Bahai with a conscience saw it and emailed me a copy of it. Otherwise, I would neve have know it was going on. Which makes me think of something. All of the Bahai listservs probably ought to be subscribed to by reliable people this time around and monitored for precisely such underhanded tactics.... Any reliable volunteers? > > Also (in the interests of balance & perspective), if campaigns > are vote abuse, then it should be pointed out that there were > "yes" vote appeals on Usenet, though Frederick was not > connected with them. Done only by one person: Afshin, who didn't realize he was supposed to post the entire RFD along with any message encouraging people to vote YES. I immediately informed him and others of the requirement. Very different from THREE postings, long and detailed, on how and why to VOTE NO! > > In any event, all that is past. It might be helpful if > forthcoming (already begun?!) discussion on t.r.b. refrain > from resuscitating old issues that have nothing to do with the > proposed group. Especially ones that bring newcomers up to speed on what really has already taken place? OH COME ON!!! It also might help to have a very clear statement > from news.admin.*/news.groups regulars as to exactly what the > criteria are for votes on new groups, so as to avoid accusations > about inappropriate voting and all that this time around. TIA! That's an excellent suggestion. I highly support it and would be very appreciative if anyone with more objective and technical credentials would take the time and pains to elucidate acceptable practices and guidelines. > > DZO > > (P.S.- Normally I trim extraneaous newsgroups, but with all the > give and take about what's appropriate, I've had to guess what > is best. I've trimmed news.admin.censorship & news.admin.net-abuse, > & added news.groups. Apologies if this adds to off-topic clutter > in any of the groups on which it appears!) I'm sticking them back until a concensus is reached about what's appropriate and what isn't.... -- 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 08:59:49 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 19 04:30:00 1997 Received: (qmail 28817 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1997 11:29:58 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 1997 11:29:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33F98418.2F64@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:31:37 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.admin.censorship,news.groups CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-97 References: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> <33F84960.2DA7@hotmail.com> <877mdjzfgq.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1943 Andrew Gierth wrote: > > >>>>> "Frederick" == Frederick Glaysher writes: > > Frederick> It seems to me most censorship issues are crossposted to all > Frederick> the above newsgroups. > > Only because a small bunch of raving loons feel compelled to do so. That > doesn't make it correct. > > >> It may just be appropriate to mention it sometimes in other groups if > >> a followup-to line is always set to the group where discussion to take > >> place. Note that news.admin.misc is only suppose to be for discussion > >> of news administration issues which don't have a specific group. > > Frederick> Including censorship and voter abuse which took place. > > Moderator policy is not a news admin issue, and neither is voting > procedure. The latter is on-topic in news.groups, and the former isn't > subject to appeal; the only sanction that can be invoked against a > moderator is removal, which has never been done. (If it were to be > done, it would be discussed on news.groups.) > > news.admin.censorship was created specifically for discussion of > censorship issues in news, and is therefore the correct place for > your discussion. > > Frederick> People did abuse the voting process by posting campaigns for > Frederick> NO votes. > > Abuse of the voting process is not an issue for the net-abuse groups, but > for news.groups and the UVV. Where would discussion for the UVV take place? Do they have their own newsgroup area someplace? Or directly email them? > > Likewise, moderator policy is not an issue for the net-abuse groups. What is appropriate for discussion then on the net-abuse groups? What kind of abuse are they set up to handle? > > -- > Andrew. Thanks for your help. -- 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 07:56:03 1997 >From rreini@wwnet.com Tue Aug 19 13:09:20 1997 Received: from livin014.wwnet.net (livin014.wwnet.net [206.43.105.14]) by crush.wwnet.net (8.8.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA21094 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:07:39 -0400 From: rreini@wwnet.com (Roger Reini) To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-97 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:06:32 GMT Reply-To: rreini@wwnet.com Message-ID: <33fab294.41050531@mail.wwnet.com> References: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> <33F84960.2DA7@hotmail.com> <877mdjzfgq.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> <33F98418.2F64@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <33F98418.2F64@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 532 On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:31:37 -0400, in alt.religion.bahai you wrote: > >What is appropriate for discussion then on the net-abuse groups? >What kind of abuse are they set up to handle? The net-abuse groups are designed to combat abuse of the Net by spammers, who are sending unsolicited commercial e-mail or are cross-posting to a huge number of off-topic groups (such as the various porn spams). It doesn't cover issues of the newsgroup formation process. Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ From - Fri Aug 22 10:12:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:49:35 1997 Received: (qmail 14522 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 12:49:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 12:49:33 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD8B44.7942@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:51:16 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Followup-To: news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 8-14-97 References: <33F31C27.1468@hotmail.com> <33F586C7.61FC@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2606 Russ Allbery wrote: > > In news.admin.misc, Emma Pease writes: > > Frederick Glaysher writes: > > >> I'm befuddled by your response.... Others, Emma Pease, for example, has > >> acknowledged it makes sense to discuss the censorship of > >> talk.religion.bahai and so on on the news.* hierarchy newsgroups.... > > I think Emma is telling you the most appropriate group in the news.admin.* > hierarchy if you really want to pursue this here. The fact remains, > though, that no one here is going to do anything about your objections. > They were aired in news.groups during your newsgroup proposal, it was > pointed out that soc.religion.* groups are under no obligation to allow > opposing viewpoints since they may be fellowship groups, and it was > recommended that you create a talk.religion.* group on the subject. Said > proposal failed due to lack of interest. Not true. 157 people voted YES! 691 voted NO for misguided ideological, religious reasons. Way more than the required 100+ expressed their interest in talk.religion.bahai.... > > There simply isn't anything anyone's going to be able to do about this > until (and if) your group proposal passes. Well, it's going to be proposed again come late September. I'm trying to get some advice on how to go about it this time and would appreciate anyone's suggestions. > > > It is appropriate to discuss it in one group. It is not appropriate to > > discuss it in multiple groups at the same time. My guess would be > > news.admin.censorship is the group you want. > > It's as good a place to post random bitching as any other group, but it > really isn't going to help him any to post there. Well, it's more than "random bitching." I and 156 others were denied a place to discuss something of interest to us. And yes, we're not giving up. I and others believe there was a NO vote campaign that resulted in the proposal for an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith being defeated because religious zealots want absolute control over every thought and idea expressed in public on it.... The fanaticism that has come out on the NO vote side has been truly scary at times and shows all the more the need for an uncensored, uncontrolled newsgroup that can't be manipulated by anyone.... > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) -- 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 09:44:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:05:01 1997 Received: (qmail 15932 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:04:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:04:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3D61.502A@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:06:41 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-20-97 #2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 8982 ubject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:25:30 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I am returning it to you unposted as this thread was discontinued yesterday. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 9:20 AM 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. -- 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 09:44:40 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:03:35 1997 Received: (qmail 15920 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:03:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:03:34 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3D0D.1686@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:05:17 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-21-97 #1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2143 Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:21:48 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I am returning it to you unposted as this thread was discontinued yesterday. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 8:49 AM 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. -- 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 09:44:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:10:45 1997 Received: (qmail 15976 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:10:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:10:43 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3EBB.1DCC@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:12:27 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship Followup-To: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-21-97 #1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2143 Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:21:48 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I am returning it to you unposted as this thread was discontinued yesterday. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 8:49 AM 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. -- 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 09:44:45 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:07:57 1997 Received: (qmail 15938 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:06:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:06:18 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3DB2.3926@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:08:02 -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,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-21-97 #3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2374 Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:32:11 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I am returning it to you unposted as this thread was discontinued yesterday. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 9:31 AM Rowe, Thomas wrote: > [clip] > 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's not a "non-issue." Alt.religion.bahai is on an obscure poorly available alt.* hierarchy which has not allowed many of the 157 YES voters even to participate.... If you now recognize you voted for the wrong reasons, I would think you wouldn't mind admitting it and apologizing to those who definitely have been hurt by your actions.... [clip] > 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. -- 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 09:44:46 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:07:41 1997 Received: (qmail 15941 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:07:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:07:39 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3E02.4F6A@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:09:22 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-21-97 #4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 4246 Subject: = Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: = Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:43:48 -0500 From: = smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: = CC: = "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, As you are aware, this thread has been cut. The reasons for this are due to the fact that it is not moving forward, no new ground is being covered, accusations are being thrown around, and hard feelings are everywhere. It is pointless to continue a discussion that has degenerated into a blame-game and leaves no room for feelings of unity and understanding. This particular discussion may well be revisited again in a few months. Perhaps then, when feelings are calmer and people have time to gather new and positive information on this topic, further postings will be considered. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc.religion.bahai = ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 9:49 AM Tricia Hague-Blackford wrote: > = > [Moderator's note: This is the last submission that will be accepted on= the > thread regarding censorship. Thank you for your understanding.] > = > I too have found this topic to be most disruptive. > I would like to see this topic dropped. > = > I have tried to see both sides of this consultation, but it seems that > while everyone is looking at the negative side of things, that is all they > will get in return. To be successful in anything at all, whether it be= > teaching or working in whatever profession, its important to focus on t= he > positive side of things. Should the world have ignored Hitler and concentrated on the positive? The above reasoning makes no sense in my opinion. If an injustice has been done, widely thought so by many people, it's not going away by pretending it didn't happen.... Indeed, it is incumbent upon those = who care about justice and the Bahai Faith to confront even the unpleasant realities in order to defend both. You are also neglecting, I believe, that when an evil is perpetrated, it must be confronted in order for = it not to continue over and over and over.... = Somethings don't go away just because we don't like them.... > = > What we sow, we shall also reap..... Censorship, lies, deceit, deception, equivocation, and half-truths can only breed further unpalatable crops.... > = > What we reap, we shall also sow...... a different way of looking at things > for sure, but think about it a minute or five... It's a truism which needs > to be given some thought methinks. ;-) I believe you're ignoring the "negativism," it seems, of 691 Bahais violating the rights of 157 people who wanted a free and open newsgroup that they could have trust and confidence in.... > = > `Abdu'l-Bah=E1 talks about this in His Writings, and I think if we cont= inue > to be negative about such matters, nothing good will come from it. Abdu'l-Baha talks about many things in his writings. Can you quote a passage that justifies censorship and persecution of others for their beliefs? I see your insistence on anyone saying anything about what actually happened as quite naive and innocent. I mean you no insult by that. You raise a serious point of view but one that is flawed by the seriousness of what it neglects to take into account. > = > Tricia > = > THE MOST PATHETIC PERSON IN THE WORLD IS THE PERSON WHO HAS SIGHT, BUT = NO > VISION... > Helen Keller (Blind, Deaf and Mute) I believe you're also failing to see the spectacle of the moderators cutting off all discussion on this topic as they state they're going to above.... [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. From - Thu Aug 21 09:44:48 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:09:03 1997 Received: (qmail 15945 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:09:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:09:01 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3E55.2025@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:10:45 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-21-97 #5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2555 Subject: Re: Lost messages on SRB? (was Re: More ...) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:15:58 -0500 From: smsmith@cybertrails.com (S. Michele Smith) To: CC: "Baha'i SRB Moderators" Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. I am returning it to you unposted as further discussion on the subject of censorship has been discontinued for the time being. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator ---------- From: FG To: srb@bcca.org Cc: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Lost messages on SRB? (was Re: More ...) Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 10:14 AM Rachel wrote: > > > > > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > >The best explanation is what others have suggested: > > > >SRB is using the "overload" to suppress what it doesn't > > > >want to post.... > > > > > > Then why have utterly uncontroversial (which is not to > > > say uninteresting, of course :) ) messages not been > > > posted? > > > > Dubious claim at best, unsupported by documentation.... > > Especially in the light that others have stated messages > > they construed as other than "uncontroversial" were > > suppressed. > > > > FYI I have had two posts lost. The first was regarding a recent teaching > project (well when I say recent, we are talking Feb 1997) and it just > outlined the wonderful teaching successes we had had with the Collis > Featherstone Teaching Project. The second was a request for information > regarding a prophecy regarding Kirman - if anyone knew whether it had > come to pass. > > Both of these were so uncontroversial it is hard to imagine anything LESS > controversial. I am attaching copies of these so that you can withdraw > your statement that this is a dubious unsupported claim. Meaningless, really.... That you say that that is your experience does not mean that it has been my experience or that of others.... > > Regards > Rachel Butson > > =============== > FIRST LOST POST > =============== > Dear Friends, [clip,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. From - Fri Aug 22 10:12:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:16:45 1997 Received: (qmail 12169 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 12:16:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 12:16:43 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD8392.67AC@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:18:26 -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: bern@planeteer.com, FG@hotmail.com Subject: SRB Censored: 8-22-97 (Bern) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2678 NO SUCH QUESTIONS ALLOWED.... bern wrote: > > I thought you may be interested in the reply I just received from my > posting today. What timing you would believe! > > Would you know why this posting which was also directed to > soc.culture.iranian has yet to appear on that newsgroup? > > Also, where are issues of newsgroup moderation and control discussed on the > usenet? This must be a hot topic. On news.admin.censorship,news.admin.misc, and related newsgroups. > > BTW my ISP does not receive alt.religion.bahai Ask them to add it.... Many will.... > > ---------- > > From: S. Michele Smith > > To: bern > > Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators > > Subject: Re: censorship moderators > > Date: Thursday, August 21, 1997 8:55 AM > > > > Dear bern, > > > > Thank you for your submission to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > I am returning it to you uposted as this thread has been discontinued as > of > > yesterday. > > > > Thank you for your participation. > > > > Sincerely, > > S. Michele Smith > > co-moderator > > soc.religion.bahai > > > > ---------- > > From: bern > > To: soc-religion-bahai@ncren.net > > Subject: Re: censorship moderators > > Date: Thursday, August 21, 1997 3:14 AM > > > > There has been serious allegations made as to the impropriety of the > > voting that resulted in the closing of soc.religion.bahai to free > > discussion, and > > the subsequent institution of a moderator. Would the moderator care to > > comment: > > > > 1. What is the nature of such allegations and what response is offered? > > Has the votes of "157" individuals been discarded? > > > > 2. How is the moderator appointed, and when does his/her term expire? > > > > 3. Would the moderator agree to set up a newsgroup containing only the > > deleted postings so that interested parties may have the opportunity to > > follow the discussions in an uncensored format, scrutinize the actions > > and > > decisions of the moderator, and form their own opinion of the moderated > > format? May I suggest soc.religion.bahai.deleted? > > > > This posting may not have direct relevance to the stated topic of > > soc.religion.bahai. However, as much as the moderator's reply will > > provide answers to the above questions, it can also illuminate > > the position of the Bahai faith to some real questions facing > > contemporary civil democratic society. -- 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 Jul 15 06:53:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 03:48:21 1997 Received: (qmail 1391 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 10:48:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 10:48:20 -0000 Message-ID: <33CB55D1.BF4@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:49:53 -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: SRB censorship Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1464 Dan Jensen 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 > > No! This can't be! Baha'is would never want to censor anything! ;-) This was posted on soc.religion.bahai!!!!! Calls there to censor others are apparently acceptable under their holy charter.... > > (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 [clip] -- 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. -- 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 - Thu Aug 21 09:45:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 06:37:27 1997 Received: (qmail 16145 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 13:37:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 13:37:25 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC44F9.6F1F@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:39:05 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com, srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: SRB Moderators' Censor "Re: censorship - moderators" References: <"gH8J4B.A.RlC.hk9-z"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2014 First of all, WHO is the THE "Moderator"? Capital "M"? Ludicrous, really.... the, Moderator, of, soc.religion.bahai wrote: > > To the Participants of SRB; > > After consultation amongst the moderators of srb, the following threads > have been discontinued: > > Re: censorship - moderators (fwd) > Re: Lost messages on SRB? (was Re: More...) So-called "consultation," in my opinion.... Other words come to mind for shutting off discussion just at the point when it reaches a more fruitful exchange of ideas other than the most banal cliches of received Bahai indoctrination.... > > While we feel that there are those who would like to say more on the > subject, it has been decided not to post any further submissions for > the following reasons: > > 1. No new ground is being covered. Only in the opinion of the "moderators"; perhaps I should use a capital "M"? "Oh my!" as Dorothy said.... > 2. Accusations and recriminations are getting in the way of > consultation. The typical strategem used when the heat gets too hot for them.... Sanctimony and pious cliches only need apply, is the upshot of it.... > 3. A cooling off period is needed in order to restore a more positive > tone to future discussions on this topic. Only in their imposed opinion.... > > Thank you for your patience and understanding in this matter. Disingenuous in the extreme.... > > Sincerely, > the Moderators > soc.religion.bahai It's precisely this type of heavy-handed interference and censorship that has been experienced by many people in the past, led to the proposal for talk.religion.bahai last December, and has continued to fuel the determination to form an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith on a Big 8 hierarchy.... -- 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 May 27 06:12:15 1997 >From kathy_burgin@juno.com Mon May 26 06:52:13 1997 Received: (from kathy_burgin@juno.com) by x9.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id JbF08010; Mon, 26 May 1997 09:50:08 EDT To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: subscribe "alt.religion.bahai" Message-ID: <19970525.171702.11062.0.Kathy_Burgin@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.14 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-4 From: kathy_burgin@juno.com (Kathy Burgin) Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 09:50:08 EDT X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 88 Frederick Glaysher: I would like to subscribe to "alt.religion.bahai" Kathy Burgin From - Fri Aug 22 07:07:51 1997 >From hkt@wwa.com Thu Aug 21 19:17:52 1997 Received: from poolf4-037.wwa.com [207.241.63.230] by hirame.wwa.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.WWA) id m0x1jH0-000WOFC@hirame.wwa.com; Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:16:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:16:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: hkt@pop.wwa.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: FG@hotmail.com From: Henrietta Thomas Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5261 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. >> 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. 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. >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. >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 ..." >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. >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. 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. 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? 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. 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. Henrietta K. Thomas hkt@wwa.com From - Fri Aug 22 10:50:15 1997 >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 X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 11088 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 From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:26 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 04:59:32 1997 Received: (qmail 10194 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 11:59:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 11:59:25 -0000 Message-ID: <33C6206B.589F@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:00:43 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com CC: anser@kamla.brain.net.pk, 3arb@qlink.queensu.ca, priven@best.com, arm@chass.utoronto.ca, afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca, matuli_a@marlin.navsea.navy.mil, iskandar@EESUN2.tamu.edu, forumbahai@es.co.nz, allenp5@lesbois.com, ansharif@AOL.COM, Rafiq@Colorado.edu, mughal@alumni.caltech.edu, babak.mohajerin@aus.deuba.com, batkhan@ihug.co.nz, BobSolem@aol.com, bon_giovanni@juno.com, bmathieu@micron.net, BrentReed@aol.com, bgraham@emerald.tufts.edu, BugDaddy@cris.com, woodgold@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca, chughes@commnet.edu, estep@hotmail.com, cjdpcssd@mail.ims-1.com, positive@marsweb.com, dan@cthulhu.control.com, DaveCrnll@aol.com, dbowie@sas.upenn.edu, 72110.2126@compuserve.com, deadlock@one.net, mirele@xmission.com, dfbaker@panix.com, DeDanan@aol.com, freedman@netmedia.net.il, hmirza@yesic.com, irauf@Phys.UAlberta.CA, ejohnsto@atcon.com, EdvardJ@simi.is, ab248@freenet.carleton.ca, 4emb1@qlink.queensu.ca, pierceed@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu, sindiogi@nmsu.edu, edn@msn.fullfeed.com, uppal@acsu.buffalo.edu, fateh.ahmad@cressoft.com.pk, fran@crhc.uiuc.edu, fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu Subject: talk/alt.religion.bahai 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 Jul 14 07:54:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 05:05:22 1997 Received: (qmail 10260 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 12:04:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 12:04:12 -0000 Message-ID: <33C6218D.1319@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:05:34 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com CC: Gabriel.Salman.Lenz@directory.Reed.EDU, gedaliah@panix.com, rsaltd@wctc.net, wgilmore@cris.com, ggw@wolves.durham.nc.us, seeker@leland.stanford.edu, hamid01@paknet1.ptc.pk, bhayee@cyberus.ca, htana@ee.mcgill.ca, humayun.ahmed@cressoft.com.pk, ibraheem.malik@cressoft.com.pk, iahmad@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca, pimentel@ultranet.com, jason.roberts@mail.admin.wisc.edu, usdaebcl@hol.gr, jmalik@mailstorm.dot.gov, jgoldberg@megsinet.net, JKLintzBFA@aol.com, guardian@iinet.net.au, johnd@northlink.com, jdg@rahul.net, jwalbrid@indiana.edu, johnn@jolt.mpx.com.au, JohnWrldPc@aol.com, maitreya@worldnet.att.net, jrcole@umich.edu, pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu, katracha@juno.com, seeker@indiana.edu, keillan@quest.cc.purdue.edu, khan@kherps.brain.com.pk, kjohnsto@Fox.nstn.ca, LaAeterna@aol.com, lilandbr@scn.org, lisarm@cei.net, aslam@ulysses.att.com, msabet@mail.net, MahmudTaha@aol.com, mahsa@psy.uwa.edu.au Subject: talk/alt.religion.bahai 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 Jul 14 07:54:05 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 05:07:20 1997 Received: (qmail 25672 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 12:07:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 12:07:18 -0000 Message-ID: <33C62243.6BC6@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:08:35 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com CC: mansur.sheikh@cressoft.com.pk, mlp@sover.net, masnas@paknet1.ptc.pk, Massoud.Ajami@sdsu.edu, techind@ilcnet.com, Member1700@aol.com, bn872@freenet.carleton.ca, mibon@mailhost.cinet.co.cn, mbkafes@bestweb.net, naveed@nather.brain.com.pk, mubasher@ffclhr.brain.com.pk, aslam@openix.com, nahil@ece.utexas.edu, Nefratiri@aol.com, nkeiths@wavefront.com, obfusa@mack.rt66.com, olav@viking.mv.com, paustin@astro.ocis.temple.edu, pjktg@itis.com, Peace144@aol.com, rosss@u.washington.edu, rafiq@ksc9.th.com, regmor@rof.net, rehmans@advocate.sdnpk.undp.org, RMckin6046@aol.com, fstrpba@umac.mo, white-wolf-arts@juno.com, rodney684@silicon.email.net, rbic@unix.infoserve.net, rtower@bwc.org, lbhollin@uxmail.ust.hk, think@ucla.edu, ahmadi@why.net, mrscotty@minn.net, shafique@compuserve.com, samin@phnet.sph.jhu.edu, sharir@acel.net.au, shank210@clubhouse.email.net, Sharaf94@aol.com, Shenassa@worldnet.att.net, st010517@brownvm.brown.edu, ssemler@datalynx.com, stuart@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz, ss@look1.apmaths.uwo.ca, soleman@unixg.ubc.ca, finc27@pop.uni-dortmund.de, fnord@odyssee.net, trbutl@most.fw.hac.com, maley@ism.net, thriley@ccia.com, paxil@cancom.net, uzair@xds.brain.com.pk, 3sv12@qlink.queensu.ca, VWoodsong@aol.com, sscholl@jeffnet.org, talisman@umich.edu Subject: talk/alt.religion.bahai 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 Jul 14 07:54:13 1997 >From maley@ism.net Fri Jul 11 20:34:37 1997 Received: from maley ([205.226.97.94]) by mail.marsweb.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-18319) with SMTP id AAA73 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 21:37:11 -0600 Message-ID: <33C6FAB5.3ABA@ism.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 21:32:05 -0600 From: maley@ism.net (TOM MALEY) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk/alt.religion.bahai References: <33C62243.6BC6@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2196 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > 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. Please change my address to maley@mssl.uswest.net Thank you, Tom -- ----------------------- Tom Maley maley@ism.net ----------------------- From - Mon Jul 14 07:54:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 05:09:40 1997 Received: (qmail 10318 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 12:09:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 12:09:39 -0000 Message-ID: <33C622DE.7FE0@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 08:11:10 -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.rights.human,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: talk/alt.religion.bahai 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 - Tue Jul 15 07:03:42 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 03:56:09 1997 Received: (qmail 27972 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 10:54:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 10:54:56 -0000 Message-ID: <33CB575D.6DE2@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:56:29 -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: talk/alt.religion.bahai References: <33C622DE.7FE0@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2504 I should have mentioned I emailed this message to 157 people who voted YES for talk.religion.bahai, defeated by the 691 NOs.... A few asked to be removed from the mailing list while several have thanked me for keeping them informed since they are still unable to access alt.religion.bahai.... ------- Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > 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. -- 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 07:12:49 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 04:01:51 1997 Received: (qmail 23783 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 11:01:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 11:01:48 -0000 Message-ID: <33CB58FA.1542@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:03:22 -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: talk/alt.religion.bahai References: <33C622DE.7FE0@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1094 As a sample from those who are still being denied access to alt.religion.bahai, here's one response I recently received to the talk/alt.religion.bahai "status report" I emailed 157 YES voters: [clip] > I tried today, on receipt of your message, and find that I am > still unable to obtain alt.religion.bahai on normal freenet. I'm > rather incompetent when it comes to using www which I may access, > at least in part, through freenet. Possibly in a week or so I'll > make a sustained effort. However, there's a lot on my plate. > Still, I completely support freedom of the press, and hold > that this is completely in accord with the Baha'i principle of the > independent investigation of truth. I'm glad to hear that there's > lively discussion on the "underground" newsgroup. If it's agreeable > to you I'd be happy to support you by sending you a few posts that > you could place on the group. [clip] -- 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 Jul 14 07:54:19 1997 >From laaeterna@aol.com Sat Jul 12 06:25:10 1997 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id JAA08730 for FG@hotmail.com; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 09:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 09:25:14 -0400 (EDT) From: LaAeterna@aol.com Message-ID: <970712092513_376503054@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk/alt.religion.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 118 Frederick, Thanks for the info. I'm limited by an old OLD computer, but by fall should be able to join in... Nancy From - Tue Jul 15 06:16:53 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jul 14 05:24:56 1997 Received: (qmail 24923 invoked from network); 14 Jul 1997 12:24:54 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 14 Jul 1997 12:24:54 -0000 Message-ID: <33CA1AF2.3F97@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 08:26:26 -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: The Baha'i Cult References: <33C857F0.29CC@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1966 Sharaf wrote: > > I have not visited here for a while, but I am so glad to come here and > see the magnificient results of a free and open discussion about the > heterodox Baha'i Faith. This is what they hate the most. They hate to > have their views exposed. > > Someone referred to the Baha'is as the Borg. A good analogy. Free and > independent investigation of the truth is forbidden (even though it was > one of the principles of Baha'u'llah). If anyone dares to question the > so-called Universal House of Justice, they are expelled and shunned and > their families are shunned. There is no discussion allowed. No > independent views. No differences of opinion. All thoughts are to come > from the so-called UHJ and its "Counsellers". No individuality is > tolerated The Bahai Faith has often seemed this way to me.... > > If the Baha'i Faith of the current administration of Haifa and Wilmette > is the standard for our future world society -- then humanity is entering > the a great era of totalitarian darkness I have feared too that this seems to be the tendency of many individuals in the Bahai Administration.... I am not sure, however, that that should be accepted as the Bahai Faith itself.... Many religions have gone through ideological and doctrinal shifts and breaches for considerable amounts of time, perpetrated by those who loved and served the religion, renewing themselves in the end.... It's possible that this totalitarian temptation will prove to be merely a ripple on the surface of its history.... In my opinion, it's too early to tell for sure.... despite much bleak evidence.... It's still possible that the Bahai Faith might reclaim the decent, moderate vision of universalism proclaimed by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.... -- 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 06:17:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jul 14 17:40:57 1997 Received: (qmail 20789 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 00:39:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 00:39:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33CAC72B.517B@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 20:41:15 -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.israel.soc.culture.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The Baha'i Cult References: <33C857F0.29CC@aol.com> <33CA1AF2.3F97@hotmail.com> <33CA47D5.5078@bcgrizzly.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1891 Maureen Atkinson wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Sharaf: re the Borg analogy - I was not referring to the Bahai Faith, > rather the idea that Fred G. was posing at the time about Bahai ARTS. I > considered his position to be quite inflexible and I was tired of coming > across his lengthy postings on the subject. I refered to the Borg's > motto (if you will) "That resistence is futile" to mean - don't bother > trying to talk to Fred G. about this subject since he obviously had > nothing new to say. > > Long explanation I know - I got a chuckle out of your idea however... why > would God create such a wonderful world of independant, diverse people > just to send Messengers who would brain wash entire worlds using force. I've never alleged that "force" has been used but given the history of all other great religions one should never rule out anything, I suppose.... > Gee sounds an awful lot like the Crusades to me. People come and some go > out of the Bahai Faith - in alot of cases it is the logic and spirit of > truth in the unity that draws us. Sometimes bending to God's direction is > the hardest lesson we have to learn in our lives. I believe this is the > crux of all monotheistic faiths - there is something greater than human > selves - call it God or whatever you like, but the submission to > recognizing God is always the first step and rule. Humility is a gift! Yes it is.... One incumbent upon the clergy of all faiths, including the Bahai elected clergy.... Perhaps it's "futile" to say this to you though, since all you can do is brush off opinions you don't care to hear.... lacking all humility yourself, it appears to me.... > > kind regards. Maureen -- 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 06:53:34 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 03:23:32 1997 Received: (qmail 1289 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 10:22:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 10:22:19 -0000 Message-ID: <33CB4FB4.4BFD@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:23:48 -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.israel.soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: The Baha'i Cult References: <33C857F0.29CC@aol.com> <33CA1AF2.3F97@hotmail.com> <33CB132C.5F44@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1824 Sharaf wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > If the Baha'i Faith of the current administration of Haifa and Wilmette > > > is the standard for our future world society -- then humanity is entering > > > the a great era of totalitarian darkness I did not write the above but the response below: > > > > I have feared too that this seems to be the tendency of many > > individuals in the Bahai Administration.... I am not sure, > > however, that that should be accepted as the Bahai Faith > > itself.... Many religions have gone through ideological and > > doctrinal shifts and breaches for considerable amounts of > > time, perpetrated by those who loved and served the religion, > > renewing themselves in the end.... It's possible that > > this totalitarian temptation will prove to be merely a > > ripple on the surface of its history.... > > > > It is not the Baha'i Faith itself that creates the tendency of the current Baha'i > administration to be totalitarian. Baha'u'llah taught the independent investigation of > truth. This is a marvelous principle that is simply ignored by the current Baha'i > administration. We are not to see with eyes of another. We are not to be swayed by the > clergy. It always was the clergy who led the people astray away from God. > > The Baha'i Faith is under the control of a fanatical element. This is just one of the > many adversities that the Master and Shoghi Effendi warned would befall this Faith > before it would emerge victorious. The Covenant of Baha'u'llah will emerge triumphant > eventually after the violators collapse under the weight of their own false beliefs. -- 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 Aug 08 07:17:36 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 8 03:31:10 1997 Received: (qmail 20202 invoked from network); 8 Aug 1997 10:31:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 1997 10:31:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33EAF5CE.5AC5@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 06:32:46 -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.iran,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: The Bahai Future? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1032 It's difficult not to think the Bahai future would be something like the following present reality in Iran.... > The Wall Street Journal > Interactive Edition > July 24, 1997 > Edit Page Features > > Writer's Fate Tests Iran and Europe > > By KENNETH R. TIMMERMAN > [clip] > The publisher of a monthly cultural magazine, Adineh, Mr. Sarkuhi was one > of 134 Iranian writers and intellectuals who signed a late 1994 appeal > calling on the authorities to abolish censorship. The appeal appeared to > have been prompted by the death of fellow writer Ali Akbar Saidi-Sirjani, > who died in prison--allegedly under torture--that November. Since then, > four other writers who signed the appeal have died, either in prison or > under mysterious circumstances, while others have gone into exile. All > have received anonymous death threats. > -- 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 Jul 15 07:37:06 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 15 04:33:24 1997 Received: (qmail 23910 invoked from network); 15 Jul 1997 11:33:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 1997 11:33:22 -0000 Message-ID: <33CB605C.1971@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:34:52 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: talisman@umich.edu CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: The Bahai Gulag Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1090 In response to my "status report" on talk/alt.religion.bahai, a kind soul gently reminded me of my exile.... >I hope all is going well with you, and that it long continues >to do so. It occurs to me that we ought to be nearing the end of >the six month suspension from Talisman. I think it will be great >to see you back, if you wish to come back. Few words of kindness reach us here on the taiga.... Ivan and I, working long on the power plant up the river, often struggle to endure the drudgery and cold.... bitterest in memory, they say, this past winter.... dressed in rags.... Shukhov too spent time in the punishment block, never knowing why.... Well, you can imagine what these words mean to me.... And then I cherish Alyoshka's words too about the priests: "The reason they don't put them into prison is because they have no true faith." I doubt now I can ever return to Moscow, after such experience.... -- 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 07:02:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 17 04:53:56 1997 Received: (qmail 12487 invoked from network); 17 Jul 1997 11:52:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.124) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 1997 11:52:42 -0000 Message-ID: <33CE07E6.25CE@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 07:54:14 -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: The Bahai Gulag Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 1383 [A recent posting from the Gulag to Talisman@umich.edu] Subject: The Bahai Gulag Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:34:52 -0400 From: FG To: talisman@umich.edu CC: FG@hotmail.com In response to my "status report" on talk/alt.religion.bahai, a kind soul gently reminded me of my exile.... >I hope all is going well with you, and that it long continues >to do so. It occurs to me that we ought to be nearing the end of >the six month suspension from Talisman. I think it will be great >to see you back, if you wish to come back. Few words of kindness reach us here on the taiga.... Ivan and I, working long on the power plant up the river, often struggle to endure the drudgery and cold.... bitterest in memory, they say, this past winter.... dressed in rags.... Shukhov too spent time in the punishment block, never knowing why.... Well, you can imagine what these words mean to me.... And then I cherish Alyoshka's words too about the priests: "The reason they don't put them into prison is because they have no true faith." I doubt now I can ever return to Moscow, after such experience.... -- 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 07:46:08 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 18 04:27:52 1997 Received: (qmail 3236 invoked from network); 18 Jul 1997 11:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 Jul 1997 11:27:50 -0000 Message-ID: <33CF5393.6F9E@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 07:29:23 -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.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Talisman" and a.r.b. References: <33CE07E6.25CE@hotmail.com> <5qlg8f$hh6$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2911 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >In response to my "status report" on talk/alt.religion.bahai, > >a kind soul gently reminded me of my exile.... > > > >>I hope all is going well with you, and that it long continues > >>to do so. It occurs to me that we ought to be nearing the end of > >>the six month suspension from Talisman. I think it will be great > >>to see you back, if you wish to come back. > > What suspension was this, if you don't mind the question? May I also > ask if it was in any way an impetus for your decision to propose > talk.religion.bahai? > > If so, I find it interesting that we have been influenced in different > ways by that list. My experience with its earlier "incarnation" (at > Indiana U.) - made me more conscious of the need for Baha'is to > deepen in the Baha'i teachings on speech and communication so as to > better apply them in discussions on electronic media. Hence my proposal > a while back to include reference to these teachings in a FAQ/charter > for a.r.b. as a reminder to posters about the high standards of > communication that Baha'u'llah holds us to. I believe your real motivation, as I said in the past on this subject, is to control, suppress, and manipulate discussion on talk/alt.religion.bahai.... That's why I have opposed the idea in the past and why I'll oppose in the future when I suppose you'll suggest such things be included in the charter for the next round on talk.religion.bahai.... I believe you're duplicitous about your true intentions. > > I found it unfortunate that repeated suggestions that such references be > made in the Talisman info. for subscribers were ignored. The demise of > that list I consider to be primarily the result of the negative > environment created by a level of communication that too often did not > measure up to the standards we are called to. Ashame, because IMHO there > was also some good & interesting discussion & presentations there. I've read somewhere the demise of Talisman I was the result of dictatorial suppression by intolerant Bahai zealots.... > > The new Talisman to which you refer is, as I understand it, run by a > non-Baha'i. I've also heard that it does not have the same level of > activity of the previous one (fallout?). In any event, neither > "Talisman" list was ever formally connected directly or indirectly > with the Baha'i faith. I know neither who "runs" it nor his or her religious affiliation. What do you imply by your last sentence? "Indirect": What does that mean? Is that suppose to legitimize it in some way? Which is soc.religion.bahai? The VOICE of GOD from HIS HOLY MOUNTAIN? > > DZO -- 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 Sep 07 07:41:31 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Sep 4 05:12:35 1997 Received: (qmail 5809 invoked from network); 4 Sep 1997 12:12:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 4 Sep 1997 12:12:15 -0000 Message-ID: <340EA5FF.210B@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 08:13:51 -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.buddhism,talk.religion.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: The Crowned Maitreya Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2632 The Crowned Maitreya Early we rise and make our way across the congested teeming city to the front main gate, entangled in electrical cables for the trains, and walk unchallenged past the clay statues of the guardians of Buddhism. The walls shun the noise of the traffic. Sweet coolness pervades the morning air. Here in the old capital of peace, we seek out this place of peace, Koryu-ji, temple of the Hata families after their long journey from China and Korea. The monks have finished their morning prayers, abandoned the temple and lecture hall to the daily influx of tourists. An old man sweeps stray leaves and sticks from bare ground and sprinkles water on the flagstone path. We wait patiently while these rituals are performed and talk of Shotoku's hall, his Code of Laws, his love of peace and harmony, of the great service he rendered Koryu-ji and Japan. Such a ruler hasn't appeared in centuries. The bronze door of the museum opens, we pay a pittance, walk in, skirt along the rigid lifeless icons. We know what we have come to see. In the placid morning we stand, oblivious of time, enraptured by his beauty. Suddenly they arrive bellowing, cackling, trampling the silence. We step back and let them rush by, their guide swinging a pennon, Nikons and Canons frantically clicking, their national treasure captured for posterity. Off to one side the old attendant watches from his post at the door. We wait for echoes to fade away. He shambles to the altar, rings a graceful bell three times, offers a prayer we all acknowledge with a bow. Frederick Glaysher Chaminade Literary Review, Spring/Fall 1995, 33-34. Copyright 1995. From - Sun May 18 19:34:50 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun May 18 05:22:27 1997 Received: (qmail 10210 invoked from network); 18 May 1997 12:22:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.126) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 May 1997 12:22:24 -0000 Message-ID: <337EF4C4.56F6@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 08:23:32 -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: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: The voice of Conscience References: <"R6uhv.A.n3B._OTfz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2577 Douglas A. McAdam wrote: > > At 10:39 PM 5/14/97, Brent Poirier wrote: > > The Guardian acknowledged that we Baha'is have some growing to > > do, to be able to reconcile submission to authority with > > freedom of conscience, to be neither spineless nor anarchists, > > and to reach equipoise: > > Well said Brent. > [clip] > In the following quote the Master pointed out the importance of > conscience and Brent's post illuminated this quite nicely. > > the conscience of man is sacred and to be > respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening > of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, > disclosure of the secrets of creation, and > manifestation of the hidden verities of the contingent > world. 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 Traveller's Narrative, p. 91) > > As I understand it the word conscience comes from a combination of a > latin root meaning "with knowledge'. This sheds a different light for > me on the subject of being free to voice our conscience. Who's knowledge? The historical dilemma has always been some individuals might have knowledge or insight that many ignore, dismiss, or find unprofitable for their own reasons.... Baha'u'llah's own life demonstrates this as does all the prophets.... [clip several quotations] > With knowledge like this I suppose we could safely express our > conscience and be assured of contributing positively to consultations > that are uplifting and purposeful towards the achievement of love and > unity in a process that will unveil truth to us. But if we resort to > expressing ourselves with blame attitudes, name calling, and other > obvious means of assertion of power, we can cause a great harm to > befall all of us and delay the achievement of our spiritual goals. In my opinion, a very simplistic view.... Baha'u'llah's conception of the "divine" and "satanic" is a more profound understanding of the human heart.... [clip] > regards, > doug -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun May 18 19:34:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun May 18 05:35:39 1997 Received: (qmail 10255 invoked from network); 18 May 1997 12:35:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.126) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 18 May 1997 12:35:11 -0000 Message-ID: <337EF7BC.21EB@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 08:36:12 -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 CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: The voice of Conscience References: <"OWCA-.A.fkD.Z9ffz"@bounty> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2705 John Haukness wrote: > > Dear Friends: I don't think there is any one topic I haven't joined in > on more than this one in the last four years. Free speech bing the > corner stone of the United States culture, and me being an american > would certainly contribute to this. But let's look where america > currently stands, now that it has itself at the crossroads. America, as every country, more or less, given the nature of history, is always at a crossroad.... > > In academia, in the white collar corporate headquarters, in the blue > collar assembly line, all symbolized by half of american television > becoming a giant talk show. And the courts, they say let this person > go free and put this person in prison, but last year they put the > otherone in prison and let the other person go free, the mood changes > so fast. But incredulously, americans can't even see their own see > saw, so inebriated with our own rhetoric. Generalizations, really.... Having spent much of my adult life studying the best academic critiques of American and modern culture, I find your cursory analysis woefully lacking in depth. It's also highly uninformed regarding the complexity of modern life elsewhere on the globe.... Life is not better in Europe or the East Asia, let us say.... > > Look freedom of speech incorporates slander and libel, it also > incorporates lying, it also incorporates what you sign on the doted > line, what you tell the Priest and Minister in certain ceremonies. It > also incorporates what you put on the paper you hand in to the > instructor and professor. Alas, the human race.... That you blame this all on freedom of speech is quite unfortunate and simplistic.... > > So here are americans placing all their apples in the basket of "free > speech" and telling ourselves thats what Walt (Whitman) and John > (Stienback) told us to do, and then when we deal with lying, slander > and libel, we don't have a clue what to do with victem's rights. Oversimplifying again.... > > Now if we could only bury the victem, we could get back to enjoying > our sacred Freedom of speech. To me, you are merely replicating the fundamentally Iranian Bahai perspective on American culture and free speech.... A shallow and cultural bound one, in my opinion.... The Bahai Writings themselves are more complex and weighty.... > > Or maybe Americans could do a real 180 degree and think about a > reserved tounge,....naw! lets not get rediculous. > > haukness@tenet.edu > 2015 Bay St. N. > Texas City, TX 77590 > voice/fax 409-948-6074 > One planet one people please! -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 08 06:45:48 1997 >From dopost@grunt.dejanews.com Wed May 7 05:01:57 1997 Received: (from dopost@localhost) by grunt.dejanews.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA32570; Wed, 7 May 1997 07:01:15 -0500 Path: grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 07:01:14 -0600 From: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Threat: alt.religion.bahai Newsgroups: misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Message-Id: <863006077.32400@dejanews.com> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service To: FG@hotmail.com References: <336B265F.5374@pop.hotmail.com> X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed May 07 11:54:38 1997 GMT X-Originating-IP-Addr: 199.179.42.118 () X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0Gold (Win95; U) X-Authenticated-Sender: FG@hotmail.com X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3265 [This is a courtesy copy of an article posted to Usenet via Deja News] Given Mr. Freeman's suggestion of disabling alt.religion.bahai, is it possible to detect whether or not he ever actually tried to do? Would some trace be left behind on his system or elsewhere? Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA -- In article , litterer@cs.umass.edu (David A. Litterer) wrote: > > In article <336B265F.5374@pop.hotmail.com>, glaysher@pop.hotmail.com wrote: > > ~ In article <5kbjtv$ilq$1@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, > ~ math5ijf@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Isaac Freeman) wrote: > ~ > > When someone attempts to "rmgroup" a newsgroup, they need to give a reason > why they want it removed. Usually this is only done by the person who > created the group. Each internet service provider decides for themselves > whether or not to remove the group, and usually they don't, except for > reasons like clear lack of interest. If the remove request is made for any > reason that smacks of control of content, or disagreement with material > being posted, then it will not only be almost universally ignored, but may > well become a big publicity item. > > To see what happens when someone attempts to "rmgroup" a newsgroup for such > a reason, just take a look at alt.religion.scientology. In other words, it > backfires big-time, attracts a LOT of attention, and draws in many many > times more readers and discussion than there would have been without the > "rmgroup" attempt. The person who attempted the "rmgroup" is certainly > regretting that action, as it fueled a major internet war which is still > going two years later. Much of the discussion will center on the issue of > censorship and the motivations behind the "rmgroup" attempt, and other > issues not germane to Bahai philosophy. Clearly not the result that was > intended. > > ~ [clip] > ~ > ~ > People could certainly argue against the formation of the group. I didn't > ~ > see anyone do that. They could send out rmgroup messages (I don't know > ~ > much about this, but I'm told its possible) to prevent alt.religion.bahai > ~ > from propogating. They could lobby their service providers not to carry > > Each service provider would have to be lobbied independently. Each of the > several tens of thousands. Gonna take a long time. > > [clip] > > ~ > ~ I believe this person has been opposed to talk.religion.bahai > ~ and alt.religion.bahai all along. It seems to me he's suggesting > ~ here that he has discussed the possibility of technically > ~ disabling alt.religion.bahai and preventing its propagating. > ~ > ~ If this is possible, and has or might be attempted, is there > ~ a way of preventing such a desperate and underhanded thing > ~ from being done? > ~ > > Once again, no one entity is in charge of usenet newsgroups -- in effect > there are 50,000+ independent internet providers who make their own > decisions. Once a newsgroup exists on the .alt hierarchy, it is pretty > much there permanently. -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- https://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From - Tue Aug 26 14:52:47 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 26 05:54:04 1997 Received: (qmail 13278 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1997 12:54:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 1997 12:54:03 -0000 Message-ID: <3402D24C.1A41@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:55:40 -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,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Truce? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 859 You could accuse me; I could accuse you; we could cite the past.... And then do it all over again.... For the next several months.... Increasingly vitriolic while expanding in scope.... Mutual recriminations enveloping the earth.... What's the goal? Mine is merely an unmoderated newsgroup: talk.religion.bahai.... One that anyone of any persuasion or opinion can use with confidence. Mr. Reini suggested some days ago that perhaps trb and arb traffic alone might serve the best rationale for justifying the soon-to-be proposed unmoderated newsgroup, second time around.... An interesting idea, I say again.... Perhaps almost a unifying one.... Oh my! Anyone agree? Thoughts? -- 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 07:59:28 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 27 04:57:13 1997 Received: (qmail 3585 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 11:57:11 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 11:57:11 -0000 Message-ID: <34041680.2AA3@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:58:57 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Truce? References: <3402D24C.1A41@hotmail.com> <5tv3c1$kqb$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1458 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Thanks for this refreshing posting. I remember Roger > suggested a "truce" some time ago -- in any event, as > they say, better late than never... DZO Ah, ah, ah. Now Donald, that's not the Bahai spirit of reconciliation.... Any substantive comments? > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >You could accuse me; I could accuse you; > >we could cite the past.... > > > >And then do it all over again.... For > >the next several months.... Increasingly > >vitriolic while expanding in scope.... > >Mutual recriminations enveloping the > >earth.... > > > >What's the goal? Mine is merely an > >unmoderated newsgroup: talk.religion.bahai.... > > > >One that anyone of any persuasion or opinion > >can use with confidence. > > > >Mr. Reini suggested some days ago that > >perhaps trb and arb traffic alone might serve the > >best rationale for justifying the soon-to-be > >proposed unmoderated newsgroup, second time > >around.... An interesting idea, I say again.... > >Perhaps almost a unifying one.... Oh my! > > > >Anyone agree? Thoughts? > > > >-- > >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. From - Fri May 30 07:36:56 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 30 06:57:46 1997 Received: (qmail 25305 invoked from network); 30 May 1997 11:00:38 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 30 May 1997 11:00:38 -0000 Message-ID: <338EB3A3.5E5A@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 07:01:55 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: True Christians References: <1997May29.162337.9036@leo.vsla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 858 K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > It should be obvious that anyone for whom Jesus Christ is the > central figure in religious history is a Christian. There are > thousands of ways of interpreting him, and damn little evidence > to go on. > > As for who's a *true* Christian, my sense of that is "a person > who truly exemplifies the way of life taught by Jesus Christ." > Which means that anyone who goes about denouncing other people > as "not true Christians" is, ipso facto, *not* a true > Christian. Love thy neighbor as thyself, and love God with all > your heart. That leaves no room for anti-Catholic, > anti-Mormon, anti-Unificationist, etc. etc. bigotry. Actually, Paul, this is how I feel about "true" Bahais as well.... Humility is a marvelous, apparently, Christain virtue.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Fri Aug 22 10:12:42 1997 >From news@lacy.zippo.com Fri Aug 22 05:33:44 1997 Received: (from news@localhost) by lacy.zippo.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA17180; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 05:33:40 -0700 (PDT) To: srb@bcca.org Path: newsp.zippo.com!news1 From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Tyranny Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:35:26 -0400 Organization: None Lines: 19 Message-ID: <33FD878E.1AB@hotmail.com> Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: glaysher@199.179.42.118 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: 830 "Be ye warned, O men of understanding. It ill beseemeth the station of man to commit tyranny; rather it behoveth him to observe equity and be attired with the raiment of justice under all conditions. Beseech ye the One true God that He may, through the power of the hand of loving kindness and spiritual education, purge and purify certain souls from the defilement of evil passions and corrupt desires, that they may arise and unloose their tongues for the sake of God, that perchance the evidences of injustice may be blotted out and the splendour of the light of justice may shed its radiance upon the whole world." Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 170. -- 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 Aug 22 10:12:44 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:33:46 1997 Received: (qmail 14397 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 12:33:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 12:33:44 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD878E.1AB@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:35:26 -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: Tyranny Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 830 "Be ye warned, O men of understanding. It ill beseemeth the station of man to commit tyranny; rather it behoveth him to observe equity and be attired with the raiment of justice under all conditions. Beseech ye the One true God that He may, through the power of the hand of loving kindness and spiritual education, purge and purify certain souls from the defilement of evil passions and corrupt desires, that they may arise and unloose their tongues for the sake of God, that perchance the evidences of injustice may be blotted out and the splendour of the light of justice may shed its radiance upon the whole world." Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 170. -- 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 Aug 22 10:12:48 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:34:58 1997 Received: (qmail 14418 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 12:34:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 12:34:57 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD87D9.44DB@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:36:41 -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: Tyranny Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 830 "Be ye warned, O men of understanding. It ill beseemeth the station of man to commit tyranny; rather it behoveth him to observe equity and be attired with the raiment of justice under all conditions. Beseech ye the One true God that He may, through the power of the hand of loving kindness and spiritual education, purge and purify certain souls from the defilement of evil passions and corrupt desires, that they may arise and unloose their tongues for the sake of God, that perchance the evidences of injustice may be blotted out and the splendour of the light of justice may shed its radiance upon the whole world." Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 170. -- 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 Sep 02 08:18:13 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Aug 31 13:14:59 1997 Received: (qmail 15556 invoked from network); 31 Aug 1997 20:14:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.127) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 31 Aug 1997 20:14:48 -0000 Message-ID: <3409D119.EE3@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 16:16:25 -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 CC: FG@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Re: Tyranny References: <33FD87D9.44DB@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1823 >From blimber@capaccess.org Fri Aug 29 12:03:05 1997 Received: (from blimber@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id PAA10869; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:08:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:08:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Limber To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Tyranny In-Reply-To: <5u2uks$270@itchy.serv.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I will not dwell on the unpleasant things of life. 'Abdu'l-Baha I MUST SAY I FIND YOUR IGNORING BAHA'U'LLAH'S WORDS AND YOUR DISTORTING ABDU'L-BAHA'S WORDS IN THIS WAY SHAMEFUL.... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > "Be ye warned, O men of understanding. It ill beseemeth the > station of man to commit tyranny; rather it behoveth him to > observe equity and be attired with the raiment of justice > under all conditions. Beseech ye the One true God that He > may, through the power of the hand of loving kindness and > spiritual education, purge and purify certain souls from > the defilement of evil passions and corrupt desires, that > they may arise and unloose their tongues for the sake of > God, that perchance the evidences of injustice may be > blotted out and the splendour of the light of justice may > shed its radiance upon the whole world." > > Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 170. > > -- > 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. From - Wed Aug 27 07:48:40 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 27 04:10:47 1997 Received: (qmail 18242 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 11:10:46 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 11:10:46 -0000 Message-ID: <34040B9F.76DC@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:12:31 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai CC: srb-mods@bcca.org, FG@hotmail.com Subject: Tyranny Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 830 "Be ye warned, O men of understanding. It ill beseemeth the station of man to commit tyranny; rather it behoveth him to observe equity and be attired with the raiment of justice under all conditions. Beseech ye the One true God that He may, through the power of the hand of loving kindness and spiritual education, purge and purify certain souls from the defilement of evil passions and corrupt desires, that they may arise and unloose their tongues for the sake of God, that perchance the evidences of injustice may be blotted out and the splendour of the light of justice may shed its radiance upon the whole world." Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 170. -- 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 Sep 02 08:18:09 1997 >From blimber@capaccess.org Fri Aug 29 12:03:05 1997 Received: (from blimber@localhost) by cap1.CapAccess.org (8.6.12/8.6.10) id PAA10869; Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:08:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 15:08:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Limber To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Tyranny In-Reply-To: <5u2uks$270@itchy.serv.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 76 I will not dwell on the unpleasant things of life. 'Abdu'l-Baha From - Tue Aug 12 07:16:03 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Aug 11 05:35:01 1997 Received: (qmail 12896 invoked from network); 11 Aug 1997 12:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 1997 12:34:58 -0000 Message-ID: <33EF0756.41ED@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:36:38 -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.iranian,soc.rights.human,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.isra el CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UNHCHR: Human rights in Iran (16 May 97) References: <33E75D70.66BB@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 8331 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Economic and Social Council > > Distr. > GENERAL > E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/5 > 16 May 1997 > Original: ENGLISH > > COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS > Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination > and Protection of Minorities > Forty-ninth session > Item 2 of the provisional agenda > > QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL > FREEDOMS, INCLUDING POLICIES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND > SEGREGATION AND OF APARTHEID, IN ALL COUNTRIES, WITH > PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT > COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES: REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMISSION > UNDER COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION 8 (XXIII) > > Note by the Secretary-General > > 1. At its forty-eighth session, the Sub-Commission adopted resolution > 1996/7, entitled "Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of > Iran", in which it requested the Secretary-General to continue to keep > the Sub-Commission informed of relevant reports and United Nations > measures to prevent human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of > Iran, including violations of the religious freedoms of the Baha'i and > the Christian communities in Iran. > > [. . .] > > (Full text of the document can be read at: > https://www.unhchr.ch/HTML/MENU4/SUBREP/97sc5.htm ) ------------------------------ Why should I care when Bahais take away my human rights with impunity????? Evidence? Read the following: ------------ Subject: SRB Censored: 4-23-97: Boatright From: FG@hotmail.com Date: 1997/04/23 Message-Id: <5jl689$ami$1@bilbo.reference.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage [More Headers] Subject: Re: SRB Censored: 3-20-97 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:11:49 -0600 From: "Rick Boatright" Organization: Topeka Business Computers To: FG@hotmail.com CC: srb-mods@bcca.org Rick Boatright wrote: > > Oh Please!!!! Stalin killed millions. Dick D. returned a mail > message. Hardly comparable. You remind me of the High School > debators I judge from time to time who try to convince me that a > change in the sentencing guidlines for juviniles in New York will > lead to a nuclear war with China. Get some perspective Frederick. You fail here to confront the tyranny of his act. Hyperbole on my part? Yes. Does that justify denying myself and other Bahais a hearing? No.... Your high school comparison is cute Mr. Boatright, but I assure you I am not in high school nor playing a trivial forensic game.... > > Oh yeah, I presume you'll cross post this everywhere too. Here, I'll > make it official: Osborn posted the United Nations statement on Bahais everywhere. Why should I not post my opinion in the same places? Are you and he now in control elsewhere too? Or want to be? God save us.... > > I am returning the below to you due to it being off charter, and it > will not be posted to soc.religion.bahai You are hiding behind your charter and using it again to justify shameful suppression of opinions you don't want to hear. It's precisely this type of thing that led me to state on alt.religion.bahai in the day or two that Mr. Osborn's suggestion of a "charter" were merely another attempt to control the speech and the consciences of others. Your intolerance and hypocrisy are blatant.... > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator and Jack Booted Thug As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it.... > soc.religion.bahai > > > To: srb@bcca.org > > From: FG > > Subject: SRB Censored: 3-20-97 > > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:03:26 -0400 > > Organization: None > > Reply-to: FG@hotmail.com > > > [Sure, no censorship at soc.religion.bahai.... Mr. Detweiler is only > > doing his holy duty of "protecting" other Bahais from my "fractured > > logic".... It seems to me that while destroying millions, Stalin > > thought he was doing about the same thing....] -- > > > > Subject: Re: Situation of Bahais in Iran (UN) > > Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 07:27:42 -0600 (MDT) > > From: "Richard C. Detweiler" > > To: FG@hotmail.com > > CC: srb-mods@bcca.org > > > > > > Fred, > > > > Equating the systematic denial of basic human rights to a group of > > people by a government simply bacause of their religious beliefs > > with the practice of Baha'i review and your personal experience with > > the moderators of this group is completely beyond the pale. > > > > You are not being denied access to work, your children are not being > > denied an education, you are not being denied your inheritance, your > > marriage is not being annulled, you are not being threatened with > > imprisonment, your home is not being destroyed and you are not being > > sentenced to death nor executed simply for your convictions. > > > > Posting the fractured logic below would only lead to a lot of pain > > and rancor. It is pointlessly provocative. While browsing the > > newsgroups, I noticed this note was crossposted to many newsgroups > > so your point has been made. This is being returned to you unposted > > to soc.religion.bahai. > > > > Dick Detweiler > > co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > > > > > > From news@reference.com Sun Apr 20 04:31:45 1997 > > > Received: from bcca.org (root@bounty.bcca.org [208.133.44.40]) > > > by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA25359 > > > for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:31:43 -0700 > > > (MST) > > > Received: from hekla.switch.ch by bcca.org with smtp > > > (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0wIuqE-0003kuC; Sun, 20 Apr 97 07:31 > > > EDT > > > Received: from bilbo.reference.com by hekla.switch.ch with SMTP > > > (PP); Sun, 20 Apr 1997 13:31:21 +0200 Received: (from > > > news@localhost) > > > by bilbo.reference.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) > > > id EAA19068; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:31:08 -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: Situation of Bahais in Iran (UN) > > > Date: 20 Apr 1997 11:31:08 GMT > > > Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service > > > Lines: 145 > > > Message-ID: <5jcups$ijn$1@bilbo.reference.com> > > > NNTP-Posting-Host: shadowfax.reference.com > > > Originator: panuser@reference.com () > > > Content-Length: 7609 > > > > > > [I tried to crosspost this to soc.religion.bahai a few days ago > > > but I may have made a mistake in the header that prevented it from > > > reaching you.] > > > > > > Subject: Re: Situation of Baha'is in Iran (from report to the UN > > > Commission on > > > Human Rights, 11 Feb. 97) > > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:50:50 -0400 > > > From: FG > > > > > > > > > As a Bahai, I fail to see why I should be so terribly concerned > > > about oppression of Bahais in Iran, while I'm supposed to condone > > > it here in the "evil, decadent" United States.... It has often > > > seemed to me contradictory that Bahais use the free speech and > > > human rights provided for in international instruments to curry > > > favor from the government of the United States, and the United > > > Nations, while depriving their own members those same rights in > > > the West and elsewhere. It can't be both ways.... > > > -- 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. ------------------------ Ditto.... -- 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 13:47:51 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 12 04:37:10 1997 Received: (qmail 21100 invoked from network); 12 Aug 1997 11:37:09 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 1997 11:37:09 -0000 Message-ID: <33F04B4A.2D93@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 07:38:50 -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.iranian,soc.rights.human,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.isra el CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UNHCHR: Human rights in Iran (16 May 97) References: <33E75D70.66BB@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> <33EF0756.41ED@hotmail.com> <5so4ja$g4e$1@europa.frii.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1220 renton@frii.com wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > >Why should I care when Bahais take away my human rights > >with impunity????? Evidence? Read the following: > (balanced snipped--refer to previous post, it's long) > > Lert's not let censorship within a closed system be interpreted as > violation of your human rights. You can always get your voice heard > via other means- but you want the Baha'is to hear you. If they want to > hear you, they will. To compare what has happened to you to what > happens to the Baha'is in Iran who are deprived of property, political > rights, the right to marry legally (making all of their children legal > bastards), the right to worship, the right to life in many instances, > is like comparing raisins to watermelons. Don't exaggereate your > plight. There ARE people who have it worse than you do. And oh doesn't that make me feel better!!! A fascinating new agrument for soc.religion.bahai censorship.... based on the same fundamental injustices.... > > Mac -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. From - Sat Aug 16 06:19:28 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 15 05:13:01 1997 Received: (qmail 765 invoked from network); 15 Aug 1997 12:13:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 1997 12:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <33F44831.185C@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:14:41 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.isra el CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UNHCHR: Human rights in Iran (16 May 97) References: <33E75D70.66BB@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> <33EF0756.41ED@hotmail.com> <5so4ja$g4e$1@europa.frii.com> <33F04B4A.2D93@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1625 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > renton@frii.com wrote: > > > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > > >Why should I care when Bahais take away my human rights > > >with impunity????? Evidence? Read the following: > > (balanced snipped--refer to previous post, it's long) > > > > Lert's not let censorship within a closed system be interpreted as > > violation of your human rights. You can always get your voice heard > > via other means- but you want the Baha'is to hear you. If they want to > > hear you, they will. To compare what has happened to you to what > > happens to the Baha'is in Iran who are deprived of property, political > > rights, the right to marry legally (making all of their children legal > > bastards), the right to worship, the right to life in many instances, > > is like comparing raisins to watermelons. Don't exaggereate your > > plight. There ARE people who have it worse than you do. > > And oh doesn't that make me feel better!!! A fascinating new > agrument for soc.religion.bahai censorship.... based on the > same fundamental injustices.... > > > > > Mac > > -- > 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. It's to noted that Roger Reini, Donald Osborn, et al, can only ignore the indisputable evidence of censorship on soc.religion.bahai when presented with 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 - Sat Aug 16 07:59:11 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sat Aug 16 03:26:02 1997 Received: (qmail 11294 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1997 10:26:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.117) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 1997 10:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <33F5809D.325D@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 06:27:41 -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.iranian,soc.rights.human,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.isra el CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UNHCHR: Human rights in Iran (16 May 97) References: <33E75D70.66BB@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> <33EF0756.41ED@hotmail.com> <5so4ja$g4e$1@europa.frii.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3381 renton@frii.com wrote: > > Fred, > > You don't know a fraction of what I've gone through at the hands of > the mainstream Baha'is. Are "mainstream" Bahais mainstream? But I do not consider myself a human rights > victim. It's too easy to fall into the victim mentality. If they > chose not to listen to what you have to say, isn't that their problem? It becomes a problem for all other Bahais when the self-righteously fanatic are allowed to run rampant.... > It still doesn't mean that there aren't decent people in Iran > suffering because they are Baha'is. I'm aware of that and delight not in anyone's portion of woe.... And I'm all too aware that > victims often become victimizers. Look at the way the Israelis treat > the Palestinians within their borders. They think the only lesson of > the Holocaust was "Remember Jews should never be treated this way > again." > > I keep telling myself that a covenant is a two way agreement. If one > party choses to ignore it or alter it, then the other party can > change all the ground rules. > > Mac > I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this post off the Internet. Why, what is you want to hide? That "mainstream" Bahais have victimized you too? Your emailing already put it on the Internet. It's not fair to expect me not to respond in public when you're addressing a public issue under public discussion.... > > On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:14:41 -0400, you wrote: > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> > >> renton@frii.com wrote: > >> > > >> > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> > > >> > >Why should I care when Bahais take away my human rights > >> > >with impunity????? Evidence? Read the following: > >> > (balanced snipped--refer to previous post, it's long) > >> > > >> > Lert's not let censorship within a closed system be interpreted as > >> > violation of your human rights. You can always get your voice heard > >> > via other means- but you want the Baha'is to hear you. If they want to > >> > hear you, they will. To compare what has happened to you to what > >> > happens to the Baha'is in Iran who are deprived of property, political > >> > rights, the right to marry legally (making all of their children legal > >> > bastards), the right to worship, the right to life in many instances, > >> > is like comparing raisins to watermelons. Don't exaggereate your > >> > plight. There ARE people who have it worse than you do. > >> > >> And oh doesn't that make me feel better!!! A fascinating new > >> agrument for soc.religion.bahai censorship.... based on the > >> same fundamental injustices.... > >> > >> > > >> > Mac > >> > >> -- > >> 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. > > >It's to be noted that Roger Reini, Donald Osborn, et al, can > >only ignore the indisputable evidence of censorship on > >soc.religion.bahai when presented with 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. -- 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 06:19:34 1997 >From renton@frii.com Fri Aug 15 16:46:00 1997 Received: from mad.frii.com (ftc-0532.ppp.frii.com [208.146.244.32]) by ganymede.frii.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id RAA25593 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:46:15 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199708152346.RAA25593@ganymede.frii.com> From: renton@frii.com To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: UNHCHR: Human rights in Iran (16 May 97) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:28:08 GMT Reply-To: renton@frii.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2597 Fred, You don't know a fraction of what I've gone through at the hands of the mainstream Baha'is. But I do not consider myself a human rights victim. It's too easy to fall into the victim mentality. If they chose not to listen to what you have to say, isn't that their problem? It still doesn't mean that there aren't decent people in Iran suffering because they are Baha'is. And I'm all too aware that victims often become victimizers. Look at the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians within their borders. They think the only lesson of the Holocaust was "Remember Jews should never be treated this way again." I keep telling myself that a covenant is a two way agreement. If one party choses to ignore it or alter it, then the other party can change all the ground rules. Mac I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this post off the Internet. On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:14:41 -0400, you wrote: >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> renton@frii.com wrote: >> > >> > Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> > >> > >Why should I care when Bahais take away my human rights >> > >with impunity????? Evidence? Read the following: >> > (balanced snipped--refer to previous post, it's long) >> > >> > Lert's not let censorship within a closed system be interpreted as >> > violation of your human rights. You can always get your voice heard >> > via other means- but you want the Baha'is to hear you. If they want to >> > hear you, they will. To compare what has happened to you to what >> > happens to the Baha'is in Iran who are deprived of property, political >> > rights, the right to marry legally (making all of their children legal >> > bastards), the right to worship, the right to life in many instances, >> > is like comparing raisins to watermelons. Don't exaggereate your >> > plight. There ARE people who have it worse than you do. >> >> And oh doesn't that make me feel better!!! A fascinating new >> agrument for soc.religion.bahai censorship.... based on the >> same fundamental injustices.... >> >> > >> > Mac >> >> -- >> 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. >It's to noted that Roger Reini, Donald Osborn, et al, can >only ignore the indisputable evidence of censorship on >soc.religion.bahai when presented with 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 - Wed Aug 20 07:55:54 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 19 05:38:36 1997 Received: (qmail 29187 invoked from network); 19 Aug 1997 12:38:34 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 1997 12:38:34 -0000 Message-ID: <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:40:16 -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: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5460 Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net>, > rklwaw@TheRamp.net wrote: > > > >I have come to understand there will soon be another > >vote on whether to create the "talk.religion.bahai" > >newsgroup. I missed the first vote, but I may vote > >next month. First, I need some answers from those > >who know more about it. > > > >1. What purpose will be served by talk.religion.bahai > >that isn't already being served by alt.religion.bahai? > > It will be moderated (which is good or bad depending on > how you like the moderator): One person will control who > gets to post. It was originally proposed as an unmoderated news.group on the talk.* hierarchy and, I believe, should remain that way.... The whole point of it being unmoderated was to provide a place for discussion of the Bahai Faith on the Internet that no one could control and people of all views and persuasions could have confidence in since soc.religion.bahai is so heavily moderated.... > > >2. If there is reason to think the seemingly poor > >propagation of a.r.b. is due to a conspiracy, > > Whoever claimed this does not understand how newsgroups work. > It is impossible to cause poor propagation, but poor propagation > does happen naturally in alt.*. I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the poor propagation of alt.religion.bahai is due to a conspiracy. Two or three months ago a Bahai from New Zeeland named Issac Freeman threatened to do something to mess up propagation. His message ought to be still on www.dejanews.com under alt.religion.bahai for anyone interested in corroborating my statement. The alt.* hierarchy does have though poor propagation on its own and this is why a Big 8 newsgroup was desired to begin with and why another vote is needed in late September. > > >what would stop a.r.b.'s opponents from halting the > >spread of t.r.b.? > > [1] It's impossible to do. Exactly. Even the fanatics at soc.religion.bahai and their cohorts cannot stop it once it's passed under the protection of the UVV.... > > [2] If it was possible, net.experts like me would cause those > opponents to lose internet access. > > [3] Scientology tried it and failed. It really is impossible. An interesting parallel situation, highly evocative of what many Bahais have done and what can be expected from them this fall during the next vote on talk.religion.bahai.... > > [4] talk.* groups are automatically well propagated. That's my understanding and hope.... > > >3. Will t.r.b. attract many participants, or will a few > >people post nearly identical messages a half dozen > >times every evening? (I've seen this before.) > > Hard to tell. Depends on the wisdom of the moderator. > See my post "Questions for Fredrick Glaysher" for an > opinion on whether that wisdom exists. A good moderator > attracts lots of good posters. Search alt.religion.bahai on www.dejanews.com during the last few months. There have been many, many posts from people of highly varying perspectives on the Bahai Faith. Muslims, Christians, free thinkers, normal modern secular people, etc.... Again, I AM NOT A MODERATOR!!!! > > >4. Will there be some kind of action to keep t.r.b. > >from becoming a repository for pornography ads and > >get-rich-quick schemes? (I've seen this on some > >under-utilized news groups, too.) > > Fredrick would have to allow this stuff in, and > I doubt that he would do that. Yes, I would oppose that kind of thing and believe most people wouldn't care to see it either on talk.religion.bahai. Can an automatic screen of some sort be set up to weed out the pornography? > > >5. Should I refrain from voting on the creation of t.r.b. > >on the basis that I'm not a Baha'i (although I am very > >interested)? > > You should vote YES if you would read the newsgroup. I, and > a lot of other folks like me, are ready to vote YES if Fredrick > doesn't spam all over usenet again, or to actively campaign for > NO votes if he repeats his off topic crossposts like he did > last time. Help me out a bit. Explain why you think I'm "spamming" all over Internet. I have and am posting only to relevant newsgroups that might have an interest in the religion of the Bahai Faith or to news administration groups concerned with censorship and related issues of voting abuse, etc... Talk.religion.bahai was never intended ONLY for Bahais but for ANYONE interested in discussing the history, theology, teachings, etc., of the Bahai Faith. Alt.religion.bahai has shown there are many people other than Bahais with something to say about it. There are now more than 2,000 messages on www.dejanews.com under alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997; add to that another thousand or so on talk.religion.bahai from January 1997.... That's a lot of interest. The 157 YES votes that were squashed by the 691 NO votes of fanatical Bahais deserve to receive a hearing and an unmoderated newsgroup they can all use on a Big 8 hierarchy that they all can access. Many of the 157 still have not been able to participate or find a way to access alt.religion.bahai. For them, and others, talk.religion.bahai is their only hope.... -- 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 Aug 22 10:12:53 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Aug 22 05:56:55 1997 Received: (qmail 14623 invoked from network); 22 Aug 1997 12:56:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Aug 1997 12:56:53 -0000 Message-ID: <33FD8CFC.2922@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 08:58:36 -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: Re: Concern (was Re: vote ...) References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> <33fe109b.15309907@news.microserve.net> <5thl28$2m1$3@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2251 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > dave@frackit.com (Dave Ratcliffe) wrote: > >On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:40:16 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > > wrote: > >>Two or three > >>months ago a Bahai from New Zeeland named Issac Freeman > >>threatened to do something to mess up propagation. His > >>message ought to be still on www.dejanews.com under > >>alt.religion.bahai for anyone interested in corroborating > >>my statement. > > > >The fact that someone threatened to "mess up propogation" of a newsgroup > >merely shows that he knows as little as you do about usenet. I can threaten > >to turn you into a green eyed pixie but that doesn't mean I will, or even > >can, do so. > > I read the original postings by Isaac and Frederick, and unless I missed > something big, there were no threats. I want back to Dejanews just to > double check and read a message (5/2) "Re: Where are they? alt.religion.bahai" > by Isaac and a reply from Frederick "Threat to alt.religion.bahai" & "Threat: > alt.religion.bahai" (on different groups) and it seems to me like a > hypothetical remark was misinterpreted. In a subsequent message Isaac denied > having any such intention or even feeling against a.r.b. I don't want to get > in the middle of another pointless debate here, but am concerned that such an > allegation be spread about as fact which has no apparent foundation and could > even be construed as libelous. You're attempting "damage control" now and know it.... He definitely did threaten it in no uncertain terms.... Seriously enough that more "techy" people felt obliged to reassure me that technically he could only do it perhaps on his own server.... > Please, Frederick, whatever your beliefs in this matter, it is better to let > it rest and not disseminate it further. No good can come of it. And Dave, I > copy you just for clarification - if you wish, please search Dejanews as > Frederick suggests to see for yourself. Thanks in advance! No good can come of the truth? Right.... Let's sweep it under the rug.... > > 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 - Tue Aug 26 14:52:26 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 26 05:29:15 1997 Received: (qmail 19822 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1997 12:27:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 1997 12:27:32 -0000 Message-ID: <3402CC1F.7E1D@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:29:19 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Concern (was Re: vote ...) References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> <33fe109b.15309907@news.microserve.net> <5thl28$2m1$3@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <33FD8CFC.2922@hotmail.com> <5tkb2o$9pq$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2891 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > >> I read the original postings by Isaac and Frederick, and unless I missed > >> something big, there were no threats. I want back to Dejanews just to > >> double check and read a message (5/2) "Re: Where are they? alt.religion.bahai" > >> by Isaac and a reply from Frederick "Threat to alt.religion.bahai" & "Threat: > >> alt.religion.bahai" (on different groups) and it seems to me like a > >> hypothetical remark was misinterpreted. In a subsequent message Isaac denied > >> having any such intention or even feeling against a.r.b. I don't want to get > >> in the middle of another pointless debate here, but am concerned that such an > >> allegation be spread about as fact which has no apparent foundation and could > >> even be construed as libelous. > > > >You're attempting "damage control" now and know it.... He definitely > >did threaten it in no uncertain terms.... Seriously enough that > >more "techy" people felt obliged to reassure me that technically > >he could only do it perhaps on his own server.... > > No, Frederick, it's not "damage control," whatever that's supposed to > mean. If there was a threat I missed it the first time around and didn't > find it the second. I remember last spring being taken aback that what I > read in his post was interpreted by you as a threat. Maybe there was something > I missed (in a separate posting?), as I don't follow these things closely. > > As far as the technical advice, my impression was that it was offered in > response to your expressed concerns in a more hypothetical context: > What if someone wanted to disrupt dissemination ... But I haven't gone > back to look at those messages & don't have the time right now. > > >> Please, Frederick, whatever your beliefs in this matter, it is better to let > >> it rest and not disseminate it further. No good can come of it. And Dave, I > >> copy you just for clarification - if you wish, please search Dejanews as > >> Frederick suggests to see for yourself. Thanks in advance! > > > >No good can come of the truth? Right.... Let's sweep > >it under the rug.... > > It was precisely concern for the truth, Frederick, that led me to post > what I did, and yet to admit that there might have been additional > information that I missed. If you wish, send me the date & title of the > message in question & I'll look it up (no need to repost it). If I'm > wrong I'll admit it. Otherwise, this is the last message I will post on > this matter. > > DZO See my posting of Freeman's threat in my response to his recent claim of innocence.... -- 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 11:16:28 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 06:14:28 1997 Received: (qmail 7023 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 13:14:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 13:14:26 -0000 Message-ID: <33FAEE16.6DCF@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:16:06 -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,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> <5tce74$p04$2@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5866 Guy Macon wrote: > > In article <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > >Help me out a bit. Explain why you think I'm "spamming" all > >over Internet. I have and am posting only to relevant newsgroups > >that might have an interest in the religion of the Bahai Faith > >or to news administration groups concerned with censorship and > >related issues of voting abuse, etc... > > Glad to! First off, I apologize for misremembering that you are > looking for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai newsgroup, I really > should have checked rather than trust my memory. Sorry about that. > > Fredrick, I am *not* accusing you of spamming all over the InterNet > at this point, but I do believe that, during the heat of the battle > during the last vote, you posted to a lot of places that made people > mad. Nobody tried trolling for NO votes in soc.religion.quaker, but > again and again you posted your complaints about vote fraud by the > NO camp to that newsgroup. I am hoping to convince you to not do it > this time. You have already started crossposting to some of the > news.admin.net-abuse.* newgroups, despite repeated reminders that those > groups are for abuse *of* the net, not abuse *on* the net. Quakers: Yes, I posted repeatedly there and ask you to remember that as I stated it was because I have known Quakers who are or were Bahais and who might therefore have an interest in censorship on soc.religion.bahai. I remember you vehemently objected to my posting on soc.religion.quaker. Please recall that there were Quakers who stated they didn't mind but were interested in what was going on and saw no harm in it since they had some familiarity or whatever with the Bahai Faith. Also, I felt Quakers respect very much the individual's religious conscience and would be concerned of the possible very real abuse of it by Bahais who always present themselves in such glowingly liberal terms as to appeal to Quakers.... I'm not sure yet what news.admin.* groups to post to. I agree news.admin.censorship definitely fits. However, I'm yet certain the others don't. I've heard only your opinion on this and would like others. Emma Pease, at least for one, seemed to think the others were appropriate. When I read the actual messages on all those newsgroups most of them are dealing with censorship and abuse any way.... > > You really need to limit your posts to news.groups, alt.religion.bahai, > soc.religion.bahai (if they will let you post there [doubtful]) and maybe > talk.religion.misc. news.admin.censorship is a front for boursey/grubor, > who are known net kooks. Don't post there. I don't know what you mean by the above "boursey/grubor".... news.admin.net-abuse.* is the > wrong place for talk about vote abuse. Don't post there. Various > religion groups like soc.religion.quaker are not the right place for > talk about forming a bahai newsgroup. Don't post there. > > If you stick to the rules and stay in news.groups, talk.religion.misc, > and any newgroup with "bahai" in the name, and never crospost elsewhere, > you have a good chance of attracting enough folks like me to pass your > newsgroup. Crosspost all over like you did last time, and you don't > have a chance. Your choice. Actions have consequences. I don't care > what your opinions about crossposting are. I just want you to know that > crossposting generates NO votes. The valid question ought to be are the newsgroups relevant to the subject matter of the proposed newsgroup. I agree with you that alt.religion.bahai talk.religion.misc news.admin.censorship news.groups (once RFD CFV are out) all fit.... I'm not yet convince that soc.culture.israel soc.culture.iranian soc.rights.human news.admin.misc news.admin.net-abuse.misc news.admin.net-abuse.usenet don't.... I do believe it would be appropriate to post occasional pointers to all the other religious soc.* groups I posted to in the past. Probably you're right that this time around I not should post consistently to them unless invited and relevant postings emerge from them. You need to understand that those Bahais against an unmoderated newsgroup forum will be opposed to posting ANYWHERE and are likely to soon say so with all kinds of ingenious reasons why.... I'm willing to consider any pros or cons and hope if anyone has any suggestions you share them with me and everyone else. > > What should you do if the other side trolls for votes in newsgroups or > mailing lists? You should rejoice! Just shut your trap, don't answer > with your own troll, and report the vote abuse in news.groups. You will > get a huge amount of folks voting YES because you did the right thing, > and you might even get some NO votes nullified. But if you stoop to > their level (like you did last time) defeat is inevitable for your cause. Okay.... I guess you're probably right. I felt I was fighting fire with fire; perhaps it was with gasoline.... I don't know. I don't like being censored and silenced and it made me angry.... I felt I was letting everybody know about it and those with a fair mind would help oppose it..... > > I support a place for uncensored posts about bahai with good propagation. > I think that you should have yor t.r.b newsgroup. I am very conserned > that you will not control your crossposting, and thus lose another vote. Now, I'm trying to learn from you, Guy, and not brush your advice off, okay? > > Think about it. I am, hard as it is.... > > PLEASE Think about it. Look, man, I am!! Really! Any other suggestions? Thanks. -- 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 08:43:18 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 21 05:21:20 1997 Received: (qmail 15693 invoked from network); 21 Aug 1997 12:21:18 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 1997 12:21:18 -0000 Message-ID: <33FC3326.F7@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:23:02 -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,news.admin.censorship,news.groups CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> <33fe109b.15309907@news.microserve.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2303 Dave Ratcliffe wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:40:16 -0400, Frederick Glaysher > wrote: > >Guy Macon wrote: > >> In article <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net>, > >> rklwaw@TheRamp.net wrote: > >> >I have come to understand there will soon be another > >> >vote on whether to create the "talk.religion.bahai" > >> >newsgroup. I missed the first vote, but I may vote > >> >next month. First, I need some answers from those > >> >who know more about it. > >> > > >> >1. What purpose will be served by talk.religion.bahai > >> >that isn't already being served by alt.religion.bahai? > > [ ... ] > > >> >2. If there is reason to think the seemingly poor > >> >propagation of a.r.b. is due to a conspiracy, > >> > >> Whoever claimed this does not understand how newsgroups work. > >> It is impossible to cause poor propagation, but poor propagation > >> does happen naturally in alt.*. > > > >I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the poor propagation > >of alt.religion.bahai is due to a conspiracy. > > Mr. Glaysher, I suggest you learn a bit about how news operates before making > noises about there being a "conspiracy" to cause poor propogation. The > concept shows you have no clue as to what you are talking about and are, > apparently, just trying to whip up some supportive anger for your cause. I have no technical knowledge about the alt.* hierarchy and how it works. I've tried merely to inform others who might know how it works what has been threatened in the past.... That's all. > > >Two or three > >months ago a Bahai from New Zeeland named Issac Freeman > >threatened to do something to mess up propagation. His > >message ought to be still on www.dejanews.com under > >alt.religion.bahai for anyone interested in corroborating > >my statement. > > The fact that someone threatened to "mess up propogation" of a newsgroup > merely shows that he knows as little as you do about usenet. I can threaten > to turn you into a green eyed pixie but that doesn't mean I will, or even > can, do so. > > -- > Dave Ratcliffe > dave@frackit.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 26 14:52:35 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Aug 26 05:26:01 1997 Received: (qmail 19815 invoked from network); 26 Aug 1997 12:25:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 1997 12:25:58 -0000 Message-ID: <3402CBB8.4D11@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:27:36 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> <5tqnrk$h2j$1@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4086 Isaac Freeman wrote: > > I have given up discussing the matter of talk.religion.bahai with Frederick > Glaysher, as I felt it was going nowhere. I will not be resuming that > discussion, but I feel the need to answer the following personal > accusation: Given Isaac Freeman's fanaticism, I stopped reading his messages long ago. I am responding to this only because of its serious distortions of truth and events. > > In article <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com>, Frederick Glaysher writes: > > I wouldn't doubt for a moment that the poor propagation > > of alt.religion.bahai is due to a conspiracy. Two or three > > months ago a Bahai from New Zeeland named Issac Freeman > > threatened to do something to mess up propagation. His > > message ought to be still on www.dejanews.com under > > alt.religion.bahai for anyone interested in corroborating > > my statement. > > Mr Glaysher misunderstood a post of mine, in which I pointed out > the complete absence of any attempts to prevent propagation of > alt.religion.bahai, and provided examples of things I thought might > be possible, that _nobody_ was doing. Obviously veiled intimation, all the more so in the context of the then-current discussion. Mr. Freeman is attempting to revise history, so to speak.... > Mr Glaysher interpreted the message as a threat to do the very > same things, and would not accept my outright denial of any such > intent. See my original response to this claim of innocence below. > > His suggestion that people check Deja News is a good one, and I > encourage anyone with any doubts to do so. I believe the evidence > there is perfectly clear. I've clipped and pasted from dejanews.com the evidence below wherein he has reveals he has discussed the possibility of disabling alt.religion.bahai with someone.... Why discuss it, if he didn't have intentions of doing it? > > Once again, I have never harboured any ill intent towards Mr Glaysher > or the newsgroups he has promoted. I am not now, nor have I ever been, > a member of a conspiracy against any newsgroup, proposed or actual, nor > do I know of the existence of any such conspiracy. I did not vote NO to > talk.religion.bahai, nor did I advise anyone else to do so. Ridiculous claims. Mr. Freeman was vehemently opposed to talk.religion.bahai all along and his many messages clearly show that. Surf through, if you wish.... > > Isaac Freeman ------------ BEGIN MESSAGE: Subject: Threat: alt.religion.bahai From: FG@hotmail.com Date: 1997/05/05 Message-Id: <5kkgi6$gbd$1@bilbo.reference.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc [More Headers] [I'm posting this to alt.religion.bahai because I'm not sure it appeared here the first time I tried a few days ago.] In article <5kbjtv$ilq$1@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, math5ijf@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Isaac Freeman) wrote: [clip] > People could certainly argue against the formation of the group. I didn't > see anyone do that. They could send out rmgroup messages (I don't know > much about this, but I'm told its possible) to prevent alt.religion.bahai > from propogating. They could lobby their service providers not to carry > it. [clip] > Isaac Freeman I believe this person has been opposed to talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai all along. It seems to me he's suggesting here that he has discussed the possibility of technically disabling alt.religion.bahai and preventing its propagating. If this is possible, and has or might be attempted, is there a way of preventing such a desperate and underhanded thing from being done? If he and other Bahais are not opposed to free speech and suppression of others' free religious conscience, why would he and others even discuss doing this? -- 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 07:48:33 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 27 03:35:33 1997 Received: (qmail 3163 invoked from network); 27 Aug 1997 10:35:31 -0000 Received: from ts?rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 Aug 1997 10:35:31 -0000 Message-ID: <34040359.73BF@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:37:13 -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,news.admin.censorship CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <5tbded$hcl$4@news01.deltanet.com> <33F99430.3233@hotmail.com> <5tqnrk$h2j$1@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz> <3402CBB8.4D11@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1606 Chris wrote: > > In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > wrote > >I believe this person has been opposed to talk.religion.bahai > > and alt.religion.bahai all along. It seems to me he's suggesting > > here that he has discussed the possibility of technically > > disabling alt.religion.bahai and preventing its propagating. > > > > If this is possible, and has or might be attempted, is there > > a way of preventing such a desperate and underhanded thing > > from being done? > > > > If he and other Bahais are not opposed to free speech and > > suppression of others' free religious conscience, why would > > he and others even discuss doing this? > > To prove to you that no-one was doing it and so no-one was interfering > with the propagation of a.r.b. It is only you who who have managed to > make it into a threat. Oh come on! Can't you come up with something better than that.... > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > -- > O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of > My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved > on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. [Baha'u'llah] > For more information go to , > or . -- 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 28 07:02:55 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Aug 28 03:19:19 1997 Received: (qmail 14359 invoked from network); 28 Aug 1997 10:19:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 1997 10:19:14 -0000 Message-ID: <3405510B.34C4@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:20:59 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <34040359.73BF@hotmail.com> <5u1eip$1l7u$3@news.doit.wisc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 3247 Marcus wrote: > > One of the most telling statistics about alt.religion.bahai is the > number of non-cross posted messages. My count on these is 5, which > out of 800 messages must surely be a record. Both of your numbers are misleading. Try www.dejanews.com: 2200+ messages. There's nothing wrong with crossposting. And the newsgroups to which I have and do crosspost make sense. That alt.religion.bahai has required a lot of effort on my part to get it going has been a factor of the voting and the alt.* hierarchy limitations that have prevented more people from participating. > > The alt.relgion.bahai newsgroup exists almost exclusively for the > purpose of receiving cross posts. Fred cross posts angry messages to > soc.culture.iranian, they respond, leave us out of this, Fred counts > those messages as supporting his group. A simplistic evaluation, in my opinion. > > A full 25% of the messages orignate from Fred. Bottom line, without > Fred, alt.religion.bahai would be just another place for cross posted > sex ads and chain mail frauds. I do have copies of 500 messages I've posted since April 1st. You again neglect the reality of the vote and its results. I have attempted to remedy that situation. What's wrong with that? > > In article <34040359.73BF@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com says... > > > >Chris wrote: > >> > >> In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, Frederick Glaysher > >> wrote > >> >I believe this person has been opposed to talk.religion.bahai > >> > and alt.religion.bahai all along. It seems to me he's suggesting > >> > here that he has discussed the possibility of technically > >> > disabling alt.religion.bahai and preventing its propagating. > >> > > >> > If this is possible, and has or might be attempted, is there > >> > a way of preventing such a desperate and underhanded thing > >> > from being done? > >> > > >> > If he and other Bahais are not opposed to free speech and > >> > suppression of others' free religious conscience, why would > >> > he and others even discuss doing this? > >> > >> To prove to you that no-one was doing it and so no-one was > interfering > >> with the propagation of a.r.b. It is only you who who have managed > to > >> make it into a threat. > > > >Oh come on! Can't you come up with something > >better than that.... > > > >> > >> Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317 > >> -- > >> O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient > eternity of > >> My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have > engraved > >> on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. > [Baha'u'llah] > >> For more information go to > , > >> or > . > > > >-- > >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. From - Wed Aug 20 11:16:37 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed Aug 20 06:37:42 1997 Received: (qmail 7131 invoked from network); 20 Aug 1997 13:37:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 1997 13:37:40 -0000 Message-ID: <33FAF385.4BA6@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:39:17 -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,admin.censorship,soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,soc.right s.human,news.admin.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.net-abuse.misc CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: vote on talk.religion.bahai References: <01bcac62$95e4bee0$1da644ce@kato.TheRamp.net> <33f97fc0.34955168@news.zippo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 5154 Roger Reini wrote: > > On 19 Aug 1997 05:52:48 GMT, "Rick Koshko" wrote: > > >I have come to understand there will soon be another > >vote on whether to create the "talk.religion.bahai" > >newsgroup. I missed the first vote, but I may vote > >next month. First, I need some answers from those > >who know more about it. > > These are my opinions on the matter. Note that they are strictly my > opinions and are not necessarily anyone else's. > > >1. What purpose will be served by talk.religion.bahai > >that isn't already being served by alt.religion.bahai? > > Alt.religion.bahai (a.r.b) was created in the aftermath of the first > vote on talk.religion.bahai (t.r.b). Basically, the two would serve > the same function. However, t.r.b, by virtue of being part of the Big > 8 hierarchy, would be more likely to be carried by more servers around > the world, and thus be able to be followed by more people. Alt.* > groups typically have spottier propagation than Big 8 (comp.*, news.*, > soc.*, talk.*, misc.*, rec.*, etc.) groups. > > Personally, I feel that improving a.r.b's propagation is an excellent > reason for justifying t.r.b. IMHO, arguments about what some perceive > as censorship of soc.religion.bahai (s.r.b) will doom the proposal to > failure. I feel that a successful proposal for t.r.b should stress > improved propagation. The newsgroup volume justifies it, IMHO. "Improving arb propagation" is a great idea! One I hadn't thought of. But it's not THE reason talk.religion.bahai is needed.... Alt.religion.bahai was a spin-off of the voting process for talk.religion.bahai, not what should have been its fruition. To say that some merely "perceive" censorship at soc.religion.bahai is quite incredible at this stage when many, many people have said so.... Such an agrument seems to me to be a way of attempting to change the focus from what the real issue is and has been all along.... > > If t.r.b passes, I don't know what would happen to a.r.b. It's almost > impossible to get rid of an alt.* newsgroup. Why get rid of it? It can stay around and naturally evolve along lines those who choose to continue to use it want. Having two unmoderated newsgroups may be best in the long run. Perhaps they'll specialize along various lines of thought, allowing the users to choose which to participate in.... > > Contrary to what Guy Macon said, t.r.b would not be moderated. Talk.* > groups, as a rule, are designed to be unmoderated. Proposals to > moderate talk.* groups have been defeated. > > >2. If there is reason to think the seemingly poor > >propagation of a.r.b. is due to a conspiracy, what > >would stop a.r.b.'s opponents from halting the > >spread of t.r.b.? > > Personally, I believe that no such conspiracy exists. The lack of > widespread propagation of a.r.b can easily be explained by what I said > above. Isaac Freeman, a Bahai in New Zealand, threatened last April or May to find a way to stop the propagation of alt.religion.bahai. I don't know for a fact that he has given up that idea or hasn't succeeded in some way to strangle off its spread. > > >3. Will t.r.b. attract many participants, or will a few > >people post nearly identical messages a half dozen > >times every evening? (I've seen this before.) > > I would suspect that the makeup of t.r.b would be very similar to > a.r.b, except that more people might participate. Definitely more people will participate and that's what worried the moderators and other Bahai fundamentalists about it to begin with. Many, many people who voted YES for talk.religion.bahai have not been able to join in the discussion on alt.religion.bahai because their ISP do not offer the alt.* hiearchy at all. I've even had several such people email me from AOL who say it's not available there. > > >4. Will there be some kind of action to keep t.r.b. > >from becoming a repository for pornography ads and > >get-rich-quick schemes? (I've seen this on some > >under-utilized news groups, too.) > > No more so than on other talk.* groups. This spam-catching will be > happening outside of this group (see the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups > for more details). > > >5. Should I refrain from voting on the creation of t.r.b. > >on the basis that I'm not a Baha'i (although I am very > >interested)? > > No; the vote would not be restricted to Baha'is, nor would it be > conducted according to Baha'i election guidelines. Standard Usenet > guidelines apply. If you feel you would be very interested in seeing > t.r.b, then vote Yes. Standard UseNet guidelines applied last time but the proposal was defeated by an overwhelming abuse of those guidelines by intolerant Bahais.... I for one do not assume that the same thing can not happen again, while pretending otherwise.... > > Roger (rreini@wwnet.com) > https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~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 - Fri Jul 25 07:05:12 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 25 03:20:41 1997 Received: (qmail 7833 invoked from network); 25 Jul 1997 10:20:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 1997 10:20:38 -0000 Message-ID: <33D87E55.7474@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 06:22:13 -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: WARNING TO FARYAR !!! References: <869759886.24907@dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 10243 nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote: > > Dear readers, many months ago, an iranian bahai called Ben Mahjoor posted the following article on soc.culture.iranian : I saw this message when originally posted back in March. It's typical of Iranian Bahai thinking and approach to anyone who doesn't mimick their orders.... Witness the current message from Faryar to me on alt.religion.bahai attacking my character and insinuating I'm an "unbeliever" or whatever in Baha'u'llah.... > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From faryar@interport.net Sun Mar 30 21:02:03 1997 > > Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 23:50:32 -0500 > > To: Ben Mahjoor > > Subject: Final warning... > > > > To Behnam Mahjoor. > > I tried to forget and forgive your immaturity as a person; but when yuo > > attack my integrity as a Bahai, I will go to any length to defend it. > > ^^^^^^ > > Up to now I tried to ignore you,for the sake of preventing a display of > > disunity of Bahai against Bahai; but you do not apppreciate its wisdom > > and refuse to stop your attacks and prefer to accuse me of spreading > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > "misinformation". never saying what or where...may be because of your > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > .... deleted ... > > > > even so, I stopped my course of action with your employer SGI, who was > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > very eager to follow through. > > > > I warn you again, although I do not want to waste the time of the Bahai > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > institutions; I will report you to both the local as well as the > > national assembly, and force you to answer for yourself; not to mention > > your employer, whose board of directors are well known by my friends and > > family, who own substantial amount of its stocks. > > If I do not recieve a public apology from you in the next 24 hours, I > > will pursue this matter, until it affects your personal and > > professional reputation. > > faryar > > Well...amusing how some minds work ! > A few points here: > > 1. As soon as you post something to SCI, it is public and open > to variety of personal opinions (aka. "attacks" by you). If you > don't like this fact, get the %$#$% out of SCI. > > 2. Replies to opinons, or as you really love to think of them > "attacks" on your articles should be conducted here in SCI > and not in private threatening e-mails. > > 2. Read my article again: I said: > > - I said that your posts are "unsolicited" posts and that's what > Aryan, I think, was objecting to. I didn't say you are speading > "misinformation". You may agree with my opinion (or "attack" in your > vocabulary) or not. That's your right. This does not call for threats > and "last warning" and such by someone sooooo mature like you. > > - I also said posts by other Baha'is, including me, who come forward > to defend the Faith when it is attacked _OR_ correct the misinformations > spread by others should not be grouped all together by your unsolicited > posts as "Baha'i posts" as you put it that way. Again, it is my > "opinion" (not "attack" as you like to call it) and I have every right > to say so. This "attack" (or as I like to call it "opinion") does not > give you the right to threaten me or send me "last warining" (something > that Hezbollahis in Iran do to newspaper editors and writers). Faryar is a Bahai Hezbollah.... That gives him divine right.... There are thousands of them.... Afshin, yours and everyone else's opinions are worthless.... Don't you get it? To Iranian Bahais you're an infidel.... > > 3. Here is US of A not Iran of IRI: It may be very surprising to to > you but statements such as as "Last warning" and threats simply do not > work here, regardless of how many stocks of SGI you and your family > have. To your twisted frame of mind every opinon, as simple as my above > article, might be considered an "attack" on you, but that's your problem > and not mine and others in SCI. People do not have to be quite when they > have something to say about a public article on SCI, just simply because > a fanatic like you do not like their "opinons" ( or "attacks"). > > You are more than welcome to contact SGI's board of directors or anyone > else for that matter and we will see whose "reputation" will suffer as > the results of this. I will inform SCI of what's going on since this is a > public matter. > > - Behnam > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > We have seen dear readers that despite the nice image faryar tries to > give, behind the scenes he is capable of some really evil work. Recently > I received an email from dejanews which I use to post my articles to > which I made a reply: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Sir, > > I didn't write this email to you. I don't know what is going on here. > "Faryar" is someone who has been having a heated discussion with me on > soc.culture.iranian about religion. I am very suspicious about the > reasons why this email has been addressed to me as if I wrote it. I don't > know whether my email has been faked by whoever sent this to you or > whether someone has found out my password to my hotmail account and used > it to send it to you. I would greatly appreciate a reply to clear this > matter up. I fear that "faryar" might be doing this to imply that I > cancelled his messages although I couldn't care less about his messages > nor would I know how to do it even if I did. Thank You. > > Afshin Afrashteh > > >From help4@dejanews.com Wed Jul 23 16:31:55 1997 > >Received: from homer.dejanews.com (homer.dejanews.com [205.238.143.161]) by homer.dejanews.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA12404; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 18:31:53 -0500 (CDT) > >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 18:31:53 -0500 (CDT) > >From: Drei Rensland > >To: nokhodchi@hotmail.com > >Subject: Re: Cancelled Postings > >In-Reply-To: <33D538E7.E82237C5@interport.net> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please note the server where this fake email originated dear readers: it > says interport.net which as we all know is faryar who posts from > faryar@interport.net > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Message-ID: > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > >On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 nokhodchi@hotmail.com wrote: > > > >> Dear Dejanews, > >> I had the opportunity today to check your site, and I would like to > >> thank you for it. > >> I wonder if you can answer a question; upon checking my entries under > >> "faryar", I noticed a great number of cancelled messages. I am > >> naturally baffled as to who and how this has been done...if so how is > >> it possible to find out the source of these cancellations.? > >> I would be grateful for any answer. > >> > >> > >> > >Greetings, > > > >Thank you for contacting Deja News. > > > >Thank you for the praise. We appreciate your kind words. > > > >For the cancel messages, you will need to try to find the control cancel > >messages in our database. They might have the email address of the person > >who cancelled the messages. It is not an easy process to find out who > >control cancels, but it is easy to control cancel a message. > > > > > > > >==================================================================== ====== > >===========(Please always include this message in your reply)============= > >==================================================================== ====== > >Drei R. > >Deja News > >User Liaison > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I am still waiting for dejanews to clear up what is happening here. > > Dear readers, > > We see now that whenever the bahais after several replies can't asnwer > their opponents resort to dirty handed tactics. A couple of weeks ago I > posted an article called basil=faryar, in which it was proven that faryar > had used a phoney nick called basil to make replies to his own articles > in support an pretended as if basil was not a bahai although 8 months ago > basil had posted as a bahai (there were no posts in the intervening time > period for "basil"/faryar). There was also that single phnoey bahai > sympathy story by fozool@hotmail.com. > > In the above we have seen the email originated from faryar but he faked > it as nokhodchi@hotmail.com. We have seen that farayr has been cancelling > his own messages (which only he can do) and then writing to dejanews to > as nokhodchi@hotmail.com to ask why his messages have been cancelled. > > I am posting this before the dejanews staff reply so that you are all > made aware of the campaign that faryar is underhandedy trying to raise > against me to silence and discredit me. Let this add further evidence to > the dictatorial and evil tactics bahais are capable of. It's acceptable Iranian Bahai practice.... Subterfuge, lies, and character assassination.... > > Faryar : You have been warned!!! Stop this now before it gets REAL ugly > here!!! > > Afshin Afrashteh aka the Nokhodchi > > For the real truth about bahaism please refer to this site: > > 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 Ask your ISP to add it; also available on www.dejanews.com, www.reference.com, and www.zippo.com. From - Thu May 08 06:45:46 1997 >From roland@weasel.owl.de Tue May 6 22:19:26 1997 Received: from fiction.pb.owl.de (root@fiction.pb.owl.de [193.174.12.5]) by jehova.owl.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA06859 for ; Wed, 7 May 1997 07:17:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from squirrel.owl.de by fiction.pb.owl.de with bsmtp id m0wOz6c-00003BC; Wed, 7 May 97 07:17 MET DST Received: (qmail 19919 invoked by uid 300); 7 May 1997 03:49:08 -0000 Date: 7 May 1997 03:49:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19970507034908.19917.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> From: Greve af Sorgarden Chef for disken To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Where are they? alt.religion.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 771 Hello, I just visited soc.culture.israel, a newsgroup that I have never studied before. I was a bahai for many years before having a religious crisis a few years ago. The problems were eventually solved. I became a christian. This doesnt mean that I am ready to critize all of the Bahai faith. The solution for me was to drop the difficult questions until such time that answers could be found. Changing religion is very difficult. Having been a bahai for many years I can understand how you feel if you are having doubts now. We can correspond if you want to talk about it. I know soc.religion.bahai, but not alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.bahai. Was one of them stopped and the other one created? None of them is on my server. Regards, Roland From - Fri May 09 07:42:33 1997 >From roland@weasel.owl.de Thu May 8 15:20:15 1997 Received: from fiction.pb.owl.de (root@fiction.pb.owl.de [193.174.12.5]) by jehova.owl.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA01646 for ; Fri, 9 May 1997 00:16:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from squirrel.owl.de by fiction.pb.owl.de with bsmtp id m0wPbVP-00002qC; Fri, 9 May 97 00:17 MET DST Received: (qmail 13778 invoked by uid 300); 8 May 1997 21:32:16 -0000 Date: 8 May 1997 21:32:16 -0000 Message-ID: <19970508213216.13777.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> From: Greve af Sorgarden Chef for disken To: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Where are they? alt.religion.bahai X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1759 >Talk.religion.bahai was defeated on Usenet vote by 691 to 157.... >Basically, an overwhelming number of NO votes cast by Bahais who >ignored USEnet voting guidelines.... I am sorry to see this happen. Its censorship. I think they will have to reconsider many things and that will be good for the bahai faith. >Alt.religion.bahai was, however, created in early April. Ask >your Internet provider to add to your system. I should take about >15 seconds for them to do that. You can also access it through >www.reference.com I asked them to add the newsgroup, we will see if they do it. Can I get the whole newsgroup sent to me via email? I checked an old helpfile from reference.com, but it didnt seem possible. Surfing the web is too expensive, we are charged by the minute. >I've had a crisis for twenty years.... Its important that you get this out of your system and talk about it. Many bahais with doubt are afraid to speak. Speaking openly and asking for help is the right thing to do. Nobody helps us if we dont ask for it. Myself, I was shouting my questions when I could finally open my mouth. I was like a child in many ways. I received great help. I became a christian, but an unusual one, since I have sympathy for people of every religion. It is no longer necessary to decide either - or, being a christian and an anti bahai. I could just drop a big load, by being christian only. One reason for doubt is that bahais are not allowed to talk about doubt. There is danger in suppressed thoughts. The situation becomes bizarre when we are told to seek the truth independently, but are shunned upon when we do so. I think this is a reason for the lack of success of the faith in Europe. Roland From - Fri May 16 06:26:49 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Thu May 15 11:29:21 1997 Received: (qmail 1032 invoked from network); 9 May 1997 11:47:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 9 May 1997 11:47:55 -0000 Message-ID: <33730F31.5EE@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 07:49:05 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greve af Sorgarden Chef for disken Subject: Re: Where are they? alt.religion.bahai References: <19970508213216.13777.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 715 Greve af Sorgarden Chef for disken wrote: > I asked them to add the newsgroup, we will see if they do it. > Can I get the whole newsgroup sent to me via email? I checked an old > helpfile from reference.com, but it didnt seem possible. > Surfing the web is too expensive, we are charged by the minute. > Www.dejanews.com has the most complete archiving of newsgroup discussion. www.reference.com is the next best source. Unfortunately, there's no way to download all the messages at once.... They'd have to be done one at a time and at over 700, perhaps a 1000 now, it would a little time consuming. > Roland -- Frederick Glaysher Rochester Hills, Michigan USA UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue Jul 01 07:38:45 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Jun 30 04:54:19 1997 Received: (qmail 2479 invoked from network); 30 Jun 1997 11:53:45 -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 11:53:45 -0000 Message-ID: <33B79EA1.4B81@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 07:55:13 -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.religion,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Why censorship? References: <01bc83e0$7e9f18c0$ac8662cf@indirect.indirectcom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1755 Alma F. Engels wrote: > > Can we move on from this topic? Aren't there other things about the Baha'i > Faith to discuss here than the censorship (real or imagined) of one > newsgroup run by one small group of Baha'is? SO if it's real, you still want to just go on to some more palatable topic to you? That misses the moral seriousness of the crime.... one that continues to be committed by the "moderators" of soc.religion.bahai and that apparently perhaps typifies the Bahai Iranian approach to the human conscience.... You may ignore that and blithely go on your way but I'm not about to.... > > Those of us here who are Baha'is are told that we should be teachers (which > I take to mean that we should radiate the Faith). But no matter how you > understanding the teaching obligation, how can a conversation that turns on > one point and that a negative one and that does not apply to this newsgroup > further the Cause of God; the Faith of Baha'u'llah. It certainly does apply to this newsgroup which was born out of the injustice of 691 fanatical Bahais who crushed the legitimate desire of 157 people for a free and open forum on the Bahai faith and on a major hierarchy of the Internet.... You and other Bahais may want tosweep that under the rug now and pretend it didn't happen but it did. The record is still on www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai from January 17, 1997 to late April for anyone who would care to catch up on it.... How can teaching take place in a censored, distorted, manipulated environment? Is that truly teaching? I don't think so. I can't think of anything more "negative" than that.... > > In peace, > Alma -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:40 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:29:34 1997 Received: (qmail 2907 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:29:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:29:31 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9B85.76AC@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:31:01 -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,soc.culture.israel,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Positions" (was Re: Why ...) References: <01bc83e0$7e9f18c0$ac8662cf@indirect.indirectcom> <33B79EA1.4B81@hotmail.com> <33B93EB8.C6CB1EE8@interport.net> <5pbr6m$p6j$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 799 Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: > > faryar wrote: > >Dear Brian, > >Thank you for such an excellent clarification of the Bahai position. > > Faryar, Though I would also concur with most of what Brian wrote, I don't > think that it's quite accurate to say that there's a single Baha'i > "position" on such matters. Baha'i teachings, as I understand them, > anticipate that people will have different opinions -- that's why we > have consultation and counsels in the Writings as to how to communicate > effectively and respectfully. DZO Nice try, Donald, but you see the IRANIAN BAHAIS really don't get it.... For them there really can only be ONE point of view, everything else is heresy.... [clip] -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu Jul 03 08:56:38 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Thu Jul 3 05:25:54 1997 Received: (qmail 2904 invoked from network); 3 Jul 1997 12:25:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 1997 12:25:51 -0000 Message-ID: <33BB9AA8.34B5@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 08:27:20 -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.religion,soc.culture.iranian,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Why censorship? References: <01bc83e0$7e9f18c0$ac8662cf@indirect.indirectcom> <33B79EA1.4B81@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 4873 Brian Aull wrote: > > In article <33B79EA1.4B81@hotmail.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > > > [alt.religion.bahai] ...was born out of the > > injustice of 691 fanatical Bahais who crushed the legitimate desire of > > 157 people for a free and open forum on the Bahai faith and on a major > > hierarchy of the Internet.... > > As one the 691 who voted against the creation of talk.religion.bahai, I > would like to explain why I voted the way I did. > > 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. > > One of the ways in which Baha'is exercise these freedoms responsibly is > the method known as consultation, a non-adversarial group process in which > diverse ideas are expressed frankly by individuals, with the goal helping > the group find the truth or the best solution. Identifying solutions > based on moral principles is the end, and freedom of expression is a means > to that end. The process requires that the individual be motivated by a > spirit of service and be open to changing his or her views based on the > insights coming from the discussion. > > 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. > > 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. False. They censor. Do an Advanced Query Search www.dejanews.com under alt.religion.bahai for the United Nations and you will turn up a CENSORED message by Detweiler the main "moderator" at soc.religion.bahai.... CENSORED for no legitimate reason.... 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. CENSORED into someone else's little tin can container of these things.... > > 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. The moderators are liars and have resorted to all manner of deception to protect their little turf.... I'm far from alone in thinking this as consulting www.dejanews.com under talk.religion.bahai will show.... > > However, I believe that the solution to that problem is to find new ways > of making that process work better. There is no way to make CENSORSHIP work better.... It can only be exposed for what it is and an alternative newsgroup created on a major hierarchy: talk.religion.bahai.... I felt that creating a new group, at > least on that particular occasion, was simply taking the easy way out. So > I voted NO. Voting NO was the easy way out.... Voting YES requires you to think for yourself.... > > We have the potential to make srb a forum at once dynamic and friendly! I > propose (and copy of this post will go to the srb moderators) that we work > on that, rather than debating about whether there was "censorship" in the > past! THE HOLOCAUST NEVER OCCURRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we know the "Bahai" truth.... > > ************************************************************ > lllll llllll llllll Brian F. Aull > l l l l l MIT Lincoln Laboratory > lllll lllll llllll AULL@LL.MIT.EDU > l l l l l (617)-981-4676 (w) > lllll l l l (617)-868-5672 (h) > ************************************************************ -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Mon Sep 08 09:21:05 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Sep 8 06:09:46 1997 Received: (qmail 22386 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1997 13:09:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 1997 13:09:23 -0000 Message-ID: <3413F95E.1399@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 09:10:54 -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.censorship,news.admin.misc,soc.rights.human CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Why I forwarded "Service of Women" on the Institutions of the Bahai Faith Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 2240 On reflection, it seems to me I should state WHY I forwarded the controversial (so it seems) document "The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Bahai Faith." Let me first say the 691 NO votes deprived the person who asked me to post it from doing so. I've forwarded for others unjustly deprived of a Big 8 hierarchy for talk.religion.bahai.... I thought I was morally obligated to do so for him.... Let me add I did not read it before forwarding it to alt.religion.bahai; I do not recall ever reading it in the past or hearing anything about it, though it was apparently written in about 1988. I read it for the first time after forwarding it. Perhaps I should have read it first.... I read it because I was worried perhaps I should not have forwarded it.... As the hours went by after yesterday forwarding it to alt.r.bahai, I realized that although the individual who asked me to do so was not a covenant breaker (for whom I do not forward or communicate with), he has just been, apparently, "expelled" from the Bahai Faith.... A new status in Bahai circles.... Perhaps I misunderstood the severity of that status.... It might be held against me.... Then what? Oh my God! But no one has informed me and the Bahai community what that new status means.... They wouldn't or couldn't hold it against me? Even though I didn't know it exists, nor did anyone else.... Until a few weeks ago.... But perhaps they think we should have known.... Maybe we should have.... Many have suspected, I suppose, and I should have too.... Yes, some will think that I should have known! Oh my God! I suppose I should have.... Now I'm guilty too! Others have been condemned without warning.... Will it happen to ME! Shades of Kafka! Solzhenitsyn! Milosz! Damn my consciousness! So stock with visions of horror! Death camps! Evil.... The suffering oppressed millions screaming for mercy.... And I who have already experienced the Gulag.... The crushing jackboot of tyranny.... Though I'm not sure of what, I accuse myself, confess, and repent.... -- 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 08:44:47 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Sun Sep 7 05:29:47 1997 Received: (qmail 11684 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1997 12:27:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.121) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 7 Sep 1997 12:27:51 -0000 Message-ID: <34129E25.50AA@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 08:29:25 -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,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.bible.prophecy Followup-To: alt.religion.bahai CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Why? eg., Maitreya, etc.... References: <5uloda$of2$1@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net> <4qBu3DAWSvD0EwFj@baha.demon.co.uk> <5upaof$prn$3@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1603 Guy Macon wrote: > > Chris@baha.demon.co.ukSPAMGUARD wrote: > > >In a message which I read on alt.religion.bahai, David > > wrote > >> > >>Why the talk about Maitreya, Buddhism and other non-Baha'i subjects? > >>Isn't this a Baha'i posting board? > > > >It's known as cross-posting (or angry posting? ;-) ). The thread did > >have relevance to the Faith but has drifted away now. > > Yet every post is crossposted to: > > talk.religion.buddhism > alt.bible.prophecy > talk.religion.newage > alt.religion.bahai > > Just as your bahai newsgroup is being flooded with non-bahai posts, > alt.bible.prophecy is being flooded with posts that are not about > the bible, etc. Crossposting is a Bad Thing. It makes many people > angry at you. It moves Usenet away from the direction of posts about > bahais being in the bahai newsgroups. If the crossposters get their > way, each religious newsgroup will be filled with crossposted threads. > Alas, most of the posts in those threads will be from the religions > with the most members. You people need to start trimming your > newsgroup lines to alt.religion.bahai only, or your newsgroup will > become just one more general newsgroup. It has happened before to > other newsgroups. All right, I finally get and I agree.... > > Remember, you can silence someone with a megaphone just as easily as > you can silence them with a gag... > -- 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 08:08:39 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Mon Sep 8 04:34:20 1997 Received: (qmail 21965 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1997 11:33:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.122) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 8 Sep 1997 11:33:48 -0000 Message-ID: <3413E2FD.42E5@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 07:35:25 -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 CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Why? eg., Maitreya, etc.... References: <5uloda$of2$1@newsd-1.alma.webtv.net> <4qBu3DAWSvD0EwFj@baha.demon.co.uk> <5upaof$prn$3@news01.deltanet.com> <34129E25.50AA@hotmail.com> <5uv7fs$2gi$2@news01.deltanet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2467 Guy Macon wrote: [clip] > > Great! Now we can plan together to get the maximum yes votes next time. > With nobody voting no because they hate crossposting, the only no votes > will be from bahais who don't want any views that would be rejected in > s.r.b to not be posted anywhere. This is wrong, and I think that we can > get a lot of folks to vote yes on that basis alone. I'm not so sure the same number of NO votes won't be cast again. I doubt very many people in the 157: 691 vote were NO because of the crossposting.... I would guess most were motivated by religious extremism.... Are you sure you're not suggesting I play into their hands this time? > > O.K. Here are some basic strategies: > > Of course they won't let you campaign for t.r.b in s.r.b, so we need > a stratagy for overcoming the moderators control by moving the discussion > to a place where they have no power. Fully agreed. > > Here are the steps I recomend: > > [1] Post the pointer in s.r.b as you planned. They will look pretty > silly if they don't approve the pointer, but if they do, just post > that fact in news.groups and watch the yes votes roll in. Really. > blatent actions like that actually work in your favor. Okay. > > [2] If someone brings up the subject of trb in srb, don't take the bait. > any discussion there will have your opposition free to post anything, > yet your side will be muzzled. In my opinion, that's exactly what happened and still happens regularly on srb. Instead, just say that your reply > is posted in news.groups, under subject X. The srb readers will > tend to migrate over there out of curiousity, especially the ones > who might cast yes votes. Don't talk about this on their turf! Sounds reasonable.... > > [3] Get someone who is a bahai on your side to subscribe to the > mailing lists. If there is an attempt to campiagn for no votes, > post it in news.groups, trb, [alt.r.b?}] and nowhere else. There are a lot > of news.groups readrs who will vote yes if they see the other > side doing improper lobbying and they see that your side is > squeeky clean. Avoid even the apearence of improper behavior. > > Good luck! Thanks. I'll need 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 - Fri Jul 25 07:05:07 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue Jul 22 05:39:27 1997 Received: (qmail 23103 invoked from network); 22 Jul 1997 12:39:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.123) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 1997 12:39:25 -0000 Message-ID: <33D4AA5C.C23@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:41:00 -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: World Unity: The Goal References: <33CAE5D9.EE710029@interport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1074 faryar wrote: > > Disccussions about the Bahai Faith are never allowed by its > enemies to take shape; they are usually held back with baseless > accusations and nonsensical repetitions of conspiracy theories made up > by its hollow detractors. Actually, it seems to me that this is precisely what Iranian Bahais do in regard to other Bahais who don't parrot their interpretation of the Bahai writings.... Iranian Bahais silence varying opinions by intimating one is a covenant breaker, in need of deeping in it, etc.... Other fundamentalist Bahais, from Xian backgrounds and just plain fanatics, do the same thing.... I recall on the Abbey of Mont St. Michel the turret with the torture room in it, rack, mace, and all the other brutal instruments of orthodoxy.... It seems to me a very small step, given the attitudes of many Bahais, to such devilish tools of coercion.... [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 - Fri Jul 25 07:05:10 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 25 02:56:54 1997 Received: (qmail 7549 invoked from network); 25 Jul 1997 09:56:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 1997 09:56:52 -0000 Message-ID: <33D878C4.7B8@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 05:58:28 -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.rights.human,soc.religion.iranian CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: World Unity: The Goal References: <33CAE5D9.EE710029@interport.net> <33D4AA5C.C23@hotmail.com> <33D68713.3DDEE179@interport.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 2176 faryar wrote: > > Follow the golden rule: > Never put your faith in fellow beings, Bahais or not. > instead put your faith in God and Baha'u'llah, if you still believe in > Him. > ..and if you do...forget your "SELF".. > Your biggest problem as almost everyone of your articles show..is your > badly hurt ego.. > it has led you to doubt & what you believed and worked for years... > and it can only lead your further personal and spiritual abasement. > In the meantime, the cause of God will wait for no one, including you. How typical that instead of answering my response an Iranian Bahai attacks my character and religious conscience, wrapping himself in stinking robes of self-righteous pseudo-piety.... Well, it's worked with the majority of ignorant, gullible Bahais.... > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > faryar wrote: > > > > > > Disccussions about the Bahai Faith are never allowed by > > its > > > enemies to take shape; they are usually held back with baseless > > > accusations and nonsensical repetitions of conspiracy theories > > made up > > > by its hollow detractors. > > > > Actually, it seems to me that this is precisely what Iranian Bahais > > do in regard to other Bahais who don't parrot their interpretation > > of the Bahai writings.... Iranian Bahais silence varying opinions > > by intimating one is a covenant breaker, in need of deeping in it, > > etc.... Other fundamentalist Bahais, from Xian backgrounds and just > > plain fanatics, do the same thing.... > > > > I recall on the Abbey of Mont St. Michel the turret with the > > torture room in it, rack, mace, and all the other brutal instruments > > > > of orthodoxy.... It seems to me a very small step, given the > > attitudes of many Bahais, to such devilish tools of coercion.... > > > > [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. From - Fri May 16 06:27:20 1997 >From roland@weasel.owl.de Thu May 15 23:50:21 1997 Received: from fiction.pb.owl.de (root@fiction.pb.owl.de [193.174.12.5]) by jehova.owl.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA07998 for ; Fri, 16 May 1997 08:48:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from squirrel.owl.de by fiction.pb.owl.de with bsmtp id m0wSGpU-000018C; Fri, 16 May 97 08:49 MET DST Received: (qmail 10087 invoked by uid 300); 16 May 1997 05:21:06 -0000 Date: 16 May 1997 05:21:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19970516052106.10086.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> From: Roland To: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Your archive X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 280 Frederick, I have read about 30 percent of the archive. What has happened to the Faith? I dont recognize it. You were cutting the moderators to pieces. The newsgroup is still not available at my ISP. Please send the other files, but not all at once, will you? Roland From - Fri May 16 09:18:34 1997 >From glaysher@pop.hotmail.com Fri May 16 06:11:59 1997 Received: (qmail 932 invoked from network); 16 May 1997 13:11:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 May 1997 13:11:58 -0000 Message-ID: <337C5D67.13A4@pop.hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:13:11 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: glaysher@pop.hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland Subject: Re: Your archive References: <19970516052106.10086.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 169 You might find the back files on Talisman I interesting too: https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/talisman.htm -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Tue May 27 06:12:12 1997 >From roland@weasel.owl.de Fri May 23 15:19:32 1997 Received: from fiction.pb.owl.de (root@fiction.pb.owl.de [193.174.12.5]) by jehova.owl.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA14894 for ; Sat, 24 May 1997 00:19:24 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from squirrel.owl.de by fiction.pb.owl.de with bsmtp id m0wV2lo-00000XC; Sat, 24 May 97 00:25 MET DST Received: (qmail 23711 invoked by uid 300); 23 May 1997 21:19:08 -0000 Date: 23 May 1997 21:19:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19970523211908.23710.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> From: Roland To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Your Archive X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 548 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? 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". From - Tue May 27 07:54:09 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Tue May 27 04:44:32 1997 Received: (qmail 18362 invoked from network); 27 May 1997 11:44:29 -0000 Received: from softdnserror (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.20) by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 27 May 1997 11:44:29 -0000 Message-ID: <338AC91A.1C82@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 07:44:26 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland CC: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Your Archive References: <19970523211908.23710.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 787 Roland 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? > 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". Sorry, if the last installment overloaded your system.... -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 29 05:59:10 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Wed May 28 04:06:14 1997 Received: (qmail 16691 invoked from network); 28 May 1997 11:06:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.118) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 28 May 1997 11:06:12 -0000 Message-ID: <338C11ED.4FDC@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 07:07:25 -0400 From: FG Reply-To: FG@hotmail.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FG@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Your Archive References: <19970523211908.23710.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> <338AC91A.1C82@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1070 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Roland 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". > > Sorry, if the last installment overloaded your system.... > -- > Frederick Glaysher > UseNet: alt.religion.bahai -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Thu May 29 05:59:12 1997 >From roland@weasel.owl.de Wed May 28 05:57:50 1997 Received: from fiction.pb.owl.de (root@fiction.pb.owl.de [193.174.12.5]) by jehova.owl.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA18867 for ; Wed, 28 May 1997 14:57:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from squirrel.owl.de by fiction.pb.owl.de with bsmtp id m0wWiP9-000010C; Wed, 28 May 97 15:04 MET DST Received: (qmail 8768 invoked by uid 300); 28 May 1997 12:51:17 -0000 Date: 28 May 1997 12:51:17 -0000 Message-ID: <19970528125117.8767.qmail@squirrel.owl.de> From: Roland To: "Frederick Glaysher" Subject: Re: Your Archive X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 687 I wrote: >> You are an intellectual, do you remember Canossa? >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. >> Yet, I wish the Faith well. There is something in it. >> I keep thinking of the word "unfolding". > >Sorry, if the last installment overloaded your system.... 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. From - Fri Jul 11 06:45:17 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri Jul 11 03:28:31 1997 Received: (qmail 25320 invoked from network); 11 Jul 1997 10:28:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.119) by hm3.hotmail.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 1997 10:28:22 -0000 Message-ID: <33C60B20.1EE3@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 06:29:52 -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: your ART reply References: <5q3gi9$m3q$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0014 Content-Length: 1683 Fran Baker wrote: > > Maureen Atkinson writes: > > >Sheltering Sky wrote: > >> what we want to hear.... Precisely what philistines have said > >> >and done.... > >> > > >> > >> I resent your attack on Philistines. The Ancient Philistines were > >> much more technologically advanced than the Ancient Israelites, and > >> had greater artistic diversity. The Israelites lived in the hills in > >> small villages, the Philistines along the coast in large cities. > >> > >> What's wrong? Are you tired of insulting Baha'is and looking for new > >> targets? > > >Dear Sheltered sky, > > >I find your reponse to above a bit juevenille. I think Frank would > >probably repsond that ancient Isrealites were not very artistic either. > >What's the point in engaging this fellow in this topic any longer... As > >the Borg from starttrek would say," resistance is futile"... let him have > >his soap box and move onto more intelligent conversations shall we? > > You both miss the point. He was not referring to the historical > people the Philistines. Look up "philistine" in your dictionary. > (Yes, it may unfairly give those ancient people a bad rap, > but it is just a word in our language now and no one is being libeled.) > I remember someone making the joke about David slaying Goliath: > "Goliath was a Philistine, but it's pretty harsh to kill him > just because he didn't like art!" See, it's a JOKE! Fran, that's a good one, as they say...... When dealing with Bahais and art, this is usually the kind of thing one soon learns to expect.... > > --Fran -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai From - Sun May 18 19:34:45 1997 >From FG@hotmail.com Fri May 16 08:12:04 1997 Received: (qmail 1250 invoked from network); 16 May 1997 15:12:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO glaysher) (199.179.42.129) by hm1.hotmail.com with SMTP; 16 May 1997 15:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <337C7971.41E6@hotmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 11:12:49 -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: zippo.com References: <5lgigo$2cl@argentina.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0004 Content-Length: 389 I tried to post this message a few days ago but haven't seen it anywhere other than on zippo.com itself: Www.zippo.com has picked up alt.religion.bahai; I'm not sure if it's possible yet to post back to it though if you're reading this I suppose now it is.... For $12.00 a year, they offer full access to Usenet newsgroups. -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai