A few odd or assorted messages and then those from 11-1-98 to 12-31-1998 From: Roman P. Storzer[SMTP:mail@becketfund.org] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 9:54 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Dear Mr. Glaysher: We are in the process of compiling religious liberty sites and documents on the internet to create a valuable resource on this topic. I will include the site you have referred me too. If you have any future information on changes/additions, please let me know. Sincerely, Roman P. Storzer Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's > that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing > newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of > Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in > which your organization can be of help in the defense of > the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for > Baha'is? > > After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an > unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other > Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to > appeal to other possibly interested organizations. > > Permit me to mention for those who might be interested > that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, > focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious > freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site > also includes extensive material relating to censorship on > soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for > talk.religion.bahai: > > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > A mailing list has also been created for those without > access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: Stanton McCandlish[SMTP:mech@eff.org] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 9:33 PM To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Gilbert Rankin) Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I don't slegal issue we can address here. However, I passed your notice along to Declan McCullagh, who works with people to oppose "private sector censorship" practices as well as govt. censorship, and who is in well with a cadre of people who "mirror" material that is threatened with censorship, replicating it on independent servers around the world so the censorship fails. His address is declan@well.com -- Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org http://www.eff.org/~mech Program Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) fax: +1 415 436 9333 PGPfone: 204.253.162.21 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) ---------- From: Emma Pease[SMTP:emma@csli.Stanford.EDU] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 1998 11:36 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: emailing soc.religion.bahai posters Frederick, Somewhat rushed today so only a couple of followups. > >3. Wait until late September before starting the RFD. That way people > >are back in school but it is early enough that the CFV can be run > >before the winter break. > > August 28th ends the 6 month waiting period. I know it will take at least > three to four weeks to discuss the proposal and submit Questionnarie for > the CFV and wait in the queue. It should work out about right for late > September. Otherwise, you're really suggesting late October. Some Universities start late (Stanford doesn't until about October 1). If you want students involved in the voting, you want to have at least part of the RFD overlap with school in session (on the other hand you don't want someone else pre-empting the submission of the RFD). Your call. > >4. Cut the signature down to four lines (don't give them the ability > >to refuse postings because of excessively long signature lines). > > They want two lines and no reference to either my web site > or mailing list.... With a four line sig you've got them obviously in the wrong. With a longer sig they can cite general usenet practice against long sig lines and get away with it. Also a short sig line is more likely to be read and more likely to tempt people to check it out. > This I indeed know. Do you have someone specifically in mind? I did unfortunately I forgot which of the many groups it was. If you check out http://www.religioustolerance.org/ you'll see they are having problems with a copycat group. The news.group folk (not all are techies by the way) are unfamiliar with Bahai history (I checked out www.religioustolerance.org for some info). Many were/are more incline to give you credence due to the results of the first vote; however, memory is short. In addition you have played into your opponents' hands. Large numbers of posts are often taken as a sign of a kook as is excessive cross-posting or discussions about the faults of the Bahai faith in a group not involved in that. Pre-empt your opponents by using news.groups only to discuss the technical issues with short pointers to your web page, other people's web pages, and to talk.religion.misc/alt.religion.bahai for discussions about the faith and examples of what type of of discussion you want to have more widely and easily available. You gained a lot in the last vote (i.e., many people did not vote 'no' who voted 'no' on the first vote); hold on to that gain and work on getting the yes votes out. Emma ---------- From: David Gerard[SMTP:fun@thingy.apana.org.au] Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 1:57 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Scientology link add to Bahai web site On Thu, 6 Aug 1998 10:48:11 -0400, in alt.religion.scientology you wrote: :I've added link to my web site, the Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of :Conscience, to David Gerard Scientology FAQs and a pointer to The site at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/ is actually Martin Hunt's, not mine. :alt.religion.scientology. It seems to me there is a pronounced similarity :of experience between many Scientologists and Bahais and people :from, or formerly from, both persuasions might benifit from comparing :the two.... I especially recommend David Gerard's Beginner's Guide. Thank you! - d. -- http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/ Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm "ObQuestion - why is my good friend the Y2K cobol programmer selling all his goods, buying gold, guns & food and moving his family to a place in the mountains? And trying to convince me to do the same?" - Tom ONeil ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 1:08 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology Someone asked where Shoghi Effendi spoke of the administrative order being mutilated without a Guardian. It is World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 148: "An attempt, I feel, should at the present juncture be made to explain the character and functions of the twin pillars that support this mighty Administrative Structure--the institutions of the Guardianship and of the Universal House of Justice. To describe in their entirety the diverse elements that function in conjunction with these institutions is beyond the scope and purpose of this general exposition of the fundamental verities of the Faith. To define with accuracy and minuteness the features, and to analyze exhaustively the nature of the relationships which, on the one hand, bind together these two fundamental organs of the Will of `Abdu'l-Bahá and connect, on the other, each of them to the Author of the Faith and the Center of His Covenant is a task which future generations will no doubt adequately fulfill. My present intention is to elaborate certain salient features of this scheme which, however close we may stand to its colossal structure, are already so clearly defined that we find it inexcusable to either misconceive or ignore. 13 It should be stated, at the very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá'u'lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer its affairs, cöordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is equipped with its own attendant institutions--instruments designed for the effective discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises, within the limitations imposed upon it, its powers, its authority, its rights and prerogatives. These are neither contradictory, nor detract in the slightest degree from the position which each of these institutions occupies. Far from being incompatible or mutually destructive, they supplement each other's authority and functions, and are permanently and fundamentally united in their aims." The uhj tries to interpret this passage away by pointing out that the Guardianship operated just fine without a house of justice, so obviously the house of justice can operate without a living Guardian. Moreover, the lack of a living guardian does not detract from the fact that the guardianship did exist at one point, leaving a great deal of guidance. The problem is that the Guardian *did* think it essential that a house of justice come to be asap, and he constantly put things off or made rulings provisional upon their future acceptance. Obviously, this schema cannot work the other way around--the uhj cannot put things off or rule only provisionally on issues in hopes of a future guardian arising, since there can be no further guardians. Moreover, it is also clear from his diction that he felt that key checks and balances in the Baha'i system were provided by a *living* Guardian. On pp. 154-155 of World Order of Baha'u'llah, Shoghi Effendi continues, "The hereditary authority which the Guardian is called upon to exercise, the vital and essential functions which the Universal House of Justice discharges, the specific provisions requiring its democratic election by the representatives of the faithful--these combine to demonstrate the truth that this divinely revealed Order, which can never be identified with any of the standard types of government referred to by Aristotle in his works, embodies and blends with the spiritual verities on which it is based the beneficent elements which are to be found in each one of them. The admitted evils inherent in each of these systems being rigidly and permanently excluded, this unique Order, however long it may endure and however extensive its ramifications, cannot ever degenerate into any form of despotism , of oligarchy, or of demagogy which must sooner or later corrupt the machinery of all man-made and essentially defective political institutions." Shoghi Effendi is referring to Aristotle's division of government into rule by the one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. Aristotle thought each of these forms of government, in turn, had a virtuous and corrupt form. Rule of the one is ideally a virtuous monarchy, but it could deteriorate into despotism. Rule of the few is ideally a noble aristocracy, but it could deteriorate into oligarchy (we would say a junta). Rule of the many is ideally a just Republic or Polity that protects the rights of minorities; but it could deteriorate into demagoguery and a tyranny of the majority. Shoghi Effendi was saying that the Baha'i system had all three elements: rule of the one was the Guardianship, rule of the few was the Hands (?), and rule of the many was the elected officers of the houses of justice (including NSAs and LSAs). Now, according to Aristotle, the rule of the many, i.e., the rule of the houses of justice, was liable to deteriorate into demagoguery and the tyranny of the majority (a sort of populist fascism, we might say). Shoghi Effendi says explicitly that it is the hereditary principle of the Guardianship (i.e. the Baha'i equivalent of monarchy) that keeps this deterioration from occurring. Obviously, in the absence of a living Guardian and with the end of the institution of the hands of the cause, the Baha'i system no longer has a living, breathing representative of the monarchical principle nor of the aristocratic. This means that the houses of justice have become a Republic. And according to Shoghi Effendi's analysis, this Republic is open to going bad and becoming demagogic. Notice that he does *not* say that what prevents the uhj from becoming tyrannical is its own infallibility, or divine guidance, or anything so airy fairy. He is concrete and explicit. It is the simultaneous presence of the monarchical, aristocratic and republican forms of governance that act as institutional brakes on one another. That institutional brake is no longer effectively present. And this is the only way I can understand how things have gone so wrong in the Baha'i faith. Things are so corrupt that people like Firuz Kazemzadeh go about publicly and explicitly identifying the elected officials of the faith with an "aristocracy!" This does so much damage to both Aristotle and Shoghi Effendi (not to mention common sense) that one cringes. I suppose it must be nice for Firuz, though. And one of the reasons I left was that in spring of 1996 the uhj mangled the interpretation of this passage by insisting that *it* is the 'rule of the one'! Well, of course, they aren't authorized to interpret things, though, are they? What would replace the role of the Guardian in keeping the elected officials from becoming demagogues? Well, maybe nothing can. But maybe public opinion could. Just the censure of ordinary Baha'is. And the wonderful thing for the Baha'i faith at this juncture, and the thing that gives even me hope for those still clinging to the crimson ark, is that cyberspace is creating a Baha'i public opinion, and the uhj and the nsa's are beginning to feel pressure from it. They hate it. They had liked thinking of themselves as 'aristocrats' (or actually oligarchs given how they often have behaved). But they had better shed the velvet robes and dump the silver wine goblets, with the $200 million palaces, and get back to being plain democratic representatives of the Baha'i Republic or eventually they will lose all their power and perquisites, altogether. cheers Juan ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 2:13 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further) All the various quotes you assembled only show that Shoghi Effendi agreed with Baha'u'llah that the universal house of justice is the legitimate head of the Baha'i faith. Even as an outsider, I am perfectly willing to concede that. However, Shoghi Effendi also did accept the Aristotelian principle that good forms of government are liable to deteriorate into bad forms of government. And he specified the checks and balances in the system he elaborated that would prevent the republican, elected, element from deteriorating into demagoguery; and they consisted in the living Guardian, the embodiment of the monarchical principle. Without the latter, the universal house of justice is still the legitimate head of the Baha'i religion, but it is at risk for deteriorating into an authoritarian populism and of acting in ways that are cult-like. I survey the field of the religions. I see, for instance, among the Episcopalians, a theologian like Bishop John Spong. He challenges many traditional Christian doctrines. The Episcopalians haven't ostracized him, threatened him, or shunned him. In fact, they appear to have made him a bishop. The Episcopalians appear to be rather broad-minded. I see the Unitarian Universalists, who would never dream of kicking a Ph.D. out because of his work on UU history. I see Quakers, gentle and engaging in a sort of consultation every Sunday morning. I see Sufi groups in Islam, chanting and laughing and loving, accepting all who wish to learn wisdom. I see many branches of Hinduism and Buddhism that are highly tolerant. But then I see other sorts of religion. I see Khamenei's Iran, where people are jailed for their theological views and even killed. I see Roman Catholicism, where Matthew Fox was forced out because of his vibrant Creation Theology, where Leonardo Boff was silenced and forced out because of his Liberation Theology, where Hans Kung was put on trial and denied the opportunity to teach Catholic theology for his reasoned, modernist theology. I see Sunni Islam, where Nasr Abu Zayd was actually forced into exile from Egypt for his Higher Criticism of the Qur'an, and threatened with being divorced from his spouse. And given what happened to Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, Steven Scholl, Linda Walbridge, Bill Garlington, Geoffrey Nash, and many, many others, I can only conclude that the Baha'i faith is now being run like the second group of religions. Indeed, among those Baha'i thinkers threatened with being shunned were persons whose shunning might well have resulted in a forcible divorce of exactly the same sort the Egyptian mullas threatened Abu Zayd with. The Baha'i faith is being run like that by the universal house of justice. This is so obviously *not* what Baha'u'llah intended, with his calls for tolerance and universalism, that *obviously* the religion he created has been mutilated. Now, this wasn't supposed to happen. But it has happened. And I think the lack of institutional checks and balances in the current structure, which Shoghi Effendi thought so essential, are an excellent explanation for why the mutilation of the Baha'i faith has occurred. Someone accused me of conducting a personal vendetta. But this is not about personalities. The structures are the problem; even really promising people are corrupted by absolute power, which is what the Baha'i institutions now have within the community. But you know what? The Vatican has been forced to back down on a number of issues by public outcries in recent years. It had to apologize to Galileo (some Jesuits still grumble that what was done to him was perfectly all right!). It had to reinstate a Sri Lankan priest who had dared to compare Christianity and Buddhism (John Paul II is has a bigotted hatred of Buddhism). And even the Iranian Ayatollahs were forced to back off their pogroms against the Baha'is, not completely, but in some part, by the world outcry. So religious authorities of the persecuting kind are not completely autonomous in the contemporary world. And neither is the moth-eaten guardianless universal house of justice. The checks and balances that would have been supplied by the 'good king' will have to come from public opinion, within the faith and without. The assiduous attempts to prevent the emergence of such a public opinion are failing. And the Baha'i faith will in the end be a much better and less predatory place for it. cheers Juan ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: LaAeterna@aol.com[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 10:45 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further) The quotes Burl pulled out do not in any way say the the Universal House has anything other than a legislative function. Nor can he show anything that gives the UHJ legitimacy without a Guardian. As Abdul'Baha stated over and again, it is a legislative body only, with some arbitration duties. Period. That it has chosen to take a huge interpretive leap and given itself majesty where it has none appointed it, shows exactly why a Guardian_is_essential: to maintain the *spiritual* aspect of the Faith. That there IS NO Guardian now cannot be shrugged off. Shoghi Effendi states (page 9, WOB) that the administration *is*not*the*Faith but is, instead, an instrument of the faith. Instruments are not perfect nor are they permanent institutions, but have been shown throughout the history of humanity to be temporary tools useful for a period of time (sometimes undefined). It could well be that the "tool" we are using now is defective, exactly because one of the primary aspects is missing, As one poster so aptly put it : a headless body. I would say rather: an empty shell without a guiding spirit. That it is making such shocking decisions re: its members and alienating so many demonstrates my point quite nicely. Nancy ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: martinc[SMTP:martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:31 AM To: 'fglaysher@hotmail.com' Subject: Censorship on SRB Replying to your message to mclark@tpgi.com.au. That address is proving unreliable. I sent you a message which included the "power in this cause" phrase, and you asked me to post this to SRB, which I did, leaving in your quote to provide context. It got through the moderators presumably because I'm not on the banned list and no one thought it was unsuitable. I have had stuff censored before. One solution to the signature ban might be to set up an alias through your ISP, or failing that, use a program like Anonymous Email which allows you to make up your own email address. I don't think they check on fakes if the address looks genuine - unless they email back to you of course! A few thoughts on the material you have added: The general view that "the institutions are infallible" is imho incorrect. Baha'is are expected to regard the UHJ as infallible. For some this is a big ask. I don't personally have a problem with this. Over the years I have found the UHJ to possess a lot more wisdom than most LSAs and more than a few NSAs. If any other institutions were infallible, there would not need to be a line of appeal to the UHJ. Committees, Boards, Moderator Groups etc - NONE of these are infallible or should be regarded as such. If there is a problem with any of them, the matter should be referred to the Assembly to which they are answerable. I am not sure who the moderators of SRB are answerable to, but since they all appear to be American, I guess it is probably the NSA of the United States. Did the moderators tell you they had imposed a ban on you, and did they state the reason? If not they have certainly fallen short of what is required. I have been aware of the battle to get an unmoderated group. I don't personally think it would work, but that is no reason for censorship. I subscribed to alt.religion.bahai for a while but got rid of it because it ended up seemingly being dominated by one particular group in whose views I had no interest. Moderated or unmoderated - there are problems with both. Some of the problems outlined seem to stem from ethnocentricity - western-style psychological game-playing. Don't get me wrong - Abdu'l Baha said that in the future America would be a spiritual leader of mankind. I think I can understand why he said that, and believe he is right. However, some American Baha'is seem to think they are already spiritual leaders of mankind. The rest of the world has witnessed this attitude and has a problem with it. Abdu'l Baha's statement is taken by many as being a bit like a Chinese person saying "may you live in interesting times ... ". One person on SRB recently said that a lot of the problems seemed to originate locally (e.g. in the US) and suggested people provide information about experiences elsewhere. I think this is a good idea, and am intending to contribute when I get time. The Baha'i world is very diverse - as it is supposed to be. Most Baha'is are poor and live in villages. Compared to some people I have met, westerners tend to understand very little about concepts like consultation and concensus decision-making. At present, most people with the language, facilities and time to subscribe to SRB live in western-style countries. Regards, Martin Clark ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 2:35 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Recommendation? Sure thing. By the way, I have a web site, but it is just personal stuff. It's http://chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu/~fran/. --Fran Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Fran, > > I hope you don't mind my giving your name and email address > to America Online as someone who might vouch for me. AOL > has a number of forums that require a Forum Leader. The > current one is very inactive and many things that might make > for a fairer representation of viewpoints have been nicely > neglected somehow.... It seems to me no one else is going > to do it so what the heck.... > > Fglaysher@AOL.com > (please continue to use my fglaysher@hotmail.com address) ---------- From: martinc[SMTP:martinc@thuringowa.qld.gov.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 6:12 PM To: 'Frederick Glaysher' Subject: RE: Censorship on SRB You said: "As far as I can recall, I asked for it to be posted to > alt.religion.bahai, not soc.religion.bahai. > > I believe you've abused the nature of my message to > you." > Looking back through the inbox, I find that you are right, and I apologise for this error. I certainly picked up the thread from SRB and our correspondence followed on from that, so maybe that explains the oversight. Regards, Martin Clark ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:43 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: aol 1 Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:46 EDT From: Holly7711 Message-id: <1998090915464300.LAA29616@ladder01.news.aol.com> Friends, This stuff is not only ugly in its outlook toward Baha'is, but now there is criticism of the Universal House of Justice and the beloved institutions of the Faith. This is right on the edge... borderline. Charlotte ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:44 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: aol 2 Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:59 EDT From: Karndor Message-id: <1998090915595200.LAA03894@ladder03.news.aol.com> Charlotte, before you read a post, look who wrote it, and if it is someone, that you might think is a CB, or will make you mad, don't read it, and go on to the next one. trust me it works. Karen Momie to Forrest Febuary 17,1994 Terran October 23, 1996 KidsCom: Mousers ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:46 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: aol 3 Subject: General Disclaimer Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 14:00 EDT From: WScott1995 Message-id: <1998090918003500.OAA11333@ladder01.news.aol.com> For those visiting our Baha'i boards, anyone can post here and say they are a Baha'i. That doesn't necessarily make it so. Every religion has their wolves in sheeps clothing would would try to destroy the flock, and this forum makes this particularly easy since they can hide behind their computers and no one will know who they are. Baha'is need to deal with these people as both our writings and the Bible says: "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker....and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-17) "Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge —by professing it, some have strayed concerning the faith." (1 Tim 6:20-21) A true Baha'i would abide by the teachings of Baha'u'llah, in every situation, to the best of his or her ability. And those teachings are: "Should anyone wax angry with you, respond to him with gentleness; and should anyone upbraid you, forbear to upbraid him in return, but leave him to himself and put your trust in God, the omnipotent Avenger, the Lord of might and justice." (Bahá'u'lláh: The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Page: 75) _____________________________ Love and peace, Wendy--------<-@ ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:46 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: aol4 ubject: Re: General Disclaimer Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 15:05 EDT From: Bennachti Message-id: <1998090919050600.PAA17531@ladder01.news.aol.com> I agree, Wendy. I am always reminded of this passage, when I meet people like that online: "Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most lands. Shun them, O My people, and follow not the iniquitous and evil-hearted." Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, pg. 32 I'm all in favor of Karen's suggestion too, to just skip over the names of people who seem to be filled with hatred. I hope that for their sake they learn that their anger only hurts them, not anyone else. They can stew in it, suffer from it, develop heart and liver diseases from it (and more) but it doesn't affect the rest of us at all. It is a most unfortunate malady, this anger and hatred. May God help all of us to recover from angers and resentments whensoever they may afflict us. Love you all Zaynab No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. - Bahá'u'lláh - My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:47 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: aol5 Subject: Re: General Disclaimer Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 15:14 EDT From: Holly7711 Message-id: <1998090919140800.PAA18518@ladder01.news.aol.com> Excellent advice, everyone! Thanks particularly for those quotes from the writings.... always good spiritual food for just about any situation that comes up. :) Love, Charlotte ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 1:49 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: aol TOS Subj: Terms of Service Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT From: TOSBoards2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the information I have placed on the account regarding this incident: On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal- minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The typical response of Bahai fanatics.... Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES." Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ baha'i baha'i" Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen names from various online activities. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral. Regards, Bill Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:03 PM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: fglaysher@Hotmail.com Subject: Accusation of TOS at AOL Please explain to me how my post is a TOS. It appears to me that you fail to understand the context in which my message was posted. There has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a year and a half to censor and control all knowledge and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive documentation to this effect, with statements and samples of suppressed messages from well over 30 people, can be found on my web site: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship can also be found on alt.religion.bahai If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais, unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity, it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's identity, something which is long recognized in common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains observations from four different people, one a Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Further, to understand the nature of my comments, you would need to consider the posts that I was responding to, post which follow the "Bahai technique" remarked upon by myself and the other three people below. I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais are apparently using your naivete regarding what Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance. I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is truly involved in the accusation. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ------- Subj: Terms of Service Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT From: TOSBoards2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the information I have placed on the account regarding this incident: On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal- minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The typical response of Bahai fanatics.... Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES." Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ baha'i baha'i" Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen names from various online activities. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral. Regards, Bill Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:05 PM To: spctoast@extremezone.com Cc: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: AOL Bahai Threats Kate, If you could email AOL and help them understand what the fanatics are really up to I'd really be grateful.... They out to get me kicked off AOL!!! Fred ubj: Accusation of TOS at AOL Date: 98-09-11 15:03:38 EDT From: Fglaysher To: TOSGeneral CC: fglaysher@hotmail.com Please explain to me how my post is a TOS. It appears to me that you fail to understand the context in which my message was posted. There has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a year and a half to censor and control all knowledge and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive documentation to this effect, with statements and samples of suppressed messages from well over 30 people, can be found on my web site: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship can also be found on alt.religion.bahai If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais, unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity, it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's identity, something which is long recognized in common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains observations from four different people, one a Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Further, to understand the nature of my comments, you would need to consider the posts that I was responding to, post which follow the "Bahai technique" remarked upon by myself and the other three people below. I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais are apparently using your naivete regarding what Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance. I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is truly involved in the accusation. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ------- Subj: Terms of Service Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT From: TOSBoards2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the information I have placed on the account regarding this incident: On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal- minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The typical response of Bahai fanatics.... Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES." Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ baha'i baha'i" Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen names from various online activities. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral. Regards, Bill Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:16 PM To: Juan Cole; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL I ask all Bahais or non-Bahais on AOL to email the TOSGeneral@aol.com and inform him or her what you believe may be actually involved here on the part of Bahais. I myself have stated my opinion below. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ----- Subj: Terms of Service Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT From: TOSBoards2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the information I have placed on the account regarding this incident: On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal- minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The typical response of Bahai fanatics.... Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES." Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ baha'i baha'i" Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen names from various online activities. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral. Regards, Bill Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ------ Bahai posts on AOL responding to "The Bahai Technique": ------- Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:46 EDT From: Holly7711 Message-id: <1998090915464300.LAA29616@ladder01.news.aol.com> Friends, This stuff is not only ugly in its outlook toward Baha'is, but now there is criticism of the Universal House of Justice and the beloved institutions of the Faith. This is right on the edge... borderline. Charlotte -------- Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole Re: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 11:59 EDT From: Karndor Message-id: <1998090915595200.LAA03894@ladder03.news.aol.com> Charlotte, before you read a post, look who wrote it, and if it is someone, that you might think is a CB, or will make you mad, don't read it, and go on to the next one. trust me it works. Karen Momie to Forrest Febuary 17,1994 Terran October 23, 1996 KidsCom: Mousers ----------- Subject: General Disclaimer Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 14:00 EDT From: WScott1995 Message-id: <1998090918003500.OAA11333@ladder01.news.aol.com> For those visiting our Baha'i boards, anyone can post here and say they are a Baha'i. That doesn't necessarily make it so. Every religion has their wolves in sheeps clothing would would try to destroy the flock, and this forum makes this particularly easy since they can hide behind their computers and no one will know who they are. Baha'is need to deal with these people as both our writings and the Bible says: "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker....and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-17) "Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge —by professing it, some have strayed concerning the faith." (1 Tim 6:20-21) A true Baha'i would abide by the teachings of Baha'u'llah, in every situation, to the best of his or her ability. And those teachings are: "Should anyone wax angry with you, respond to him with gentleness; and should anyone upbraid you, forbear to upbraid him in return, but leave him to himself and put your trust in God, the omnipotent Avenger, the Lord of might and justice." (Bahá'u'lláh: The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Page: 75) _____________________________ Love and peace, Wendy--------<-@ ----- ubject: Re: General Disclaimer Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 15:05 EDT From: Bennachti Message-id: <1998090919050600.PAA17531@ladder01.news.aol.com> I agree, Wendy. I am always reminded of this passage, when I meet people like that online: "Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most lands. Shun them, O My people, and follow not the iniquitous and evil-hearted." Baha'u'llah, Kitab-i-Aqdas, pg. 32 I'm all in favor of Karen's suggestion too, to just skip over the names of people who seem to be filled with hatred. I hope that for their sake they learn that their anger only hurts them, not anyone else. They can stew in it, suffer from it, develop heart and liver diseases from it (and more) but it doesn't affect the rest of us at all. It is a most unfortunate malady, this anger and hatred. May God help all of us to recover from angers and resentments whensoever they may afflict us. Love you all Zaynab No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. - Bahá'u'lláh - My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain ----------- Subject: Re: General Disclaimer Date: Wed, Sep 9, 1998 15:14 EDT From: Holly7711 Message-id: <1998090919140800.PAA18518@ladder01.news.aol.com> Excellent advice, everyone! Thanks particularly for those quotes from the writings.... always good spiritual food for just about any situation that comes up. :) Love, Charlotte ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:25 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: ARB more harm than good? kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6tafaq$g6b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is so >I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not granted >the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the atmosphere, >perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very >politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous >they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions. I >was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask >that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I >saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out here >though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with >laughter and free speechkate > Given Bahais on AOL are now alleging a TOS against me, I urge you to reciprocate and contact the TOSGeneral@aol.com immediately. If you can remember the Bahais involved and their addresses, you should pass that along to him or her too. One or all of them might very well be the same Bahais who are trying to blackball me on AOL! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 2:31 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL Oops! Here's my message to the TOSGeneral@AOL.com ---- Subj: Accusation of TOS at AOL Date: 98-09-11 15:03:38 EDT From: Fglaysher To: TOSGeneral CC: fglaysher@hotmail.com Please explain to me how my post is a TOS. It appears to me that you fail to understand the context in which my message was posted. There has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a year and a half to censor and control all knowledge and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive documentation to this effect, with statements and samples of suppressed messages from well over 30 people, can be found on my web site: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship can also be found on alt.religion.bahai If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais, unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity, it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's identity, something which is long recognized in common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains observations from four different people, one a Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Further, to understand the nature of my comments, you would need to consider the posts that I was responding to, post which follow the "Bahai technique" remarked upon by myself and the other three people below. I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais are apparently using your naivete regarding what Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance. I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is truly involved in the accusation. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ------- Subj: Terms of Service Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT From: TOSBoards2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the information I have placed on the account regarding this incident: On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The typical response of Bahai fanatics.... Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES." Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ baha'i baha'i" Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen names from various online activities. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral. Regards, Bill Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: RMckin6046[SMTP:rmckin6046@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:36 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL Frederick, et. al.: I believe that you misunderstand the issue that was brought up. First: It is reasonable that a regular person without any particular agenda and without any conspiracy could take offense at your style of writing and the things that you say. Your style is very forward, even abrasive, and you do tend to cut no Baha'i any slack. [For example: you immediately questioned AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum's host's integrity and shouted "censorship" without checking out the situation or asking your question without the abrasive term "censorship." It seems you assumed the worst -- perhaps because you equate the Forum host with the srb moderators -- or is it that you assume a Baha'i as host must be conspiratorial?] Second: There has been significant activity on AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum by several Baha'i groups. People that the House has declared covenant breakers and others that belong to various covenant breaker inspired groups have posted numerous -- no countless -- messages over the years. In addition, numerous enemies of the Faith from various backgrounds have leveled many critical and challenging messages over the years. In none of these instances, have the content of the posters' arguments or the positions that they have taken been challenged on TOS (Terms of Service) grounds. Nor have any of the Baha'is, despite any personal wishes, tried to silence the critics through TOS -- except when TOS have been violated. It is simply unfair to say that the people on the Forum have cited TOS because of your views. The people there are very used to controversy and to critics and to unpleasantness. Third: It is obvious that you have not researched or bothered to learn about how AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum works. As I pointed out to you earlier, the folders on the Forum are not like the topics here on the News Groups. The folders are opened by individuals with posted topics. They are limited to a set number, and when a folder has been inactive for a while, it is supposed to close and make room for a new one. (As pointed out to you, the folders have been in a "stuck" mode since last December and no uploads to the library have been successful since then.) Despite the titles of the folders and the descriptions written by the openers, the fact is that subjects overlap and there is no control over the actual topics of posts in the folders. Fourth: TOS violations on AOLs Forum and Message Boards include, among other things, personal attacks, name calling, profanity, and foreign language (non-English) postings. BUT, most likely, the TOS violation that you are accused of is not your writing style... not the content of your posts, no matter how provocative... and not someone's conspiratorial attempt to get you thrown off the board. The fact is you have violated the TOS of AOLs Forums by placing the same postings in all the folders. Multiple posting of the same message to multiple folders is a violation of AOLs TOS. Had you researched the Forum at all before you started posting or had you approached the boards as a newcomer with anywhere near a humble attitude, then you would have known this. Despite your attitude, people did post you replies that pointed out that the multiple submissions were a TOS. You either did not read them, did not understand (nor ask for clarification) or just did not care. Perhaps we should open a topic or site on "The Glaysher Technique." It is interesting to look at your posts in reply to well-meaning, if naive, Baha'is and to people who disagree with you or with someone who attacks the Faith and compare your technique in dealing with them to the technique you ascribe to Baha'is in general. Your attitude towards rules seems pretty disdainful, so I doubt that you think much of AOLs TOS. It certainly appears that you don't think rules should apply to you. Do you bother with turn signals or do you just figure that the other drivers should know your intentions before they get out on your roads? From the -- what was it you called me? -- the old school marm? Richard ---------------------------------------- Dr Richard A McKinley Fayetteville NC USA RMckin6046@aol.com ---------- From: RMckin6046[SMTP:rmckin6046@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:46 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL Dear Friends: I posted a rather long reply to this topic earlier. And, this despite an intention not to reply to Glaysher's constant harangues. I know that response to him goes no where. Nevertheless... If you could not make it through the whole post, the nub of the issue is this: It is a violation of AOLs TOS (Terms of Service) for one to post the same message to multiple folders on one of AOLs interest Forums. On more than one occasion, Glaysher posted the same message to almost every folder on AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum. It was pointed out to him that this was a violation, but he continues to do it. I assume that any reported TOS violation centers on this issue. This and not any conspiracy, and not any disagreement with his views is the issue. The fact is that the Baha'is on the Forum are very used to critics and to dissident Baha'i groups and to actual covenant breakers and to disagreeable people in general. They can take what Fred dishes out, but their disagreement with him just gets them more scorn from him and they will learn to tune him out. As we know, if a Baha'i disagrees with Glaysher, then he is a part of the conspiracy or simply a "technique" Baha'i. Richard ------------------------------------ Dr Richard A McKinley Fayetteville NC USA RMckin6046@aol.com ---------- From: Kate Bodi[SMTP:kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 12:47 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: ARB more harm than good? -- On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:26:23 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Frederick Glaysher >To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com >Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 3:25 PM >Subject: Re: ARB more harm than good? > > >>kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com wrote in message >>... >>>I heard through this list that America On-line had a chat room for Baha'is >>so >>>I decided on evening to peer inside and have a look-see. I was not >granted >>>the opportunity to lurk for a few moments to get the feel for the >>atmosphere, >>>perhaps my screen name made them nervous...I asked those in the room very >>>politely a few simple honest questions. Although they seemed very nervous >>>they finally obliged...although several left when they asked me questions. >>I >>>was told there room was a place to for those interest in the faith to ask >>>that this was their purpose. I told them also that I went there because I >>>saw it mentioned here. Strange that they should warn me not to hang out >>here >>>though because in their opinion...ARB does more harm than good.with >>>laughter and free speechkate >>> >> >>Given Bahais on AOL are now alleging a TOS against me, I urge you >>to reciprocate and contact the TOSGeneral@aol.com immediately. >>If you can remember the Bahais involved and their addresses, you >>should pass that along to him or her too. One or all of them might >>very well be the same Bahais who are trying to blackball me on >>AOL! >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Fred, Thank you. Yes, I will try. I just found your post on TOS...to which I added some simple truth. BTW, I stumbled across a name in connection with yours on a posting relating to this topic, Bennatchi (sp?). I do not remember the Baha'is involved exactly...maybe sort of; however, she was present during the above incident, although the only one truly helpful to me. I was hoping to contact her again, but lost her email...so until I relocate the post. I would just like you to know that I am sympathetic and understand (I think) your efforts at free speech in this arena. They just don't understand me yet...but they are very leery and may not like what I must do for myself. Do not misunderstand me, I do not wish to detract from anyone's faith...merely to eradicate hipocrisy...which is a cancer of the truth. kate -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 5:42 AM To: TOSGeneral@aol.com Cc: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: TOS violation for what? I would appreciate it if you would state for what reason I've received a TOS. I've read the TOS info and do not believe I've committed anything listed there. As I stated in my first response, copied below, Baha'is have opposed freedom of speech and conscience systematically now for more than a year and a half and there is a long record available to prove it if you'd look at my web site. Baha'is on the Message Board for Non-Bahais accused me of being what they term a "covenant breaker" or suggested as much. That's an attack according to your TOS and I shall be forward a number of complaints to you shortly so that you perceive both sides of the issue. Fglaysher@aol.com Subj: Fwd: Accusation of TOS at AOL Date: 98-09-11 15:09:33 EDT From: TOSGen2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, We have reviewed your account, and our records do not support a removal of the warning at this time. The notation will drop off of your account six months after the date it was issued. As stated in the Terms of Service, the master account holder is responsible for all activity that takes place on an account. We encourage you to review the Terms of Service and the Community Guidelines (both available at keyword TOS or keyword NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH) with anyone who has access to your America Online account. You may also want to explore keyword PARENTAL CONTROLS for ways to limit a screen name's access to AOL and/or the Internet. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral, or you may call Member Services at 1-800-827-6364. Regards, Jim Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Fwd: Accusation of TOS at AOL Date: 98-09-11 15:03:44 EDT From: TOSGeneral To: TOSGen2 [This Message (REGULAR) Has Been Forwarded By The Mail Spinner] ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Accusation of TOS at AOL Date: 98-09-11 15:03:38 EDT From: Fglaysher To: TOSGeneral CC: fglaysher@hotmail.com Please explain to me how my post is a TOS. It appears to me that you fail to understand the context in which my message was posted. There has been a pervasive Bahai effort for more than a year and a half to censor and control all knowledge and information on the Bahai Faith. Extensive documentation to this effect, with statements and samples of suppressed messages from well over 30 people, can be found on my web site: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Extensive discussion relevant to Bahai censorship can also be found on alt.religion.bahai If AOL is not merely to be a pawn used by Bahais, unknown in this instance, hiding behind annonymity, it is essentially that you reveal my accuser's identity, something which is long recognized in common law. Note the so-called TOS below contains observations from four different people, one a Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Further, to understand the nature of my comments, you would need to consider the posts that I was responding to, post which follow the "Bahai technique" remarked upon by myself and the other three people below. I wish to draw to the attention of AOL that Bahais are apparently using your naivete regarding what Bahais call "covenant breaking" in this instance. I am confident a fair and just investigation in regard to the so-called TOS will help AOL reach a balanced understanding of what is truly involved in the accusation. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ------- Subj: Terms of Service Date: 98-09-11 02:54:49 EDT From: TOSBoards2 To: Fglaysher Dear Member, I need to let you know that America Online was notified of a post to one of our message boards which violates the Terms of Service. Here is the information I have placed on the account regarding this incident: On 9/9/98 6:58 AM Eastern Daylight EST the Fglaysher screen name posted a message in Baha'i Message Boards, For Non Baha'is >> Subject: Re: Literal- minded Bahai ignorance. The following is an excerpt from the post: " The typical response of Bahai fanatics.... Frederick Glaysher: "Some of the most striking methods demonstrated repeatedly by many Bahais during the last year and a half of discussion about an unmoderated newsgroup is their refusal to listen and respond to the criticisms of those who are in favor of talk.religion.bahai, ignoring their concerns, never responding analytically to their messages and reasoning and logic and evidence, attacking them through character assassination and ad hominem, ganging up on individuals, and "circling the wagons" around every action of the srb moderators or others who are opposed to talk.religion.bahai. "More than twenty different people on my web site have posted messages explaining their experience with srb censorship yet many srb Bahais NEVER address their concerns. Ignoring such charges will not make them go away. NO ONE has to "try" to link the trb interest poll with censorship on srb; the moderators themselves have done that by suppressing droves of people for years. There are many people who believe such suppression is part and parcel of the Bahai community as it exists today. A YES vote need not necessarily support such a belief. There are other reasons Bahais might vote YES." Ron House: "I know what you mean. I've found over the years that there is a technique used by traditional Baha'is and others to squash dissension: harry the dissenter so much he says something intemperate, then point out how 'loving' and 'compassionate' they are and how nasty the dissenter is. The trouble is that this technique works, so I've been making a conscious effort not to fall for it. Also, when they get the dissenter discouraged and miserable enough, he invariably makes a slip-up sooner or later that they can REALLY let loose the venom over. IMHO, they did this to you when you misread Sharon's intentions. At any other time, they would overlook faults, as Baha'u'llah says, but when they're in this mode they go for the jugular. Very sad." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm Fran Baker: "Just have to say that in my experience this is a common technique of manipulative people in general; it is especially effective with thoughtful people who are willing to see both sides of things, i.e., their own fault. I consider this brow-beating technique to be a form of abuse. The only way to deal with it is to call them on it every time and to refuse to let yourself be beat up, i.e., not to do your part of the "tango." This can be very hard to do, but it works.You can break this pattern in a personal relationship. I don't know whether it's possible when a group acts this way. Very scary." Dr. Juan Cole: "Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? ...The very technique of the more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect racket. "Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance!" http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole10.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ baha'i baha'i" Our Terms of Service agreement, which was presented during the sign up process, allows America Online to be informative, entertaining and, above all, fun for all of our Members. You can review that agreement by using keyword TOS. This area also has information and tools you can use to help protect your account. Also, you may want to take a look at our PARENTAL CONTROLS. This will allow you, among other things, to limit and/or block specific screen names from various online activities. Thanks for taking the time to read this letter. Please note, this screen name cannot accept replies. Therefore, if you have any comments or questions please send mail to TOSGeneral. Regards, Bill Community Action Team America Online, Inc. * Have you heard about AOL's latest and easiest to use software version, 4.0? You can upgrade for free at keyword: Upgrade. With AOL 4.0, you can have fun by sending multiple files, changing screen names without signing off, customizing your toolbar, and much, much more. Upgrade today! ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 1998 6:36 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Bahai accusation of TOS on AOL RMckin6046 wrote in message <1998091121465800.RAA00697@ladder03.news.aol.com>... >Dear Friends: > >I posted a rather long reply to this topic earlier. And, this despite an >intention not to reply to Glaysher's constant harangues. I know that response >to him goes no where. For insight into what's really being said here read: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/technique.htm > >Nevertheless... If you could not make it through the whole post, the nub of the >issue is this: It is a violation of AOLs TOS (Terms of Service) for one to >post the same message to multiple folders on one of AOLs interest Forums. On >more than one occasion, Glaysher posted the same message to almost every folder >on AOLs Baha'i Faith Forum. It was pointed out to him that this was a >violation, but he continues to do it. I assume that any reported TOS violation >centers on this issue. It was not to every folder. There is no statement in the AOL TOS documents that posting a message to more than one board is a TOS. Regardless, that was a number of weeks ago in mid August. Notice the assumption here. AOL has not yet stated why or who alleged a TOS against me. Perhaps it was one of the Bahais below who posted these messages to the same message boards on AOL. Such tactics indeed follow to the "T" if you will the Bahai technique of discrediting others: Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 14:17 EDT From: Ecominer Message-id: <1998090818173900.OAA01117@ladder03.news.aol.com> Thank-you...do you know, or can you discover who this guy's Auxillary Board for Protection is? I think it is time to talk to that person about this situation and put this very angry, hurt soul into the proper hands???? Subject: Re: Literal-minded Bahai ignorance Date: Tue, Sep 8, 1998 16:05 EDT From: Bennachti Message-id: <1998090820050400.QAA11750@ladder03.news.aol.com> Debbie, if you feel that is the right course of action, you can just forward the postings to your own Auxiliary Board Member and that person should be able to take it from there. Love Zaynab No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. - Bahá'u'lláh - My Bahá'í Faith website: Camphor Fountain ____________________________________________________________________ List Site: http://www.findmail.com/list/bahai-faith/ To unsubscribe, send to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com FREE group e-mail lists at http://www.findmail.com ---------- From: Barthaman@aol.com[SMTP:Barthaman@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 10:15 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Cc: Talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Fw: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation Dear Frederick, Some of us (Baha'is who think like I do) read you loud and clear. You're not alone, obviously, in your observations. We know exactly what you're talking about. It's out there. It's true. Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin (both first-class scholars in my humble opinion) have said just as much in years past. Because the Universal House of Juctice won't come down from its elitist hill top long enough to listen to common sense (too bad they don't have women members) and because the general Baha'i community has been indoctrinated from day-1 not to question religious authority, one will have to reach influential minds outside the Faith. An informed general public will not condone Baha'i institutional abuses of power, and will hold Baha'i expansion in check (through both indifference and public criticism) as long as it's leadership thumbs its nose at the democratic ideals this country was founded on. People come to America from around the world to experience freedom. Why would they embrace a religion that gives them less of it? The Baha'is, apparently, haven't learned anything from the history of the Mormons, their distant spiritual cousins. --Barthaman ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 6:20 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation Wendy Subj: Re: AOL removes TOS - Bahai accusation Date: 98-09-13 16:29:38 EDT From: wscott1995@aol.com (WScott1995) To: fglaysher@aol.com (Fglaysher) Fred, Why are you trying to ruin the reputation of the Baha'is? _____________________________ Love and peace, Wendy--------<-@ ---------- From: Barthaman@aol.com[SMTP:Barthaman@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 8:10 PM To: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM Cc: Talisman@umich.edu Subject: Re: Frederick Glaysher for forum leader... Frederick, you'd make as good a forum leader as anyone I know of. Certainly, I'll recommend you. Who do I need to contact? (About that burning at the stake idea, I can't quite comment right now because my own pant legs are on fire!) I think the Baha'is (your critics) should lighten up and give you a break--they don't recognize your fine talents and what they're losing. Why do they prefer you as their enemy when being friends is a whole lot better for the blood pressure? I see a lot of myself in you. If I could speak to myself as another person, I'd say: "Don't waste your precious life serving people who don't appreciate you and who don't make you happy." Life is too short. But since you've already heard all of that before, godspeed. Warmest regards, Barthaman. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 9:55 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: NEWS RELEASE Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > What do you think of this draft? > Hi Fred, Bearing in mind that I have reservations about sending out a news release, the one you have now reads pretty well. I don't think we can't be hard-hitting, but we must at all times avoid any exaggeration or bias. I think you have avoided that successfully in this version. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: Kate Bodi[SMTP:kate_mccolloch_bodi@my-dejanews.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:50 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Bahai Forum Leader Fred, If I may be of any assistance to you, I would certainly be honored to do it. However, I am not an AOL member currently. I occasionally sign up for brief periods of time...like when my favorite ISP gives me grief...but have absolutely no fondness for AOL. If I can fulfill your requests both for the TOS and the nominations, I certainly will, but I will have do so some look-see to find out if I may. kate -- On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:29:56 Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Kate, > >Would you consider recommending me for the Forum Leader >(absurd title)? I've applied with AOL but fear the fundamentalists >are going have me burned at the stake on this one too.... > >You're on AOL, right? > >...... >ubj: Baha'i Faith Forum Application >Date: 98-09-09 15:03:43 EDT >From: Fglaysher >To: RBCF Mark >CC: RBCF Admin > >Spirituality Forums Volunteer Community Leader Application > >(v1.01 - 8/21/98) > >CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. >APPLICANT ALSO AGREES TO HOLD CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION LEARNED AS PART >OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND, IF ACCEPTED, AS AN AMERICA ONLINE VOLUNTEER >STAFF MEMBER. APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER POSITION IMPLIES PERMISSION IS >GRANTED TO RESEARCH YOUR PAST AND RECENT AMERICA ONLINE ACCOUNT HISTORY AND >INFORMATION. > >~:~:~:~ Personal Information~:~:~:~ >**Required** > >First name:Frederick >Last name: Glaysher > > -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 11:24 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: NEW RELEASE DRAFT Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Thanks for your honest evaluation. One recent > update is now needed. I'm leaving it fairly understated: That looks fine. > Are the newsgroups you wanted in the RFD okay? > I've gone and done it again: For some reason I didn't think to look and I forgot to copy the post into my save folder too. (I wonder how many important things I've lost this way?) > Later, when it's time, can you post the pointers to them? I sure will. > I feel Frank Baker had plenty of opportunity to get > involved if he really wanted to. How do you feel about > him? I don't really know anything about him though > Fran has been a lot of help. What should we do? Why not just send him an email asking him? If he says yes, put him in. It doesn't overly matter if he isn't very active. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:19 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Wendy1 ------- Subject: Re: AOL removal of Bahai inspired TOS Date: Mon, Sep 14, 1998 21:56 EDT From: WScott1995 Message-id: <1998091501562200.VAA16035@ladder03.news.aol.com> Fred, This is really interesting. First, you drive everyone up the wall with repetitive announcements of your anti-Baha'i website, then you pout about their reactions and put all their attempts to have you obey the TOS rules on that website to show how nasty the Baha'is are. Well, I have some advice for you: Get a life! You are in serious need of one. How about some counselling? Or maybe just a cup of tea and a good book and chill out! You are going to end up with some serious regrets (if not an ulcer) if you don't deal with your negative and destructive tendencies. I'm very sorry you are this way. The Baha'is need to pray for you so you can be happy. After all, "if we are not happy in this day, for what day are we waiting?" Do you really think trying to destroy the reputations of the Baha'is will make you happy? Or even that it will work? People can see right through your attempts, you know. It is a fruitless exercise. I hope you will seriously consider the consequences of your actions, both in this life and the next. _____________________________ Love and peace, Wendy--------<-@ ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 5:56 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Re: news release & Frank.... Dear Fred, First of all, thanks for inquiring; I appreciate it. Second, yes, I am still interested in serving as a proponent. That said, I feel that I owe you an apology and an explanation. First the explanation: My interest is in the establishment of an open forum and I will argue positively and constructively in its favor. I do not, however, wish to be personally associated with the negative side of the arguments, e.g., the various accusations of censorship or suppression. I would rather let the facts of such cases speak for themselves and let thinking people draw their own conclusions. Don't get me wrong, though; I am not saying that I feel that those cases should not be discussed. Even "thinking people" cannot draw reasonable conclusions if the facts are suppressed. And the apology: I have not been able to achieve the level of "presence" on the news groups as I would like ... and as is necessary if I am to be effective as a proponent. In part, this is because my work as a technical writer keeps me in front of a computer anywhere from 6 to 12 hours a day. While I do indeed wish to support the TRB effort, pressures are often such that I cannot engage in such activity during the workday and I find that at the end of such intense days, a "busman's holiday" on the computer in the evening very close to the last thing I want need. (The past several weeks has seen one of those intense pushes at work.) The result is that my participation is likely to be somewhat episodic -- Between pushes, I will be able to participate; during a serious push, especially as we approach deadlines, I will tend not to be around very much. Regards, -- Frank At 08:36 AM 9/15/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Frank, > >Are you still interested in serving as a proponent? > >Revised news release rough draft below, with a slight allusion >to what Bahais have just attempted on AOL.... > >... ---------- From: Barthaman@aol.com[SMTP:Barthaman@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 5:58 PM To: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM Cc: Barthaman@aol.com Subject: Re: Tony the Tiger with more sugar-coated ideas...please. Frederick, my friend, I understand your bitterness--I've been there too. Let me just appeal to you not to take the Baha'i "pigs" so personally. Ignorant people--brainwashed people--have always behaved like that. Thank God we don't live in the Middles Ages of Europe (thinking the way we do) or we'd already be dead by now. Thank science and the computer revolution that we've now been blessed with the internet and a democracy to protect most of our rights. Thank the chance of birth that we don't live in Iran either. The internet has set people like us free; imagine the freedom we now have to express our true feelings. But with that freedom, let us "speak" with the intelligence of reason that transcends mere name-calling that will defeat our message. That is the challenge I present to you (with sincerity and the utmost humility)--that you say the same things but that you recognize the potential of all of the people you're addressing. Stupid people (I've been one more times than I want to remember) can change in time (life's irony does that) and they will eventually see like we do. Let these same people remember you as a man who criticized them while recognizing their vast potential--who still had some faith in them. Why? Because change takes time. They may have to suffer (in ways unknown to us) like we did. Readers who see a forum leader with too much control (even liberal) while projecting an attitude of contempt, will revolt. Every good leader needs a following of like-minded individuals--a support base. But from where I am (and I'm on your side, don't forget) your tone of voice will betray you. You've got to lighten up. That's why a lot of people aren't listening to you. I've made the same mistakes (probably still do)--I know. As for me, I'm just glad that I'm reaching a few minds about my experiences. I'm not trying to get blood-revenge of any kind--but the revenge of speaking above the heads of the gate-keepers. And it's working. That's my small reward. Little intellectual sword fights, one-at-a-time. I hope I haven't condescended you in any way. I certainly don't mean to. After all, I'm defending you because I respect the substance of your message. You're right. I'll see what I can find out about your desire for forum leader status and touch bases with you again when I do. Warmest regards, Barthaman. ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 11:34 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Nash? Dear Fred: I don't have details, but he was just gradually disgusted by the behavior of the Baha'i Far Right in the UK, and the crackdown on Dialogue magazine appears to have been the last straw for him. cheers Juan ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 9:30 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: rfd Hi Fred, Is it too late to suggest we drop a couple? I am not sure whether these are groups I suggested or someone else, but I find myself having doubts as I read the list now: > soc.religion.sikhism, Too parochial, not very open-minded. > soc.religion.scientology, Better to leave to their own devices > soc.religion.vaishnava, Same as sikhism > alt.religion.islam, I think the Moslems are causing too much trouble for innocent Baha'is to consider giving them more ammo. > alt.religion.vaisnava, As above. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 9:54 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: news release & Frank.... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I'll go with your point of view, but, between ourselves, I feel > uneasy and distrustful.... > Hi Fred, I wouldn't worry. It's much less important to do things perfectly than to find friends and gladden their hearts (after all, this is what we complain about the standard Baha'is NOT doing!). -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 9:57 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: bcca mailing lists Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > What should be done about the bcca mailing lists? > I can't subscribe to them in order to post the pointers. > Can you subscribe? I've mentioned a few times it > would be helpful for someone trustworthy like yourself > to do so. Bahai-discuss last year was used to mobilize > some people against the proposal.... Hi Fred, I'd rather stick to the newsgroups. I am finding that email is a big problem for me as it is, as I have various non-Baha'i lists that I have to subscribe to for other reasons. I am trying to get out of all email discussions if I possibly can at present. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au Speed bumps are installed in the belief that if a road is unsafe at 50, we should make it unsafe at 30. ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 2:00 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: The Bahai technique - May 4,1992 In article <6tqu5i$r0k@news3.newsguy.com> you wrote: : I've stumbled on to a letter I wrote in May of 1992 which, to : my surprise, seems to have already identified "The Bahai technique" : so thoroughly demonstrated here online: : snip : have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now. The usual : stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience : in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of : criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak : honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual Dear Fred, Baha'is have no monopoly on this kind of behavior. Shifting the discussion from the belief system or institutions to the individual raising the questions is a universal way of avoiding unwanted topics. See my post on "relentlessly aggressive cult apologists," immediately inspired by very recent events, but based years of observations of fanatics in a number of different groups. Cheers, Paul ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 6:41 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Greetings, Frederick. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for letting me know this. I'll try to follow the thread concerning this. My opinion is that the best chance for quick effective change was last time. Personally, I have really reached the conclusion that the extreme authoritarianism of the Baha'i leadership combined with its unethical and fundamentalist nature make it more dangerous than Christianity of the Dark Ages. Fortunately, it seems unable to progress in the democratic countries in this form. Nevertheless, I will continue to do whatever I can to ameliorate the situation. This is limited not only by the many other demands on my time, but by the way I played the game, if you'll forgive the term. It was my move, if you will, in response to the apparent innovation (as I presented it) of freedom of speech on the Baha'i Internet (i.e. my reading of the letter from the UHJ which did not instruct Baha'is to vote NO and the fact hundreds of NO voters first time did not oppose second time round) to say now that there was such freedom of speech, then I could disappear from Baha'i cyberspace. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to post new material unless there is new evidence of efforts to suppress freedom of speech. Nothing, however, prevents you from retrieving past posts of mine and placing these into the discussion this time round, if these seem to fit. Also, I would be delighted to receive any and all evidence of attempts by the UHJ since February to suppress freedom of speech. You may send this as personal e-mail. I have moved on to such an extent that I'm not at all up to date on what's going on. I'd be happy to have a look at the Ridvan message from the UHJ or any other recent material from them, if there are indications therein that they are seeking to suppress free speech. Again, many thanks for keeping me informed of this. Thrive Ever, Michael > >Michael, > >The third talk.religion.bahai RFD ought to be posted to >news.groups by about Friday. Anything you might be >able to do would be highly appreciated. > >Hope all is well.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 7:13 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: The Bahai technique - May 4,1992 According to Frederick Glaysher: > > Paul, > > Excellent post on RACAs! Let's see now, where have I > experienced such things.... It's very much the procedure, > technique, if you will, of the literal-minded among Bahais. Hi Fred, Rick is amazingly convoluted. That private post he says should be a basis for my apologizing for calling him hostile asserted that he called me "Mr. Johnson" as a sign of *respect*-- gimme a break! > > I've added similar comments from you in another posts > to the "REVISED - The Bahai Technique." Hope you > don't mind. Put a few more things from you on the web > too at > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Johnson.htm Will check it out. > > Let me say thanks. Thanks for your speaking your mind. > It's only you and a few other people who have had the courage > to do so that keeps me from cracking up under all the > "Bahai love" I'm so often treated to.... That and your > independent corroboration of what's really taking place, > so often, so often.... The technique is to isolate the person who sees the emperor's nudity and thus prevent any comparing of notes among the more perspicacious. The Internet undermines their ability to control what people can say, and that terrifies them. > > Do you have any ideas on how to get trb passed this > time? I'd appreciate hearing from you if you do. The RFD > will probably be posted now this coming week by Friday. Would that I did! Cheers, Paul > > Fred > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: K. Paul Johnson > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc > To: Frederick Glaysher > Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 3:00 PM > Subject: Re: The Bahai technique - May 4,1992 > > > >In article <6tqu5i$r0k@news3.newsguy.com> you wrote: > >: I've stumbled on to a letter I wrote in May of 1992 which, to > >: my surprise, seems to have already identified "The Bahai technique" > >: so thoroughly demonstrated here online: > >: > >snip > >: have experienced it, for nearly sixteen years now. The usual > >: stratagem in dealing with anyone who would express his conscience > >: in good faith is to pretend the Cause is above any kind of > >: criticism whatsoever while intimating that anyone who would speak > >: honestly must have something wrong with him, i.e., his spiritual > > > >Dear Fred, > > > > > >Baha'is have no monopoly on this kind of behavior. Shifting the discussion > >from the belief system or institutions to the individual raising the > >questions is a universal way of avoiding unwanted topics. See my > >post on "relentlessly aggressive cult apologists," immediately inspired by > >very recent events, but based years of observations of fanatics > >in a number of different groups. > > > >Cheers, > > > >Paul > > > > > > ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 1:44 PM To: RBCFAdmin@aol.com Cc: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM; SteveCase@aol.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Faith Forum Application Thank you for responding. Yes, I had written RBCF Mark, or "cc"ed him when I first applied. It's been over a month and no one has heard anything from him and he seems to have completely abandoned any involvement in the Bahai Forum. I do not consider my site anti-Bahai. I have been a member of the Bahai Faith for over twenty-two years and remain a member. I am, however, opposed to the censorship that many Bahais have imposed on both other Bahais and non-Bahais on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere on the Internet. Many of the messages on my web site are from other Bahais who feel as I do. It's important that you understand the complexity of the issues involved and that not all Bahais are lumped together in your decision. Other Bahais on AOL have and do support a change of the Forum Leader. One such person is Barthaman@aol.com, whom you might contact for another point of view on my application and what is transpiring among Bahais on AOL. I'm not sure what "fill it from within" means. In my opinion, and of many other Bahais, the Bahais who may appear more sweet and nice than perhaps some voices on my web site are in reality very much opposed to and actively working against free speech and conscience on AOL and elsewhere. I believe such persons should not be making the decisions of what happens or, just as importantly, it appears, is not happing on AOL Forums. Other Bahais have said on AOL that the folders and libraries have been neglected all of this year and no one seems to care or want to do anything about it. It may be necessary to understand that conservative, even fundamentalist Bahais do not want people of other opinions to be able to upload messages or documents that they disagree with as they would become available to other Bahais and non-Bahais. Looking forward to hearing from you again. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ In a message dated 98-09-18 18:20:35 EDT, you write: << Subj: Fwd: Baha'i Faith Forum Application Date: 98-09-18 18:20:35 EDT From: RBCF Admin To: Fglaysher Dear Fglaysher: First, if you were not contacted within the 48 hour period, I'll apologize. RBCF Mark should have at least written & informed you that the position of Baha'i Area manager was not open. When it does become open, I will fill it from within. This is our forum policy. However, I must admit to a bit of confusion here. You write that you wish to apply for "The Bahai Forum Leader for the Messages Boards and other Baha'i areas," but almost everything I see in this note & at the website mentioned seems to be "anti-Baha'i." Certainly this is not an acceptable attitude for someone even wishing to be a board host in the Baha'i area. Additionally, you mention some concerns with regard to the library & folders? Have you written to the area manager (RBCF Mark) about this? I've not seen anything regarding it prior to this but will look into it. So, to sum up, I'm sorry but the position you have applied for is not currently open & that position (as with each of the other Area Manager positions) is always filled from within the current staff. Additionally, at this time, I cannot even suggest you apply for chat host, board host or librarian due to your apparent "anti-Baha'i" beliefs. If I have misread something here, I would be glad to discuss it with you. Sincerely: Jerry White Forums Administrator Spirituality Forums ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Fwd: Baha'i Faith Forum Application Date: 98-09-18 09:27:21 EDT From: Fglaysher To: RBCF Admin CC: Steve Case I have waited patiently for the response to my application which I was told by the notice would be within 48 hours of submission. I'm concerned that perhaps it has been lost in hyperspace somehow.... Due to the very real neglect of the Bahai Forum by the present Forum Leader I request that AOL appoint either myself or someone else who will handle the responsibility more seriously and fairly, allowing all people of various opinions to post and have a hearing. For the very long history of Bahai opposition to free speech and conscience, please take a look at my web site which documents it for more than the last ten years and has statements by well over 30 or 40 people testifying to their experience with Bahai censorship on soc.religion.bahai and, indeed, even on AOL. On soc.religion.bahai and in general: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm On AOL: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ --------- In a message dated 98-09-09 15:03:43 EDT, Fglaysher writes: << Subj: Baha'i Faith Forum Application Date: 98-09-09 15:03:43 EDT From: Fglaysher To: RBCF Mark CC: RBCF Admin Spirituality Forums Volunteer Community Leader Application (v1.01 - 8/21/98) CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. APPLICANT ALSO AGREES TO HOLD CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION LEARNED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND, IF ACCEPTED, AS AN AMERICA ONLINE VOLUNTEER STAFF MEMBER. APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER POSITION IMPLIES PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO RESEARCH YOUR PAST AND RECENT AMERICA ONLINE ACCOUNT HISTORY AND INFORMATION. ~:~:~:~ Personal Information~:~:~:~ **Required** First name:Frederick Last name: Glaysher Are you 18 years of age or older? 44 Phone #: (248) 608-6424 Street Address: 668 Bolinger City/State:Rochester Hills, MI Zip Code: 48307 Time zone where you live: EST ~:~:~:~ Account Information~:~:~:~ **Required** Your primary screen name:Fglaysher (The one you use most. This is the one we will contact via e-mail.) Master screen name on account: Fglaysher (This is the first screen name created on your account.) Real name of master account holder: Frederick Glaysher (If the applicant is not the master account holder, written permission will be obtained from the master account holder to allow the applicant to use this account for volunteer hosting. We will contact them via e-mail.) Have you had any billing problems or Terms of Service violations on your account? No If so, please explain: ~:~:~:~ Volunteer Team Information~:~:~:~ (You may skip this section if it doesn't apply.) Are you a member of any other America Online team(s)? If so, which team(s)? Who is your supervisor for each team? (Written permission will be obtained from your supervisor for you to join our team.) ~:~:~:~ Training & References ~:~:~:~ (You may skip this section if neither apply.) Have you received any special training online? No If so, describe: Is there anyone we can contact online for a recommendation? Please provide the following information for each reference: Name: E-mail: Fran Baker fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Phone: don't know Relationship: online friend; married to a Bahai ~:~:~:~ General Information ~:~:~:~ Have you been convicted of a felony within the past five years? Never If yes, please explain: If you have a disability, what accommodations or considerations would you need to do this volunteer work? none Where did you hear about the spirituality forum and our volunteer opportunities? Just by surfing around AOL What attracted you to the Spirituality Forum in particular? I'm a member of the Bahai Faith for more than 20 years. Are you applying for a particular position? Yes If so, which position? The Bahai Forum Leader for the Messages Boards and other Baha'i areas. Do you meet the requirements and qualifications sought for this position? I believe so. If no, please explain how you will come to meet those requirements and qualifications: When are you available to volunteer? Mornings Time of Day (please provide this for EST zone): 5:00-9:00am Day of Week: Often most days. How often per month? 90 plus percent of the time; regularly. What skills, training or knowledge do you wish to utilize within the Spirituality Forum? Help reorganize and revitalize it. The upload features, for instance, haven't been used for the libraries since January of this year. The Message Boards need more flexible subject folders; the newsgroups leaves out alt.religion.bahai; several other things like these occur to me right away for improvement. Describe a personal or work situation when you felt or would feel successful: I've always worked with the public, formerly as a college lecturer in English, so I'm good at cooperatining and compromising. I think those are necessary skills, as well as permitting everyone to have a hearing and chance. What training, resources or support do you anticipate needing to do this volunteer work? Fairness. Allowing a variety of viewpoints. Many in the Bahai Faith feel this doesn't always happen and it's reflected on how AOL has been used by Bahais in the past. The present Forum Leader has been very inactive apparently. Please type your name and today's date below to acknowledge the following statement:Frederick Glaysher 9/9/98 "I hereby attest that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge." Signature: Frederick Glaysher Today's Date: 9/9/98 Thank you for taking the time to fill out this application. Please click the "Send" button now. You will receive e-mail from "RBCF Mark" within 48 hours to confirm we have received your application. SCROLL UP ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THIS WINDOW TO BEGIN FILLING OUT THIS APPLICATION ==> >> ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Baha'i Faith Forum Application Date: 98-09-09 15:03:43 EDT From: Fglaysher To: RBCF Mark CC: RBCF Admin Spirituality Forums Volunteer Community Leader Application (v1.01 - 8/21/98) CONFIDENTIALITY WILL BE MAINTAINED FOR ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. APPLICANT ALSO AGREES TO HOLD CONFIDENTIAL ALL INFORMATION LEARNED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND, IF ACCEPTED, AS AN AMERICA ONLINE VOLUNTEER STAFF MEMBER. APPLICATION FOR A VOLUNTEER POSITION IMPLIES PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO RESEARCH YOUR PAST AND RECENT AMERICA ONLINE ACCOUNT HISTORY AND INFORMATION. ~:~:~:~ Personal Information~:~:~:~ **Required** First name:Frederick Last name: Glaysher Are you 18 years of age or older? 44 Phone #: (248) 608-6424 Street Address: 668 Bolinger City/State:Rochester Hills, MI Zip Code: 48307 Time zone where you live: EST ~:~:~:~ Account Information~:~:~:~ **Required** Your primary screen name:Fglaysher (The one you use most. This is the one we will contact via e-mail.) Master screen name on account: Fglaysher (This is the first screen name created on your account.) Real name of master account holder: Frederick Glaysher (If the applicant is not the master account holder, written permission will be obtained from the master account holder to allow the applicant to use this account for volunteer hosting. We will contact them via e-mail.) Have you had any billing problems or Terms of Service violations on your account? No If so, please explain: ~:~:~:~ Volunteer Team Information~:~:~:~ (You may skip this section if it doesn't apply.) Are you a member of any other America Online team(s)? If so, which team(s)? Who is your supervisor for each team? (Written permission will be obtained from your supervisor for you to join our team.) ~:~:~:~ Training & References ~:~:~:~ (You may skip this section if neither apply.) Have you received any special training online? No If so, describe: Is there anyone we can contact online for a recommendation? Please provide the following information for each reference: Name: E-mail: Fran Baker fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Phone: don't know Relationship: online friend; married to a Bahai ~:~:~:~ General Information ~:~:~:~ Have you been convicted of a felony within the past five years? Never If yes, please explain: If you have a disability, what accommodations or considerations would you need to do this volunteer work? none Where did you hear about the spirituality forum and our volunteer opportunities? Just by surfing around AOL What attracted you to the Spirituality Forum in particular? I'm a member of the Bahai Faith for more than 20 years. Are you applying for a particular position? Yes If so, which position? The Bahai Forum Leader for the Messages Boards and other Baha'i areas. Do you meet the requirements and qualifications sought for this position? I believe so. If no, please explain how you will come to meet those requirements and qualifications: When are you available to volunteer? Mornings Time of Day (please provide this for EST zone): 5:00-9:00am Day of Week: Often most days. How often per month? 90 plus percent of the time; regularly. What skills, training or knowledge do you wish to utilize within the Spirituality Forum? Help reorganize and revitalize it. The upload features, for instance, haven't been used for the libraries since January of this year. The Message Boards need more flexible subject folders; the newsgroups leaves out alt.religion.bahai; several other things like these occur to me right away for improvement. Describe a personal or work situation when you felt or would feel successful: I've always worked with the public, formerly as a college lecturer in English, so I'm good at cooperatining and compromising. I think those are necessary skills, as well as permitting everyone to have a hearing and chance. What training, resources or support do you anticipate needing to do this volunteer work? Fairness. Allowing a variety of viewpoints. Many in the Bahai Faith feel this doesn't always happen and it's reflected on how AOL has been used by Bahais in the past. The present Forum Leader has been very inactive apparently. Please type your name and today's date below to acknowledge the following statement:Frederick Glaysher 9/9/98 "I hereby attest that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge." Signature: Frederick Glaysher Today's Date: 9/9/98 Thank you for taking the time to fill out this application. Please click the "Send" button now. You will receive e-mail from "RBCF Mark" within 48 hours to confirm we have received your application. SCROLL UP ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THIS WINDOW TO BEGIN FILLING OUT THIS APPLICATION ==> >> ---------- From: Timothy F. Mulligan[SMTP:tmulligan@Central.UH.EDU] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 3:44 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Censorship at alt.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Rich himself, a month or so ago, was extremely derisive > and insulting to Timothy Mulligan. All the "good" Bahais stood > by and said nothing.... A fine demonstration of Bahai "unity." I wouldn't say that he was derisive and insulting. Snide, yes. Rick twice insinuated that I was "avoiding an issue"; first, he said (or rather, hinted) it was my homosexuality, and toward the end of our ongoing exchange, he said it was the alleged self-evident divine origin of Baha'u'llah's writings. In neither case was he correct. I found this tactic to be more annoying than insulting. What also annoyed me about Richard is the way he moves the goal post. I've seen this in his exchanges with others, as well. He will invariably claim that his opponent makes insufficient or superficial arguments, or that an argument lacks supporting evidence. And he'll just keep saying that, over and over and over. ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 1998 5:06 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Cc: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Greetings, Frederick. If you are well, it is well. Many thanks for your message. I went to the URL you provided and quickly scanned some of the material there. I don't understand the message from AOL if that's who it is. It seemed to me they said after a review of the material they saw no reason to remove the warning, but that this would automatically vanish at the end of six months. Reading the material from Baha'i sources has me realizing how far these are from my current position. The Baha'is have always stressed authority. It is the foundation of the religion. I can recall that I did it myself in the old days. I would say to non-Baha'is who wished to begin with whether or not there was a god, "No, first we assess the claim by Baha'u'llah to be a Manifestation of God; if he is, then, there has to be a god." The covenant, the line of infallibly correct spiritual guidance, makes sense only if there are alruistic and spiritual leaders. Yet, in reality if you have altruistic and spiritual leaders the influence of their lofty thoughts and noble deeds do not require the kind of power over conscience which this covenant grants. When I began to present in very convincing language the case for women on the Universal House of Justice, the men holding and preparing to hold such power saw the threat of my reasoning. It permitted them to allow women on the UHJ, but they did not want that. Also, they did not want the kind of world where the influence of ethical behaviour or principled action could cause a reversal of the ruling of the supreme council. They want a religion whose believers will unquestioningly obey any command soever from the UHJ. How better to identify such believers than to present them with an intolerable belief, and say this must be accepted. Also, power for the guys at the top is better assured through the existence of others, enemies. This is completely contrary to the new way of all-inclusiveness possible to perceive in the Baha'i Revelation. All-inclusiveness is something quite necessary for any effective and ethical adoption of the Baha'i world view by humanity as a whole. Yet, the current members of the UHJ and the other high leaders are not at all interested in this. They seek to rule today a religion, and it is more effective if some number of people can be convinced to obey any and all commands, and if these believers can feel threatened by some evil enemies. I am aware of this mentality in the Baha'i Faith. I do not agree to bolster their hold on power by playing the role of an enemy. They have demonstrated the inappropriateness of their religion to serve humanity. If someday there are women on the Universal House of Justice and an abandonment of the present immoral insistence that any command at all by those at the top has to be obeyed, regardless of morality and conscience, then perhaps this religion will be worthy of consideration. I do not criticize you. The universe is a wonderful place, because it has such vast diversity. Personally, I believe the Baha'i Faith was potentially of great benefit, and that it has withered and died. This goes back further. Actually, religious intolerance is almost wholly the result of dogmatic insistence derived from monotheism. Those guys, Moses, Muhammad, Jesus, who insisted, or whose followers insisted on their behalf, that there was only one god and only one valid spiritual path are wrong, IMHO, both in their theology and in the consequences this had for humanity. Yet, within whatever context you choose to labour, may your efforts be blessed. Be very sure to let me know of any official action by Auxiliary Board Members etc to silence you or anyone else. I am also interested in other attempts, such as Wendy's to silence you. However, it is the official action which has my keenest interst. I will have to reflect very carefully on what action to take in response to open attempts by Baha'i authorities to squash freedom of speech. As you can see from the above, I really have moved quite far from the context of the Baha'i Faith, and I do not really believe it is effective for me to play the role of an enemy to these people, whom I now see as inconsequential, anyway. May this find you very well, and may the future be ever better than we can imagine. All the Best, Michael > >Michael, > >You might find interesting the recent attempt of >Bahais to get me kicked off AOL: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/AOL.htm > >It's all the same lies and deceit.... > > > -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 9:14 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: NEWS RELEASE Dear Fred, I can't think of any changes it needs. Good luck! Paul ---------- From: LaAeterna@aol.com[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 7:40 AM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Ideas for RFD Fred states "no one knows WHO a covenant breaker is..." Well, that is a good point since, as has been repeated here again and again, only the Guardian ever had the right to name ANY, hence all of those named since his death due to their disagreement with the current UHJ or the current second Guardians or third Guardians aren't any such thing--just dissidents. That is the most unbelievably misused label. Nancy ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 10:25 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran Frank Baker; Ron House Subject: RFD - a plea for simplicity Folks, I think we have to strip the RFD of anything controversial or even the least bit insinuating of the possibility of dubious behavior on anyone's part. That is, make it vanilla, let it go, egos begone. Just keep in the stuff about there being no unmoderated discussion of the Faith in the big-8 heirarchy, period. That is the issue, after all. Put forth the newsgroup proposal, but turn the other cheek totally and be forward-looking and optimistic. No web-site, no mention of CBs, just "let's have an unmoderated to go with our moderated." Imagine... Love, Fran PS Happy New Year (what AM I doing here?) ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 10:56 AM To: Fran Baker; Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: RFD - a plea for simplicity I have been working this morning on a suggested version of the RFD that does much of what Fran is suggesting here. I will have it out by the end of the day. (I've got to get some other things done, as well, or I'd get it to you more quickly.) -- Frank At 10:25 AM 9/22/98 -0500, Fran Baker wrote: >Folks, > >I think we have to strip the RFD of anything controversial or even the >least bit insinuating of the possibility of dubious behavior on anyone's >part. That is, make it vanilla, let it go, egos begone. Just keep in >the stuff about there being no unmoderated discussion of the Faith in >the big-8 heirarchy, period. That is the issue, after all. Put forth >the newsgroup proposal, but turn the other cheek totally and be >forward-looking and optimistic. No web-site, no mention of CBs, just >"let's have an unmoderated to go with our moderated." Imagine... > >Love, >Fran > >PS Happy New Year (what AM I doing here?) > > ---------- From: alias borzo[SMTP:aborzo@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 1:59 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: what is new dear glaysher pls say what is new to bahai faith thanks alias ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 6:04 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: 5th ROUGH DRAFT - talk.religion.bahai The following text is offered in an attempt to focus the talk.religion.bahai RFD on the issues that are important to the usenet community. There are other issues that are important to many members of the Baha'i community, but they are generally more appropriately discussed in follow-up and supporting notes than in the RFD itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Begin "5th Draft" --------------------------- -----i.e., this version reflects notes embedded in 4th Draft below------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ] REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create talk.religion.bahai as an unmoderated worldwide discussion group. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All follow-up discussion should be cross-posted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for an open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith within the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies. This newsgroup would complement the existing moderated newsgroup, soc.religion.bahai. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai the opportunity to participate. It is noted that the alt.* hierarchy is less well propagated than the talk.* hierarchy; this has meant that many people who have voted YES on earlier proposals have been unable to join discussions on alt.religion.bahai. This is the third talk.religion.bahai proposal to be submitted. The following information is included for those interested in the growth of participation in predecessor forums. - From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. - From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages were posted on alt.religion.bahai, from people with wide-ranging points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This is an average of 16 messages per day for 179 days or 477 messages a month for six months. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. - From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai, an average of 90 messages per day for 341 days or 2,583 messages per month for nine months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Note that www.dejanews.com cannot pick up all postings, so these numbers are almost certainly somewhat smaller than actual; a conservative estimate would be that 5 percent of messages have been lost from the archive. Please note that despite the lower propagation rate of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, supporting the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the talk.* hierarchy. It is reasonable to conclude that the higher accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Talk.religion.bahai fills the need for a fully open and universally accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. While this allows criticism, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbors, asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their question. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive cross-posting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith. 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" and available for perusal on news.groups or news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human and the following four mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe: jrcole@umich.edu bahai-faith bahai-faith@egroups.com Subscribe: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com or http://www.eGroups.com 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, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated, alt.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.last-days, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.individualism, talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism, talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc, alt.philosophy.debate,aus.religion.christian Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker Proponent: Frank Baker ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------End "5th Draft"----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------Begin "4th Draft" with embedded notes------------------ ----------Within running text, <<>> indicates a deletion---------- ------------while [[[text]]] indicates an insertion. - Frank------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >[This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ] > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > >This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create >[[[to create talk.religion.bahai as]]] an unmoderated worldwide >discussion group <<>>. This is not a >Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details >appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted to >news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. > >Newsgroup line: >talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. > >RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > >Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists >specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A >need exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup >would meet that need. The above paragraph is replaced with the following: The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for an open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith within the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies. This newsgroup would complement the existing moderated newsgroup, soc.religion.bahai. The following paragraph has been added to introduce the discussion of numbers of messages; This is the third talk.religion.bahai proposal to be submitted. The following information is included for those interested in the growth of participation in predecessor forums. >>From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until >March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning >talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. > >>From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages ><<>> [[[were]]] posted on alt.religion.bahai[[[,]]] >from people with <<>> [[[wide-ranging]]] points of >view on the Baha'i Faith<<<, resulting in>>> >[[[. This is an average of]]] 16 messages per day for >179 days<<<, and>>> [[[or]]] 477 messages a month for six months. ><<additional conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have >probably been lost from the archive.>>> During this time period, >approximately 513 different individuals posted on over >1,200 threads. The 5% figure is probably very conservative; DejaNews has stated that their rather aggressive anti-spam filtering policy can catch as many as a third of the messages coming to some newsgroups. I am not going to second-guess their techniques; spam filtering is a difficult problem and I support reasonable efforts designed to help us (as an Internet community) learn to handle it. Clearly, along the way we will sometimes filter too little and some times too much; we may never achieve perfection, but with practice we will certainly improve. Incidentally, the DejaNews comment to the paragraph beginning "These numbers can be verified..." >>From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000 >messages have been posted to >alt.religion.bahai[[[, an average of]]] <<>> >90 messages per day for 341 days <<>> [[[or]]] 2,583 messages >per month for nine months. > >These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com >for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time >periods. [[[Note that www.dejanews.com cannot pick up all postings, >so these numbers are almost certainly somewhat smaller than >actual; a conservative estimate would be that 5 percent >of messages have been lost from the archive.]]] >Please note that despite the [[[lower propagation rate]]] ><<>> of the >alt.* hierarchy[[[,]]] the high rate of posting demonstrates significant >interest, <<>> [[[supporting]]] the ><<>> [[[formation]]] of an unmoderated newsgroup on ><<>> the talk.* hierarchy. It is <<>> >reasonable to conclude that the <<>> [[[higher]]] accessibility >of the talk.* hierarchy >will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. The following paragraph is deleted from this proposed version of the RFD. >As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, >it should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious >Freedom of Conscience" has had more than 3,680 hits on it >since May 8, 1998: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm The following paragraph has been moved to precede the discussion of numbers and now adjoins the closely-related paragraph that begins "The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed..." >The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, >rather than supplant, the existing moderated group >soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to >alt.religion.bahai<<<, on the less well propagated alt.* hierarchy,>>> >the opportunity to participate[[[. It is noted that the alt.* >hierarchy is less well propagated than the talk.* hierarchy; >this has meant that]]] <<<, especially since>>> many people who >[[[have]]] voted YES on <<>> [[[earlier >proposals have been]]] unable to join <<>> [[[discussions]]] on >alt.religion.bahai<<<, their ISPs not carrying the hierarchy. It is >anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along as its users >see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an alternative >unmoderated newsgroup>>>. > >CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > >All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, >teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for >discussion. > >Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. ><<>> [[[While]]] this allows criticism, <<<<>> >it also fully opens the door >for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the >eyes of their neighbours[[[,]]] <<>> asking questions and reading >replies from anyone who is interested in their question. [[[Following >sentence moved to first sentence in paragraph.]]] Talk.religion.bahai ><<>> fills the need for <<>> >[[[a fully open and]]] universally accessible >Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. <<becoming an indispensible part of modern life, such access for >those interested in the Baha'i Faith will, in the future, be >as important a civil right as the right to free speech in non- >electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is clearly in the >spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free press.>>> The following four paragraphs are deleted from the RFD; they are matters for the Baha'i community to resolve internally rather than criteria for the creation of the newsgroup. These and related topics may well be pursued in threads surrounding the RFD, but they do not add to the RFD itself. >As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and >responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of >the facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However, >Shoghi Effendi has addressed this question: > >"First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >upheld." >>From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice >to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of >Guidance, Page: 186. > >Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an >open Internet forum: > >"In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' >participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the >Faith, whether those discussions take place in person or >through some form of electronic communication." >Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 October 1997 U.S.A. > >Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting >procedure in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > >Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms. > >The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith >is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, >large ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, >spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. > >Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers >are encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive >crossposting. Readers may also post articles that have been >rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this >charter. > ><<religion, including supposedly soc.religion.bahai,>>> the >talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any >institutional faith. > >END CHARTER. > >PROCEDURE: > >An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be >considered by all: > >"There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing >of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote >the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that >certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block >voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of >the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme block >voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's practically >assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad reputation for >the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, the Baha'i >*could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. >This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) >amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that >advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is and >the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." Russ's comments are worth noting in supporting discussion, but the "implied finger pointing" of including them in the RFD may be counter- productive; therefore I would delete the statement. If the statement must be included, Russ's first 5 sentences are very well written and stand on their own as a general policy statement. [...snip...] No edits beyond this point. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------End "4th Draft" with notes----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 9:57 PM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: 4th ROUGH DRAFT - talk.religion.bahai > Roger Reini wrote in message <3609edf1.14969388@news.newsguy.com>... > >Once again, I repeat my call for the proposal to be temporarily tabled > >so that, if desired, we can rework it into one that would be more > >acceptable. > > Well, put up a suggested change! Why do you imagine that drafts are being posted? > >On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 16:05:11 GMT, rlittle@nils.com wrote: > >> > >>As I stated previously, I am very favorably disposed to the creation of a > new > >>discussion group on the Baha'i Faith, but this particular proposal is > >>defective for several reasons: it raises extaneous issues not relevant to > the > >>proposed talk.religion.bahai such as web sites which do not abide by the > >>"Baha'i Standards of Conduct" which this very proposal urges readers to > abide > >>by; I have no strong feeling one way or the other about the web site; it is in there only to indicate that there is interest in the faith online. What do others think? > >> it scrupulously upholds the "rights" of those people who have broken > the > >>Covenant of Baha'u'llah Yes. As instructed by the Universal House of Justice. (See quote in RFD.) > >> while at the same time it suggests that Baha'is > >>themselves have in the past and/or in the future will behave in such a > >>fashion as to be denounced for their efforts to censor criticism, becoming > in > >>effect, a subtle form of blackmail. How on earth do you read this into the RFD? Please quote specific passages. > >>For these reasons, and for the Frequently Answered Questions attachment > which > >>I am supposing would accompany the proposed newsgroup, and which is > >>unacceptable for many of the same reasons, but even more so, I am going to > >>vote against this proposal. As you know, Baha'is are required to be good citizens. It is accepted on this medium that good citizenship requires that NO votes should only be cast for technical reasons. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 10:20 PM To: Frank Baker Cc: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker Subject: Re: 5th ROUGH DRAFT - talk.religion.bahai Frank Baker wrote: > > The following text is offered in an attempt to focus the > talk.religion.bahai RFD on the issues that are important to the usenet > community. I think that looks good. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: McKenny Michael[SMTP:bn872@freenet.carleton.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 10:36 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: talk.religion.bahai Greetings, Frederick. Many thanks for your message. I'm having computer problems at the moment. I'll try to be keeping a closer eye on messages, but I'm not using my own computer. So, days may go by before I'm able to read what's sent to me. Touch wood, these problems will be solved soon. I'm glad that really AOL seems to have backed you. I wish you best wishes and complete success in your efforts. All the Best, Michael -- "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 7:32 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE For immediate release. . . Contact: Frederick Glaysher (248) 608-6424 668 Bolinger, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 USA fglaysher@hotmail.com Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai, a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a year and a half because they would not be able to exercise the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a moderated newsgroup. Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of moderators chooses which messages are posted for all subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes even taking place on America Online and soc.religion.bahai now banning any links to any web sites whatsoever, both appear ready for another stormy battle on news.groups, the discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always debated. With three Americans and an Australian proponent, the controversy has become truly international with people contributing from Scotland, England, Canada, Poland, Germany, the Middle East, China, and elsewhere around the world. Many have pointed out that the very nature of the discussion about the Bahai Faith has only become possible because of the new far-flung and open nature of the Internet. One such critic even goes further. Dr. Juan Cole of the Department of History at the University of Michigan, a former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive censorship and distortion of information throughout the religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion, within the faith and without." http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole17.htm A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more than two decades of membership, Frederick Glaysher, one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience," documenting numerous instances of interference with free speech by the moderators of soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is and others have a lot to say on the matter! ---------- From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org] Sent: Monday, September 28, 1998 3:25 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: posted "RFD: talk.religion.bahai" [ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ] On 28 Sep 1998 (Mon), at 8:25:18 GMT, your proposal was posted to the following groups. This list might be different from what was originally requested if the Newsgroups header was over 200 characters long, some of the groups were bogus (ie, superseded Big 8 groups) or not carried by my news server (like defunct alt groups), or other relevant groups were noted and added. news.announce.newgroups news.groups alt.religion.bahai talk.religion.misc soc.rights.human It was also sent separately to the following list: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, September 28, 1998 11:08 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; Frank Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: Fw: posted "RFD: talk.religion.bahai" Dear Fred, I want you to know that I am very uncomfortable with my name as proponent on the RFD as it now stands. Wasn't the RFD supposed to be something we all agreed on? Fran ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@topeka.cjnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, September 28, 1998 11:46 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai THIS IS NOT A REJECTION> THIS IS A QUESTION. Fred, is has been David Lawrence's policy for TALE to post the RFD. Has this changed? I have not been reading news.talk lately. If the policy has changed, I will post this immediately, otherwise, I would expect to see a post like this from David..... Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:25:18 -0400 (EDT) > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > Subject: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > > This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated > worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a > Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural > details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted > to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. > > Newsgroup line: > talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. > > RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > > Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists > specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need > exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would > meet that need. > > From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until > March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning > talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. > > From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have > been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying > points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day > for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since > www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional > conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost > from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different > individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. > > From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000 messages > have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting in 90 messages per > day for 341 days and 2,583 messages per month for nine months. > > These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for > talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time > periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* > hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, > justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith > on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the > easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher > rates of posting by interested people. > > As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, it > should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom > of Conscience" has had more than 3,715 hits on it since May 8, 1998 > representing 26 hits a day for 139 days or roughly 900 a month: > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > > The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather > than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and > will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less > well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, > especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were > unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the > hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along > as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an > alternative unmoderated newsgroup. > > CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, > teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for > discussion. > > Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. > Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be > uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door for > enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their > neighbours by asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is > interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai also fills the need > for the first and only universally accessible Internet forum about the > Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly becoming an indispensible > part of modern life, such access for those interested in the Baha'i > Faith will, in the future, be as important a civil right as the right > to free speech in non- electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is > clearly in the spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free > press. > > As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and > responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of the > facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However, the > Universal House of Justice has addressed this question: > > "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously > upheld." From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of > Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of > Guidance, Page: 186. > > Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an > open Internet forum: > > "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' > participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, > whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of > electronic communication." Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 > October 1997 U.S.A. > > Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure > in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > > Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to > start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on > articles and threads written in more moderate terms. > > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith > is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large > ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and > any postings of a purely commercial nature. > > Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are > encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. > Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. > > As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular > religion, including supposedly soc.religion.bahai, the > talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any > institutional faith. > > END CHARTER. > > PROCEDURE: > > An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered > by all: > > "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing > of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote > the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that > certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block > voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of > the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme > block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's > practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad > reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, > the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. > This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) > amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that > advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is > and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD > stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining > the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion > groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a > three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify > the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > > The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must > pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 > more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an > e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet > Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > "Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or > news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you have > further questions about the process. > > DISTRIBUTION: > > This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, > alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human > > and the following four mailing lists: > > Talisman > Subscribe: jsgreen@umich.edu > > Bahai Studies > Subscribe: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu > Subscribe: jrcole@umich.edu > > bahai-faith bahai-faith@egroups.com > Subscribe: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > or http://www.eGroups.com > > 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, > talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, > uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, > uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, > alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated, > alt.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, > alt.religion.christian.last-days, > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, > alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.individualism, > talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism, > talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc, > alt.philosophy.debate,aus.religion.christian > > Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > Proponent: Ron House > Proponent: Fran Baker > Proponent: Frank Baker > ---------- From: hci@chron.com[SMTP:hci@chron.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:12 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: NEWS RELEASE Thank you for messaging HoustonChronicle.com, the online service of the Houston Chronicle. Although the volume of email received each day means that not every message gets an immediate response, a real person will look at each message. When an individual reply is appropriate, we try to respond personally within 24 hours. Please, also check the online Help area at http://www.chron.com/help. There you'll find answers to Frequently Asked Questions about HoustonChronicle.com as well as email addresses for most of the newspaper's reporters and editors. Or come on inside the Chronicle Building and get the Inside Story at http://webadv.chron.com/i/insidestory/. Here you'll find helpful information about how to place a vacation stop, order a back issue or copy of a photograph, as well as fun facts about The Chronicle. If you can't find an answer to your question there, and you need one in a hurry, you can always reach us at (713) 220-2700. The HoustonChronicle.com Staff ---------- From: The_Boston_Globe@globe.com[SMTP:The_Boston_Globe@globe.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:22 AM To: FGLAYSHER@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Re: NEWS RELEASE This is to confirm that your electronic mail message to The Boston Globe has been received. Thanks for taking the time to write to us. Although we cannot respond individually to all the messages we receive, we encourage you to watch the appropriate spot in the paper if you have submitted a letter or question to a Globe editorial department. Note: Please do not use your reply feature to respond to this message. Mail sent to The_Boston_Globe@globe.com cannot be answered. If you want to reply to the original sender of this message, you must create a new e-mail and address it to the department or party you are trying to reach. For your reference, here are the other e-mail addresses at The Globe: localnews@globe.com story ideas, suggestions circulation@globe.com circulation requests/problems, vacation stops, subscription info classified@globe.com information about placing a classified ad letter@globe.com letters to the editor (please include full name and address) voxbox@globe.com submissions to the Economy section's "Voxbox" column ombud@globe.com comments on our coverage (to Globe Ombudsman) ask@globe.com submissions to "Ask The Globe" list@globe.com event listings for Thursday's Calendar section howwhy@globe.com Health and Science section chat@globe.com submissions to "Confidential Chat" ciweek@globe.com City Weekly section religion@globe.com religion editor arts@globe.com arts editor When sending e-mail to the Globe, please include your full name, address and phone number. Thank you. Other Globe electronic services: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Globe back-issues now searchable on BOSTON.COM! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Globe's back-issues archive is now accessible via Boston.com. Here's how it works: Go to http://www.boston.com and use keyword ARCHIVES ---------- From: Wired News Staff[SMTP:newsfeedback@wired.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 6:29 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Thanks for your feedback! You're receiving this message because you sent an email to newsfeedback@wired.com. Your message has been sent to the people who put together Wired News. Selected feedback is published in our Rants & Raves section. If you want to keep your feedback one-to-one rather than one-to-many, please indicate your preference in a reply to this message. Also, please note that we will include your full name and email address if we choose to publish your message. Someone from Wired may contact you separately to discuss your message further. Your feedback is valuable in helping us produce the best news we can. Thank you. Wired News ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 7:30 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: UVV RFD tracking: talk.religion.bahai Ref: talk.religion.bahai Your RFD has been entered into the UVV tracking database. I will forward a copy of the UVV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) to you within the next couple of days. You can easily monitor the status of all proposals tracked in the UVV database by looking in the "news.groups" newsgroup for the daily posting of the article "UVV: Daily RFD, PQ, and CFV status report". If you have a question regarding the status of your proposal, please remember to check this posting first. There's a good chance that you will find the answer to your question in the article. -- Bill Aten Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@topeka.cjnetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 1:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Most odd, since prior copies where always accompanied by a note explaining or suggesting that he submit a pre-approved copy Most odd. RIck > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: > Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 05:45:43 -0400 > He does post it but in the name of the person > submitting the RFD. It's how he's always done it > in the past. I haven't sent the RFD to you though > it appears that way from the header. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Boatright > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org > Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > > > THIS IS NOT A REJECTION> THIS IS A QUESTION. > > Fred, is has been David Lawrence's policy for TALE to post the RFD. > Has this changed? I have not been reading news.talk lately. If the > policy has changed, I will post this immediately, otherwise, I would > expect to see a post like this from David..... > > Rick Boatright > co-moderator > soc.religion.bahai > > > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:25:18 -0400 (EDT) > > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > > Subject: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > > To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) > > unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai > > > > This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create an unmoderated > > worldwide discussion group called talk.religion.bahai. This is not a > > Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural > > details appear below. All followup discussion should be crossposted > > to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. > > > > Newsgroup line: > > talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. > > > > RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai > > > > Currently, the only newsgroup on the Big 8 heirarchies, which exists > > specifically for discussion of the Baha'i Faith, is moderated. A need > > exists for an unmoderated forum, and this proposed newsgroup would > > meet that need. > > > > From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until > > March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning > > talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. > > > > From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages have > > been posted on alt.religion.bahai from people with highly varying > > points of view on the Baha'i Faith, resulting in 16 messages per day > > for 179 days, and 477 messages a month for six months. Since > > www.dejanews.com does not pick up all postings, an additional > > conservative 5 percent, roughly 150 messages, have probably been lost > > from the archive. During this time period, approximately 513 different > > individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. > > > > From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000 messages > > have been posted to alt.religion.bahai resulting in 90 messages per > > day for 341 days and 2,583 messages per month for nine months. > > > > These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for > > talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time > > periods. Please note that despite the poor propagation of the alt.* > > hierarchy the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, > > justifying the forming of an unmoderated newsgroup on the Bahai Faith > > on the talk.* hierarchy. It is only reasonable to conclude that the > > easy accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher > > rates of posting by interested people. > > > > As a further indication of interest in an unmoderated newsgroup, it > > should be noted that the web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom > > of Conscience" has had more than 3,715 hits on it since May 8, 1998 > > representing 26 hits a day for 139 days or roughly 900 a month: > > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > > > > The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather > > than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and > > will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai, on the less > > well propagated alt.* hierarchy, the opportunity to participate, > > especially since many people who voted YES on the first proposal were > > unable to join in on alt.religion.bahai, their ISPs not carrying the > > hierarchy. It is anticipated that alt.religion.bahai will evolve along > > as its users see fit and will complement talk.religion.bahai as an > > alternative unmoderated newsgroup. > > > > CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai > > > > All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, > > teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for > > discussion. > > > > Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. > > Whilst this allows criticism, including criticism that might be > > uncomfortable or hurtful to some, it also fully opens the door for > > enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their > > neighbours by asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is > > interested in their question. Talk.religion.bahai also fills the need > > for the first and only universally accessible Internet forum about the > > Baha'i Faith. As the Internet is clearly becoming an indispensible > > part of modern life, such access for those interested in the Baha'i > > Faith will, in the future, be as important a civil right as the right > > to free speech in non- electronic forums. Thus talk.religion.bahai is > > clearly in the spirit of Baha'u'llah's injunctions supporting a free > > press. > > > > As Baha'u'llah taught, a free press has both rights and > > responsibilities. Therefore some Baha'is might fear misuse of the > > facility, especially postings by covenant-Breakers. However, the > > Universal House of Justice has addressed this question: > > > > "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously > > upheld." From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of > > Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974. Lights of > > Guidance, Page: 186. > > > > Further, it is permitted for Baha'is to read and post material in an > > open Internet forum: > > > > "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' > > participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith, > > whether those discussions take place in person or through some form of > > electronic communication." Department of the Secretariat, DATE: 14 > > October 1997 U.S.A. > > > > Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette and voting procedure > > in their use of this newsgroup and during its creation. > > > > Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to > > start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on > > articles and threads written in more moderate terms. > > > > The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith > > is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, large > > ASCII graphics, binaries, special-format files, pornography, spam, and > > any postings of a purely commercial nature. > > > > Crossposting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are > > encouraged to redirect followups to reduce excessive crossposting. > > Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. > > > > As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular > > religion, including supposedly soc.religion.bahai, the > > talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any > > institutional faith. > > > > END CHARTER. > > > > PROCEDURE: > > > > An instructive passage by Russ Allbery might fruitfully be considered > > by all: > > > > "There is no official 'list of acceptable reasons for voting'; Nothing > > of the sort is enforced. There's no way of knowing why people vote > > the way they do. There *is*, however, a general *consensus* that > > certain *patterns* of voting constitute abuse of the system. Block > > voting on religious, cultural, ethnic, or political grounds is one of > > the things that is frowned upon. It is unlikely that even extreme > > block voting would cause a result to be overturned, but it's > > practically assured that block voting *will* earn an extremely bad > > reputation for the group doing the block voting. In other words, yes, > > the Baha'i *could* vote down the newsgroup en masse and be successful. > > This would, however, also earn the Faith a reputation (fairly or no) > > amongst those people who followed the proposal as a religion that > > advocates censorship. I think it's in the best interest of Baha'is > > and the Baha'i Faith to avoid that." > > > > The process of creating newsgroups is twofold. First is the RFD > > stage, when someone writes a Request for Discussion (RFD) outlining > > the purpose of the proposed group. The RFD appears in > > news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and other relevant discussion > > groups. Anyone may publicly comment on the RFD in news.groups for a > > three-week period. During the discussion phase, proponents may modify > > the RFD in response to suggestions from posters on news.groups. > > > > The second stage is the Call for Votes (CFV) stage. The proposal must > > pass a Usenet-wide vote with a 2/3 supermajority -- and at least 100 > > more votes in favor than against -- to be created. Anyone with an > > e-mail address may cast a ballot. A neutral votetaker from the Usenet > > Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) conducts all CFV's. > > > > This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation > > guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and > > "Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or > > news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you have > > further questions about the process. > > > > DISTRIBUTION: > > > > This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: > > news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, > > alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human > > > > and the following four mailing lists: > > > > Talisman > > Subscribe: jsgreen@umich.edu > > > > Bahai Studies > > Subscribe: major@johnco.cc.ks.us > > > > h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu > > Subscribe: jrcole@umich.edu > > > > bahai-faith bahai-faith@egroups.com > > Subscribe: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > or http://www.eGroups.com > > > > 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, > > talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, > > uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, > > uk.religion.other-faiths,news.admin.censorship, > > alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated, > > alt.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, > > alt.religion.christian.last-days, > > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, > > alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.individualism, > > talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism, > > talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc, > > alt.philosophy.debate,aus.religion.christian > > > > Proponent: Frederick Glaysher > > Proponent: Ron House > > Proponent: Fran Baker > > Proponent: Frank Baker > > > > > ---------- From: Russ Allbery[SMTP:rra@stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 5:26 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: boatright@cjnetworks.com; UVV; tale@isc.org Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher writes: > I suggest you email him and ask him for an explanation yourself. I don't > really know why or how he works. I'm merely guessing. The copies posted > to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups are in my name yet I did not > post them there either. I'll cc Tale and the UVV so that someone else > can help you. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Boatright > To: Frederick Glaysher > Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 1:55 AM > Subject: Re: RFD: talk.religion.bahai > Most odd, since prior copies where always accompanied by a note > explaining or suggesting that he submit a pre-approved copy Most odd. Greetings, We have soc.religion.bahai recorded in our permissions file as wanting copies of news.announce.newgroups administrative postings mailed separately. Accordingly, when this RFD was posted, I suppressed the introductory text that we add when sending an RFD to a moderated group with no entry in our permissions file at all. Other moderators in the past have disliked repeatedly seeing that introductory text. I apologize for the confusion. The RFD was approved for posting to news.announce.newgroups and a copy was sent to soc.religion.bahai in accordance with the standard approval process for that. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) ---------- From: The Editors[SMTP:editor@clari.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 4:16 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: NEWS RELEASE At 06:55 AM 9/29/98 -0400, you wrote: > > NEWS RELEASE > >For immediate release. . . > >Contact: >Frederick Glaysher (248) 608-6424 >668 Bolinger, Rochester Hills, MI 48307 USA >fglaysher@hotmail.com > >Baha'is Debate Freedom of Speech and Conscience > >The third interest poll is beginning for talk.religion.bahai, >a proposed unmoderated newsgroup on the part of the >Internet known as Usenet. Critics charge members of the >Baha'i Faith have opposed its creation now for more than a >year and a half because they would not be able to exercise >the kind of control they exert over soc.religion.bahai, a >moderated newsgroup. > >Under the Usenet guidelines for discussion groups, if a >newsgroup is moderated, a single moderator or panel of >moderators chooses which messages are posted for all >subscribers to read. There seems to be a classic struggle >between Baha'is and ex-Baha'is of liberal sentiment and the >elements of a conservative orthodoxy. With recent clashes >even taking place on America Online and soc.religion.bahai >now banning any links to any web sites whatsoever, both >appear ready for another stormy battle on news.groups, the >discussion group where the creation of a new forum is always >debated. > >With three Americans and an Australian proponent, the >controversy has become truly international with people >contributing from Scotland, England, Canada, Poland, >Germany, the Middle East, China, Japan, and elsewhere around >the world. Many have pointed out that the very nature of the >discussion about the Bahai Faith has only become possible >because of the new far-flung and open nature of the Internet. > >One such critic even goes further. Dr. Juan Cole of the >Department of History at the University of Michigan, a >former Baha'i who withdrew from the Faith after more than >twenty years, has asserted there is widespread, pervasive >censorship and distortion of information throughout the >religion that belies the gentle and tolerant universalism of >its Founders. Recently, Dr. Cole has said, "The checks >and balances . . . will have to come from public opinion, >within the faith and without." >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/Cole17.htm > >A poet and literary critic who remains a Baha'i after more >than two decades of membership, Frederick Glaysher, >one of the proponents of talk.religion.bahai, has developed >a web site, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of >Conscience," documenting numerous instances of >interference with free speech by the moderators of >soc.religion.bahai and the Baha'i Administration: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Whatever the outcome of the third interest poll, the more >than 30,000 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, a less >accessible newsgroup than the one wanted, shows Baha'is >and others have a lot to say on the matter! > We do not accept press releases directly nor do we write our own news. We rely on a variety of news services for our news. Note that by reaching these services, your release will go much farther than it could just by addressing ClariNet ClariNews subscribers. We receive general news coverage from United Press International, Associated Press, and Agence France-Presse. You can reach these services by writing: United Press International 1510 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 898-8000 Fax: (202) 898-8057 Website: http://www.upi.com Email: webmaster@upi.com (General Information) feedback@upi.com Associated Press 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10020 Tel: (212) 621-1500 Email: info@ap.org Website: http://www.ap.org/ AFP's US Headquarters in Washington DC Agence France-Presse 1015 15th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington DC 20005 Tel : 202 414 0601/02 Fax : 202 414 0600 E-mail: afp@cais.com Website: http://www.afp.com We receive computer and electronics industry coverage from Newsbytes. The address for Newsbytes is: Newsbytes News Service 406 W. Olive St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Tel: (612) 430-1100 Fax: (612) 430-0441 Email: newsbytes@clarinet.com (forwards mail to Newsbytes) wendy@newsbytes.com (Editor-In-Chief Wendy Woods) Website: http://www.newsbytes.com The ".releases" groups currently accept press releases from Business Wire and PRNewswire. To discuss placing a release in their services, please contact: Business Wire's New York headquarters 40 East 52nd Stree, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 752-9600 or (800) 221-2462 Fax: (212) 752-9698 Email: webmaster@buisnesswire.com Website: http://www.businesswire.com Business Wire's San Francisco headquarters 44 Montgomery Street 39th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 986-4422 or (800) 227-0845 Fax: (415) 788-5335 Email: webmaster@businesswire.com Website: http://www.businesswire.com PRNewswire (San Jose branch) 150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 1350 San Jose, CA 95113-2009 Tel: (408) 295-3600 or (800) 423-3445 Fax: (408) 295-3322 PRNewswire has a number of other branches in the US. For contact information for an office in a different city or state or for more information about PRNewswire, please check PRN's website at http://www.prnewswire.com. Sincerely, Alexis Rossi ClariNet Communications ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 5:41 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com; house@usq.edu.au Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Resigning as proponent Hi guys, I am sorry, but I feel I must resign as a formal proponent of the TRB effort. I'm just not comfortable with the longer, more controversial RFD being posted on news.groups and on SRB with my name on it but without my explicit OK. I don't understand what is going on. Love to all, Fran ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 8:31 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: pointers Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > The pointers could be posted now. In addition to a > pointer to news.announce.newgroups, you could include > a link to it on my web site. This was done last time by > Chris Manvell who kept the current copy available > since it drops off news.announce.newgroups pretty > fast. > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > I shall work on this this weekend. I am writing to the moderators of soc.religion.bahai, asking them if they intend to carry the discussion this time. Their reply will dictate the tone and content of my pointers in other NGs. > I'm still concerned about Frank Baker. I don't understand > why he's posted only four or five messages and then > immediately upon my announcing he's become one of > the proponents proposed an entirely and radically > different "simplified" RFD. Really, don't worry about it. The issue should simply be discussed on n.g as you said. I am perfectly willing to accept ANYTHING that retains the unmoderated nature of the proposal. By being extremely accommodating, we will either gather the support we need or we will see the motives of other for what they are. The important thing is not to be impatient. The history of this episode will matter for hundreds of years, and if it takes us yet another six months, it is far better that there be absolutely no excuse for those who are trying to suppress the truth. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 1:07 AM To: Fran Baker Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Resigning as proponent Hi Fran: > > Hi guys, > > I am sorry, but I feel I must resign as a formal proponent of the TRB > effort. I'm just not comfortable with the longer, more controversial > RFD being posted on news.groups and on SRB with my name on it but > without my explicit OK. I don't understand what is going on. > > Love to all, > Fran I am completely mystified. We have been discussing this RFD for ages and I didn't see any disagreement until suddenly about a day before we were due to 'go live', when Frank sent a short version. I understand that Fred thought it should be discussed on news.groups, which might have been premature, but no one is trying to make anyone accept something they don't like. Either version is fine by me, but I cannot see how this long version can be called 'controversial'. We have been tossing that very version around amongst ourselves for some weeks now, without anyone saying anything until very recently. As for the idea that it is 'controversial': the reason it contains what it does is precisely because Baha'is called a short and sweet version controversial during the previous interest poll. They objected to FAILURE TO MENTION the very things that they are now objecting to because they ARE mentioned. Fran, I for one don't see any need to be attached to any particular version of the document. I agree right now to accept any version that retains the unmoderated nature of the NG and its intended subject. So please, Fran, tell us what you want the charter to say. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 2:27 AM Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: To the moderators NOT FOR POSTING --------------- To the moderators: As you know, it is now time for another vote on the proposal for an unmoderated newsgroup, talk.religion.bahai. The charter of your newsgroup is to accept any postings relevant to the Baha'i Faith, not abusive, and not covenant-breaking. I therefore point out that discussion on formation of this new newsgroup is relevant to your newsgroup and I request that, in conformity to your charter, you accept discussion on this topic. This is not contrary to the spirit of the newsgroup system if the posts are also posted to news.groups, as your newsgroup is entirely different from mailing lists (where this discussion should NOT take place). I am very concerned that Baha'is have a full and fair opportunity to discuss this new newsgroup, and, as SRB is the only other Baha'i NG on Usenet, yours is the only place where Baha'is may be reached to discuss this proposal. It would be unfortunate if you continue to block discussion about TRB, as this can have no other effect than to heighten the impression that there is a fear of openness in the Baha'i Faith. I would be grateful if you could reply as soon as possible, as your response will determine how the Baha'i Faith is perceived by the world at large. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 1:35 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: Resigning as proponent Hi Fred, Can you tell me why you posted an RFD (any version) on SRB as the official RFD without discussing this first with the other proponents? If posting an RFD on Oct. 1 was the plan, I didn't know about it. This is what makes me feel that I must dissociate myself. I don't understand why you would do such a thing. Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 01, 1998 10:59 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au Subject: Re: Resigning as proponent Hi Fred, Sorry things have gotten so awkward; I guess I'm just out of my element. When there was so much discussion about CB postings, I started experimenting with simplifying the RFD, but I did not post anything. I decided to post my "plea for simplicity" because it had started to look to me like the best way to go; I also wrote you with this same idea. Then Frank came up with a version that implemented this idea and posted it for discussion on ARB and inadvertently to news.groups, too. After seeing the RFD on SRB, I just felt suddenly very out of touch, naive, and tired out. Perhaps I shouldn't have agreed to be a proponent. I don't want to embarrass you or Ron, but I feel out of place and in over my head now. You can leave my name on the RFD, as I do believe in the free forum; also I am confused enough to lack confidence in my assessment of what is right in this situation. But by the same token, I don't think I can go on being actively involved for now. Your friend, Fran "I'll stand by my testimony, whatever it was." --witness at Watergate hearings "Man is not clever enough for this life, but his strivings are admirable." --Brecht ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 10:42 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: Resigning as proponent Thanks, Fred. Did you ever read "A Civil Action" by Jonathan Harr? I think you might enjoy it very much. The main figure (it is nonfiction) reminds me in some ways of you. I think you might relate to this man and be moved by the ending. Love, Fran Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Fran, > > No problem. I understand. It's a lot of pressure. > I often wonder how, after two years of it, I manage > to go on.... Take a rest. Try and put it all out of > your mind. Things looks better at least for the > moment. You don't have to participate if you > choose not to at this point. Chris Manvell seldom > did last December through February. > > I appreciate your not filing for public divorce at > this sensitive time.... > > Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, > talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) > Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fran Baker > To: fglaysher@hotmail.com ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu > > Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au > > Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 11:55 PM > Subject: Re: Resigning as proponent > > >Hi Fred, > > > >Sorry things have gotten so awkward; I guess I'm just out of my > >element. When there was so much discussion about CB postings, > >I started experimenting with simplifying the RFD, but I did not > >post anything. I decided to post my "plea for simplicity" > >because it had started to look to me like the best way to go; > >I also wrote you with this same idea. Then Frank came up > >with a version that implemented this idea and posted it > >for discussion on ARB and inadvertently to news.groups, too. > > > >After seeing the RFD on SRB, I just felt suddenly very out of > >touch, naive, and tired out. Perhaps I shouldn't have agreed to > >be a proponent. I don't want to embarrass you or Ron, but I feel > >out of place and in over my head now. You can leave my > >name on the RFD, as I do believe in the free forum; also I > >am confused enough to lack confidence in my assessment of > >what is right in this situation. But by the same token, > >I don't think I can go on being actively involved for now. > > > >Your friend, > >Fran > > > >"I'll stand by my testimony, whatever it was." > > --witness at Watergate hearings > > > >"Man is not clever enough for this life, but his strivings are admirable." > > --Brecht > > ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 11:51 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: news release Dear Fred: Yes, I would speak to a reporter. Have her email me for a phone appointment. JRIC ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 02, 1998 4:01 PM To: Barthaman@aol.com Cc: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM Subject: Re: Unpopular voices getting equal time.... Barthaman, Thanks, I really appreciate it. So seldom do I hear rational words of support.... Could you post your message to arb? Since the RFD has been posted to news.groups and the discussion has started for talk.religion.bahai, I don't dare repost it with your permission--for the very reasons you touch on so well.... If you're willing to post it, title it something with AOL in the subject line so that it gets people's attention. I''ve just been through a whole lot of behind the scenes treachery by some Bahais and the timing would be perfect.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm See alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) Subscription & archive: http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ ---------- From: RobertNik@aol.com[SMTP:RobertNik@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 03, 1998 4:01 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: RFD for talk.religion.bahai hi, When do we vote? regards ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 1998 8:21 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai posted Frederick Glaysher wrote: Sorry for the delay here. As I posted, I am in favour of Frank's new charter. I do, however, want to comment on the following points of Fred's. > >The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for > >an open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith > >within the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies. This newsgroup would > >complement the existing moderated newsgroup, soc.religion.bahai. > > The last sentence above should be deleted since it repeats what is > below in the original. Agree. > Frank wrote here in his first posted draft, regarding his deleting > Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ: > > >The following four paragraphs are deleted from the RFD; they are > >matters for the Baha'i community to resolve internally rather than > >criteria for the creation of the newsgroup. These and related > >topics may well be pursued in threads surrounding the RFD, but they > >do not add to the RFD itself. > > I would like to ask him to clarify what he means. These issues seem > to me still unresolved and therefore likely to impact this third interest > poll. What assurances can be given that they won't? I agree with Frank. Let the objectors start up all over again if they wish. There was a fault in the longer RFD: the answers to these issues were in the charter rather than the surrounding explanatory material. The charter is permanent and anything in it should have permanent relevance. So Frank is correct on this point. > This is not a neutral statement: > > >The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any > >institutional faith. > > The original read: > > >As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular > >religion, including supposedly soc.religion.bahai, the > >talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any > >institutional faith. > > As I recall WEEKS went into the drafting of that sentence; > many people contributed to it, Bahais and non-Bahais. Every > word counts. I cannot accept Frank's version since, as > was discussed endlessly during the second vote, neither > soc.religion.bahai nor talk.religion.bahai is or would be an > "official" organ, though many Bahais believe, apparently, > that srb is just that. Either we revert to the original, delete the > passage entirely, or come up with another version all can > agree on. Fred is correct. The original is preferable because this NG should not accept being seen as secondary to SRB. Of the three options Fred gives, I favour reversion to the original, but of course I am amenable to hearing suggestions for something even better. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 04, 1998 8:34 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: pointers Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Cf. this to the original: > > "As is true for other groups devoted to discussing a particular > religion, including supposedly soc.religion.bahai, the > talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any > institutional faith." > > You might recall the long history of all that. It went on for > weeks. Implicit in Frank's version is a criticism of trb. > It has to be said of both newsgroups or not at all in my > view. This is the one point I'll really fight over if I have to.... > Everything else though is fine with me too. > I agree with you here. I somehow overlooked that. > Help calm Fran down. A divorce at this moment > wouldn't be helpful. She and Frank were obviously > planning this move for some time between themselves, > and apparently she's disappointed that it didn't work > as smoothly as she thought it was going to.... > I'll try to! > By the way, excellent note to srb. It should force their > hand, one way or another. Do you think you should post > it to arb so that others know the heat has been turned up? > They've just posted the RFD, with the link to my web site.... > (Can't resist gloating over that!) Hit 'em again, while they're > down, that's my philosophy.... > I would rather wait until they reply (or fail to do so in a reasonable time). If they can be won over, it is much better than scoring another point (and I'll happily congratulate them publicly if they do change). But if not (as is, unfortunately, very likely), then their failure would have to be publicised. > Somebody "higher up" had to have made the decision > that's brought about "Frank's" version. Can't see it any > other way myself. What do you think, Ron? Be that as it may, if we are correct in what we are trying to do (and we are) then any schemes that might exist will fall over. So don't waste energy worrying about it. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 8:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Fwd: Barthaman Re Cal and Burl's dismissal of opposing viewpoints at Talisman Subj: Fwd: Cal and Burl's dismissal of opposing viewpoints at Talisman Date: 10/4/1998 8:56:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Barthaman To: Fglaysher CC: Barthaman Fred, this was an earlier posting--for your records. ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Re: Cal and Burl's dismissal of opposing viewpoints at Talisman Date: 9/14/1998 3:36:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Barthaman@aol.com To: crollins@webtv.net CC: Talisman@umich.edu Yes, Cal--and Burl--you're "off base" from where I'm sitting. Is this posting site just a mirror for our own views, to merely find self-validation and vindication--a security-blanket in the cold winds of reality? I can expect a certain amount of opposition to my views because they stray from the party- line. I'm sorry our differences have to defeat our attempts at communication--the reason I subscribed to Talisman in the first place. I'm sure you're here for the same reason--to learn what others think and try to put ourselves in each others shoes. You've both proved the point that Frederick Glaysher was trying to make regarding the deaf ears of Baha'i apologists (people who are defensive or indifferent to opposing viewpoints). Come on, it's O.K. for Baha'is to be open-minded to dissenting views. We didn't all grow up with the same father and not all children sing the same praises for their father (maybe he treated each of them differently or unfairly). Why do Baha'is, like Christians and Muslims, always have this knee-jerk reaction to circle the wagons whenever someone doesn't quack like a duck? Burl, I wasn't born yesterday--you don't need to remind me about what the writings say and how Baha'is are expected to behave. While you're getting up on your soap box to pontificate to me about the Universal House of Justice-- you may be impressing your friends, but you're not really "listening" to me. Obviously, my experiences with the House and the rest of the administration has been dramatically different than yours. Does this make me a less honest and worthwhile person than yourself, aside from any assumed notions we have about God, Baha'u'llah, or the UHJ. No one has a monopoly on truth-- not in my experience anyway. I think you're deluding yourselves to think someone's wrong about something simply because they sound disrespectful. Was the Bab wrong for disrespecting the authorities of Shiah Islam? Relax. Reversely, you'll recall the story about Abdul-Baha. A Muslim man hated Abdul- Baha for what he stood for, and would spit at him whenever he approached. When Abdul-Baha later heard this man was sick, he went to him and nursed him back to health. Afterward, the disbelieving man asked the Master why he was so good to him after his disrespectful behavior. Abdul-Baha said, "Because you were sincere." You needn't quote me here (the story is from memory) but the spirit of the story speaks volumes about how we mustn't judge another by our own agendas, not having walked in their shoes. Baha'i dissenters, more or less, are wounded souls abandoned by their fathers, so-to-speak. They have been cast out and dismissed or shunned without having had a fair hearing. Consider their pain when the rest of their "family" dismisses them too. Can you know what it's like to be accused of heresy and shunned following a sincere intellectual conflict (inspired by doubt)--after you've sacrificed years in devoted service to your religion? Can you comprehend their sense of betrayal and injustice? This is why disillusioned believers leave their religions each year--while some still hang around, banging on the door now and then, demanding a refund for their lost youth. In time they will have to move on, however, writing the Baha'i Faith off as another lesson in fraud. Mock these people all you want--but for the grace of God, the next dissenter could be you. Don't be too confident, my friend. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb04.mx.aol.com (rly-zb04.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.4]) by air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v49.1) with SMTP; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:36:58 -0400 Received: from twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (twins.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.39]) by rly-zb04.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA11798; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with X.500 id PAA08057; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with X.500 id PAA08055 for talisman-members@umich.edu; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by twins.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.6/2.5) with ESMTP id PAA08022 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:30:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Barthaman@aol.com Received: from Barthaman@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.1) id 7JCWa25245; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3a17bf55.35fd6ed0@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:30:24 EDT To: crollins@webtv.net Cc: Talisman@umich.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Cal and Burl's dismissal of opposing viewpoints at Talisman Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 214 ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: LaAeterna@aol.com[SMTP:LaAeterna@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 8:25 AM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: Fwd: Barthaman Re Cal and Burl's dismissal of opposing viewpoints Barthaman's point about dissenters being lost youth banging at the door brought back to me my own experience with the wonderful Auxiliary Board member who told me that in order to belong to the group-at-large, I would have to publicly denounce my family as heretics (or words to that effect), liars and fools. Then, I would have to shun them. Needless to say, I chose to leave the organization that asked this of me. This is too much to ask of anyone. I saw the "door" slam shut and have been on the outside ever since. Actually, the view out here is pretty nice. One can actually see the forest, when one's view is not obstructed by all the huge, vine covered, oppressively shady trees. Just step back a little :-) ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 10:09 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: RFD posted on news.groups Dear Fred, The current address is pjohnson@vsla.edu Thanks for the info, will look into news.groups. Paul ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 11:42 AM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai posted At 10:24 AM 10/3/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >... >Let me ask Frank to do this, if he would, since it's really his draft. >Let's call it something like "3rd Rough Draft - talk.religion.bahai" >so that we can distinguish it from the preceding ones. Just crosspost it >here and to arb so we see it in full with the revisions. >... Sorry for the delay. I'm working on the revision now and will post it by the end of the day. -- Frank ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 12:42 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology and Dr. Maneck Someone forwarded to me the below. I'm not on AOL and have no idea how to post there; my reply may be freely forwarded. I wish Susan Maneck well. We became friends in the early 1980s and I supported her, speaking well of her in the Middle East and South Asia fields where she was attempting to make a career. I have never harmed her in any way, and have until now practiced a sin-covering eye in her regard. However, she has behaved toward me in an academic setting with dishonesty and deceit in such a way as deprives her of the right to debate me publicly. She spied on me and lied about it. She betrayed confidences in such a way as to cause her academic colleagues to demand and get her resignation from a position she had held. I sympathize with her devotion to the Universal House of Justice. This is after all the body that called upon American Baha'is to pioneer in Lebanon during the Five Year Plan of 1974-1979, a call that I myself, an idealistic new Baha'i, answered in part because of a desire to serve that institution, and despite the danger involved in trying to be there during the beginnings of the Lebanese Civil War. All who become Baha'is wish to believe that the Universal House of Justice is a better sort of institution than the ones we deal with in ordinary life. I am sorry to report, however, that the more I learned of its modus operandi the more it became clear to me that there is something cult-like about its operations. It depends upon behind-the-scenes manipulation and coercion of consciences through using the threat of declaring 'prominent' people covenant breakers merely for expressing views at variance with whatever the orthodoxy happens to be in Haifa at that time. The current nine members are claiming all sorts of powers and prerogatives that are not theirs according to the explicit scriptural texts (as Dr. Maneck herself admitted to me privately), and have acted in a shamelessly dictatorial way toward people like John Walbridge and Steven Scholl, who tried actually to accomplish something with regard to Baha'i intellectual life. I came to the conclusion with the greatest reluctance that the current Universal House of Justice is behaving as a tyrant. As late as 1995 I was arguing that that body was morally infallible. But the evidence of my own eyes cannot be denied. The Baha'i Universal House of Justice differs from the Ayatollahs in Iran only in refraining from using violence to suppress freedom of thought and expression, employing instead threats of excommunication and shunning that can sometimes be just as effective. The UHJ is committed to a vast global apparatus of prepublication censorship that stifles and kills Baha'i intellectual life, and has stunted the growth of what should have been a beautiful and upbuilding new religion. I do not agree that coming to this conclusion means we should 'walk away.' The Universal House of Justice was ordained by Baha'u'llah himself. It is necessary to the Baha'i faith. Even those of us who do not feel we can remain within the Baha'i framework given the current system of tyranny must hope that it can be perfected even if it does not start out perfect. The Universal House of Justice needs to be better than it is, to get back on track, to begin operating more democraticaly, as Baha'u'llah himself envisaged. I do not criticize it to condemn it, but in hopes of drawing its attention to deficiencies in the way things are currently done. Just as good writing is produced by critique and re-writing, good administration is produced by public critique and rethinking of processes. The Universal House of Justice is not beyond redemption. It can yet contribute to tolerance and loving-kindness in the way Baha'u'llah intended. I myself have felt nothing from it but hatred, threats of shunning, and bullying. But it can be better than that. Knee-jerk defenses of its intolerable actions such as those of Dr. Maneck only impede that improvement process. Dr. Maneck's message below is full of misrepresentations which I believe are willful. All the academics I listed who left the faith have in fact left, as she well knows and has proclaimed loudly in the past, and the weird way in which some people are entered and kept on the rolls without their initiative (and even simultaneously declared 'not Baha'is' by the UHJ) while others, like Michael McKenny, are thrown off the rolls against their wills because of their private email correspondence, only underscores how arbitrary and even cult-like contemporary Baha'i administrative practice is. All the academics who left, left because they were at one time or another victims of administrative repression. The person Maneck claims simply lost his faith in God was once reported to his National Spiritual Assembly by an ABM for protection because of an academic talk he gave on the faith, and this began his disillusionment with the Baha'i administration. Baha'i intellectuals don't just 'lose their faith in God' or 'lose their faith in Baha'u'llah' all on their own. They are pushed out by the narrow-minded and authoritarian personalities who so dominate the Baha'i administrative machinery. People are sensitive, especially about their private religious beliefs, and what the hate-filled Baha'i rightwingers have discovered, to their delight, is that it is pretty easy to so injure the feelings of a liberal-minded person that you drive him or her out of the faith and destroy his or her belief. No one who hasn't felt the betrayal of having one's own religious officials suddenly turn on one and put a knife in one's back can imagine what it feels like. I have never censored anyone. The lists I set up on my own, such as talisman@umich.edu and irfan@umich.edu, are unmoderated and there is no mechanism whereby anyone can be prevented from sending messages to those addresses. We were also involved a purely academic list, where messages are sometimes rejected because they are not formulated according to the norms of academic discourse as opposed to statements of personal faith. The Baha'i covenant can be and is discussed by the academics (who include many non-Baha'i professors of many faiths from a number of countries) on this list, but only if it is studied, not if it is proclaimed as a method of silencing some voices or foreclosing some avenues of investigation--which is precisely the way Dr. Maneck sometimes did wish to use it. The person Dr. Maneck claims was censored for pro-Nixonian views was in fact declined the opportunity to post because he was not a member of the list and did not have the credentials to become a member of the list. That he continued to support the innocence of Richard M. Nixon after all the impeachment proceedings had begun and the Woodward and Bernstein investigations were published, however, also did suggest to me that he may be a crank. I'm afraid Dr. Maneck's formulation of these issues is such as to suggest the same thing to me about her. I did not remove Dr. Maneck from her position at the academic email list in question, although it is true that I took her to its Editorial Board over her disruptive behavior at the insistence of the other editors. It is also true that at the same time she attempted to have *me* fired. In the end, she voluntarily resigned her position after she accidentally let a major indiscretion be known to its editorial board. It is monstrous that she should accuse me now falsely in this regard. Sincerely Juan R. I. Cole Professor Department of History University of Michigan ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 8:49 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai posted Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron House > To: Frederick Glaysher ; Fran Baker > ; Frank Baker > Date: Sunday, October 04, 1998 9:15 PM > Subject: Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai posted > > >Fred is correct. The original is preferable because this NG should not > >accept being seen as secondary to SRB. Of the three options Fred gives, > >I favour reversion to the original, but of course I am amenable to > >hearing suggestions for something even better. > > I would now prefer deleting any such passage entirely. Leave > the RFD completely neutral and technical. There would then > be no pretext on which Bahais could justify voting NO.... Fine. I recall that this went in because some objected that without a comment the NG would appear to be an arm of the faith. This objection may be raised again. If it does, we can bung it back in again. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 11:33 PM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Dear Frederick, Ron, and Fran, Here is the revised RFD. I think this revision addresses everything where a consensus has been achieved. The only thing that I know is not covered is the list of newsgroups in which pointers will appear. Fran and I propose the following: soc.religion.unitarian-univ, soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis, soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism, soc.religion.quaker, talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage, uk.religion.misc, uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.atheism, talk.philosophy.humanism, aus.religion.christian I am going to sleep on this version overnight, look at it again first thing in the morning, then post it. Unless I hear from you before posting, I will post it with the current list of newsgroups; I would think that we could then hash that out fairly quickly without impacting the rest of the RFD. Regards, -- Frank ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Begin Draft --------------------------- ------- 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ] REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create talk.religion.bahai as an unmoderated worldwide discussion group. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All follow-up discussion should be cross-posted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for an open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith within the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai the opportunity to participate. It is noted that the alt.* hierarchy is less well propagated than the talk.* hierarchy; this has meant that many people who have voted YES on earlier proposals have been unable to join discussions on alt.religion.bahai. This is the third talk.religion.bahai proposal to be submitted. The following information is included for those interested in the growth of participation in predecessor forums. - From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. - From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages were posted on alt.religion.bahai, from people with wide-ranging points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This is an average of 16 messages per day for 179 days or 477 messages a month for six months. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. - From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai, an average of 90 messages per day for 341 days or 2,583 messages per month for nine months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Note that www.dejanews.com cannot pick up all postings and sometimes splits long postings into 2 or more shorter ones; while they may not be exact, these numbers offer a clear picture of the level of activity. Please note that despite the lower propagation rate of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, supporting the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the talk.* hierarchy. It is reasonable to conclude that the higher accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Talk.religion.bahai fills the need for a fully open and universally accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. While this allows criticism, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbors, asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their question. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith is strongly discouraged. Also discouraged are personal messages, HTML-formatted postings, large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely commercial nature. Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive cross-posting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by a neutral vote taker. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human and the following four mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe: jrcole@umich.edu bahai-faith bahai-faith@egroups.com Subscribe: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com or http://www.eGroups.com 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, talk.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.newage, uk.religion.misc,uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths, alt.atheism,alt.atheism.moderated, alt.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.last-days, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.individualism, talk.philosophy.misc,alt.activism,talk.atheism, talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.philosophy.debate,aus.religion.christian Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker Proponent: Frank Baker ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------End Draft----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- From: Robin M Peters[SMTP:tx200@juno.com] Sent: Monday, October 05, 1998 8:31 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: RFD for talk.religion.bahai Thanks for letting me know, and I apologize for taking so long to reply. Robin Peters ________________________________________________________________ Get secure free e-mail that you don't need Web access to use from Juno, the world's second largest online service. Download your free software at http://www.juno.com/getit.b.html. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:36 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House; Fran Baker; Frank Baker Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Yes, I do not plan to alter the newsgroup listing without everyone's input. I realize this morning that my statement below in that regard may not have been clear -- Where I said "...I will post it with the current list of newsgroups...," I meant with the list that appears currently in the draft rather than the list in the upper portion of the message. Incidentally, I neglected to mention in last night's message that I have deleted two newsgroups from the list in the body of the draft. There seemed to be consensus that news.admin.censorship could go and there were duplicate entries of talk.philosophy.misc. Regards, -- Frank At 07:48 AM 10/6/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Frank, > >In regard to the newsgroups, I believe you should >wait until you hear from Ron on whethering srb >is going to permit discussion on it or not. He had >mentioned that was a crucial point to him that >would affect which groups he'd agree to drop. >I feel the same way. > >I haven't read the whole thing yet but will shortly. > >Fred > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Baker >To: Ron House ; Frederick Glaysher >; Fran Baker ; Frank Baker > >Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 12:35 AM >Subject: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai > > >>Dear Frederick, Ron, and Fran, >> >>Here is the revised RFD. I think this revision addresses >>everything where a consensus has been achieved. >> >>The only thing that I know is not covered is the list of >>newsgroups in which pointers will appear. Fran and I propose >>the following: >> soc.religion.unitarian-univ, soc.religion.eastern, >> soc.religion.gnosis, soc.religion.hindu, >> soc.religion.paganism, soc.religion.quaker, >> talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage, >> uk.religion.misc, uk.religion.interfaith, >> uk.religion.other-faiths, talk.philosophy.misc, >> talk.atheism, talk.philosophy.humanism, >> aus.religion.christian >> >>I am going to sleep on this version overnight, look at it again >>first thing in the morning, then post it. Unless I hear from >>you before posting, I will post it with the current list of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>newsgroups; I would think that we could then hash that out ^^^^^^^^^^ >>fairly quickly without impacting the rest of the RFD. >> >>Regards, >>-- Frank >>.... ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 9:50 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick, There have been a lot of exchanges on this whole thing. I certainly understand forgetting any one of them! I have the advantage in that I went through the exchanges one by one as I was doing the revision. Those two paragraphs were changed at Kathy Pascoe's suggestion in a posting on 29 September and with your concurrence in a posting the next day. -- Frank > on 30 Sept 1998, Frederick Glaysher posted: > ..... > >on 29 Sept 1998, Kathy Pascoe wrote > >>..... > >> PROCEDURE: > > > >I'd like to see the first two paragraphs struck in favor of the > >boilerplate language ordinarily used, which follows (stolen from the > >SHEM proposal; thanks Joe). > > > >: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase > >: of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup > >: should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue > >: for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this > >: proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For > >: Votes (CFV) will be posted by a neutral vote taker. Please do not > >: attempt to vote until this happens. > >: > >: All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. > > Works for me. No problem. > ..... At 08:12 AM 10/6/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Frank, > >I don't understand why you've changed the first paragraph and >then second paragraph/sentence below. > >I don't see anything significant there but this is the kind of thing >the news.groupies will argue over for ever. I'd suggest leaving >the two original paragraphs alone. No one I can recall asked >for changes here. Why invite 'em.... > >>PROCEDURE: >> >>This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase >>of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup >>should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue >>for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this >>proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a >>Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by a neutral vote taker. Please >>do not attempt to vote until this happens. >> >>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. >> >>This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation >>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and >>"Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or >>news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you >>have further questions about the process. >> >>DISTRIBUTION: > >Again, distribution should remain as was until >we hear from srb and Ron. > >Fred > > ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 11:21 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai I posted the draft to ARB and NG about a half-hour ago. I have seen it already on ARB, but not yet shown on NG. We'll see how long it takes the posting to propagate. Cheers, -- Frank At 12:10 PM 10/6/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Okay, no problem. My mistake. Hey, no problem. >You might post a note or something to news.groups >just to let people know there you're working on it >and it will soon be forthcoming. > >Thanks. > >Fred > >[...snip...] ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 11:23 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; Ron House Cc: Frank Baker Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai I posted the draft to ARB and NG about a half-hour ago. I have seen it already on ARB, but not yet on NG. We'll see how long it takes the posting to propagate. Cheers, -- Frank ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 11:30 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; Ron House Cc: Frank Baker Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai And now I see it on NG. >Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 11:23:27 -0500 >To: "Frederick Glaysher" , "Fran Baker" , "Ron House" >From: Frank Baker >Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai >Cc: "Frank Baker" > >I posted the draft to ARB and NG about a half-hour ago. >I have seen it already on ARB, but not yet on NG. >We'll see how long it takes the posting to propagate. > >Cheers, >-- Frank > ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 10:26 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: pointers? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Can't find any pointers showing up yet on > newsgroups. Did you post them? Can't remember. I was waiting to hear from srb. If they don't reply soon, or if they say no, then the text of the pointers will be severe. Otherwise, I'll drop half of the ngs and just post a short note. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 10:34 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd rfd posted Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I don't have any problems with the way the RFD > is now. Frank has deleted the only passage that > really bothered me. I'll support you on any or all of the > newsgroups you want to keep in for pointers. I assume > no word yet from srb.... Not yet. I was thinking of waiting until next Monday. Does that seem a reasonable time limit for you? If nothing comes back by then, I'll be talking embryonic theocracies, loss of freedom of speech, etc. But if they are amenable, it'll just be "Here's a newsgroup proposal you might want to look at." > The new tactic seems to have become overwhelm > with "love." It has me worried but I'm trusting your > judgment on this. Let me know what you think.... All > the usual fanatics seem to be suddenly vying with > each other on arb to kiss my ass.... If it amuses them... :-) > What do you think about my suggesting Frank post, > if the news.groupies will let him since I posted the > first RFD, this 3rd one in his name to > news.announce.newgroups? It would then go onto > srb with his name too. That doesn't bother me. My > name is still at the end of it as a proponent. I wouldn't worry about that one way or the other. The thing that must be made to count is the substance of the argument, which, as we know, is sound. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 8:22 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole mutilation theology and Dr. Maneck Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole mutilation theology and Dr. Maneck Date: 10/6/1998 10:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981006105904.09665.00011818@ng92.aol.com> Juan wrote: > She spied on me and lied about it. I have not lied about anything but I can document a number of Dr. Cole's slanderous lies which is the primary factor for my having distanced myself from him. It is true that after I realized that Juan was manipulating H-Bahai to serve his own ideological agenda and he had made threats to have me removed as moderator for refusing to cooperate with this effort, I did present evidence of this to a senior member of the Institution. But Dr. Cole had demanded my resignation long before any "indiscretion" became known. It should also be pointed out that *all* the members of the editorial board who voted to expel me from H-Bahai and who Juan terms "academic colleagues" notwithstanding the fact that a number are not academics at all, were hand-picked as members by Dr. Cole himself! Dr. John Walbridge had argued that H-bahai was basically Juan's list and that he should therefore be able to run it as he wishes, not withstanding the fact that H-Bahai is funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities and therefore your tax dollars. Anyone who has listened to Dr. Cole for any length of time has heard is constant refrain about the "sacrifices" he has made to fill difficult pioneering post. A careful examination would demonstrate that nearly all of those posts served to further his own academic career. > All the academics I listed who left the faith have in fact >>left, as she well knows and has proclaimed loudly in the past, and the >>weird way in which some people are entered and kept on the rolls without >>their initiative (and even simultaneously declared 'not Baha'is' by the >>UHJ) Now that is interesting. In other posts Dr. Cole has argued that this person was "kicked" out of the Faith by the House. Now he says that he had left it of his own accord and somehow got on the rolls agains. The person Maneck claims simply lost >his faith in God was once reported to his National Spiritual Assembly by an >ABM for protection because of an academic talk he gave on the faith, and >this began his disillusionment with the Baha'i administration. It is quite possible that such an incident happened, but this was *many* years before this person's resignation of slightly over a year ago. At the time he posted an announcement on an internet list explaining the reasons for his resignation and made it quite clear that it was not being done out of protest. This person had not had *any* recent run-ins with the Administration during the period proceeding his resignation. His postings on the list never attacked the Institutions but only raised difficult questions which were expressive of his personal doubts. Our Institutions do not persecute people for their doubts. The truth is that I had been more openly critical of the Baha'i Administatration in the months proceeding this person's resignation than he had been. Far from being met with censorship and repression on the part of the Institutions, when I eventually was contacted by a Counselor it was with the sole intent of calming my fears and opening the lines of communication. Dr. Cole knows full well that I never used the Covenant to squelch discourse on H-Bahai. Certainly no post was ever rejected on such grounds by me. However, Dr. Cole objected to issues of the Covenant even being raised in order to make intelligible certain actions on the part of the Institutions. This is something I can easily document. >>The person Dr. Maneck claims was censored for pro-Nixonian views was in >>fact declined the opportunity to post because he was not a member of the >>list and did not have the credentials to become a member of the list. This person, who currently serves as an Auxiliary Board Member, credentials were equivalent to others who had been allowed list membership. Dr. Cole's. He was clearly excluded for ideological reasons and because Dr. Cole found his normative presentation of the Covenant to be unacceptable. Dr. Susan Maneck Asst. Prof. of History Stetson University ---------- From: Fglaysher@aol.com[SMTP:Fglaysher@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 8:24 AM To: fglaysher@Hotmail.com Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole mutilation theology and Dr. Maneck Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole mutilation theology and Dr. Maneck Date: 10/6/1998 2:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981006142558.15485.00011495@ng68.aol.com> Dear friends, There are a couple of more points I wish to make in regards to Dr. Cole's post. If he does not wish to engage in a public confrontation with me on these issues, he probably should ask Mr. Glaysher not to forward his posts to this forum. I will not sit back quitely and watch slanderous statements made in regards to matters where I know the actual facts. Dr. Cole's depiction of the operation of the Universal House of Justice is nearly identical with Ahmad Sohrab's critique of the Guardian more than a generation ago. Like Sohrab, Dr. Cole is not arguing against the legitimacy of the Institutions as they have been established in accordance with the Will and Testament, rather he is arguing that, contrary to 'Abdu'l-Baha's promise of divine guidance to those Institutions, that they have become repressive and unjust. He urges the kind of power politics current in most governments be utilized over the process of consultation by which democratic decisions are reached within the Baha'i community. In suggesting that we bring about change by means of "public critique" against the House he is recommending a course which is in direct violation of the to the provisions of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha which states: "That which this body, whether unanimously or by a majority doth carry, that verily is the Truth and Purpose of God Himself. Whoso doth deviate therefrom is verily of them that love discord, hath shown forth malice and turned away from the Lord of the Covenant." Dr. Cole's problem is not with the Universal House of Justice, it is with the Covenant. Susan Maneck ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 9:56 PM Cc: baker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: TO THE MODERATORS NOT FOR POSTING. I am wondering how your discussions are going on my request that you accept discussion on the formation of talk.religion.bahai. I must now post pointers in other newsgroups. As you know, there are 27 newsgroups listed in the draft RFD for TRB. I would greatly prefer to keep this discussion as much as possible for Baha'is only, so that Baha'is can have their say without the world looking on, so to speak. Therefore, if SRB will carry this discussion, it will be possible for me to eliminate most of those 27 newsgroups from the list to which pointers will be addressed. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if I hear from you by MONDAY 12 OCTOBER, which is the last date to which I can defer taking timely action on this issue. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:14 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; Frank Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Fred, Ron, Frank, I think we're gonna do it this time! Eeek, I'm so excited!!! Love, Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:48 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Susan Maneck Fred, What has happened to Susan? Is she drowning in a sea of hikmat? --Fran ---------- From: Eric D. Pierce[SMTP:pierceed@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu] Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 12:54 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: [bahai-faith] automatically conferred radical sainthood/ was: AOL (mutilation theology, Juan and Susan's fights, etc) date: friday october 9, 1998 5:15pm california to: a.r.b. (via bahai-faith@makelist.com) from: eric d. pierce re: automatically conferred radical sainthood (was: mutilation theology, Juan and Susan's fights, etc.) Hello, Testing my new newsgroup posting software, sorry for any duplication. If this gets through: as far as I can tell, this discussion is a nearly perfect example of barren liberal/conservative debate and the limits of overheated binary argumentation. It is certainly possible to see some evidence of constructive progressive and anti-establishmentarian thought in the Baha'i community without mindlessly buying into the kind of reactionary overstatements made by Fred and Juan. The main problem I have with Fred's typical posting is that he uses twisted and paranoid arguments to imply that anyone that does not play his mind games is a conservative or fundamentalist, and likely part of a conspiracy organized by evil Baha'i administrators. While it is probably true in many cases that Fred and Juan's worst critics are reactionary conservatives, there are lots of legitimate arguments that liberals, progressives, non-conformists and anti-establishmentarians could put forward against Fred and Juan's positions. To do so however, usually risks attracting some rather unpleasant and "over the top" responses. The history of dysfunctionalities and problems with american Baha'i intellectual radicalism are considerably more complex than Fred is probably capable of grasping, or Juan is usually willing to admit or treat objectively. While it does frequently require a lot of intestinal fortitude to speak out against the Baha'i establishment, it is quite possible to so in a nuanced, constructive manner. What I've seen is that some people feel that sainthood should be automatically conferred upon themselves merely because they engage in extreme radicalist arguments. It appears that they do so out of a need for personal validation within radical cliques. In such contexts, the fallout of tactical mistakes by radicals are retroactively polished up in the best tradition of historical revisionism and presented as examples of the establishment's oppressive "techniques". (note: I would like to emphasize that I am not arguing that there is an absence of institutionally abusive behavior in the Baha'i community. I have been screamed at and spit on by conservatives and fundamentalists in public, and had bogus investigations launched against me by narrow minded "mainstream" Baha'is.) A sure sign of dysfunctional radicalism is that anyone trying to put forward any substantial critique of such stilted radical attitudes is accused of being a sell out. I think it is quite hypocritical of people like Juan, K. Paul Johnson, Fran Baker and others to talk out of one side of their mouth about the downside of "mainstream" Baha'i shunning while they use the other side to put down and impugn the motives of other Baha'i thinkers and non-conformists that disagree with exclude those other thinkers from a circle of radical "acceptability". While Juan talks about Baha'i administrators being like Torqemada, one wonders if he had his way, there would be a Maoist-like cultural revolution in the community to purge it of these who have "offending" views at variance with the usual brand of off the shelf failed leftist ideology. Based on previous experience, I would assign a 97.375% probability that Fred will respond to this message by 1) accusing me of being part of a plot to "get him", or 2) will post this message on his web site along with some twisted commentary indicating that this message is an example of some attempt to silence him. One point of fact: Fred *was* kicked off the talisman2 email list in the early days for insulting people. I was one of two people who Juan asked to volunteer as omsbudsmen in the early and mid talisman2 days. Eric D. Pierce Sacramento, California - USA work email: PierceED@csus.edu home email: EPierce@ns.net -------------------------------------- Frederick Glaysher wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 1:39 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] mutilation theology and Dr. Maneck > >Someone forwarded to me the below. I'm not on AOL and have no idea how to >post there; my reply may be freely forwarded. > ... >Juan R. I. Cole --------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 9:29 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > When the last few concerns are ironed out, it seems to me too > that perhaps Frank should post his draft of the RFD to > news.announce.newgroups if there's no rule or something against > another proponent doing it and srb agrees to allow discussion of > the proposal which it has banned now for more than a year and a > half.... Of course, I posted the first one. I don't see why another > proponent wouldn't be able to do it too. My name is at the end as > a proponent, and, if srb is willing to meet those in favor of trb > half way, I would have no objection to Frank sending it in. > > It would provide srb and other Bahais with a way of seeing the > proposal in a light less clouded with Bahai hatred of me.... > Since they always seem to need a scapegoat.... > > I am willing to give them this chance to redeem themselves.... > I don't see why one proponent rather than another shouldn't be able to post the RFD. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 9:29 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > When the last few concerns are ironed out, it seems to me too > that perhaps Frank should post his draft of the RFD to > news.announce.newgroups if there's no rule or something against > another proponent doing it and srb agrees to allow discussion of > the proposal which it has banned now for more than a year and a > half.... Of course, I posted the first one. I don't see why another > proponent wouldn't be able to do it too. My name is at the end as > a proponent, and, if srb is willing to meet those in favor of trb > half way, I would have no objection to Frank sending it in. > > It would provide srb and other Bahais with a way of seeing the > proposal in a light less clouded with Bahai hatred of me.... > Since they always seem to need a scapegoat.... > > I am willing to give them this chance to redeem themselves.... > I don't see why one proponent rather than another shouldn't be able to post the RFD. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 9:32 PM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > hyle@iname.com wrote in message <6vf93r$8mr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > > >I also find that the RFD does not do justice in explaining itself to an > >audience who have not been versed in the srb/arb/trb debate. It took me > quite > >a bit of time to research the controversy behind this proposal, and I had > more > >questions in my mind after reading the RFD, than it could explain. > Apparently > >the RFD is geared to existing subscribers of *.bahai and is not intended to > >attract a wider audience. I believe this may be by design, but I question > the > >wisdom behind it. > > Well, much of what helped people acquire an understanding > of the issue has now been stripped from the RFD by mutual > consent in hope of a more neutral, technical proposal. True, but I think we proponents made a mistake in putting in the charter material that would have been better in the surrounding rationale. The important thing now is to ask those who oppose: What is wrong with the CHARTER? If you can't find any problem with the charter, then please support the NG. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 9:33 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Frederick Glaysher; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; Frank Baker Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Fran Baker wrote: > > Fred, Ron, Frank, > > I think we're gonna do it this time! Eeek, I'm so excited!!! > > Love, > Fran I think you may be right Fran! -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 1998 9:57 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > This to my mind is insincere and mocking.... But some people have very emotional makeups, and if Fran is one of these, it would be terrible to make a misjudgment. It is far better to continue to think the best and hope that it comes to pass. If indeed there is a plan behind the scenes, then God will bring it to light and it will be an object lesson for all in the future. As I said before, getting the newsgroup approved is less important than doing it the right way. Any faults must be entirely on the part of those opposing free speech; any subterfuges must be theirs, so that in future there should be absolutely no doubt. God is giving these people one final chance to choose the principles Baha'u'llah stood for over the ones they have chosen out of fear and lack of faith. If indeed we are being outmaneouvred, it is God's will that they condemn themselves for all to see. We will get this passed sooner or later. If it fails this time, I will spend the next six months telling this story far and wide on every newsgroup that is remotely relevant, and we'll get it passed. But they will have no excuse. > No one's commented on our offers to remove > pointer newsgroups and allow Frank to post the > RFD. Another cause for concern. They're > obviously in huddle somewhere or awaiting > instructions is how I read it. Can't you sense too > things are being discussed and decided behind > the scenes? It's become too orchestrated, too > "unified." It doesn't matter. If we believe in God (and we do) then we have to let the drama play itself out to the end. I know you probably feel very impatient, having been at this longer than me, but there is no point in saying anything and giving them an excuse, because so far, there is nothing at all that we have done that can be criticised. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Juan Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu] Sent: Monday, October 12, 1998 11:31 AM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] on the bites on my back I guess I'm distressed that I am being libelled on an email bulletin board somewhere at AOL, in my complete absence and with no opportunity of reply or even being cc'd by the persons discussing me! Unlike the Baha'i administration I don't have regularly employed spies and therefore it was entirely possible that I might not even have seen these scurrilous attacks! I have been accused of being 'status seeking.' This is a typical way for anti-intellectuals to dismiss anyone who dares speak. Meanwhile, the people who are *really* status seekers are considered humble and self-effacing! Even denouncing intellectuals is itself a way of getting status in the Baha'i community. As for myself, if I had wanted status I would have allowed myself to be silenced and 'turned' by the high-up cultists in the adminstration; they intimated that that way I might even have had a shot at membership on the NSA. By speaking out against injustice I have lost all status in the Baha'i community, being completely humiliated as an apostate and critic. I myself publicized the false and scurrilous ITC/UHJ charge against me of 'making statements contrary to the covenant.' What status did I gain from that? I have spoken out precisely because status is not important to me. Human rights are important to me, and I believe Baha'u'llah stood for them in a way his supposed trustees do not. And for me, Baha'u'llah as one of the great spiritual teachers is who is important, not some strutting martinet who managed to get himself elected to something. I have been accused of uttering 'slanderous' 'lies.' I can only say that I have never, on email or in print, written anything that I did not believe was true, and which I did not believe I had good reason to think was true. I have never 'slandered' anyone, which in the law requires that one utter a falsehood publicly about another person with full knowledge that it is a falsehood, in such a way as to damage their property or reputation. I have *never* done this. I know that Maneck believes I have, or says she believes I have. I cannot explain why she believes this except that she desperately wants to. Because admitting that I am entirely sincere and also that I am brutally honest would mean she would have to take my critique of the more cult-like side of how the Baha'i faith is run seriously. How much easier (if intellectually lazy and irresponsible) it is simply to dismiss me as a 'hatchet man.' Of course, this particular account assumes her good will. When we take into account that she actively and systematically breached editorial confidentiality by spying on me for Counselor A.M. Ghadirian (who did not have the decency to instruct her to cease invading my privacy), we have also to raise the question whether she hasn't been given the mission by someone of doing a hatchet job on *me*. Isn't it sort of suspicious that she shows up at AOL backbiting me so assiduously on a forum where I am not even present? Maneck criticizes me for reading Baha'u'llah through an 'Enlightenment' lens. But Maneck cannot even read Baha'u'llah's Arabic well enough to know what he said or in what context. She knows no Ottoman Turkish. She has no basis for dismissing my argument about Baha'u'llah's Young Ottoman (and therefore pro-Enlightenment) stance. She decided in her youth that she was against the Enlightenment and has misread Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha as equally against it. She is a prisoner of her prejudices and cannot do the research that would be necessary to prove her argument and disprove mine. A wiser person under such circumstances would be more circumspect. As for my article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion this past summer, Maneck knows full well that everything reported there is true. She knows that a "counselor" libelled a Baha'i academic by telling Baha'is in the Minnesota region to 'shun him as though he were a covenant breaker' when he was no such thing. She knows that David Langness and Steve Scholl were railroaded by the Baha'i administration. She told friends in the wake of the 1988 crackdown on Dialogue magazine that she did not know if she could continue as a Baha'i in the face of such injustice. Now she is whistling a different tune, all of a sudden justifying all sorts of injustices. She even incorrectly made statements about Steve Scholl on SRB that she had to retract. Is the only way to stay a Baha'i to capitulate morally in this way? If so, surely it is not worth it. She herself was given the opportunity to comment extensively on a draft of my article and I tried my best to take account of her comments Unfortunately, she simply has no serious training in the social sciences and her atomism and nominalism make her unable to understand the structure of my argument, leading her to dismiss it. Note that the structure of the argument passed through rigorous double blind refereeing at a major social science periodical. She can argue that the reviewers may not have been knowledgeable about the Baha'i faith (though we cannot in fact assume that); but they certainly would be attentive to methodology, documentation, and argumentation, and they recommended it for publication. She once said she would have no quarrel with anything I could get into print under those circumstances. That was before I got things into print that she did not like. I really would appreciate not being further libelled on AOL. I am not guilty of any 'slanders' or 'hatchet jobs.' The only 'status' I'm interested in is being recognized as a broken man of shattered faith, betrayed by numerous old friends like Susan Maneck. I'm just trying to do my job, as a public intellectual, in the best, most upright and most responsible way I know how. That includes blowing the whistle on coercion, manipulation and abuse by Baha'i administrators of innocent adherents. I plead for all right thinking and compassionate persons to join me in trying to reform the Baha'i administration by critiquing it. It is out of kilter. Its members know it is out of kilter. It needs to be righted. Kowtowing only keeps it out of kilter. Cheers Juan Cole ______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman)[SMTP:billh@samoatelco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 1:46 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr. Glaysher: I seem to recall that Mr. Ron House is not a Baha'i and I would like to enquire why you would be interested in helping him to set up a forum for Baha'i discussion which would have no control over CB material. My understanding of our directives is that we should not engage in discussion with Covenant Breakers, but I would be interested in your views and interpretation. Bill Hyman ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 8:24 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Now what? > Okay, Ron, now what? The fundies are obviously > boycotting discussion, Frank and Fran appear to be > with them, and srb says go to hell.... > > I'm still concerned they've set us up to look bad > while they appear to be in support of a RFD that > no one will vote for.... "See there's no real interest > in trb, just crazy Fred and a few other nuts...." > > Incidentally, there are several messages from Juan > Cole and Susan Maneck I've crossposted to t.r.misc > you might want to be sure to look at. It's turned into > quite a fight on AOL. Hi Fred, If you give a Baha'i fundamentalist a really long rope they can either use it to pull the Faith out of the mire of fear and intolerance or they can hang themselves with it. I hope and pray that they do the former, although I think they are pretty obviously doing the latter. The important thing, though, is to make sure that they have enough rope to reach either the swamp or the pulley on the gallows, whichever they choose. So today I'll feed them a bit more rope. "The mill of God grinds slow, but it grinds exceeding small." (Sorry, I don't know who said that.) Don't worry, Fred, and have the patience to let them do a good number on themselves. I'll be dealing with news.groups as soon as I get through my email. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 9:27 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Smaneck Bring Chocolates ! Fred, please change headers on anything going to news.groups to mention TRB. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 9:35 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Smaneck Bring Chocolates ! Roxana Morgan wrote: > > Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > > snipped for brevity > > >.... The putative > > support for talk.religion.bahai has not been backed up with any > > words or actions on the part of Bahais, by and large.... Claiming > > to support this newsgroup and then nothing but threatening > > silence all speak for themselves.... It all fits quite well with what > > has been the much discussed "Bahai Technique": > > I don't understand this point. What is 'threatening silence'? Perhaps > you can elaborate. Fred, please let things slide at present. Whilst there is still a (maybe vanishingly) small chance that the fundies are legit, I agree with you that the most likely thing is that this is well-planned trick. And if so, the last thing I want is to have them change tack before I get the goods on them. If they are being underhanded, dishonest, and malicious, I want the world to see the proof, not merely an assertion. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 9:50 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; Ron House Cc: Frank Baker Subject: 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai (Ron, I need your feedback particularly on item 1 in the numbered list. -- Frank) Frederick, Ron, and Fran, Attached is what I hope can be the final draft of this RFD. I would post it directly, but I want to run the newsgroup listing at the end past Ron and Frederick first. Other than that, I believe that this version represents something pretty close to a consensus. If all are in agreement, I will be happy to post this appropriately as a new "official" RFD. (Does that require anything more than simply posting it to the specified newsgroups with a subject line something like "Revised RFD -- talk.religion.bahai"?) Incidentally, I agree with Ron's comment that it doesn't particularly matter whether I post the revised RFD. I have merely been acting as an agent to express what appeared to be developing as a consensus. A few notes regarding this draft: 1) The list of newsgroups to which pointers will be sent includes 6 newsgroups in this version. I can certainly accept a wider or slightly different distribution, but I seriously believe that this vote is more likely to pass with a lower profile as compared to the high profile of such wide distribution. The comments in the RFD discussion about such wide distribution possibly bringing on a backlash of no votes are very likely to be correct and it would probably pay us to heed them. But I do not want to post this shortened list without your go ahead, Ron. (The 6 newsgroups are intended to be the short list that Fran suggested some time back. Unfortunately, I cannot find that posting, so I am relying on Kathy Pascoe's reiteration.) 2) The "prohibited postings" paragraph has been edited to read : The posting of articles not relevant to the Baha'i Faith is prohibited. : Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam, and any : postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are prohibited. : To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not HTML-capable, : HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged. 3) The "Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged..." paragraph is unchanged for reasons that Ron and others have mentioned. As far as I can see, no clear consensus has developed on changing this one. Regards, -- Frank ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Begin Draft --------------------------- ------- 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [This is a rough draft only. You may not vote at this time. ] REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group talk.religion.bahai This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to create talk.religion.bahai as an unmoderated worldwide discussion group. This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details appear below. All follow-up discussion should be cross-posted to news.groups,alt.religion.bahai. Newsgroup line: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for an open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith within the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai the opportunity to participate. It is noted that the alt.* hierarchy is less well propagated than the talk.* hierarchy; this has meant that many people who have voted YES on earlier proposals have been unable to join discussions on alt.religion.bahai. This is the third talk.religion.bahai proposal to be submitted. The following information is included for those interested in the growth of participation in predecessor forums. - From January 17, 1997, the posting of the first proposed RFD, until March 27, 1997, more than 759 messages were posted concerning talk.religion.bahai, 11 messages per day for 70 days. - From April 1, 1997, to September 27, 1997, over 2,863 messages were posted on alt.religion.bahai, from people with wide-ranging points of view on the Baha'i Faith. This is an average of 16 messages per day for 179 days or 477 messages a month for six months. During this time period, approximately 513 different individuals posted on over 1,200 threads. - From September 28, 1997, to September 21, 1998, over 31,000 messages have been posted to alt.religion.bahai, an average of 90 messages per day for 341 days or 2,583 messages per month for nine months. These numbers may be verified by searching www.dejanews.com for talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai for the relevant time periods. Note that www.dejanews.com cannot pick up all postings and sometimes splits long postings into 2 or more shorter ones; while they may not be exact, these numbers offer a clear picture of the level of activity. Please note that despite the lower propagation rate of the alt.* hierarchy, the high rate of posting demonstrates significant interest, supporting the formation of an unmoderated newsgroup on the talk.* hierarchy. It is reasonable to conclude that the higher accessibility of the talk.* hierarchy will lead to even higher rates of posting by interested people. CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Talk.religion.bahai fills the need for a fully open and universally accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. While this allows criticism, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbors, asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their question. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not relevant to the Baha'i Faith is prohibited. Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are prohibited. To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not HTML-capable, HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged. Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive cross-posting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. END CHARTER. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) will be posted by a neutral vote taker. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "Writing an RFD" and available for perusal on news.groups or news.announce.newgroups. Please refer to these documents if you have further questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human and the following four mailing lists: Talisman Subscribe: jsgreen@umich.edu Bahai Studies Subscribe: major@johnco.cc.ks.us h-Bahai h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Subscribe: jrcole@umich.edu bahai-faith bahai-faith@egroups.com Subscribe: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com or http://www.eGroups.com Pointers will appear in the following newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern alt.religion.islam alt.religion uk.religion.misc uk.religion.interfaith uk.religion.other-faiths Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker Proponent: Frank Baker ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------End Draft----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 11:33 PM To: Frank Baker Cc: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker Subject: Re: 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frank Baker wrote: > > (Ron, I need your feedback particularly on item 1 in the > numbered list. -- Frank) > Hi everyone. > Frederick, Ron, and Fran, > > Attached is what I hope can be the final draft of this RFD. > I would post it directly, but I want to run the newsgroup > listing at the end past Ron and Frederick first. Other than > that, I believe that this version represents something pretty > close to a consensus. > It appears so. Just a question below. > A few notes regarding this draft: > > 1) The list of newsgroups to which pointers will be sent > includes 6 newsgroups in this version. I can certainly > accept a wider or slightly different distribution, but I > seriously believe that this vote is more likely to pass > with a lower profile as compared to the high profile of > such wide distribution. The comments in the RFD discussion > about such wide distribution possibly bringing on a > backlash of no votes are very likely to be correct and it > would probably pay us to heed them. But I do not want to > post this shortened list without your go ahead, Ron. > (The 6 newsgroups are intended to be the short list that > Fran suggested some time back. Unfortunately, I cannot > find that posting, so I am relying on Kathy Pascoe's > reiteration.) I am still hoping that soc.religion.bahai will agree to post some discussion about this question, as that is where most Baha'is are. I just don't see the level of interest on news.groups that would serve to get this through. The question is whether to appeal to Baha'is to follow Baha'u'llah's example of courageousness and pass the goup, or, if they prove too frightened of the outcome, to appeal to non-Baha'is to help. Now the latter more or less implies that one has to say something negative about the Faith, and, although there are valid criticisms that can be made, I would rather not make them to non-Baha'is, as I still believe that with gentle persuasion, the faults might be fixable. But if the SRB crowd continue to block us, they almost force the issue, as it means that the worst mentality amongst Baha'is is controlling the main Internet access for the Faith, which in itself is a very bad thing and in fact makes it more important for non-Baha'is to take a hand in things. So all-in-all, I am hoping my latest letter to the SRB moderators will change their minds. It might be a good idea if each of you read my latest post on news.groups and send the SRB moderators an extra appeal for a change of policy. But the short summary of this is: let's give the moderators a few more days, say until next Monday. If after that, they have not responded, I think we have to go with a wider distribution. > 2) The "prohibited postings" paragraph has been edited to read > : The posting of articles not relevant to the Baha'i Faith is prohibited. > : Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam, and any > : postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are prohibited. > : To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not HTML-capable, > : HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged. > > 3) The "Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also > discouraged..." paragraph is unchanged for reasons that > Ron and others have mentioned. As far as I can see, > no clear consensus has developed on changing this one. I think this is all fine, but as I said, if we need to know whether to shorten the crosspostings, then can we wait just a short while longer to see if SRB reply to my latest appeal? Also, I think there are better NGs to put in the shortlist if SRB come on board. (I also thought we removed all Islamic NGs.) All-in-all, a very good job, Frank. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Gibro28W@aol.com[SMTP:Gibro28W@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 17, 1998 4:35 PM To: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM Cc: Gibro28W@aol.com Subject: Re: Fw: fw Gibro28W Re: The General Idea (is correct) Dear Fred, I'm almost afraid to look. I'm sure they'll still be poking sharp sticks at our statements long after we're both dead. It doesn't surprise me. Thanks for keeping me posted. Remember, whatever they say about us now--a good chunk of our views are out there now, floating through cyberspace and printers. The cat is out of the bag with a thousand different lives. Whatever we do henceforth, our purpose (to challenge sacred cows and to jump-start a few brains) has already been accomplished. Whatever you do now is just frosting on the cake and the crossing the t. I'll look up the site, though, to see how widspread the fire is and if my house is burning. Take care, my friend. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 9:19 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Re: 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I am against the next revision being posted until srb provides > a clear answer on whether it will permit a digest of discussion > to be posted or not. Even then, we have to have all seen the > draft and agreed on it. Immediately, I feel the list of newsgroups > has been too severely truncated, although, if srb proves > reasonable, I would agree to a considerable reduction from the > 27 original ones listed. I think we can (indeed must) take this steady. If there is any chance whatever of creating this newsgroup as a positive thing by getting Baha'is to appreciate the courage and forthrightness of Baha'u'llah, then the long-term effects will be far better for the Faith. Also, I will be very sad if we learn from this that the predominant attitude is fear and subterfuge, and I would dearly love to find enough Baha'is who have real faith to get this passed. But if we are blocked from discussion on SRB, then that says something very unfortunate about the group controlling the electronic face of the Faith at present (remember that SRB has been praised by the world centre). For all these reasons I want to explore every possible avenue before going outside the Faith. Having seen the reply Bill Hyman gave you, Fred, it is clear that he is ignoring Baha'i principles of consultation and (allowing for his mistaken belief that I am not a Baha'i) consorting with the followers of all religions with joy and fragrance. In the light of this I want to compose another reply to him in the hope that he can be made to see sense even at this late stage. Whether they are ignoring Baha'u'llah's teachings or not, we must not do so, which means we must try every possibility to create a bridge. With everyone's permission, can we wait until I can contact him again? > I have emailed the srb moderators an appeal. I agree to the > Monday deadline. That's more than enough time. They've > had a week and a half already. > > One problem with the RFD: the "prohibited" passage > should not be in the final version. Joe Bernstein for one > was against and so were one or two other people. I am > too. It should remain as it was in my opinion. I'm confused. I thought we made those changes in response to comments from the news.groupies. Here's a cut from an earlier article of mine: -Bill Cole wrote: -> -> In article <6vek26$mbj$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Frank Baker" -> wrote: -> > -> >: The posting of articles not specifically relevant to the Baha'i Faith -> >: or of personal messages is strongly discouraged. -> -> How about "prohibited" instead. -> -That would work, but I think this one is fine as-is. Alternatively, by -leaving out 'specifically', then 'prohibited' would be more justified, -as there would be no excuse. (I am thinking of the case where a -discussion is about a topic strongly connected to the Baha'i faith but -not 'specific', for example, world government, unity, prayers in -general, etc.) - -> >: To facilitate viewing -> >: in news readers that are not HTML-capable, HTML-formatted -> >: postings are discouraged. -> -> That's a bit more lenient than I'd be willing to *advocate* but it is your -> funeral so the weakness won't make me vote no. Ban the HTML. You don't -> know virtual pain until you've tried to read "HTML" generated by a -> Microsoft product without using a *Microsoft* HTML-savvy reader. - -This is a good point. I'm convinced. Let's make this one 'prohibited'. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 9:26 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Your appeal Hi Fred, > > Ron, > > I like your appeal. It should force their hand or > at least make it clear that they've choosing to suppress > trb discussion in no uncertain terms. > Yes. I think Bill Hyman is so far gone he can't be saved, but both for him (in case he surprises us) and for us (in case he doesn't), we have to hold our nerve and refrain from drawing negative public conclusions. Inform the public of developments, by all means, but let people draw their own conclusions. By scrupulously following Baha'i principles and going even another mile towards accommodation of their point of view, we can ensure that everyone will see for themselves where the truth lies. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 9:46 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Frank's posting it Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > Another thought. We should definitely have Frank post > the RFD. For some on srb who read it, my name not > on there could make a difference. I believe Frank and others > have come to realize that and hence his backing off below: Let it lie a few days. Things are working in our favour. By all means let Frank post it then. > >Incidentally, I agree with Ron's comment that it doesn't > >particularly matter whether I post the revised RFD. I have > >merely been acting as an agent to express what appeared to > >be developing as a consensus. > > An agent of someone else, yes, indeed.... A "consensus," I'm > not convinced, and of what? I don't hear any claims that Bahais > in general are now going to vote for it and everyone is working > to see it pass. Only a few of those who have consistently > attacked it claim they "could now" vote for it, which doesn't > mean they will.... All true, but not the productive way to get it through. I am perfectly willing to accept that lots of people simply don't understand what is happening behind the scenes, so they must not be hastily accused of being themselves plotters. > There has been such treachery and deceit throughout all > of this.... It puts me almost flat on my back sometimes.... It's > all bleak, very, very bleak and appalling.... I agree. But we have to know whether that is just a few well-placed villains or the attitude of the majority of Baha'is. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 9:48 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Frederick Glaysher; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; Frank Baker Subject: Re: 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Fran Baker wrote: > > All, > > So how many SRB moderators are there? Do we know who they are? > > --Fran Good question. Bill Hyman is one. Do you know the others, Fred? -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 10:11 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Thought you might find this interesting.... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) > To: Frederick Glaysher > Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 5:53 PM > Subject: Talk.religion.bahai > > >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >I seem to recall that Mr. Ron House is not a Baha'i and I would like to > >enquire why you would be interested in helping him to set up a forum for > >Baha'i discussion which would have no control over CB material. My > >understanding of our directives is that we should not engage in discussion > >with Covenant Breakers, but I would be interested in your views and > >interpretation. > >Bill Hyman You do realise he is trying to get you to say something that sounds as if you yourself converse with covenant breakers? -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, October 18, 1998 10:13 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Re: Fw: Talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Here it is again, from the source of ignorance > and stupidity itself.... No technical RFD is going to > be good enough for this mentality.... > ... > >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >I seem to recall that Mr. Ron House is not a Baha'i and I would like to > >enquire why you would be interested in helping him to set up a forum for > >Baha'i discussion which would have no control over CB material. My > >understanding of our directives is that we should not engage in discussion > >with Covenant Breakers, but I would be interested in your views and > >interpretation. > >Bill Hyman I'll be telling Bill Hyman that I am a Baha'i, and I'll send him a copy of my article against the claims of Mason Remey, to show him that even the people he fears the most are defending his religion for him. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 9:17 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: RFD talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I think you're right on target with all of this. It's the kind > of thing no one is going to listen to from me.... Please > keep it up and expand on all of this. > Will do. I am trying to get people to see for themselves rather than needing to be told. I think a lot of people have been surprised that the moderators were too rude even to reply to my letters. But now that basically anti-unity attitude of theirs is in the public record. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 6:10 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: UVV CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) This is an automated reply to your request for a copy of the CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ). Attached to this message are a copy of your original message and a copy of the PQ template. Please follow the questionnaire instructions closely to ensure that you properly complete the form, and then e-mail the completed form *only* to: If you have any questions regarding the CFV procedures, please address them to the UVV at . -- Bill Aten Member, UseNet Volunteer Votetakers UseNet Volunteer Votetakers WWW page: --Copy of Your Mail----------------------------------------------------------- >From fglaysher@hotmail.com Tue Oct 20 07:10:47 1998 >Return-Path: >Received: by netagw.com with UUCP > id HAA28484; for questionnaire > Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:10:46 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from hotmail.com by relay4.UU.NET with SMTP > (peer crosschecked as: hm2.hotmail.com [207.82.250.81]) > id QQflww06637; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:42:56 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (qmail 659 invoked from network); 20 Oct 1998 09:42:55 -0000 >Received: from modem2.rh.metronet.lib.mi.us (HELO glaysher.Library) (199.179.42.102) > by hm2.hotmail.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 1998 09:42:55 -0000 >Message-ID: <005401bdfc0e$00743780$662ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: >Subject: Questionnaire for talk.religion.bahai >Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 05:42:47 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 > >Please send me a copy of the Questionnaire. > >Thank you. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --Copy of the CFV Questionnaire----------------------------------------------- UVV Pre-CFV Proponent Questionnaire (PQ) for Newsgroup Proposals **************************************************************** Note: This document is for proponents of newsgroups which have completed the required initial 21-day discussion period and are ready for a vote. If you are looking for information about a new proposal, you need to start with a Request for Discussion (RFD). The Usenet group mentor program can help with this process; see . ***************************************************************** A CFV for a proposal cannot be advanced until at least 21 days from the date of the first RFD, or 10 days from any subsequent RFD, whichever is later. If more than 60 days have passed since the most recent RFD on the proposal, then another RFD is required before it can go to vote. The UVV must have time to process your questionnaire and submit the CFV before the 60 day limit, so plan to give us at least 10 days to prepare and submit the CFV. Do not wait until the last minute to provide your answers. Please -- DO NOT return the completed questionnaire any sooner than 3 to 5 days prior to the end of the mandatory 21-day or 10-day RFD discussion period, whichever is later. The answers you provide must reflect the discussion generated by your RFD(s). If you send it in too soon, we will simply return it to you and ask you to resubmit it at a later date when the RFD discussions are more or less complete. ***************************************************************** Last updated: March 22, 1998 The UseNet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) coordinate all the details of the newsgroup VOTING process, including two postings of the CFV and a final RESULT. Your vote will be given to a neutral member of an experienced cadre of votetakers. In order for this to work, we need the information requested in this questionnaire. All groups must have appeared in an official RFD under the same group names that you are requesting in the CFV. If you are still in the RFD process, please wait before filling out this form so that changes based upon the discussion can be incorporated. Proponents are expected to react to issues raised during the RFD process and incorporate changes based upon this process; if there are substantial changes from the last RFD, then you need to submit another RFD, not this questionnaire. Review Question #1 (in the "before you start" section below) to ensure that you're in compliance with this requirement. A few days prior to the end of the mandatory RFD discussion period is ideal timing for submitting this form since it takes at least a few days to assign the vote to a volunteer, and then several more days for the votetaker to prepare and submit the CFV. If you don't send us this information, it will be assumed that you decided not to go through with the vote (it often happens). We will take the answers you provide in this questionnaire and add the voting instructions, dates, etc. to create the actual CFV. Preparation and submission of the CFV is our responsibility not yours. All we need from you is an accurate and properly completed questionnaire. Please fill in the requested information and return JUST YOUR ANSWERS in plain text (ie. no BINHEX, BASE64, HTML, MIME, PGP, miscellaneous attachments, etc.), 80 columns wide maximum, to . Format Instructions =================== ***************************************************************** WARNING -- Your completed PQ will be processed into a CFV usable format via automated scripts. If you don't adhere to the specified formatting instructions, your PQ will be rejected with instructions to reformat it and resubmit it. This will result in extra work for you and a further delay in the submission of your CFV. ***************************************************************** Please provide your response to each of the following questions in the appropriate area immediately following the question. The area designated for your response is delimited by two hash-lines (one marked _BEGIN_ and one marked _END_) and contains a "key" word that indicates the contents the response section. Do not edit or remove either of the hash-lines or the "key" word, and make sure that one (and only one) blank line follows the "key" word and one (and only one) blank line precedes the ending hash-line. If a section is not applicable to your proposal (eg. MODERATOR INFO: for an unmoderated proposal), leave the section in your reply but remove all information between the two hash-lines leaving only the "key" word with one blank line between the "key" word and the ending hash-line. DO NOT leave any bracketed comments ([]) in the section. The specific location for your response is identified by a bracketed comment. Begin your response in the column that contains the opening bracket ([), but delete the bracket and its contents from your response. If you are using your mailer to "reply" to this PQ, make sure that you do not include any "reply prefixes" (eg. "> ") in the area between the two lines of hash marks. DO NOT allow any portion of your response to extend beyond column 78, start a new line instead. One Exception: The "Newsgroup descriptions" section has a different formatting requirement which is explained in that paragraph. The following is an example response: Assuming that you are using your mailer to reply to this PQ, the example response format template might look like the following: > > #####################################################_BEGIN_##### > EXAMPLE: [news.group.name_goes_here] > > [enter_your_response_here] > > #######################################################_END_##### > Properly completed, your response should look like the following: #####################################################_BEGIN_##### EXAMPLE: misc.proposed.group This group is needed to blah, blah, blah, etc. #######################################################_END_##### Note how the mailer reply prefixes ("> ") have been deleted, and the responses began in the same column as the beginning bracket ([) of the enclosed comment. Also note that there is exactly one (1) blank line after the "EXAMPLE:" "key" word, and exactly one (1) blank line before ending hash-line. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-CFV Questions ================= 1. Summary of the RFD Discussion. Please confirm that you participated in the required RFD discussion. In order to show compliance with the discussion phase of the newsgroup creation process, please give a brief description of the input that was given to you in response to the RFD, and what changes were made as a result of them. You do not have to implement every suggestion, but you must have answered them. Also indicate what your answers were if any serious suggestions were not implemented. For simple non-controversial proposals, it is acceptable to say, "All input was positive.", but only if that's true. NOTE: If, based on the input you've received, it appears that changes to the name(s) (including typos), charter(s), or moderator information of any of the proposed newsgroup(s) are necessary, you must make those changes and issue another RFD and allow discussion of the new RFD before submitting this form. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### SUMMARY: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 2. Proposed newsgroup names. List the proposed newsgroup name(s) in alphabetical order, indicate whether each group is unmoderated or moderated, and add any applicable comments. DO NOT put the words "moderated" or "unmoderated" in parentheses. Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example: comp.foo.bar.announce moderated comp.foo.bar.misc unmoderated (renames comp.foo.bar) comp.foo.bar.test unmoderated #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PROPOSED NAMES: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 3. Newsgroup descriptions. Please provide a one-line description of each newsgroup, listed in alphabetical order. Avoid phrases like "Discussion of..." since we already know that. This is normally the same description contained in the latest RFD. Enter the group name, then a tab (you must tab past column 24). You now have until the end of an 80-character line to enter a description for the system newsgroups files (which you must end with a period). If applicable, there is only ONE space between the period (.) and "(Moderated)". The "(Moderated)" phrase does not count in the 80 character limit. Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example: comp.foo.bar.announce Announcements about the foo bar system. (Moderated) comp.foo.bar.misc The foo bar system in general. comp.foo.bar.test Testing the foo bar system. ( you MUST tab to here ^ [minimum] using a tabstop of 8 ) #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEWSGROUP DESCRIPTIONS: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 4. Proponent/Mentor name and address. List the proponent's name and email address for this vote (usually you). If there is more than one proponent, list them on separate lines in the same format with the "primary" proponent listed first. If you are working with a Group Mentor, please include that person's name and email address also. If you do not have a Mentor, please delete that entire line in your response. Please use the form "name ". For example: Proponent: John Foo Proponent: Dave Smith Mentor: Jane Doe #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PROPONENT: Proponent: [enter_your_response_here] Mentor: [enter_your_response_here___DELETE_this_entire_line_if_no_mentor] #######################################################_END_##### 5. Newsgroup rationale. A rationale is a short paragraph or two explaining why you think this group creation/reorganization/whatever should pass. This paragraph will be used for the "Rationale" section of the CFV. This is not optional and is quite important in convincing potential voters to cast a positive vote. Multi-group proposals must have a rationale section for each group. This information is usually taken directly from the most recent RFD. Please provide a rationale for each newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END RATIONALE." comment at the end of your rationale. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### RATIONALE: [news.group.name_goes_here] [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 6. Newsgroup charter. What is/are the charter(s) for the newsgroup(s)? This includes the name of the newsgroup(s), what is acceptable and unacceptable on the newsgroup(s), and what exactly is going on if this is a reorganization. For moderated newsgroup(s), any moderation policy must be included in this section. All of this information can usually be taken directly from the most recent RFD. If the information has changed substantially since the last RFD, then a new RFD should be prepared instead of proceeding with a CFV. A new RFD is mandatory if any changes to a newsgroup name are made (no matter how minor). Please provide a charter for each newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END CHARTER." comment at the end of your charter. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### CHARTER: [news.group.name_goes_here] [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 7. Moderator information. If any of the groups are moderated, give the names of their moderators, their mail addresses, and the addresses they will be using to moderate the group. If there is more than one moderator, then EACH moderator's name and address info line must begin with the "Moderator:" header. NOTE 1: You MUST use quotes (") if there is a period (.) in the moderator's listed name and you elect to use the 1st address format listed in the example below. NOTE 2: DO NOT enclose the contact or submission addresses in brackets (<>). NOTE 3: Failure to provide at least one moderator and both "contact" and "submission" addresses will cause your PQ submission to be rejected. For example: Moderator: "R. Frobs" <-- quotes required Moderator: jdoe@host.domain (J. Doe) <-- do not use quotes Administrative contact address: chess-request@host.domain Article submission address: chess@host.domain Please provide the moderator info for every moderated newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END MODERATOR INFO." comment at the end of your moderator info. NOTE: Do NOT include any moderation policy in this section. Moderation policy information must be provided in the Charter section above. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MODERATOR INFO: [news.group.name_goes_here] Moderator: [enter_your_response_here___ADD_additional_entries_if_required] Administrative contact address: [enter_your_response_here] Article submission address: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 8. Newsgroups gatewayed to mailing lists. If any groups are going to be gatewayed with a mailing list, give the name and address of the mailing list. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### GATEWAYS: [news.group.name_goes_here] Gateway mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here] Submission address: [enter_your_response_here] Request address: [enter_your_response_here_(this_entry_line_is_optional)] #######################################################_END_##### 9. CFV newsgroup distribution. These are usually the same newsgroups where you posted the RFD because you don't want the vote to come as a surprise to any unsuspecting newsgroups. There needs to be a good reason to add newsgroups to the CFV distribution. NOTE: The CFV will normally only be posted to the Big 8 (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk) and ALT newsgroups. Other requested newsgroup hierarchies may be deleted by the news.announce.newsgroup moderator before the CFV is actually posted. IMPORTANT! CFVs are always crossposted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. If these, plus the Newsgroups: header name, your other newsgroups, and the commas (",") that separate each newsgroup name, total more than 200 characters, there are several Usenet sites which will not be able to handle the CFV and will discard it. Even though 200 characters are available, shorter newsgroup lists and less crossposting are generally a good idea. We will NOT accept a Newsgroups: header that exceeds 200 characters because the "news.announce.newgroups" moderator's posting scripts will simply reject it. When you are doing your math to determine the length of the Newsgroups: header line, don't forget that the header name and the commas that separate the newsgroup names, must be counted as part of the allowed 200 characters. Since "Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups," is 48 characters in length, that leaves you with 152 characters for your desired newsgroup names and the required separating commas. When you enter your newsgroups below, please enter the newsgroups in alphabetical order, only put one newsgroup on each line, and use as many lines as necessary (without exceeding the max character count). When you count the characters in your entry, don't include any spaces after the commas. When we reformat your submission, the newsgroup names will be joined into one long header line with no spaces after the commas. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEWSGROUPS: Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups, [enter_your_1st_newsgroup_here], [enter_your_next_newsgroup_here], [enter_your_next_newsgroup_here], [enter_your_last_newsgroup_here] #######################################################_END_##### 10. New crosspostings. There needs to be a good reason for adding newsgroups to the CFV distribution. Which, if any, newsgroups listed in the previous response were not crossposted to in the RFD(s) (if none, say "none")?. Please provide a good reason for adding each newsgroup that you list. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multiple entries. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEW CROSSPOSTS: New Newsgroup: [enter_your_response_here] Reason: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 11. Moderated crossposted newsgroups. In addition to "news.announce.newgroups", which (if any) of the newsgroups in your requested distribution listing are moderated (if none, say "none")?. If more than one newsgroup is moderated, list each one on a separate line. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MODERATED NEWSGROUPS: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 12. Pointer messages to newsgroups. If you plan to post "pointers" to the CFV in additional newsgroups, list the intended newsgroups here (if none, say "none"). If you plan to post "pointers" to more than one newsgroup, list each one on a separate line. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### POINTER MESSAGES: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 13. CFV submission to mailing lists. Do you want us to send the CFV to any mailing lists? Although allowed, the use of mailing lists is strongly discouraged due to the numerous voting problems that continually arise during the CFVs that use them. If you feel that mailing lists are essential, please keep the number of lists requested to an absolute minimum. More lists mean more potential problems, and it becomes more difficult to find a volunteer votetaker to run your proposal. These mailing lists have to be named up front, so please give their names and submission addresses so that this information can be included in the CFV. You may wish to include the request address as well as the posting address, so anyone who is interested and wants to join won't send messages to the mailing list itself. IMPORTANT! For each mailing list you name, we need to know whether or not the list honors Reply-To: headers in messages sent to it, and whether or not non-members can directly post messages to the list. CFVs can only be posted to mailing lists that allow the votetaker to directly post messages, so if the list is closed to non-members, the actual CFV will not be posted to that list (unless the votetaker happens to also be a member of the closed list). For closed lists, your only option is for you to post a "pointer" message to the list to advise the members that a CFV is in progress and to tell them where they can find a copy of the actual CFV. The intent to use "pointer" messages in mailing lists does not need to be listed in the CFV. Please provide the following information and answer the questions for each mailing list you name. The CFV will not be sent to any mailing lists missing this information, or to closed mailing lists (unless the votetaker happens to be a member). Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary if you're requesting more than one mailing list submission. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MAILING LISTS: Mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here] Submission address: [enter_your_response_here] Request address (optional): [enter_your_response_here] List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_response_here] List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_here] #######################################################_END_##### Do not modify or delete this final entry. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PQ Date Stamp: 980322 #######################################################_END_##### Thanks, UVV Coordinators ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 10:43 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Paul and Cindy have convinced me that the time is right > to move ahead to the interest poll. Okay, Fred, I'll take your word for it. Let's move ahead as you suggest. I'll still follow up on the moderators. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 10:45 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I hope you agree. Discussion at this point on srb > would only blow it all up and we'll still be here come > December.... It's really in the best interests of passing > the proposal to begin as soon as possible. > Sure. Let's only send positive and inspiring messages to news.groups from now on. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 9:45 AM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker Subject: Re: pointer newsgroups This list looks reasonable to me. At 01:50 PM 10/21/98 +1000, Ron House wrote: >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> I suggest Ron carves down the list to about 20 >> to compromise and keep most people happy. >> That should work both ways, enough to draw in >> a few votes and notify others what's going on >> and yet restrict the scope a little more. >> >Here is the list I suggest: > > soc.religion.eastern, > soc.religion.gnosis, > soc.religion.hindu, > soc.religion.paganism, > soc.religion.quaker, > talk.religion.buddhism, > uk.religion.misc, > uk.religion.interfaith, > uk.religion.other-faiths, > talk.philosophy.misc, > talk.philosophy.humanism, > alt.religion > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > > ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 7:10 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: 4th (and Final?) Rough Draft -- RFD for talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I share your feelings.... I'd like to send messages of > "fuck you" to srb but know it wouldn't exactly help > at the moment though it's all they deserve. It seems > to me the thing to do is to carefully emphasize Hyman has > revealed the endemic reality of censorship at srb and we > are appealing to the better instincts of Bahais to protect the > faith from the Hymans amongst us. There had to be people > who choked when they read Hyman's message to me.... I don't think we need say another word. Those who have enough decency to be appalled will already be, and the rest won't be no matter what more we say. I am going to drop the topic. > That is, if they truly were or are willing to support a "neutral" > RFD. Let's just go for it now. After late November a lot of > people disappear and the news.groupies are very much > on our side.... Then let's post the official RFD right now and vote asap. Is there anything you need me to do? -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 7:11 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron House has agreed in private email with my suggestion to > start the poll asap. The Bakers seem to have disappeared here, > only momentarily I hope. I'll cut and past Ron's revised list of > newsgroups for pointers and then post a the draft here and to > Frank so that he can send it in immediately to > news.announce.newgroups--I assume it will have to be reposted. > If you don't get anything from Frank pronto, do it yourself, I think. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 11:08 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: Re: Frank let us know once you post the RFD Done. And we're off.... At 12:22 PM 10/22/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >I'll start working then on the Questionnaire and >get it in by about the fifth day of the required >ten day period of discussion so that it should >dovetail as best as possible with the end of >that period. > >Fred > > ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 11:21 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: [auto-reply] Re: Revised RFD: talk.religion.bahai FYI. Here's the auto-confirmation of the RFD submission to n.a.n. -- Frank >Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:08:26 -0400 (EDT) >From: newgroups-request@isc.org (David C Lawrence) >To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu >Subject: [auto-reply] Re: Revised RFD: talk.religion.bahai >X-md5sum: 9167ccf8438b40763b87dc10757a8417 >X-md5sum-Origin: ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu > >This is an automatically generated reply. > >Your message has been received by the moderator of the Usenet >newsgroup news.announce.newgroups. Based on a rudimentary scan >of the message, it appears to be a formal group proposal. > >If it is a proposal for a change to the Usenet hierarchies of comp, >humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc and talk, as defined in the >news.announce.newgroups article "How to Format and Submit a New Group >Proposal", be assured that it should get out the next time the queue >is able to be run. When it is posted, you will get a confirmation >message via email. > >If you see a flurry there of RFD postings (CFVs and RESULTs are >handled separately) and your article does not come through in that >batch, wait at least a few hours for it then mail me asking what >happened. It is possible that your proposal might be held a little >longer to discuss it before it appears in news.announce.newgroups, in >which case someone will be contacting you about the pertinent issues. > >If it is not a proposal for a change to one of the hierarchies named >above you will likely get no further reply than this message. For >other hierarchies, the correct approach depends on the hierarchy. >Local hierarchy issues are best dealt with by way of your local news >administrators, usually reachable as news@yoursite or usenet@yoursite. >alt groups are a bit disorganised, but their creation is discussed in >alt.config, where a periodic posting describing how to do it is also >posted. Other hierarchies usually have a .admin, .config, .news or >.usenet group where you could get pointed on the right path. > >Please understand that moderating news.announce.newgroups is a >volunteer position. Your patience and understanding for the >occasional long delay in handling your message is greatly appreciated. > >David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups > > ---------- From: Dale Grider[SMTP:howdybud@Bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 1:45 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 3rd RFD for talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, I was happy to see that you created a link to the Fireside Letters. I wanted to inform you that the site has been edited and updated and the simpler url, http://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/~howdybud You should revisit the site and reassess how you wish to describe it. (The site is not really a "discussion" per se, even though much of it grew out of internet newsgroup and other discussions) Also it would be good to relink to the new url. Thanks and God bless, Dale ps. I have included a link to your site in the Fireside Letters. It seems to offer vast resources. What I have seen promises to be useful and fascinating. It will take some time though to review all of it! Seems like a very useful source for information! ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 10:09 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: posted "2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai" This arrived about 2 minutes ago... >Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 08:57:56 -0500 (EST) >To: "Frank Baker" >From: newgroups-request@isc.org (David C Lawrence) >Subject: posted "2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai" >X-md5sum: 3f188bfaffcf63c73d1cde82ae4cb72f >X-md5sum-Origin: ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu > >[ This is an automated message; no reply is necessary. ] > >On 27 Oct 1998 (Tue), at 13:57:55 GMT, your proposal was posted to >the following groups. This list might be different from what was >originally requested if the Newsgroups header was over 200 characters >long, some of the groups were bogus (ie, superseded Big 8 groups) or >not carried by my news server (like defunct alt groups), or other >relevant groups were noted and added. > >news.announce.newgroups >news.groups >alt.religion.bahai >talk.religion.misc >soc.rights.human > >It was also sent separately to the following list: > >soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org > >David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups > > ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 9:03 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Ron, > > I'd appreciate it if you could say something here > to this person.... She's been a harassing bitch all along. > I see it on my newsreader. I'll have a go. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 8:43 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: quiet out there Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Ron, > > It's awfully quiet out there.... I don't like it, do you? > > The possibilities: > > 1. A massive NO vote. > > 2. Defeat through shunning the vote. > > 3. A little of both.... > > 4. ? > > Fred Our network connection from Toowoomba to Gatton failed massively on Monday. I sent you an email while it was out, which should have been forwarded after the link came back. Did you get it? Anyway, when I looked Tuesday (late) I couldn't find an RFD, so I assumed it hadn't been posted. I work at home Wednesdays, so now (TH) is the first I have seen of it. I'll get those pointers posted asap. Don't worry about the quietness. I am hoping for a pass this time, but budgeting for needing one more try. However, if it fails, I want the reason seen clear as a bell, so that next time I can go direct to NGs where opponents lurk (atheists etc., anyone except Moslems). Also I'll be initiating a CFV to rmgroup SRB in about three months. Finally, I hope (but maybe in vain) to have some good news next week. I better not say more as it is most likely not to work out. (More like shooting for the moon!) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 1998 11:49 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: REPOST To UHJ July 24, 1998 Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > From: Frederick Glaysher > To: UHJ ; Letters to Editor ; > bahai-faith @ makelist.com > Subject: To UHJ July 24, 1998 > Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:03 PM > July 24,1998 > > Dear Members of the Universal House of Justice: > Fred, pairing these two issues is a dreadful mistake: both because murder is much more serious than what we have to deal with, and because it can do nothing except lose you friends. It can not gain a single convert to the TRB cause, not ever. There are some things one simply should not make capital out of. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 1998 5:08 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Mulligan's madness Dear Fred, Thanks for standing up for me. I have no intention of ever engaging TFM in conversation again, because I think he might be really dangerous. The deal is he had been running absolutely wild on soc.motss for a couple of months, posting as various people and denying it, starting flame wars left and right, then cancelling huge numbers of his own posts in remorse and saying he was leaving. Then coming back and starting up again. Well, last week he got into the mode of talking about how to cancel other people's posts and make it look like they did it themselves. He bragged about it in fact, and when someone expressed doubt that it could be done he first said "don't tempt me" and finally actually explained how to do it. I had avoided any kind of conversation with him on that list or any other, after I sent him private email encouraging him to stop acting so erratically and got told to mind my own business. But when he started going on and on about cancelling other people's posts, I simply wrote : "Since you are bragging about being able to do this, I cannot help wondering: did you cancel Joel Marangella's posts on arb?" This produced the attached email and a barrage of wild nastiness on the newsgroups. We may never know what happened, but here's my reasoning: 1. Mulligan's self-cancellations and Marangella's *apparent* self-cancellations occurred the same day, or at least I noticed them the same day and generally checked in daily. 2. Marangella never answered my question about whether he did it himself and since he's an old man I doubt he'd even know how. Or have any reason to. 3. Mulligan has already admitted cancelling George's post on arb, posting under other names on soc.motss, and knowing how to forge cancellation notices. 4. He has a pattern of attacking wildly and then being remorseful and cancelling the messages where he attacked people. 5. He perceived Marangella as someone who ought not to be posting and sent him nasty private email telling him to go away from arb, according to his own testimony. Thus I think it likely that when he decided he was ashamed of being mean to Baha'is and wanted to cancel his own posts, he went ahead and canceled Marangella's at the same time since he thought that was some kind of good deed. The man is seeing a psychiatrist, is on an antidepressant so strong that it causes impotence, and has had vivid hallucinations described in a post to a newsgroup that he posted under a pseudonym. He's also attacking all manner of people on a variety of newsgroups and seems to have very little in his life other than this hobby. Check Dejanews and you'll see a truly staggering number of posts. He had 70+ in one day on soc.motss. Because he's so unstable and capable of who knows what, I'm avoiding him entirely henceforth and would urge you to be careful. The following message should give you a taste of what he can be like when challenged: According to Mulligan, Tim: > From TMulligan@Central.UH.EDU Wed Oct 21 14:09:32 1998 > Content-return: allowed > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:09:25 -0500 > From: "Mulligan, Tim" > Subject: Are you kidding me, asshole? > To: "'pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu'" > Message-id: <81145ADDDE3DD11190D900805FFE6EB3016A7C5C@Albertus.Law.UH.EDU> > MIME-version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) > Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > Content-Length: 380 > > Are you out of your fucking mind? Where do you come off making an > accusation like that against me in soc.motss, huh, you stupid fucker? > Piling on like the rest of soc.motss on the non-Democrat bad boy? > You've got a serious mental problem, buddy. And from now on, I'm going > to watch every god damned move you make on Usenet, and take the earliest > opportunity to humiliate you. > > > ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 11:11 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Mulligan's madness Dear Fred, Well, actually I think it *is* best to lie low and not say anything critical of Baha'is in general from now on. It cannot help, and can hurt. You and I are both too controversial to be good spokesmen for this. The Bakers and Ron seem to be doing fine, so don't give anyone an excuse for opposition. Mulligan has so many things going on with various ngs that it's impossible to predict where his troublemaking will erupt next. Don't rile him, and hope for the best. As you'll see, I objected to one phrase in the RFD but otherwise it looks fine. Cheers, Paul ---------- From: Gibro28W@aol.com[SMTP:Gibro28W@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 30, 1998 12:10 PM To: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM Cc: Gibro28W@aol.com Subject: Fwd: your messages <> Sure, Frederick, anything I've posted for the general public is O.K. We've seen all types of views from the extreme right and middle of the orthodox camp. It's only fair that the left end, if it can be called that, should have equal time. Baha'is should be exposed to all views in principle. But we know, in practice, they read views selectively to "protect" themselves. I believe the two main sides are more polarized than the Democrats and Republicans. I hope the sides are never as emotionally split as the Nazis and the Jews. That's why when I post now I try to aim for the middle somewhere, without directly criticizing inside the "forbidden" zones. More people listen to me that way. Perhaps you read the article that appeared in the October '98 issue (p. 3) of The American Bahai, by the NSA, about Covenant-breakers' materials on the Internet (to be shunned). They're no doubt referring to messages like ours. The use of the word "Covenant-breaker" has about the same ring as the word "nigger." If they keep using it, then they need to see the word "Fundamentalist" applied to their arguments in equal fashion, for a taste of their own medicine. Because I still have contact with Bahais I respect in my own community, I try not to post things I wouldn't discuss with those same Baha'is candidly. Take care. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Sunday, November 01, 1998 9:08 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: quiet out there Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Rmgrouping srb is an idea, after another defeat, that just might work. > Sometime during the last vote there were news.groupies who > raised the thought about srb since they were opposed to any > group controlled by a religion. I really have great hopes now that TRB will pass. I am expecting some fantastic news later today, which I think is maybe 60% certain now, and would absolutely guarantee the thing if it happens. Don't hurry into the vote before I can get back to you, and under no circumstances post anything negative today. Sorry to be mysterious, but I'll tell you about it (whether it works out or not) as soon as I know. > If srb is involved, it probably is.... See the message from > their new gestapo leader Verbrugh at > http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb75.htm No, nothing to do with them. > The 2nd RFD was posted on the 27th, so I can send > in the Questionnaire after 5 days, which means > Saturday. The 10 day required discussion period > for a new RFD then ends next Thursday. Theoretically, > the CFV could be posted on Friday. Usually it has > taken a week or more, though, for the UVV to assign > a votertaker and to wait in line for an available one. > I don't know where the Bakers are any more and > don't trust them.... We might have to act fast tomorrow. If I put a proposition to y'all tomorrow, would it be acceptable to say "I'll assume you all agree if I don't hear back within 24 hours"? -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 6:36 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: quiet out there You wrote: >I really have great hopes now that TRB will pass. I am expecting some >fantastic news later today, which I think is maybe 60% certain now, and >would absolutely guarantee the thing if it happens. Don't hurry into the >vote before I can get back to you, and under no circumstances post >anything negative today. Sorry to be mysterious, but I'll tell you about >it (whether it works out or not) as soon as I know. I'm filling out and sending in the Questionnaire this morning, Monday. The full ten days for discussion of a reposted RFD is not up until Friday. Judging from past experience, there's not the slightest chance the UVV will be able to assign a votetaker and begin the polling for probably a week or two AFTER this Friday. That I assume will give you the time you need. I'm not posting anything negative. Others are doing that just fine right now. Joe Bernstein's recent messages are most helpful from my point of view. And be careful, whatever you're up to.... > >> If srb is involved, it probably is.... See the message from >> their new gestapo leader Verbrugh at >> http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb75.htm > >No, nothing to do with them. Verbrugh is listed as a moderator on a recent moderator's message on srb. > >> The 2nd RFD was posted on the 27th, so I can send >> in the Questionnaire after 5 days, which means >> Saturday. The 10 day required discussion period >> for a new RFD then ends next Thursday. Theoretically, >> the CFV could be posted on Friday. Usually it has >> taken a week or more, though, for the UVV to assign >> a votertaker and to wait in line for an available one. > >> I don't know where the Bakers are any more and >> don't trust them.... > >We might have to act fast tomorrow. If I put a proposition to y'all >tomorrow, would it be acceptable to say "I'll assume you all agree if I >don't hear back within 24 hours"? I'm reluctant to say yes to something I know nothing about.... You say "y'all" but I don't see the Bakers listed in the headers of this message. Whatever you're doing should have approval from all of us or it will be used against trb. I'll check my email 3 or 4 times a day for the next few days.... I have no trust left in Bahais. I'm convinced they're going to vote NO again. I want the RESULTS to document that fact clearly. Fred ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:17 AM To: UVV Subject: Votetaker - talk.religion.bahai To Whom It May Concern: I've just sent in the Questionnaire for talk.religion.bahai. Upon reflection, I feel I need to say again that I would appreciate any votetaker be assigned other than Neil Crellin. He's certainly entitled to his opinions, but Mr. Crellin expressed on news.groups sometime during the 2nd interest poll last year quite vehement opposition to talk.religion.bahai, and, as a result, I would find it difficult to have confidence in his impartiality. I'm sorry to have to bring this up. I do respect and appreciate the work of the UVV and intend nothing negative in general. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:19 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: Votetaker - talk.religion.bahai fyi -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Glaysher To: UVV Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:17 AM Subject: Votetaker - talk.religion.bahai >To Whom It May Concern: > >I've just sent in the Questionnaire for talk.religion.bahai. > >Upon reflection, I feel I need to say again that I would >appreciate any votetaker be assigned other than >Neil Crellin. He's certainly entitled to his opinions, but >Mr. Crellin expressed on news.groups sometime >during the 2nd interest poll last year quite vehement >opposition to talk.religion.bahai, and, as a result, I would >find it difficult to have confidence in his impartiality. > >I'm sorry to have to bring this up. I do respect and >appreciate the work of the UVV and intend nothing >negative in general. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:25 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The UVV Questionnaire has been filled out and returned to them. Today is the 7th day of the 10 day required period. If we're lucky maybe the interest poll can begin on Friday, the first possible day, or shortly thereafter. I think normally it takes a week or two. They have a lot to do. As far as I'm concerned the sooner the better. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 6:54 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Hi Fred, Fran, Frank, I am overjoyed to inform you all that Mr John Walker has asked to become a proponent for talk.religion.bahai. John is treasurer of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was previously an Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 years, and was also an NSA member before that. He is one of the best-known and most highly respected Baha'is in Australia. John's email address is johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; however, he regrets that pressures of NSA work will prevent his taking an active part in the discussions. John has asked me to raise the following point with you all regarding the charter. It concerns the final sentence, which reads: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." John has expressed the opinion that the charter would be better if this sentence were omitted. He pointed out to me (and I agree) that this sentence does not change the meaning of the charter at all, because apart from this sentence, nothing else in the charter mentions soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, whether rejected by SRB or not. The understanding I arrived at after discussing this passage with John is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to act as a barrier between souls. I believe that removing this sentence would be a minor change, due to its logical redundancy, so I suggest to you all that we do so. As time is short, I would like to announce both John's proponency and this alteration tomorrow. Could you all please try to comment by then. If I don't hear back, I'll assume you agree. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 7:01 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: quiet out there Hi Fred, I have just sent another message to you and the Bakers announcing that the treasurer of the NSA of Australia, John Walker, wants to be a proponent. I think this will clinch the vote with the waverers. > >We might have to act fast tomorrow. If I put a proposition to y'all > >tomorrow, would it be acceptable to say "I'll assume you all agree if I > >don't hear back within 24 hours"? > > I'm reluctant to say yes to something I know nothing about.... > You say "y'all" but I don't see the Bakers listed in the headers > of this message. Whatever you're doing should have approval > from all of us or it will be used against trb. I'll check my email > 3 or 4 times a day for the next few days.... The thing I was thinking when I said that was that you fear the Bakers have deliberately gone quiet, so I wondered, if so, maybe they won't reply to my message. That's why I put it the way I did. I know that you will answer. So what do you think we should do if they simply don't reply? We don't want to be held up as we were with SRB. > I have no trust left in Bahais. I'm convinced they're going > to vote NO again. I want the RESULTS to document that > fact clearly. You may be right about the intentions of many Baha'is, but the sincere (if misguided) ones will certainly change their minds with John on board. If the proposal is again outvoted, it will indicate something worse than mere foolishness on at least some people's parts. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:15 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: Completed Questionnaire - talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > fyi, Ron, > > It's in.... Now we have to wait on the UVV. > I'm writing them requesting Neil Crellin not be > a proponent. He vehemently attacked the proposal > last time around.... I'd have more confidence in > anyone but him. I'm not forwarding this to the > Bakers. It might be best to keep them in the dark.... > There's no telling where they'd forward it or what > they'd do with it. > It looks as if this questionnaire actually starts the whole ball rolling. I wish I'd understood that earlier, because it would have definitely been worth waiting. I suppose we'll sort it out. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:28 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Fran Baker wrote: > > Wow!!! Go, Ron! > > --Fran Thanks Fran, as soon as I hear from Frank and Fred I'll post this information. I assume you also agree about deleting the final sentence. I think we must do this (although John did not make it a condition of his support) because John's point is clearly valid, and also changing it will give other Baha'is confidence in the proposal. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Gibro28W@aol.com[SMTP:Gibro28W@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:53 AM To: fglaysher@HOTMAIL.COM Cc: Gibro28W@aol.com Subject: Re: The American Bahai newspaper Yeah, I agree with you about The American Bahai, Fred. It's a propaganda tool. I still get it to know what they're spinning out of National each month. No, they've been careful so far not to mention any particular person or web site by name. They haven't said not to read them--but they're not encouraging anyone to read them either. They know they can't do much to stop people anyway. Best wishes. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:23 AM To: Ron House; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB It's nice, but probably won't make any difference for many fanatics.... They'll be waiting for the UHJ to declare him a covenant breaker and voting NO in the meantime. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but we have Frank *Baker* and it hasn't made any difference.... Another *prominent* Bahai who doesn't speak up isn't going to amount to much in my opinion. But I don't want to discourage it. Sure, we can let him add his name to a roster he's not going to come out and actively support.... I'm not against it. The deletion of the one sentence shouldn't be a problem and the RFD probably won't have to be reposted. Ron, I'll post this morning on this side of the world a vague note about your working on something and let the UVV ONLY know what it is so that they can add his name and drop the srb sentence. You post to news.groups as soon as you can filling in everyone else. Any place in Australia online where as much mileage as possible can be made of this? What we don't want to do is repost the RFD. It would add another ten days and we'll begin to miss the student vote as they return over here home for the Thanksgiving holiday. We probably still will have a week or two or more before it begins anyway in which to spread the news, though we won't be allowed to do so on srb, the only place it would count.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; fglaysher@hotmail.com Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 10:52 AM Subject: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB >Hi Fred, Fran, Frank, > >I am overjoyed to inform you all that Mr John Walker has asked to become >a proponent for talk.religion.bahai. John is treasurer of the National >Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was previously an >Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 years, and was also >an NSA member before that. He is one of the best-known and most highly >respected Baha'is in Australia. John's email address is >johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; however, he regrets that pressures of NSA >work will prevent his taking an active part in the discussions. > >John has asked me to raise the following point with you all regarding >the charter. It concerns the final sentence, which reads: > >"Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from >soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." > >John has expressed the opinion that the charter would be better if this >sentence were omitted. He pointed out to me (and I agree) that this >sentence does not change the meaning of the charter at all, because >apart from this sentence, nothing else in the charter mentions >soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >whether rejected by SRB or not. The understanding I arrived at after >discussing this passage with John is that nothing should be in the >charter that has the potentiality to act as a barrier between souls. > >I believe that removing this sentence would be a minor change, due to >its logical redundancy, so I suggest to you all that we do so. As time >is short, I would like to announce both John's proponency and this >alteration tomorrow. Could you all please try to comment by then. If I >don't hear back, I'll assume you agree. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:38 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Ron House has informed me in email of a possibly important new development. I'll let him give the details tomorrow (He's Australian). Part of it involves deleting the following sentence from the Charter: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." I have no objection to doing so. It's redundant or goes without saying that anyone wishing to post a rejected message from srb or elsewhere is free to do so. I don't believe this should hold up the interest poll or require a reposting of the RFD since it's a very minor change of little substance. Do news.groupies agree? I'm going to email the UVV since I sent them the Questionnaire yesterday. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:50 AM To: UVV Subject: CFV - talk.religion.bahai Ron House and we other proponents would like to make two last minute, unexpected changes in the RFD for talk.religion.bahai. First, a member of a Bahai institution called the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Australian would like to become a proponent: John Walker, johnwalker@ozemail.com.au We apologize for this late change. Since John is treasurer of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was previously an Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 years, and was also an NSA member before that, he is one of the best-known and most highly respected Baha'is in Australia. Adding his name to the RFD ought to make a difference for some Bahais who have previously voted NO en masse. Second, we would like to delete the following redundant sentence from the RFD since it refers to soc.religion.bahai and ought to go without saying that anyone can repost censored messages to talk.religion.bahai: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." We're hoping we won't have to repost the RFD for these important but minor changes and that the UVV agrees. Thank you, once again, Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:00 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: quiet out there So what do you think we should do if they simply don't >reply? We don't want to be held up as we were with SRB. Fran's replied, so that's good enough to go ahead. >> I have no trust left in Bahais. I'm convinced they're going >> to vote NO again. I want the RESULTS to document that >> fact clearly. > >You may be right about the intentions of many Baha'is, but the sincere >(if misguided) ones will certainly change their minds with John on >board. If the proposal is again outvoted, it will indicate something >worse than mere foolishness on at least some people's parts. I'm not so certain.... I know already something worse than foolishness is involved--malice is the word that comes to mind.... Hate to be a naysayer, but I doubt John's name is going to make a difference especially if it's never backed up by his putting his own words in cyberspace.... Notice again the one place it ought to be heard, srb, is off limits.... I'll post vaguely on AOL too that you are going to make an important announcement tomorrow on arb and news.groups in the hope of drawing a little more attention to it. Just posted to news.groups and arb to that effect and emailed the UVV to add John and delete the srb sentence. It can't hurt; I'm not so optimistic, though, that it will really help.... I'm agreed that we should try it and make as much of it as possible. Fred ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:02 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB I suggest you not wait on Frank now. Just unveil the revelation on news.groups and arb as soon as possible so the Word has maximum time to spread before the poll begins.... -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Fran Baker Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fglaysher@hotmail.com ; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:22 PM Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Wow!!! Go, Ron! >> >> --Fran > >Thanks Fran, as soon as I hear from Frank and Fred I'll post this >information. I assume you also agree about deleting the final sentence. >I think we must do this (although John did not make it a condition of >his support) because John's point is clearly valid, and also changing it >will give other Baha'is confidence in the proposal. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:09 AM To: Joe Bernstein Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Joe, I don't know why this person keeps after me. I obviously didn't write or post the message below that she cites as mine or even remotely think or voice such things.... I'm not going to respond to her anymore but would appreciate it if you would if it seems appropriate. Whatever happens with the Bahai vote again, thanks for your honest and candid input all along. I appreciate it. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Cindy Tittle Moore Newsgroups: alt.gothic,alt.slack,alt.religion.scientology,alt.genius.bill-palmer,intel.e tc,alt.religion.bahai,news.groups To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 8:13 AM Subject: Re: RFD talk.religion.bahai >Why is this on news.groups? > >In news.groups you write: > >>Half-Assed C-GRAM > >>THE RIGHTEOUS WASTING OF A BABY-KILLING KIKE > >>A lot of people want me to "comment" on the >>plugging of a baby-killing abortionist Jew >>in New York. What can I say? What, exactly, IS >>it about this that needs comment? ONE MAN >>among all the millions on this North American >>continent seems to have his act together. This >>killing was a righteous act, it was pleasing to >>God, and I hope this guy and Eric Rudolph >>and anyone else who has the personal courage and >>principled idealism to take up arms against the >>Beast escapes and lives to fight another day. >>The Jew deserved to die. End of story. > >>You see that they're pulling out all the stops for >>Rudolph and this apparently Canadian sharpshooter. >>We have two thousand people simply sitting on this >>e-mail list doing bugger all except reading NSNet >>for free. Suppose every one of you free riders were >>out there doing something, not even necessarily >>illegal or violent, just handing out leaflets, >>or doing radio talk shows, ANYTHING active? >>Do you think the government could concentrate this >>kind of manpower on all two thousand of you? >>We can still free ourselves, people. It's just that >>we WON'T. We sit on our damned butts and wait for >>someone else to do it, and demand that he entertain >>us in the process. > >>88! >>HAC > >>"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth >>becomes a revolutionary act" - George Orwell, 1984 > >>Visit the following web sites for more info: > >>http://home.earthlink.net/~centurion88 >>http://www.io.com/~jack88 >>http://www.jewwatch.com/ >>http://www.melvig.org/ >>http://nsdap.fsn.net > >>or write to: > >>N.S.W.P.P. >>P. O. Box 29905 >>San Antonio, TX. 78229 > > >>Posted by Harold A. Covington in support of the program and >>goals of the National Socialist White People's Party. > > > > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:51 AM To: Ron House Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: srb.... Ron, I think somehow John's request to serve as a proponent ought to be mentioned on srb; it certainly deserves to be.... Since they've been rejecting messages from you, and would from me, perhaps he himself and/or Frank could somehow get them to accept posting a few messages regarding their/his support for trb.... I believe many will consider him a cb and forward his messages, if any, to the UHJ, etc.... They'll have to hear from the UHJ in the most literal terms that it's OKAY or they'll still vote NO.... Fred ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 8:00 AM To: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House Subject: a further thought.... Perhaps Ron's digest idea on srb would be worth bringing up again.... One or two messages from Frank and John only.... Doubt the fanatics would permit it.... Fred ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:01 PM To: Frank Baker Cc: fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Frank, > > I am more than happy to welcome as co-proponent! > Great news! > > And I agree that removing the line referring > to articles rejected by SRB strengthens the proposal. > Thanks to you and John for bringing that up. Thanks Frank! It looks like we all agree. I'll write a post right now for news.groups. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:19 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > It's nice, but probably won't make any difference > for many fanatics.... They'll be waiting for the UHJ > to declare him a covenant breaker and voting NO > in the meantime. > Fanatics will be fanatics, but I am sure that the majority of the problem has come from ignorance, not fanaticism. (The ignorant listen to the fanatics.) Having a respected person come down on the side of openness and personal responsibility is important. > But I don't want to discourage it. Sure, we can > let him add his name to a roster he's not going > to come out and actively support.... I'm not against > it. Don't worry about his not being active. John lives his life for the Faith, and he's in no doubt about the rightness of this proposal, as I'll mention on news.groups. > The deletion of the one sentence shouldn't be a > problem and the RFD probably won't have to be > reposted. Ron, I'll post this morning on this side > of the world a vague note about your working on > something and let the UVV ONLY know what it > is so that they can add his name and drop the > srb sentence. You post to news.groups as soon > as you can filling in everyone else. Good. If there's any problem, point out that the sentence has no effect, as everything it permits is permitted anyway. It truly is verbiage, not substance. I'll write a post right now. > Any place in Australia online where as much mileage > as possible can be made of this? I suspect others will spread the word about this. John is very popular and respected in Australia. BTW: would you all please add John's email address to our proponent discussions? John will be at NSA meetings and other places so he might not reply, but I want him to have a record of what is happening. > What we don't want to do is repost the RFD. It would > add another ten days and we'll begin to miss the > student vote as they return over here home for the > Thanksgiving holiday. We probably still will have a > week or two or more before it begins anyway in which > to spread the news, though we won't be allowed to do > so on srb, the only place it would count.... That's right. We proceed as we are. I'll give SRB another try anyway. Who knows? They might finally understand - I hope they do. If they don't, they judge themselves. I have no intention of saying anything more about them. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:57 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Your comments Fred, what are you thinking of sending a message like this to Frank, Fran, and John? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Paranoia? Ron, you sound like the srb moderators.... > > What do they know about what a country thinks on > the other side of the world? I'm sure Mr. Walker is > a wonderful Bahai; all the more reason he should > speak for himself and support the proposal openly, > not in abstentia the way Frank has largely chosen, > reminiscent, really, of Chris Manvell's abandoning > it last December when things appeared to be going > all too well.... Now Fred, I know you appreciate straight talking, so I'm going to do some. I've never asked you why you are so hostile to Baha'is, because I can very well imagine the reason and I don't think I'd be far wrong. I said before that I stood by the passage of mine you have put in the "Baha'i Technique" article, and I would bet a reasonable amount that you experienced something very much like it. But Fred, scattering attacks at people who had nothing to do with your pain simply isn't rational. You'll go mad if you wallow in the injustices that have been done to you. My point is this: START DISCRIMINATING between the good and the bad. Don't assume the worst by default, because every time you judge someone wrongly, you put yourself in the wrong, and then what's the difference between you and the ones who hurt you? I really don't know how to proceed now. In one day you send an email to a man putting everything he's worked for in his life on the line telling him it "is very lukewarn support indeed". Do you wonder why you piss everyone off? The only reason you don't piss me off is because I have been hurt just like you, and I know exactly how you feel and how difficult it is to get back on an even keel afterwards. BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT because if you don't, YOU WILL GO INSANE! You will be the loser, not the rats who were unjust to you. I sympathise, Fred, I really do, because I have been there and done that, but you have free will and only you can use it to save yourself and have joy return in your life. I suggest you send a note to John and Frank apologising for what you just sent out. I am sorry if what I have said is hurtful, Fred, but if you can accept it, I really do care, because I can imagine the sincerity you had before you were harmed, and it shits me off thinking that those bastards who did it will win unless you pull yourself together, because every intemperate thing you say simply proves to them that they were right. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:58 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: srb.... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Paranoia? Ron, you sound like the srb moderators.... Well, they are paranoid, IMHO, but I just don't want to assume I know the reason, nor to preclude that they will prove to be less so than I suspect. > What do they know about what a country thinks on > the other side of the world? I'm sure Mr. Walker is > a wonderful Bahai; all the more reason he should > speak for himself and support the proposal openly, > not in abstentia the way Frank has largely chosen, > reminiscent, really, of Chris Manvell's abandoning > it last December when things appeared to be going > all too well.... Fred, with respect, this is not sensible. John IS supporting the proposal openly; with his full permission I am broadcasting his support to the world. I for one can certainly imagine the courage this would take for someone in the glare of publicity as John is. You can be sure that this will go round the Australian Baha'i community like wildfire, and if we don't run a good newsgroup later, it would backfire on John. But he trusts in Baha'u'llah that it will all be for the best in the end, and with the full knowledge of the bad history of this proposal, he has put his personal position a far second to his love for the Faith. For that I can only admire him. And given the other responsibilities he has, there simply isn't time in his life to actively argue for it, unless he plans to develop a good case of insomnia. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:13 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: a further thought.... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I'm in favor of this idea: Frank's writing the srb > moderators. Recall Hyman intimated Ron was a cb or > none Bahai in the link in my last message to all of you. > Frank might be more effective, if he's willing actually > to do something to support the proposal.... And why should Frank do anything if all you can do is insult him? Fred, we have a serious chance to get this through. Continually writing this stuff just saps all our energies from conducting the real campaign. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:21 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: explanation Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Sorry, Ron, to have to be so tough in the other > messages tonight, but I'm unimpressed by the > putative support of Frank and now a NSA member > who can't apparently own his opinions in public.... > You can say what you like to me, Fred, but I take exception to insulting the others to their faces. As I pointed out, John IS owning his opinion. He just doesn't have ANY time free to write articles. If you looked at the reactions of Frank and Fran to John, you will see the kind of impression it will make on the average Baha'i. YOU are the one spoiling the effect by belittling it. And what John felt when he read that last email of yours I find hard to imagine. The problem with the Internet is that things written in the heat of the moment get preserved for centuries. It really is IMPORTANT to slow down a bit and think how one's words will sound to others. I'm sorry I seem to be just lecturing you today, and heaven knows, I've felt just as you do on many occasions, but I am really convinced that letting it control you is a big mistake. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 4:24 PM To: Ron House; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Ron, I am more than happy to welcome as co-proponent! Great news! And I agree that removing the line referring to articles rejected by SRB strengthens the proposal. Thanks to you and John for bringing that up. Regards, -- Frank ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 4:51 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai All right maybe the whole passage should be deleted to in the light of what Ron will be mentioning and since the arguably negative reference to soc.religion.bahai will be dropped: "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." If this passage too is taken out, the RFD is unquestionably neutral and technical to my point of view. The passage on prevailing standards of netiquette really ought to be adequate and meet the needs of everyone, Bahai or non-Bahai, interested in an unbiased RFD. I don't believe dropping both passages would be enough that a new RFD would have to be posted. I think that ought to be avoided. Dragging this out further makes no sense. If you have any other concerns, please speak up right away. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:22 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I suggest you not wait on Frank now. Just unveil > the revelation on news.groups and arb as soon > as possible so the Word has maximum time to > spread before the poll begins.... I've just heard from Frank. We're Go for launch. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:30 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: srb.... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > I think somehow John's request to serve as a > proponent ought to be mentioned on srb; it > certainly deserves to be.... Since they've been > rejecting messages from you, and would from me, > perhaps he himself and/or Frank could somehow > get them to accept posting a few messages > regarding their/his support for trb.... I'll simply do it myself. John is now out of town at NSA meetings. There IS a limit to how far one can stretch paranoia, and I would hope that the good opinion of an entire country about John would give the moderators pause for thought about their fears of TRB. I want _everyone_ to have the maximum chance to come out of this looking good, and that includes the SRB moderators. They can still redeem themselves in the eyes of others. It's up to them. > I believe many will consider him a cb and forward > his messages, if any, to the UHJ, etc.... They'll > have to hear from the UHJ in the most literal terms > that it's OKAY or they'll still vote NO.... Stop worrying about them. They can forward messages to the UHJ all they want, John only agreed to this after studying a huge compilation of messages from the UHJ that was sent to him by the Counsellors. We only need about thirty waverers to make up their minds and we have it. There is no point letting a few people with closed minds get to you. There is _definitely_ no sense in posting these doubts on news.groups; much better to look at the positive. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:36 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: a further thought.... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Perhaps Ron's digest idea on srb would be worth > bringing up again.... One or two messages from Frank > and John only.... Doubt the fanatics would permit it.... John isn't here to do it, but Frank's writing of a small note to SRB might be helpful, if he leaves it a day so they have the news. I think we can get there without SRB. I'll send them the notice of change to the proposed charter. If they post that, it's enough. If not, I think we'll still get there. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:00 PM To: Ron House Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB I remain skeptical.... If people really believe in free speech and conscience, they should have the courage of their convictions to speak up for it. In this context, silence is a vacuum ignorant fanaticism all too often fills in this religion.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:14 AM Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> It's nice, but probably won't make any difference >> for many fanatics.... They'll be waiting for the UHJ >> to declare him a covenant breaker and voting NO >> in the meantime. >> >Fanatics will be fanatics, but I am sure that the majority of the >problem has come from ignorance, not fanaticism. (The ignorant listen to >the fanatics.) Having a respected person come down on the side of >openness and personal responsibility is important. > >> But I don't want to discourage it. Sure, we can >> let him add his name to a roster he's not going >> to come out and actively support.... I'm not against >> it. > >Don't worry about his not being active. John lives his life for the >Faith, and he's in no doubt about the rightness of this proposal, as >I'll mention on news.groups. > >> The deletion of the one sentence shouldn't be a >> problem and the RFD probably won't have to be >> reposted. Ron, I'll post this morning on this side >> of the world a vague note about your working on >> something and let the UVV ONLY know what it >> is so that they can add his name and drop the >> srb sentence. You post to news.groups as soon >> as you can filling in everyone else. > >Good. If there's any problem, point out that the sentence has no effect, >as everything it permits is permitted anyway. It truly is verbiage, not >substance. I'll write a post right now. > >> Any place in Australia online where as much mileage >> as possible can be made of this? > >I suspect others will spread the word about this. John is very popular >and respected in Australia. BTW: would you all please add John's email >address to our proponent discussions? John will be at NSA meetings and >other places so he might not reply, but I want him to have a record of >what is happening. > >> What we don't want to do is repost the RFD. It would >> add another ten days and we'll begin to miss the >> student vote as they return over here home for the >> Thanksgiving holiday. We probably still will have a >> week or two or more before it begins anyway in which >> to spread the news, though we won't be allowed to do >> so on srb, the only place it would count.... > >That's right. We proceed as we are. I'll give SRB another try anyway. >Who knows? They might finally understand - I hope they do. If they >don't, they judge themselves. I have no intention of saying anything >more about them. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:13 PM To: Ron House Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: srb.... Paranoia? Ron, you sound like the srb moderators.... What do they know about what a country thinks on the other side of the world? I'm sure Mr. Walker is a wonderful Bahai; all the more reason he should speak for himself and support the proposal openly, not in abstentia the way Frank has largely chosen, reminiscent, really, of Chris Manvell's abandoning it last December when things appeared to be going all too well.... Bill Hyman's recent message shows he's beyond redemption in my opinion: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb67.htm You're assuming thirty YES voters is all that will be needed IF the votes are spread the same as last time. I don't assume that. Given the lack of discussion this time around, almost anything can happen, including another massive NO vote with Bahais again claiming they didn't understand the nature of Usenet interest polling vs voting.... I haven't posted my misgivings to news.groups but reserve the right.... People of integrity usually are not reluctant to support their claims publicly if their intentions are honorable.... Expecting people to be impressed by one's reputation or the claims others make for what so and so believes is very lukewarn support indeed.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:24 PM Subject: Re: srb.... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> I think somehow John's request to serve as a >> proponent ought to be mentioned on srb; it >> certainly deserves to be.... Since they've been >> rejecting messages from you, and would from me, >> perhaps he himself and/or Frank could somehow >> get them to accept posting a few messages >> regarding their/his support for trb.... > >I'll simply do it myself. John is now out of town at NSA meetings. There >IS a limit to how far one can stretch paranoia, and I would hope that >the good opinion of an entire country about John would give the >moderators pause for thought about their fears of TRB. I want _everyone_ >to have the maximum chance to come out of this looking good, and that >includes the SRB moderators. They can still redeem themselves in the >eyes of others. It's up to them. > >> I believe many will consider him a cb and forward >> his messages, if any, to the UHJ, etc.... They'll >> have to hear from the UHJ in the most literal terms >> that it's OKAY or they'll still vote NO.... > >Stop worrying about them. They can forward messages to the UHJ all they >want, John only agreed to this after studying a huge compilation of >messages from the UHJ that was sent to him by the Counsellors. We only >need about thirty waverers to make up their minds and we have it. There >is no point letting a few people with closed minds get to you. There is >_definitely_ no sense in posting these doubts on news.groups; much >better to look at the positive. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:20 PM To: Ron House Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: a further thought.... I'm in favor of this idea: Frank's writing the srb moderators. Recall Hyman intimated Ron was a cb or none Bahai in the link in my last message to all of you. Frank might be more effective, if he's willing actually to do something to support the proposal.... I make no assumptions about where we're going or what the RESULTS will be except that given two "interest polls" in which Bahais could do nothing but lie and scheme for the defeat of talk.religion.bahai, with many administrators and institutions watching and abetting, that absolutely anything can happen.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:30 PM Subject: Re: a further thought.... >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Perhaps Ron's digest idea on srb would be worth >> bringing up again.... One or two messages from Frank >> and John only.... Doubt the fanatics would permit it.... > >John isn't here to do it, but Frank's writing of a small note to SRB >might be helpful, if he leaves it a day so they have the news. I think >we can get there without SRB. I'll send them the notice of change to the >proposed charter. If they post that, it's enough. If not, I think we'll >still get there. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:28 PM To: Ron House Subject: explanation If you've posted to news.groups, it hasn't reached my server yet here at 9:30pm. Sorry, Ron, to have to be so tough in the other messages tonight, but I'm unimpressed by the putative support of Frank and now a NSA member who can't apparently own his opinions in public.... If they're honest, they ought to speak out, at least to some degree.... Go with it, though.... I'm not opposed to trying to use John's reputation for what it's worth; I fear very little.... I would love to be wrong. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:28 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: SRB I have sent the article about John's joining us and the charter change to soc.religion.bahai. (Same as sent to news.groups, but with an extra line at the bottom referring readers to the discussion on news.groups.) -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 11:25 AM To: Frank Baker Cc: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; John Walker fran Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB Hi everyone, and welcome John! As you probably noticed, there has been some discussion about eliminated/replacing the phrase "Baha'i standards of conduct" from the charter. Frankly, I find this phrase problematic (how are non-Bahai's supposed to know what this means?), but I know we don't want to get bogged down. Thoughts? --Fran ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 6:17 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News -----Original Message----- From: Ron House Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Cc: johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:39 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News >This article covers: >1. welcoming John Walker as a proponent for talk.religion.bahai, and >2. a proposed change to the charter. > >I am overjoyed to inform everyone that Mr John Walker has asked to >become a proponent for talk.religion.bahai. John is treasurer of the >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was >previously an Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 >years, and was also an NSA member before that. He is one of the most >knowledgeable and most highly respected Baha'is in Australia. All the >other proponents are very happy indeed to welcome John. > >John's email address is johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; however, he regrets >that pressures of NSA work may unfortunately prevent his taking an >active part in the discussions. > >When I discussed the TRB proposal with John last Friday, we discussed >issues such as the degree to which the Faith balances individual >freedom with the need to accept a high degree of personal >responsibility for one's own actions. When I showed John the proposed >charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: > > "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." > >He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >act as a barrier between souls. Therefore all the proponents have >agreed that this sentence should be deleted. We are proceeding on the >basis that this is a minor change (as the passage has no practical >effect), and we would appreciate comments from everyone here as to >whether this is agreeable. > >I am ecstatic about John's involvement in this proposal, as we now >have the widest agreement about the basis for talk.religion.bahai. The >charter is the product, first of Fred, then Frank's rewriting, then >the many invaluable suggestions and advice on this newsgroup, and >finally John's insight into an important spiritual subtlety. The end >result surely proves that co-operation and unity are indeed possible >between people of the widest imaginable range of opinions and >sentiments, and it sets us a high standard to meet when we start >discussing the Baha'i Faith on talk.religion.bahai. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 6:18 AM To: talisman Subject: NSA member becomes proponent - talk.religion.bahai (Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News) fyi -----Original Message----- From: Ron House Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Cc: johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:39 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News >This article covers: >1. welcoming John Walker as a proponent for talk.religion.bahai, and >2. a proposed change to the charter. > >I am overjoyed to inform everyone that Mr John Walker has asked to >become a proponent for talk.religion.bahai. John is treasurer of the >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was >previously an Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 >years, and was also an NSA member before that. He is one of the most >knowledgeable and most highly respected Baha'is in Australia. All the >other proponents are very happy indeed to welcome John. > >John's email address is johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; however, he regrets >that pressures of NSA work may unfortunately prevent his taking an >active part in the discussions. > >When I discussed the TRB proposal with John last Friday, we discussed >issues such as the degree to which the Faith balances individual >freedom with the need to accept a high degree of personal >responsibility for one's own actions. When I showed John the proposed >charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: > > "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." > >He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >act as a barrier between souls. Therefore all the proponents have >agreed that this sentence should be deleted. We are proceeding on the >basis that this is a minor change (as the passage has no practical >effect), and we would appreciate comments from everyone here as to >whether this is agreeable. > >I am ecstatic about John's involvement in this proposal, as we now >have the widest agreement about the basis for talk.religion.bahai. The >charter is the product, first of Fred, then Frank's rewriting, then >the many invaluable suggestions and advice on this newsgroup, and >finally John's insight into an important spiritual subtlety. The end >result surely proves that co-operation and unity are indeed possible >between people of the widest imaginable range of opinions and >sentiments, and it sets us a high standard to meet when we start >discussing the Baha'i Faith on talk.religion.bahai. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 6:31 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: NSA member becomes proponent - talk.religion.bahai fyi -----Original Message----- From: Ron House Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Cc: johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:39 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News >This article covers: >1. welcoming John Walker as a proponent for talk.religion.bahai, and >2. a proposed change to the charter. > >I am overjoyed to inform everyone that Mr John Walker has asked to >become a proponent for talk.religion.bahai. John is treasurer of the >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was >previously an Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 >years, and was also an NSA member before that. He is one of the most >knowledgeable and most highly respected Baha'is in Australia. All the >other proponents are very happy indeed to welcome John. > >John's email address is johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; however, he regrets >that pressures of NSA work may unfortunately prevent his taking an >active part in the discussions. > >When I discussed the TRB proposal with John last Friday, we discussed >issues such as the degree to which the Faith balances individual >freedom with the need to accept a high degree of personal >responsibility for one's own actions. When I showed John the proposed >charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: > > "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." > >He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >act as a barrier between souls. Therefore all the proponents have >agreed that this sentence should be deleted. We are proceeding on the >basis that this is a minor change (as the passage has no practical >effect), and we would appreciate comments from everyone here as to >whether this is agreeable. > >I am ecstatic about John's involvement in this proposal, as we now >have the widest agreement about the basis for talk.religion.bahai. The >charter is the product, first of Fred, then Frank's rewriting, then >the many invaluable suggestions and advice on this newsgroup, and >finally John's insight into an important spiritual subtlety. The end >result surely proves that co-operation and unity are indeed possible >between people of the widest imaginable range of opinions and >sentiments, and it sets us a high standard to meet when we start >discussing the Baha'i Faith on talk.religion.bahai. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 6:59 AM Subject: Bahai Christian Fireside Letters New URL for The Baha'i Christian Fireside Letters: by Dale Grider: http://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/ Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Bill Aten[SMTP:bill@netagw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:28 PM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Cc: UVV Administration; Newgroup Advice Mailing List Subject: Re: CFV - talk.religion.bahai > Message ID: <13888.49455.16878.149069@gro.dd.org> > From: David Lawrence > Date: Wed Nov 4 16:03:43 1998 > Subject: Re: CFV - talk.religion.bahai > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Neither the proponent change nor the removal of that sentence from > talk.religion.bahai's charter regarding articles rejected from > soc.religion.bahai has a material impact on the proposal, so no new > RFD is required or would be accepted for just those changes. > Simply make the appropriate changes in the CFV. > > David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups Frederick, Please submit a completely new PQ that includes the changes you mentioned. The previously accepted PQ submission has been deleted. I will not be advertising for a votetaker on your proposal until a new PQ has been submitted and accepted. Thanks, -- Bill Aten Member of UVV ============================================================================== ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:34 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: An old saw Damning by faint praise.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:39 AM To: John Walker Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; Ron House; Frederick Glaysher Subject: Welcome aboard, John Welcome aboard, John! It is good to have you as a talk.religion.bahai co-proponent. Regards, -- Frank ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:46 AM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: IMPORTANT AND URGENT - re TRB At 10:19 AM 11/4/98 +1000, you wrote: >... >That's right. We proceed as we are. I'll give SRB another try anyway. >Who knows? They might finally understand - I hope they do. If they >don't, they judge themselves. I have no intention of saying anything >more about them. That, I believe, is an excellent position. It would be helpful if the SRB moderators permitted a modest level of discussion. But it is not uncommon, for several good reasons that have pointed out on news.groups, for a moderated newsgroup to disallow a discussion such as this one. If the SRB moderators choose to disallow this discussion, I agree that we should not focus on that act; it will only make us look petty. -- Frank ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:45 AM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; John Walker Cc: Frank Baker Subject: Re: a further thought.... I think this is a good idea. I'll try to put something together by the end of the week to post to SRB. A BRIEF summary, a pointer, and a list of the co-proponents. Suggestions are WELCOME. -- Frank At 10:36 AM 11/4/98 +1000, Ron House wrote: >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Perhaps Ron's digest idea on srb would be worth >> bringing up again.... One or two messages from Frank >> and John only.... Doubt the fanatics would permit it.... > >John isn't here to do it, but Frank's writing of a small note to SRB >might be helpful, if he leaves it a day so they have the news. I think >we can get there without SRB. I'll send them the notice of change to the >proposed charter. If they post that, it's enough. If not, I think we'll >still get there. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > > ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 11:00 AM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: srb.... At 10:30 AM 11/4/98 +1000, Ron House wrote: >... There >is no point letting a few people with closed minds get to you. There is >_definitely_ no sense in posting these doubts on news.groups; much >better to look at the positive. I absolutely agree with Ron on this. If we take a positive approach, others are VERY likely to be able to put the negative arguments aside and support the creation of the newsgroup. Focusing on the negative will draw a backlash in the voting process. -- Frank ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:39 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker; bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick, We thought the discussion was of changing "Bahai standards" reference to something more specific rather than simply deleting it. Changing the statement is fine; we are not in favor of simply deleting it. May we suggest substituting the following: Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars. Regards, Frank and Fran Baker At 07:13 PM 11/4/98 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Bill Aten of the UVV has asked for a revised Questionnaire, >so I'll do it first thing in the morning tomrrow and delete the >problem passage Fran and Paul Johnson and others have >objected to: > >"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms." > >That seems best to me, especially in light of John Walker's >request that the srb reference be dropped--compromise is >an art.... And then I add his name to the list of proponents. > >And that should do it!!!!!!! Any objections or further >suggestions after 6:00am Eastern Standard Time are >TOO LATE! (You've had nearly a month and a half.) > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:40 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick, When you send in the revised questionnaire, could you copy us on it, please? I, for one, would like to see what one looks like. Thanks, -- Frank At 07:13 PM 11/4/98 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Bill Aten of the UVV has asked for a revised Questionnaire, >so I'll do it first thing in the morning tomrrow ... ---------- From: David Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 4:03 PM To: UVV Administration Cc: Frederick Glaysher; group-advice@isc.org Subject: Re: CFV - talk.religion.bahai Neither the proponent change nor the removal of that sentence from talk.religion.bahai's charter regarding articles rejected from soc.religion.bahai has a material impact on the proposal, so no new RFD is required or would be accepted for just those changes. Simply make the appropriate changes in the CFV. David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 12:54 AM To: Frank Baker Cc: Frederick Glaysher; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: a further thought.... Frank Baker wrote: > > I think this is a good idea. I'll try to put something together > by the end of the week to post to SRB. A BRIEF summary, a pointer, > and a list of the co-proponents. Suggestions are WELCOME. Great idea, Frank. I just noticed that SRB posted my notice about John and the charter change, so things might be looking up even over there. I'm certainly glad to see it. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:03 AM To: Fran Baker Cc: Frank Baker; Frederick Glaysher; John Walker fran Subject: Re: "Baha'i standards" phrase in charter Fran Baker wrote: > > Hi everyone, and welcome John! > > As you probably noticed, there has been some discussion about > eliminated/replacing the phrase "Baha'i standards of conduct" from the > charter. Frankly, I find this phrase problematic (how are non-Bahai's > supposed to know what this means?), but I know we don't want to get > bogged down. Thoughts? > > --Fran I know what you mean. replacing "conduct" with "discourse" or "discussion" is a minimalist change. I really don't believe this is a problem, because we all know there is no subtext to this one. The Faith doesn't have strange greeting rituals that must be observed, or such. It simply means "be civil, argue the issue not the person, and don't backbite". Also, the charter merely "asks", so there is no threat hanging over anyone who declines the request. I think that a co-operatively designed FAQ put together by discussion on the newsgroup will handle this quite adequately no matter which version we go with. I understand the point that "conduct" does literally include stuff like "don't marry without parental consent", so changing that one word is justified. We must remember that there will be many readers who want to see the word "Baha'i" retained in order to give them confidence. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:18 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Bill Aten of the UVV has asked for a revised Questionnaire, > so I'll do it first thing in the morning tomrrow and delete the > problem passage Fran and Paul Johnson and others have > objected to: > > "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not > to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on > articles and threads written in more moderate terms." > No I do not agree that this should simply be dropped. The SRB sentence could have been seen by the moderators as some sort of thumbing one's nose at them, so it definitely had to go. This sentence, though, says something very important, it's just that we haven't got the wording dead right. Putting "civil standards of discussion" is better than outright deletion, and shouldn't confuse anyone. Remember, it says "asked", not "must", so people are really free to understand it how they like. But leaving it out entirely changes the flavour of the whole document, allowing sheer rudeness, which I cannot accept. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:05 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: UVV wants a new Questionnaire David Lawrence doesn't object to the changes but unfortunately the UVV does. I redo the Questionnaire in the morning on the 19th and delete the passage K. Paul Johnson and others objected to as well. That should make it "neutral" at last.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: Bill Aten To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Cc: UVV Administration ; Newgroup Advice Mailing List Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 9:29 AM Subject: Re: CFV - talk.religion.bahai >> Message ID: <13888.49455.16878.149069@gro.dd.org> >> From: David Lawrence >> Date: Wed Nov 4 16:03:43 1998 >> Subject: Re: CFV - talk.religion.bahai >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Neither the proponent change nor the removal of that sentence from >> talk.religion.bahai's charter regarding articles rejected from >> soc.religion.bahai has a material impact on the proposal, so no new >> RFD is required or would be accepted for just those changes. >> Simply make the appropriate changes in the CFV. >> >> David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups > >Frederick, > >Please submit a completely new PQ that includes the changes you mentioned. >The previously accepted PQ submission has been deleted. I will not >be advertising for a votetaker on your proposal until a new PQ has been >submitted and accepted. > >Thanks, > >-- >Bill Aten Member of UVV >=========================================================================== === -----Original Message----- From: David Lawrence To: UVV Administration Cc: Frederick Glaysher ; group-advice@isc.org Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 4:03 PM Subject: Re: CFV - talk.religion.bahai >Neither the proponent change nor the removal of that sentence from >talk.religion.bahai's charter regarding articles rejected from >soc.religion.bahai has a material impact on the proposal, so no new >RFD is required or would be accepted for just those changes. >Simply make the appropriate changes in the CFV. > >David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:13 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Bill Aten of the UVV has asked for a revised Questionnaire, so I'll do it first thing in the morning tomrrow and delete the problem passage Fran and Paul Johnson and others have objected to: "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." That seems best to me, especially in light of John Walker's request that the srb reference be dropped--compromise is an art.... And then I add his name to the list of proponents. And that should do it!!!!!!! Any objections or further suggestions after 6:00am Eastern Standard Time are TOO LATE! (You've had nearly a month and a half.) Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:21 PM To: Ron House Subject: I had fw your message to AOL about the new proponent people seem to be doubting the veracity of it.... Subject: Re: Please forward NSA member becomes proponent - talk.religion.bahai Date: 11/4/1998 7:57 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Smaneck Message-id: <19981104075717.03531.00004980@ng90.aol.com> >Please forward this message to "Bahai Studies" and >elsewhere. Dear Fred, Ron House is a member of Bahai Studies. If he wishes to post his message to that list he is free to do so on his own. Susan ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:22 PM To: Ron House Subject: fyi Subject: Re: Please forward NSA member becomes proponent - talk.religion.bahai Date: 11/4/1998 4:49 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ruletherod Message-id: <19981104164918.19995.00003831@ng110.aol.com> >1. welcoming John Walker as a proponent for talk.religion.bahai, Great postings, Fred! Thank you for sharing. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:39 PM To: Frederick Glaysher; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker; bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai <> ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:09 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: UVV wants a new Questionnaire Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > David Lawrence doesn't object to the changes > but unfortunately the UVV does. I redo the Questionnaire > in the morning on the 19th and delete the passage > K. Paul Johnson and others objected to as well. > > That should make it "neutral" at last.... The 19th? They aren't asking us to wait another ten days; at least I didn't get that impression from the reply you quoted. Let's just clear up the "Baha'i standards" clause and put in the revised version. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Ron House[SMTP:house@usq.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:52 AM To: Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frank Baker wrote: > We thought the discussion was of changing "Bahai standards" reference > to something more specific rather than simply deleting it. Changing > the statement is fine; we are not in favor of simply deleting it. > May we suggest substituting the following: > > Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage > in personal attacks or flamewars. This is fine too. As you say, the idea of simply deleting it was never on the table and is not acceptable. To save us all time, I vote for this wording. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:12 AM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Paul, I think we can get this passage changed now that the new proponent John Walker insisted that the srb reference be dropped. It would really be unfair if they unwilling to compromise as well. I need you to post supporting me on this right away. Here are the two sentences from the RFD. I'm going to insist on "netiquette" being good enough, while "Bahai standards" are sectarian regarding non-Bahais and leave open the many instances when Bahais have been "nasty and vituperative about the covenant and so on. It important to me that the second passage not be merely reworded but entirely deleted. The fanatics put this passage in the RFD to begin with and they or many now want to retain it. "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." Fred -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 12:03 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >Ron House (house@usq.edu.au) wrote: >: Joe Bernstein wrote: >: >: > [Well-argued stuff deleted...] >: >: > Furthermore, this sentence amounts to simple good advice: people who are >: > in talk.religion.bahai are *presumably* there for dialogue with Baha'is, >: > and it stands to reason that they should speak in ways that do not >: > forestall such dialogue. > >But the presumption in the wording is that "ways that do not >forestall such dialogue" is limited to following "Baha'i >standards of conduct." Which it surely isn't. I'd make the same >objection in parallel circumstances involving my own spiritual >orientation, which might be called "liberal New Age Christian." >To say "If you're going to talk to us, you have to behave >according to our standards" seems awfully arrogant. There are >standards that can ensure constructive dialogue which don't have >sectarian identities attached to them. As I suggested, "civil >standards of discourse"-- or "norms of civility" or "mutual >respect" etc. > >This is a minor point, but when I say "come back to haunt you" >what I mean is that all sorts of awful behavior might be >justified by certain people as fitting "Baha'i standards of >conduct"-- which can all too easily be distorted into "nasty and >vituperative whenever this particular Baha'i perceives someone as >deserving of it, and/or when the target is perceived as an enemy of >the Faith, or disloyal to the Covenant." I speak from experience. >Whereas "norms of civility and mutual respect" doesn't lend itself >to such self-justifying distortion, as much. > >Cheers, >PJ ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:39 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Ron House wrote: When I showed John the proposed >charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: > > "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from > soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." > >He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >act as a barrier between souls. I and others agreed to drop that sentence lest it "act as a barrier between souls." The RFD reads "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." I'm opposed to merely revising the second passage; the first passage mentions "standard netiquette" which is sufficient for the purpose. K. Paul Johnson, for one, has pointed out his objections to this passage and I agree. Bahais have and will use this passage to create a "barrier between souls," between Bahais and other Bahais, and between Bahais and non-Bahais. It has to be entirely dropped. It's the only thing I'll now agree to. Any revision would be redundant. Again, netiquette in the preceding passage is enough. It makes no sense to me that the srb passage is dropped but this one shouldn't be. That to me is not fair. We need to remember trb is not FOR Bahais, it's for all people, non-Bahais as well and such stipulations are entirely biased and can and will be used against them.... I have not sent in a revised Questionnaire to the UVV. To my mind, nothing can go forward until this is resolved.... Bahais say they want a "neutral" RFD--here's the last opportunity to prove it.... All the barriers need to be removed on both sides.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <71nttg$i85@news1.newsguy.com>... >All right maybe the whole passage should be deleted to in the >light of what Ron will be mentioning and since the arguably >negative reference to soc.religion.bahai will be dropped: > >"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms." > >If this passage too is taken out, the RFD is unquestionably >neutral and technical to my point of view. The passage on >prevailing standards of netiquette really ought to be adequate >and meet the needs of everyone, Bahai or non-Bahai, >interested in an unbiased RFD. > >I don't believe dropping both passages would be enough >that a new RFD would have to be posted. I think that >ought to be avoided. Dragging this out further makes no >sense. If you have any other concerns, please speak up >right away. > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:40 AM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Really need your help on this one! Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai fyi -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Glaysher Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:39 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >Ron House wrote: >When I showed John the proposed >>charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: >> >> "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from >> soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." >> >>He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >>the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >>soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >>whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >>he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >>is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >>act as a barrier between souls. > >I and others agreed to drop that sentence lest it "act >as a barrier between souls." > >The RFD reads > >"Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of >this newsgroup." > >"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms." > >I'm opposed to merely revising the second passage; the first >passage mentions "standard netiquette" which is sufficient >for the purpose. K. Paul Johnson, for one, has pointed out >his objections to this passage and I agree. Bahais have >and will use this passage to create a "barrier between souls," >between Bahais and other Bahais, and between Bahais >and non-Bahais. It has to be entirely dropped. It's the only >thing I'll now agree to. Any revision would be redundant. >Again, netiquette in the preceding passage is enough. > >It makes no sense to me that the srb passage is dropped >but this one shouldn't be. That to me is not fair. We need >to remember trb is not FOR Bahais, it's for all people, >non-Bahais as well and such stipulations are entirely >biased and can and will be used against them.... > >I have not sent in a revised Questionnaire to the UVV. >To my mind, nothing can go forward until this is resolved.... > >Bahais say they want a "neutral" RFD--here's the last >opportunity to prove it.... All the barriers need to be >removed on both sides.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <71nttg$i85@news1.newsguy.com>... >>All right maybe the whole passage should be deleted to in the >>light of what Ron will be mentioning and since the arguably >>negative reference to soc.religion.bahai will be dropped: >> >>"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >>to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >>articles and threads written in more moderate terms." >> >>If this passage too is taken out, the RFD is unquestionably >>neutral and technical to my point of view. The passage on >>prevailing standards of netiquette really ought to be adequate >>and meet the needs of everyone, Bahai or non-Bahai, >>interested in an unbiased RFD. >> >>I don't believe dropping both passages would be enough >>that a new RFD would have to be posted. I think that >>ought to be avoided. Dragging this out further makes no >>sense. If you have any other concerns, please speak up >>right away. >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:42 AM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Need your help! Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai fyi -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Glaysher Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:39 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >Ron House wrote: >When I showed John the proposed >>charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: >> >> "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from >> soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." >> >>He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >>the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >>soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >>whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >>he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >>is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >>act as a barrier between souls. > >I and others agreed to drop that sentence lest it "act >as a barrier between souls." > >The RFD reads > >"Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of >this newsgroup." > >"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms." > >I'm opposed to merely revising the second passage; the first >passage mentions "standard netiquette" which is sufficient >for the purpose. K. Paul Johnson, for one, has pointed out >his objections to this passage and I agree. Bahais have >and will use this passage to create a "barrier between souls," >between Bahais and other Bahais, and between Bahais >and non-Bahais. It has to be entirely dropped. It's the only >thing I'll now agree to. Any revision would be redundant. >Again, netiquette in the preceding passage is enough. > >It makes no sense to me that the srb passage is dropped >but this one shouldn't be. That to me is not fair. We need >to remember trb is not FOR Bahais, it's for all people, >non-Bahais as well and such stipulations are entirely >biased and can and will be used against them.... > >I have not sent in a revised Questionnaire to the UVV. >To my mind, nothing can go forward until this is resolved.... > >Bahais say they want a "neutral" RFD--here's the last >opportunity to prove it.... All the barriers need to be >removed on both sides.... > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <71nttg$i85@news1.newsguy.com>... >>All right maybe the whole passage should be deleted to in the >>light of what Ron will be mentioning and since the arguably >>negative reference to soc.religion.bahai will be dropped: >> >>"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >>to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >>articles and threads written in more moderate terms." >> >>If this passage too is taken out, the RFD is unquestionably >>neutral and technical to my point of view. The passage on >>prevailing standards of netiquette really ought to be adequate >>and meet the needs of everyone, Bahai or non-Bahai, >>interested in an unbiased RFD. >> >>I don't believe dropping both passages would be enough >>that a new RFD would have to be posted. I think that >>ought to be avoided. Dragging this out further makes no >>sense. If you have any other concerns, please speak up >>right away. >> >>Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >>talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >>talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:47 AM To: bahai-faith@egroups.com; Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Only dropping the passage is acceptable to me. No change or revision will do it. See my previous note. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Baker To: Frederick Glaysher ; Ron House ; Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker ; bahai-faith @ egroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:42 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick, We thought the discussion was of changing "Bahai standards" reference to something more specific rather than simply deleting it. Changing the statement is fine; we are not in favor of simply deleting it. May we suggest substituting the following: Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars. Regards, Frank and Fran Baker At 07:13 PM 11/4/98 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >Bill Aten of the UVV has asked for a revised Questionnaire, >so I'll do it first thing in the morning tomrrow and delete the >problem passage Fran and Paul Johnson and others have >objected to: > >"Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not >to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on >articles and threads written in more moderate terms." > >That seems best to me, especially in light of John Walker's >request that the srb reference be dropped--compromise is >an art.... And then I add his name to the list of proponents. > >And that should do it!!!!!!! Any objections or further >suggestions after 6:00am Eastern Standard Time are >TOO LATE! (You've had nearly a month and a half.) > >Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, >talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) >talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:49 AM To: Ron House Cc: Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: UVV wants a new Questionnaire I misread my calendar apparently. We shouldn't have to wait another ten days though if it drags out over the disputed passage they might.... If so, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.... I won't accept any revision of it. The passage is biased and spiteful against non-Bahais and has to go.... And redundant.... -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Frank Baker ; Fran Baker ; John Walker Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:03 AM Subject: Re: UVV wants a new Questionnaire >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> David Lawrence doesn't object to the changes >> but unfortunately the UVV does. I redo the Questionnaire >> in the morning on the 19th and delete the passage >> K. Paul Johnson and others objected to as well. >> >> That should make it "neutral" at last.... > >The 19th? They aren't asking us to wait another ten days; at least I >didn't get that impression from the reply you quoted. Let's just clear >up the "Baha'i standards" clause and put in the revised version. > >-- >Ron House house@usq.edu.au > >You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 6:55 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai We've hit a snag over the following passages from the RFD: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." The second is obviously biased against non-Bahais and will lead to endless wrangling over what "Bahai standards of conduct" are. I'm against any revising of it and believe it has to be entirely deleted as the srb passage was to be fair.... I have not sent in a new Questionnaire to Bill Aten and will have to wait now for agreement on this issue. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 3:07 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, I'm not sure what you are asking of me. Perhaps it's too strong to simply demand withdrawal of the passage. I don't mind replacing it with something nonsectarian but more specific. How about a quote from the writings, say `Abdu'l Baha, about the way people should conduct themselves in group discussion? And expressed in terms that "readers are encouraged to keep in mind these principles" or something of that nature. Compromise is always good when the issue is nonfundamental. Things are going too well to screw them up now, it seems. Cheers, Paul ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 7:05 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, I'm still not sure what you are asking me to do. Shrilly insist that I'll vote no if the passage isn't deleted? That will have no impact that I can imagine. Continue to argue that it's inappropriate, yes, I have been doing just that. Please let me know what in particular would help. Cheers, Paul ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 11:20 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu; Ron House; Frank Baker; John Walker Subject: Delete or replace passage - last snag? Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > We've hit a snag over the following passages from the RFD: > > "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of > this newsgroup." Then... Fred would prefer to DELETE: > > "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not > to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on > articles and threads written in more moderate terms." Ron, Frank, and Fran prefer to REPLACE IT WITH: > Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage > in personal attacks or flamewars. This seems fairly minor to me--the important thing is not to have reference to Baha'i standards but to encourage good behavior in a neutral way, and I think either achieves that goal. Can we resolve this quickly. Flip a coin? Fred caves to the rest of us because we are so intimidating (grrrrrr!)? Let's bring this baby home! John, what do you think? --Fran ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 8:40 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Fred, You will probably not like me for this, but I can't beat around the bush. You just gotta stop ranting, babe. Stay calm. If necessary, just let the others decide this one. This is NOT a biggie unless you turn it into one. Please don't. --Fran ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 5:40 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Chris Manvell wrote: >: The passage was written the way it is so that Baha'is would be reassured >: that the intention was to avoid such things as ad hominem attacks, foul >: language, and so on. Some Bahais themselves have committed acts of ad hominem attack in my opinion.... To imply it is true only of non-Bahais would be mistaken. Last year this passage came out of the Bahai opposition to the entire past two proposals for talk.religion.bahai. Those who have been along all the while should recall that. The passage has to go. I'm against any revision of it or the use of any passage from the writings. Recall when I quoted the UHJ twice on civil rights for covenant breakers and not being opposed to unmoderated discussion groups others insisted those passages had to go.... I feel the same way about this one. Chris Manvell wrote: >More broadly, what would meet the specific need, and can they >explain it in a way that compromise can be sought? The compromise required is for Bahais who have been opposed to trb all along to allow this passage to be deleted, as they required so much that I and others felt strongly about to nonetheless be excised.... K. Paul Johnson wrote: >Well, Ron, from experience I can say that asking certain >questions, even in the politest of ways, is entirely in accord >with civil standards of discourse but causes certain Baha'is to >hit the ceiling. And here's the crux of the whole matter: Bahais have and will use it against Bahais and non-Bahais for reasons of content. It will be twisted by intolerance and religious hatred into a bludgeon. When it was balanced with a few of the passages I've now agreed to drop, I was willing to leave it in. I've given ground, now others must.... Chris Manvell: Also, we all know that the intention is not to suddenly >: browbeat people with some obscure doctrine, but simply to get rid of >: name-calling, gratuitous insults, and so on. That's how Bahais have used such passages, in my opinion. Srb's "Charter" is a perfect example of the abuse of a written charter. I refuse to give my fellow Bahais another excuse for browbeating covenant breakers and more liberal minds, Bahai or non-Bahai, leading to endless grief and insult.... Chris Manvell wrote: >: If anyone feels strongly about it, let us know. I am.... This RFD has been advertised as "neutral" and "technical." This is the last piece of detritus left over from the Bahai wars.... Bahais need to live up to their claims on this one.... K. Paul Johnson wrote: >It would certainly help to know exactly what proponents of this >phrase had in mind, whereby a satisfactory change could be found. It was always intended to abuse and beat the hell out of people.... There are many instances recorded of this on my web site.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 5:51 PM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Paul, They've demanded that everything be removed, while still trying to stack the cards against trb and others. I agree we don't want to screw things up too much over this, but it's essential that a truly neutral RFD exist or Bahais will be constantly throwing it people's faces the way the srb "moderators" do with their phony "charter." The fanatics put this passage in last year and they want it to remain.... I can't agree to it ever. If just you or one or two people will say they agree with me and it's not neutral the news.groupies will probably come over to our side. Most of them have been supportive in private email for months now.... You see it's really their side that needs to compromise; I have constantly all along this time. Cast it in the right light--THEY have to compromise.... THEY supposedly wanted a neutral RFD (while fighting to leave things like this in it). A quote from Abdu'l-Baha would be fought over forever, and then why allow that but not the UHJ passages I wanted earlier regarding civil rights for cb's and allowing unmoderated newsgroups? I need your support on this. They'll back down.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 7:07 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >Dear Fred, > >I'm not sure what you are asking of me. Perhaps it's too strong >to simply demand withdrawal of the passage. I don't mind >replacing it with something nonsectarian but more specific. How >about a quote from the writings, say `Abdu'l Baha, about the way >people should conduct themselves in group discussion? And >expressed in terms that "readers are encouraged to keep in mind >these principles" or something of that nature. > >Compromise is always good when the issue is nonfundamental. >Things are going too well to screw them up now, it seems. > >Cheers, > >Paul ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 7:02 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai A further complication now becomes the time frame for the interest poll. If I don't submit the revised Questionnaire to Bill Aten within 24 hours, the poll may overlap with Thanksgiving vacation. Many college students will begin to leave their campuses early the week of the 22nd and not return until early December. The submission of the Questionnaire was delayed for more than two weeks while Ron House attempted to request soc.religion.bahai allow some discussion or a digest of the proposal. Some might recall Bill Hyman's response, following, I suppose, the srb charter, which was to suggest Ron was not a Bahai and even indeed a covenant breaker: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb67.htm (All the more reason to drop the disputed passage from this RFD in order to protect our fellow Bahais from such future abuse, not to mention non-Bahais....) I stated after posting the first RFD September 20, 1998, that I did not want the discussion to extend throughout the entire fall as it did last year. The disputed passage on "Bahai standards" was one of the reasons it took over four months last year. I believe we are in danger of dragging this out unnecessarily if we cannot agree immediately on what we began with--producing a truly technical and neutral RFD. The polling cannot overlap with either the Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday. If it takes any longer, we may be looking at waiting again for the new semester in January..... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 7:09 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <364224bd.0@vlinsvr>... >I looked for some relevant passages that might supplant "Baha'i >standards of conduct" and found: > >"Religion must ever be the means of love; that is, if so-called >religion be the cause of hatred and animosity, it is better to >quit such religion." > >"You must become distinguished for loving humanity; for unity and >accord; for love and justice." Please explain to me where such ideas exist in the soc.religion.bahai moderator Bill Hyman's derogatory insinuations against Ron House and talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb67.htm The only solution is to delete the passage and provide no well meaning Bahai with grist for his or her mill.... Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 8:15 PM To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; fglaysher@hotmail.com; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, I don't see where asking people to be courteous and try to avoid ad hominem arguments is in any way controversial or non-neutral. Am I missing something? Sincerely, Fran ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 8:59 PM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai I'm sorry I haven't been clear. I think if you would just say you think it's unfair to have this passage in a newsgroup intended of non-Bahais as well as Bahais that that would help. You originally brought the whole issue up, remember. I objected at that point because I thought it would be best to get things rolling but then they deleted the srb reference, leaving this passage there alone. Just insist it makes no sense if a "neutral" passage is really what they want, which it doesn't. It will be used against people later if it stays in. Say, in fairness, they should agree to drop it. Then they'll have really little choice but to do so. Hope this helps. Fred -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >Dear Fred, > >I'm still not sure what you are asking me to do. Shrilly insist >that I'll vote no if the passage isn't deleted? That will have >no impact that I can imagine. Continue to argue that it's >inappropriate, yes, I have been doing just that. Please let me >know what in particular would help. > >Cheers, > >Paul ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:05 PM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai I think she has the right idea here. No religious statements at all but needs to just leave it up to a general appeal to netiquette and let people argue about what that means later on trb. Paul, you might just second the idea and correct her a little along those lines. -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 8:14 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) writes: > >>Ron House (house@usq.edu.au) wrote: >>: Chris Manvell wrote: >>: > >>: > While I agree with Ron that it is desirable that Baha'i standards of >>: > discussion are maintained (though many of us do fall short at times) I >>: > also agree with Paul. We cannot, in one breath, say that our laws do >>: > not apply to non-Baha'is and then try to enforce them on an open >>: > newsgroup. However, I WOULD agree that the Baha'is should follow that >>: > advice. > >>Perhaps being more specific would satisfy both sides. That is, >>instead of simply calling for "Baha'i standards of conduct," use >>a quote from `Abdu'l Baha about civility and mutual respect, and >>ask all participants to be mindful of this advice? I think >>something that *grounds* the "standards of conduct" by >>*operationalizing* them should satisfy all. > >Please, no quotes from Baha'u'llah, et al. Personally, I >do not want to be a proponent of a charter with any religious >(per se) guidelines. > >Can't we just say "Posters are asked to be courteous." >The point about making it less vague (as to what netiquette is) >is a very good point. > >Secularly yours, >Fran ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:08 PM To: Fran Baker; fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu; house@usq.edu.au; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai It's the Bahais who supposedly wanted a "neutral" RFD who are turning it into a big issue; they've unbalanced the RFD by deleting the other passage for John Walker--now it's their turn to demonstrate reciprocity.... A fine old Confucian value.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fglaysher@hotmail.com ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 12:36 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai > >Fred, > >You will probably not like me for this, but I can't beat around the bush. >You just gotta stop ranting, babe. Stay calm. If necessary, just >let the others decide this one. This is NOT a biggie unless you >turn it into one. Please don't. > >--Fran > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:13 PM To: Fran Baker Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai The sentence on netiquette does that and is not grounded in the kind of religious fanaticism Hyman and others have been demonstrating for the past two years.... Their prime technique has been ad hominem.... Having been their favorite target, I will not budge on this one.... It's not neutral nor technical. Hence, it has to go.... -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker To: fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu ; fglaysher@hotmail.com ; fran@crhc.uiuc.edu ; house@usq.edu.au ; johnwalker@ozemail.com.au Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 8:11 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai > >Dear Fred, > >I don't see where asking people to be courteous and try to avoid >ad hominem arguments is in any way controversial or non-neutral. >Am I missing something? > >Sincerely, >Fran > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:14 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: and... I'm not "ranting" and don't care to see this characterized as such. ---------- From: Frank Baker[SMTP:fbaker@ncsa.uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 9:31 PM To: Ron House; Frederick Glaysher; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Frederick, I honestly do not understand your comments this evening regarding a delay. Of the four co-proponents who have expressed an opinion, three support the substitution below. I believe that this is a non-controversial change. You stated earlier that this is another instance where compromise is appropriate; given the 3:1 preferences of the co-proponents, you appear to be the one who should accept that compromise. If you do accept it, you can submit the new questionnaire immediately; if you do not accept it, the responsibility for any further delay is yours and yours alone. Regards, -- Frank >> >> Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage >> in personal attacks or flamewars. ---------- From: K. Paul Johnson[SMTP:pjohnson@vsla.edu] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 11:26 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Dear Fred, Hope this morning's post suffices. Cheers, Paul PS-- Australian Theosophical leaders are more openminded and tolerant than American ones, and it seems to be the same with Baha'is. Probably says something about their culture. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 6:28 AM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai In email, the proponents have agreed to delete and replace the passage in the following way: Original: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." Replacement: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." I will revise the Questionnaire immediately this morning and get it in to Bill Aten. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 6:28 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai In email, the proponents have agreed to delete and replace the passage in the following way: Original: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." Replacement: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." I will revise the Questionnaire immediately this morning and get it in to Bill Aten. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 7:15 AM To: UVV Cc: David Lawrence; Bill Aten Subject: Revised PQ for talk.religion.bahai Dear Mr. Aten, The proponents have agreed on three changes from the last posted RFD by Frank Baker; they are also detailed in the revised Summary: 1. A new proponent added: John Walker 2. The following passage should be deleted from the RFD as I informed you of earlier: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." 3. This passage in the RFD should be deleted: "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." And the passage should be replaced with: "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." I hope we can begin the vote immediately. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-CFV Questions ================= 1. Summary of the RFD Discussion. Please confirm that you participated in the required RFD discussion. In order to show compliance with the discussion phase of the newsgroup creation process, please give a brief description of the input that was given to you in response to the RFD, and what changes were made as a result of them. You do not have to implement every suggestion, but you must have answered them. Also indicate what your answers were if any serious suggestions were not implemented. For simple non-controversial proposals, it is acceptable to say, "All input was positive.", but only if that's true. NOTE: If, based on the input you've received, it appears that changes to the name(s) (including typos), charter(s), or moderator information of any of the proposed newsgroup(s) are necessary, you must make those changes and issue another RFD and allow discussion of the new RFD before submitting this form. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### SUMMARY: All proponents participated in the discussion. Early agreement centered around the idea that there should be a "neutral" or "technical" RFD for this third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. Several people expressed the belief that Bahais would vote for such a proposal this time. A number of very long-time opponents of the proposal switched to support of it a week or so before it was first posted. Several changes were subsequently made requiring a reposting. The most important changes were the removing of two passages from the Universal House of Justice stating "the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld" and that "In general, the House of Justice has no objection to Baha'is' participating in public, unmoderated discussions about the Faith." A passage written by Russ Allbery urging Bahais not to vote NO was also deleted. These had been added in an attempt to answer these long standing objections by many Bahais but had to be dropped due to their continuing opposition despite no reassurance was really forthcoming that Bahais in general, other than the four or five who had suddenly changed sides, would now vote to support an unmoderated and open forum. Supporters of the RFD objected to the following sentence: "The talk.religion.bahai newsgroup is not an official organ of any institutional faith." People felt this was not a "neutral" statement but biased against the newsgroup and implied that soc.religion.bahai was somehow official. These and a few other issues were ironed out in favor of a more "stripped down" RFD that was reposted. A few people commented on the 2nd RFD that it seemed still to imply "Bahai standards of conduct" had to be followed by non-Bahais and would be used against non-Bahais once the group was formed. Others felt there was no need to worry unduly about the passage and that it was reasonable to include it as a mild concession given the nearly two years of opposition and attempts to form the newsgroup. After this Questionnaire was first submitted on November 2, 1998, three changes were made: 1. John Walker, a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Australia, became a proponent. 2. He requested a passage mentioning soc.religion.bahai be removed from the RFD. 3. Frederick Glaysher and others requested then that a passage mentioning "Bahai standards of conduct" be removed. After a few days, an acceptable replacement passage evolved. #######################################################_END_##### 2. Proposed newsgroup names. List the proposed newsgroup name(s) in alphabetical order, indicate whether each group is unmoderated or moderated, and add any applicable comments. DO NOT put the words "moderated" or "unmoderated" in parentheses. Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example: comp.foo.bar.announce moderated comp.foo.bar.misc unmoderated (renames comp.foo.bar) comp.foo.bar.test unmoderated #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PROPOSED NAMES: talk.religion.bahai #######################################################_END_##### 3. Newsgroup descriptions. Please provide a one-line description of each newsgroup, listed in alphabetical order. Avoid phrases like "Discussion of..." since we already know that. This is normally the same description contained in the latest RFD. Enter the group name, then a tab (you must tab past column 24). You now have until the end of an 80-character line to enter a description for the system newsgroups files (which you must end with a period). If applicable, there is only ONE space between the period (.) and "(Moderated)". The "(Moderated)" phrase does not count in the 80 character limit. Repeat this once per proposed newsgroup. For example: comp.foo.bar.announce Announcements about the foo bar system. (Moderated) comp.foo.bar.misc The foo bar system in general. comp.foo.bar.test Testing the foo bar system. ( you MUST tab to here ^ [minimum] using a tabstop of 8 ) #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEWSGROUP DESCRIPTIONS: talk.religion.bahai Discussion of the Baha'i Faith. #######################################################_END_##### 4. Proponent/Mentor name and address. List the proponent's name and email address for this vote (usually you). If there is more than one proponent, list them on separate lines in the same format with the "primary" proponent listed first. If you are working with a Group Mentor, please include that person's name and email address also. If you do not have a Mentor, please delete that entire line in your response. Please use the form "name ". For example: Proponent: John Foo Proponent: Dave Smith Mentor: Jane Doe #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PROPONENT: Proponent: Frederick Glaysher Proponent: Ron House Proponent: Fran Baker Proponent: Frank Baker Proponent: John Walker #######################################################_END_##### 5. Newsgroup rationale. A rationale is a short paragraph or two explaining why you think this group creation/reorganization/whatever should pass. This paragraph will be used for the "Rationale" section of the CFV. This is not optional and is quite important in convincing potential voters to cast a positive vote. Multi-group proposals must have a rationale section for each group. This information is usually taken directly from the most recent RFD. Please provide a rationale for each newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END RATIONALE." comment at the end of your rationale. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### RATIONALE: talk.religion.bahai The newsgroup talk.religion.bahai is proposed to meet the need for an open and unmoderated forum for discussion of the Baha'i Faith within the structure of the Big 8 hierarchies. The proponents intend that talk.religion.bahai will complement, rather than supplant, the existing moderated group soc.religion.bahai, and will provide those without access to alt.religion.bahai the opportunity to participate. It is noted that the alt.* hierarchy is less well propagated than the talk.* hierarchy; this has meant that many people who have voted YES on earlier proposals have been unable to join discussions on alt.religion.bahai. #######################################################_END_##### 6. Newsgroup charter. What is/are the charter(s) for the newsgroup(s)? This includes the name of the newsgroup(s), what is acceptable and unacceptable on the newsgroup(s), and what exactly is going on if this is a reorganization. For moderated newsgroup(s), any moderation policy must be included in this section. All of this information can usually be taken directly from the most recent RFD. If the information has changed substantially since the last RFD, then a new RFD should be prepared instead of proceeding with a CFV. A new RFD is mandatory if any changes to a newsgroup name are made (no matter how minor). Please provide a charter for each newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END CHARTER." comment at the end of your charter. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### CHARTER: talk.religion.bahai All topics or ideas relevant to the Baha'i faith -- its history, teachings, theology, etc. -- would be appropriate areas for discussion. Talk.religion.bahai fills the need for a fully open and universally accessible Internet forum about the Baha'i Faith. Postings may take any point of view with regard to the Baha'i Faith. While this allows criticism, it also fully opens the door for enquirers to see with their own eyes and not through the eyes of their neighbors, asking questions and reading replies from anyone who is interested in their question. Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup. Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms. The posting of articles not relevant to the Baha'i Faith is prohibited. Large ASCII graphics, large binaries, pornography, spam, and any postings of a purely personal or commercial nature are prohibited. To facilitate viewing in news readers that are not HTML-capable, HTML-formatted postings are strongly discouraged. Cross-posting to irrelevant groups is also discouraged, and readers are encouraged to redirect follow-ups to reduce excessive cross-posting. Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter. #######################################################_END_##### 7. Moderator information. If any of the groups are moderated, give the names of their moderators, their mail addresses, and the addresses they will be using to moderate the group. If there is more than one moderator, then EACH moderator's name and address info line must begin with the "Moderator:" header. NOTE 1: You MUST use quotes (") if there is a period (.) in the moderator's listed name and you elect to use the 1st address format listed in the example below. NOTE 2: DO NOT enclose the contact or submission addresses in brackets (<>). NOTE 3: Failure to provide at least one moderator and both "contact" and "submission" addresses will cause your PQ submission to be rejected. For example: Moderator: "R. Frobs" <-- quotes required Moderator: jdoe@host.domain (J. Doe) <-- do not use quotes Administrative contact address: chess-request@host.domain Article submission address: chess@host.domain Please provide the moderator info for every moderated newsgroup. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. DO NOT add an "END MODERATOR INFO." comment at the end of your moderator info. NOTE: Do NOT include any moderation policy in this section. Moderation policy information must be provided in the Charter section above. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MODERATOR INFO: [news.group.name_goes_here] Moderator: [enter_your_response_here___ADD_additional_entries_if_required] Administrative contact address: [enter_your_response_here] Article submission address: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 8. Newsgroups gatewayed to mailing lists. If any groups are going to be gatewayed with a mailing list, give the name and address of the mailing list. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multi-newsgroup proposals. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### GATEWAYS: [news.group.name_goes_here] Gateway mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here] Submission address: [enter_your_response_here] Request address: [enter_your_response_here_(this_entry_line_is_optional)] #######################################################_END_##### 9. CFV newsgroup distribution. These are usually the same newsgroups where you posted the RFD because you don't want the vote to come as a surprise to any unsuspecting newsgroups. There needs to be a good reason to add newsgroups to the CFV distribution. NOTE: The CFV will normally only be posted to the Big 8 (comp, humanities, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk) and ALT newsgroups. Other requested newsgroup hierarchies may be deleted by the news.announce.newsgroup moderator before the CFV is actually posted. IMPORTANT! CFVs are always crossposted to news.announce.newgroups and news.groups. If these, plus the Newsgroups: header name, your other newsgroups, and the commas (",") that separate each newsgroup name, total more than 200 characters, there are several Usenet sites which will not be able to handle the CFV and will discard it. Even though 200 characters are available, shorter newsgroup lists and less crossposting are generally a good idea. We will NOT accept a Newsgroups: header that exceeds 200 characters because the "news.announce.newgroups" moderator's posting scripts will simply reject it. When you are doing your math to determine the length of the Newsgroups: header line, don't forget that the header name and the commas that separate the newsgroup names, must be counted as part of the allowed 200 characters. Since "Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups," is 48 characters in length, that leaves you with 152 characters for your desired newsgroup names and the required separating commas. When you enter your newsgroups below, please enter the newsgroups in alphabetical order, only put one newsgroup on each line, and use as many lines as necessary (without exceeding the max character count). When you count the characters in your entry, don't include any spaces after the commas. When we reformat your submission, the newsgroup names will be joined into one long header line with no spaces after the commas. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEWSGROUPS: Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups, soc.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, soc.rights.human #######################################################_END_##### 10. New crosspostings. There needs to be a good reason for adding newsgroups to the CFV distribution. Which, if any, newsgroups listed in the previous response were not crossposted to in the RFD(s) (if none, say "none")?. Please provide a good reason for adding each newsgroup that you list. Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary for multiple entries. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### NEW CROSSPOSTS: New Newsgroup: [enter_your_response_here] Reason: [enter_your_response_here] #######################################################_END_##### 11. Moderated crossposted newsgroups. In addition to "news.announce.newgroups", which (if any) of the newsgroups in your requested distribution listing are moderated (if none, say "none")?. If more than one newsgroup is moderated, list each one on a separate line. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MODERATED NEWSGROUPS: soc.religion.bahai #######################################################_END_##### 12. Pointer messages to newsgroups. If you plan to post "pointers" to the CFV in additional newsgroups, list the intended newsgroups here (if none, say "none"). If you plan to post "pointers" to more than one newsgroup, list each one on a separate line. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### POINTER MESSAGES: soc.religion.eastern, soc.religion.gnosis, soc.religion.hindu, soc.religion.paganism, soc.religion.quaker, soc.religion.unitarian-univ, talk.religion.buddhism, talk.religion.newage, uk.religion.misc, uk.religion.interfaith, uk.religion.other-faiths, talk.philosophy.misc, talk.philosophy.humanism, alt.religion #######################################################_END_##### 13. CFV submission to mailing lists. Do you want us to send the CFV to any mailing lists? Although allowed, the use of mailing lists is strongly discouraged due to the numerous voting problems that continually arise during the CFVs that use them. If you feel that mailing lists are essential, please keep the number of lists requested to an absolute minimum. More lists mean more potential problems, and it becomes more difficult to find a volunteer votetaker to run your proposal. These mailing lists have to be named up front, so please give their names and submission addresses so that this information can be included in the CFV. You may wish to include the request address as well as the posting address, so anyone who is interested and wants to join won't send messages to the mailing list itself. IMPORTANT! For each mailing list you name, we need to know whether or not the list honors Reply-To: headers in messages sent to it, and whether or not non-members can directly post messages to the list. CFVs can only be posted to mailing lists that allow the votetaker to directly post messages, so if the list is closed to non-members, the actual CFV will not be posted to that list (unless the votetaker happens to also be a member of the closed list). For closed lists, your only option is for you to post a "pointer" message to the list to advise the members that a CFV is in progress and to tell them where they can find a copy of the actual CFV. The intent to use "pointer" messages in mailing lists does not need to be listed in the CFV. Please provide the following information and answer the questions for each mailing list you name. The CFV will not be sent to any mailing lists missing this information, or to closed mailing lists (unless the votetaker happens to be a member). Duplicate this section (ie. everything starting with the beginning hash-line, up to and including the ending hash-line) as necessary if you're requesting more than one mailing list submission. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### MAILING LISTS: Mailing list name: [enter_your_response_here] [enter_your_response_here] Request address (optional): [enter_your_response_here] List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_response_here] List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: [enter_yes_or_no_here] [enter_your_response_here] Talisman Submission address: talisman@umich.edu Request address: jsgreen@umich.edu List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes Bahai Studies Submission address: bahai-st@johnco.cc.ks.us Request address: major@johnco.cc.ks.us List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes h-Bahai Submission address: h-Bahai@h-net.msu.edu Request address: jrcole@umich.edu List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes bahai-faith Submission address: bahai-faith@egroups.com Request address: bahai-faith-subscribe@egroups.com List honors Reply-To: headers (yes/no)?: yes List allows non-members to post messages (yes/no)?: yes #######################################################_END_##### Do not modify or delete this final entry. #####################################################_BEGIN_##### PQ Date Stamp: 980322 #######################################################_END_##### Thanks, UVV Coordinators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------- From: David C Lawrence[SMTP:newgroups-request@isc.org] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 7:16 AM To: fglaysher@hotmail.com Subject: [auto-reply] Re: Revised PQ for talk.religion.bahai This is an automatically generated reply to a message from you which landed in my mailbox. Auto-replies for moderators-request or group-advice mail will be sent for every message. Others will only be sent once per week to any given address. group-advice@isc.org has received your message and one of the three of us (Russ Allbery, David Wright or I) should be replying as soon as we reasonably can, but that might unfortunately be a few days depending on how very busy we all are. If you have not heard from us in over a week and feel you really need a reply, then please write again and be sure to include reference to your earlier message. Your message might be forwarded to group-mentors@acpub.duke.edu if it is a request for help with a group proposal. This group is a larger body of volunteers who assist people in putting together good proposals for new Usenet groups. Please understand that moderating news.announce.newgroups and working at group-advice@isc.org is volunteer service. Your patience and understanding for the occasional long delay in handling your message is greatly appreciated. David Lawrence, moderator, news.announce.newgroups ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 7:20 AM To: Ron House Subject: srb & John Walker Ron, You had stated a few days ago that you had seen a message of yours on srb announcing the new proponent. It hasn't appeared on my server nor on dejanews.com. Could you send me a copy? I'd appreciate it. Fred ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 7:25 AM Subject: Abdu'l-Baha "These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 7:45 AM To: bahai-faith @ egroups.com Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai fyi the Questionnaire has been submitted to the UVV and a "cc" to David Lawrence: Dear Mr. Aten, The proponents have agreed on three changes from the last posted RFD by Frank Baker; they are also detailed in the revised Summary: 1. A new proponent added: John Walker 2. The following passage should be deleted from the RFD as I informed you of earlier: "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." 3. This passage in the RFD should be deleted: "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." And the passage should be replaced with: "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." I hope we can begin the vote immediately. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Fran Baker[SMTP:fran@crhc.uiuc.edu] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 11:36 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Ron House; Frank Baker; John Walker; fran@amber.crhc.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: and... Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > I'm not "ranting" and don't care to see this characterized > as such. Fred, I'm sorry. I know how deeply you care about all this. Regardless of our inner outrage, outward neutrality has been our biggest ally. Again, please accept my apology. --Fran ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 2:06 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <36430ddc.0@vlinsvr>... >After reading Fran's and Fred's comments, I withdraw the >suggestion about quotes, and agree that the whole passage should >simply be dropped, or replaced with a specific statement of >standards as opposed to the potentially problematic "Baha'i >standards of conduct." Paul, For some odd reason I don't see the message on my server that I posted this morning. I think we're in line with what you had in mind: ----------- Quote begins: In email, the proponents have agreed to delete and replace the passage in the following way: Original: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to observe Baha'i standards of conduct and not to start or prolong flamewars in the group, but to focus instead on articles and threads written in more moderate terms." Replacement: "Readers are asked to observe standard netiquette in their use of this newsgroup." "Readers are asked to post courteously and not to engage in personal attacks or flamewars." I will revise the Questionnaire immediately this morning and get it in to Bill Aten. ------------------ Which I did. Looks like a good solution. Let's put it behind us and get on with the interest poll! Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 2:07 PM To: Juan Cole Subject: Fw: NSA member becomes proponent - talk.religion.bahai (Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News) fyi -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Glaysher To: talisman Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 6:18 AM Subject: NSA member becomes proponent - talk.religion.bahai (Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News) >fyi > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ron House >Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Cc: johnwalker@ozemail.com.au >Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 9:39 PM >Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai - Exciting News > > >>This article covers: >>1. welcoming John Walker as a proponent for talk.religion.bahai, and >>2. a proposed change to the charter. >> >>I am overjoyed to inform everyone that Mr John Walker has asked to >>become a proponent for talk.religion.bahai. John is treasurer of the >>National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia, and was >>previously an Auxiliary Board member for propagation for about 25 >>years, and was also an NSA member before that. He is one of the most >>knowledgeable and most highly respected Baha'is in Australia. All the >>other proponents are very happy indeed to welcome John. >> >>John's email address is johnwalker@ozemail.com.au; however, he regrets >>that pressures of NSA work may unfortunately prevent his taking an >>active part in the discussions. >> >>When I discussed the TRB proposal with John last Friday, we discussed >>issues such as the degree to which the Faith balances individual >>freedom with the need to accept a high degree of personal >>responsibility for one's own actions. When I showed John the proposed >>charter for TRB, he immediately spotted the final sentence: >> >> "Readers may also post articles that have been rejected from >> soc.religion.bahai, so long as they conform to this charter." >> >>He pointed out that logically, this sentence adds nothing at all to >>the meaning, because nothing else in the charter mentions >>soc.religion.bahai. Therefore an article about the Faith is relevant, >>whether rejected by SRB or not. John then expressed to me the concern >>he had with this sentence; the understanding I arrived at as a result >>is that nothing should be in the charter that has the potentiality to >>act as a barrier between souls. Therefore all the proponents have >>agreed that this sentence should be deleted. We are proceeding on the >>basis that this is a minor change (as the passage has no practical >>effect), and we would appreciate comments from everyone here as to >>whether this is agreeable. >> >>I am ecstatic about John's involvement in this proposal, as we now >>have the widest agreement about the basis for talk.religion.bahai. The >>charter is the product, first of Fred, then Frank's rewriting, then >>the many invaluable suggestions and advice on this newsgroup, and >>finally John's insight into an important spiritual subtlety. The end >>result surely proves that co-operation and unity are indeed possible >>between people of the widest imaginable range of opinions and >>sentiments, and it sets us a high standard to meet when we start >>discussing the Baha'i Faith on talk.religion.bahai. >> >>-- >>Ron House house@usq.edu.au >> >>You can only be right if you have the courage to be wrong. > ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 07, 1998 1:27 PM To: Jay Denebeim Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Thanks, Jay, We really just want to get the poll going now. This has been dragged out too long again already. Frederick Glaysher....The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm AOL: alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc; or bahai-faith@egroups.com (accepts all "cc" posts) talk.religion.bahai: http://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/3rdRFD.htm -----Original Message----- From: Jay Denebeim Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 3:23 AM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >In article <3658642e.53431589@news.taranaki.ac.nz>, > wrote: >>On , 6 Nov 1998 01:14:01 GMT, fran@gershwin.dgii.com (Fran Baker), , >><71tigp$9h$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>, wrote: > >>>Please, no quotes from Baha'u'llah, et al. Personally, I >>>do not want to be a proponent of a charter with any religious >>>(per se) guidelines. >> >>But isn't the entire point of the group to discuss the Baha'i Faith? >>You may as well have a cooking 'group with no mention of cooking >>vessels. > >Um, that's not the same thing. They're asking people to conform to >Baha'i standards of behavior on the newsgroup. It's one thing to >require polite discourse, it's a whole 'nuther thing to require >behavior a poster wouldn't necessarily even be aware of. > >Jay >-- >* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated * >* newsgroup submission address: b5mod@deepthot.ml.org * >* moderator contact address: b5mod-request@deepthot.ml.org * >* personal contact address: denebeim@deepthot.ml.org * ---------- From: Frederick Glaysher[SMTP:fglaysher@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 07, 1998 1:31 PM To: Ron House; Frank Baker; Fran Baker; John Walker Subject: Fw: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai Might be good for all of you to back me up on this with a brief word since our discussion and agreement was in email. The UVV might worry I'm trying to pull a fast one or something. Fred -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Glaysher Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 2:06 PM Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: talk.religion.bahai >K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <36430ddc.0@vlinsvr>... >>After reading Fran's and Fred's comments, I withdraw the >>suggestion a